SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
from the latest,-latest-read-all-about-it dept.
Partial transcripts of Hillary Clinton's Wall Street speeches have been released by WikiLeaks along with other emails from Hillary Clinton's campaign chair John Podesta. Bernie Sanders had called on Clinton to release transcripts of the speeches, for which she is estimated to have earned around $26 million, during the Democratic primary:
Transcripts of private speeches by US Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton have been released by the whistle-blowing site Wikileaks. In one of the extracts, Mrs Clinton told bankers that they were best-placed to help reform the US financial sector. [...] The excerpts include comments made at an event sponsored by Goldman Sachs in October 2013 in which Mrs Clinton spoke of the need to consult Wall Street over financial reform. "The people that know the industry better than anybody are the people who work in the industry," Mrs Clinton said. At another speech presented to a Brazilian bank in 2013, she spoke of her "dream" for a common trade market. "My dream is a hemispheric common market, with open trade and open borders, some time in the future with energy that is as green and sustainable as we can get it, powering growth and opportunity for every person in the hemisphere," Mrs Clinton said.
John Podesta blames the Russians. The emails were posted a few days after the 10th anniversary of WikiLeaks.
Here is "The Podesta Emails; Part One" press release at WikiLeaks, which emphasizes Clinton involvement with the sale of Uranium One to Russian interests:
As Russian interests gradually took control of Uranium One millions of dollars were donated to the Clinton Foundation between 2009 and 2013 from individuals directly connected to the deal including the Chairman of Uranium One, Ian Telfer. Although Mrs Clinton had an agreement with the Obama White House to publicly identify all donors to the Clinton Foundation, the contributions from the Chairman of Uranium One were not publicly disclosed by the Clintons. When the New York Times article was published the Clinton campaign spokesman, Brian Fallon, strongly rejected the possibility that then-Secretary Clinton exerted any influence in the US goverment's review of the sale of Uranium One, describing this possibility as "baseless".
[Continues...]
The leaked emails have further angered former/current Sanders supporters, although that might not matter by Election Day:
Supporters of former Democratic presidential candidate Bernie Sanders on Saturday expressed anger and vindication over leaked comments made by Hillary Clinton to banks and big business that appeared to confirm their fears about her support for global trade and tendency to cozy up to Wall Street. [...] "This is a very clear illustration of why there is a fundamental lack of trust from progressives for Hillary Clinton," said Tobita Chow, chair of the People's Lobby in Chicago, which endorsed Sanders in the primary election. "The progressive movement needs to make a call to Secretary Clinton to clarify where she stands really on these issues and that's got to involve very clear renunciations of the positions that are revealed in these transcripts," Chow said. The revelations were quickly overshadowed by the release of an 11-year-old recording of Donald Trump, the Republican presidential nominee, making lewd comments about women.
Bonus: John Podesta has been an outspoken supporter of the "Disclosure" movement, which seeks to reveal government knowledge of the existence of extraterrestrial life. Here are two emails sent by Edgar D. Mitchell, one of the Apollo 14 astronauts, to John Podesta. Mitchell branded himself as a "Zero Point Energy Consultant" before his death. Unfortunately for Earthlings, extraterrestrials "will not tolerate any forms of military violence on Earth or in space" (good luck with that).
UPDATE: 10 Oct: 14:56 UTC
Another 2086 emails have just been released by Wikileaks: http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2016/10/breaking-wikileaks-dumps-another-2086-podesta-emails/.
As the article points out:
This ought to make Hillary Clinton's already bad day – even worse.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Runaway1956 on Monday October 10 2016, @12:22PM
OMG! THE RUSSIANS ARE COMING! THE RUSSIANS ARE COMING!!
The Russians are a potential external threat. Yeah, you do make something of a point. But, then again - which of the presidential candidates enabled the Russians to buy out one of our supplies of fissionable ores? Let me think about that - was Hitlery not the acting Secretary of Corruption when that deal was made? I don' think Trump has approved of any sales of fissionables to Russia, now has he?
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/24/us/cash-flowed-to-clinton-foundation-as-russians-pressed-for-control-of-uranium-company.html?_r=0 [nytimes.com]
Please, don't even suggest that Hitlery didn't know anything about it, or that it was an oversight, or whatever fucking excuse you might want to offer. I'm not as gullible as the left leaning portion of the American population. The bitch sold strategic mineral rights to a former and potential future enemy, it's just that simple. It is precisely as simple as the people who want to vote for Hitlery.
