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: 3, Interesting) by VLM on Monday October 10 2016, @02:23PM
Bernie
I disagree with lots of Bernies stuff, but I trust him not to literally stab people in the back, he's an honest respectable elder statesman who more or less has the best interests of the USA at heart (plus or minus some zionism). I may not always agree with Bernie but I do trust Bernie.
In some alternate history world where its Bernie vs some neo-cuckservative stooge like Jeb, basically the lineup we were "supposed to get", I honestly don't know which I'd vote for. I'd never vote for a neo-, well, unless the alternative were truly awful like our Prez Uncle Tom or even worse, Hillary.
Bernie is pretty cool. I hope Trump recognizes his skills and puts him to work in his administration. Secretary of Treasury Bernie Sanders.... Secretary of Education Bernie Sanders. I could see it... I wouldn't put him in State or HUD or DoD.
For a guy who's wrong about so many things, he's OK about so many more, that I'm cool with Bernie.
As much as I want Trump to win, and as far right as I am, I realize that if he were up against Bernie... Lets just say Hillary is a gift to Trump.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Thexalon on Monday October 10 2016, @04:00PM
Here's what the script was supposed to be in this election:
- Hillary Clinton would go basically unchallenged in the primary, with the likes of Martin O'Malley, Jim Webb and Lincoln Chaffee being her only opposition. There'd be a few debates to make things look official.
- Jeb Bush would emerge victorious in a much tougher primary, but win out against clowns and also-rans like Carly Fiorina and Chris Christie.
- Liberals would rally around Clinton due to her stances on LGBT issues, racism, etc. Conservatives would rally around Bush because of his "family values" image. One of them would win in the general election.
- Neither Clinton nor Bush would do anything to prevent Wall Street from continuing to go to the bank.
To the degree that either Sanders or Trump were in the script, it was as sideshows. The Democratic Party, which has been basically the Hillary Clinton campaign since 2008, were able to stop Bernie thanks to some illegal maneuvering*, but the Republicans were less organized and didn't really recognize the threat Trump represented until he had beaten them.
But yes, the one thing everyone agrees on: Sanders is basically an honest guy trying to do what he sees as best for the country, and it's a shame he lost in the primary.
* How the Clinton campaign, with the help of the Democratic Party, stopped Bernie Sanders: You remember that dust-up over Sanders' people accessing Clinton's data? Well, the "bug" was something Sanders' people had repeatedly alerted the vendor to, but it was never fixed because it wasn't a bug, it was a feature to allow Clinton's team to see Sanders' data. That gave them the list of people to feed to partisans who worked in state boards of elections, who then could, for example, change Sanders' voters' party registration (which happened, by the hundreds of thousands), or figure out who wasn't going to be at the caucuses so they could bring fake paper votes from people who had no idea they were listed as voting (which also happened, enough to swing Iowa for example).
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by HiThere on Monday October 10 2016, @07:09PM
Sorry, but the maneuvering against Bernie, while unscrupulous, was legal. It would have been legal for the DNC to have just picked their candidate without any primaries at all. And Bernie knew from the start that he was the designated loser, but was willing to do his best in order to get his message out.
Perhaps what the DNC did *should* have been illegal, but it wasn't. They have minimal legal regulation, and are a private rather than a governmental body. Same for the RNC, but they were operating under different rules, so a popular choice was allowed to swamp the appointed choices.
FWIW, I don't think the parties SHOULD be governmental entities, and I don't think they should be regulated. But I don't think much of the "plurality wins" voting system. A majority should be required, even if it means tournament competition as is done in sports matches. (Actually, I prefer dispersal of centralized power and selection by lottery, but that's a more extreme position.)
Javascript is what you use to allow unknown third parties to run software you have no idea about on your computer.
(Score: 2) by Thexalon on Monday October 10 2016, @08:11PM
No, it wasn't: Federal election law applies to primaries too, and several of the actions taken (e.g. altering voter registrations) were illegal under those laws.
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 2) by HiThere on Tuesday October 11 2016, @12:49AM
Altering voter registrations I admit wouldn't be illegal.
OK, the unscrupulous things I'm pretty sure of were legal. Unfair and unscrupulous, but legal.
Javascript is what you use to allow unknown third parties to run software you have no idea about on your computer.