(Score: 5, Informative) by NotSanguine on Monday October 10 2016, @02:09PM
From the article [nytimes.com] you linked:
Perhaps "understanding is a three-edged sword" [goodreads.com] after all, no?
I think we could all do with a little more understanding? Just sayin'.
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
(Score: 5, Insightful) by The Mighty Buzzard on Monday October 10 2016, @02:24PM
So, knowing for a fact that she sold access to the President and her own office doesn't make you think even a little that she might have sold other deals where she absolutely did get paid? And it doesn't matter who originally uncovered the information now that it's been confirmed via other sources.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by NotSanguine on Monday October 10 2016, @02:54PM
So, knowing for a fact that she sold access to the President and her own office doesn't make you think even a little that she might have sold other deals where she absolutely did get paid? And it doesn't matter who originally uncovered the information now that it's been confirmed via other sources.
That was my point WRT to "Understanding is a three-edged sword" (those three edges being your side, their side, and the truth) and the bolded text in the quoted section of the article. There is no actual evidence that she gave these folks favors in exchange for donations to the Clinton Foundation.
That said, it does seem kind of strange that this went through on her watch. Which, given the donations, makes you wonder if there was some kind of quid pro quo.
At the same time, there were a whole bunch of other people and government agencies (in both the US and Canada) aside from Clinton and the State Department that had to sign off on the deal before it could be approved, which makes it unlikely that she alone was responsible for making it happen. That doesn't disprove her support based on some sort of quid pro quo, but that makes the theory seem less likely.
One side says it's corruption, the other says it was a mixture of Administration policy and happenstance.
Then there's the truth. What that is, I don't know. Nor do you.
I know you're a pretty bright guy, so I suspect you know that people (especially in politics, but it happens everywhere) tend to try to put themselves in the best light possible and their adversaries in the worst light possible. Often, the truth is somewhere in between. The difficulty lies in determining where that "in between" really is.
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Monday October 10 2016, @03:03PM
Oh Trump's not my guy, though I do admire his trolling skillz. Truthfully, I don't really like anyone running this time. I'll likely go Johnson, not because I like him but because I'd like to see Libertarians get federal funding next time and possibly even a seat in the debates.
With Clinton though, I can't help thinking she's actually done worse than anything I suspect. Every factual revelation is worse than the last.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by NotSanguine on Monday October 10 2016, @03:17PM
I wasn't implying that you were supporting Trump and I wasn't being partisan. I was just pointing out that everyone has an agenda and Clinton (or Trump or Johnson or anyone else for that matter) isn't as rabidly evil as their enemies make them out to be, and they definitely aren't as angelic as they make themselves out to be.
Which is why a well-informed electorate (which we don't have) is important.
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
(Score: 3, Funny) by The Mighty Buzzard on Monday October 10 2016, @03:41PM
Fair nuff. I disagree not.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by Gaaark on Monday October 10 2016, @05:16PM
ABSOLUTELY! You see it here in Canada, as well, unfortunately. Too many people rely on CNN or their local newspaper for their political views. No one is skeptical. They either see that "Hillary is a crook" or "Trump! What an ass!".
They don't seem to see "we need to get something rolling to support a third option".
Everyone call up Pauly Shore and ask him to run. Carrot top. ANYONE! Damn.... anyone at all!
Wish it were possible to get Sanders back in and Hill out (is it too late?).
Get Sanders back, and have him run up against Barney the Dinosaur or Tinkey-winkey instead of Trump. Should be a better race. At least i'd feel better with Sanders, Barney or Tinkey-winkey as President.
The way things are looking, no matter which way it turns, it's going to be a VERY, VERY COLD WINTER. :(
--- Please remind me if I haven't been civil to you: I'm channeling MDC. ---Gaaark 2.0 ---
(Score: 2) by PartTimeZombie on Monday October 10 2016, @08:33PM
Where I live we get the "Trump! What an ass!" bit, but all comments about Hillary are "She's so Presidential" or "She won the debate" (whatever that means".
I have never seen or read anything from my local media raising any questions about Hillary except the bald comment that she used a private email server with no analysis at all.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Monday October 10 2016, @07:23PM
"Which, given the donations, makes you wonder if there was some kind of quid pro quo."
I gave up on wondering decades ago. The Clintons are dirty, dirty, dirty. The miasma of corruption just follows them around. Teflon Bill - nothing sticks.