Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by martyb on Monday October 10 2016, @11:37AM   Printer-friendly
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.


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 4, Informative) by NotSanguine on Monday October 10 2016, @02:34PM

    by NotSanguine (285) <NotSanguineNO@SPAMSoylentNews.Org> on Monday October 10 2016, @02:34PM (#412459) Homepage Journal

    If you can't see the difference between hetero male lockerroom talk and laughing about getting a child rapist off, there is no help for you. You're just an idiot.

    Facts [politifact.com] are often inconvenient. You'll find that Clinton doesn't laugh about getting a child rapist off. Not even close. Most of the laughing is done by a reporter interviewing her. She laughs a bit, both of them are laughing about some of the stupid stuff that the prosecutor and the judge did. Nowhere do either of them make light of the assault, or of the victim.

    You don't need to believe me. I guess you don't need to believe politifact either. They list their primary sources for this. If you're actually interested in the truth, the facts are out there.

    That said, I get it. You dislike Clinton (and most politicians -- but then, most of us do), but it seems to me that there are plenty of things to blame her for if you stick to the stuff that's actually true. By mixing in shit that just ain't so, you're weakening the value of your own arguments, IMHO.

    I'm not telling you what to do or say, Buzzard. Just pointing out that if you abandon the truth in one instance, people might wonder if you're doing so in other instances as well.

    --
    No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   +2  
       Insightful=1, Informative=1, Total=2
    Extra 'Informative' Modifier   0  
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   4  
  • (Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Monday October 10 2016, @03:16PM

    by The Mighty Buzzard (18) Subscriber Badge <themightybuzzard@proton.me> on Monday October 10 2016, @03:16PM (#412485) Homepage Journal

    Gotta go pretty deep nuance there to say that's not laughing about what lead to her victory in the case, which got a guilty child rapist off. Laughing about brakes failing on a school bus when you work for a competing brake pads manufacturer isn't really any different than laughing about dead school kids directly.

    --
    My rights don't end where your fear begins.
    • (Score: 5, Informative) by NotSanguine on Monday October 10 2016, @03:37PM

      by NotSanguine (285) <NotSanguineNO@SPAMSoylentNews.Org> on Monday October 10 2016, @03:37PM (#412489) Homepage Journal

      Gotta go pretty deep nuance there to say that's not laughing about what lead to her victory in the case, which got a guilty child rapist off. Laughing about brakes failing on a school bus when you work for a competing brake pads manufacturer isn't really any different than laughing about dead school kids directly.

      I think not. The rapist did not get off. He pled guilty and did jail time. From the politifact article:

      She is "discussing the crime lab’s accidental destruction of DNA evidence that tied (the accused man, Thomas Alfred) Taylor to the crime." Destruction that led the prosecution to seek a plea deal on a lesser charge, according to the article.

      "I plea bargained it down because it turned out they didn't have any evidence," Clinton says. In the tape, available on YouTube, Clinton says of the case, "It's sad." [Emphasis added]

      Lawyers (Clinton included) are required [americanbar.org] "As advocate, a lawyer zealously asserts the client's position under the rules of the adversary system." Had she not done so, she could have been censured by the Bar Association for failing in her responsibilities as a lawyer. Note that Clinton didn't choose this client, she was assigned this client.

      Again, you're saying shit that just ain't true.

      Whatever. I'm not trying to convince you of anything, I just prefer arguments to be factual.

      Please feel free to ignore me.

      --
      No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
    • (Score: 2) by goody on Monday October 10 2016, @06:23PM

      by goody (2135) on Monday October 10 2016, @06:23PM (#412562)

      You're bringing up the child rapist thing? That was debunked so long ago.

  • (Score: 3, Insightful) by Gaaark on Monday October 10 2016, @05:33PM

    by Gaaark (41) on Monday October 10 2016, @05:33PM (#412536) Journal

    That said, I get it. You dislike Clinton

    I think you'll find that he dislikes Trump as well. You'll find that, also, most people dislike BOTH of them.

    If i remember correctly, he'd rather see Trump in power (as so would I) because he would be a LAME DUCK PRESIDENT. Unless he turns out to be one of the best Presidents ever, by some chance, he'll be a 'do nothing' Pres. He has no friends in Washington, no one who 'owes' him... not like with Hillary.

    He'll get nothing bad done because no one will support him.

    Hillary, on the other hand, could get lots of bad done: there are people she owes and will have to pay her back when she comes calling. Also, there are lots of people SHE owes and will have to do pay-back when THEY come calling.

    He will be impotent and unable to do harm
    She will be able to do lots of crazy smile harm... pulling in favours and doing pay-back could really screw you guys.

    Vote for the ass-hole who can do the least harm, is what i think the Buzzard (and I) are saying.

    Unfortunately, you don't have box to tick for "Man, this candidate is great!"... you have "Man this candidate is shit" and "Man this candidate is also shit, but is impotent"

    --
    --- Please remind me if I haven't been civil to you: I'm channeling MDC. ---Gaaark 2.0 ---
    • (Score: 2) by Gaaark on Monday October 10 2016, @05:34PM

      by Gaaark (41) on Monday October 10 2016, @05:34PM (#412538) Journal

      Yeah, screwed up the whole "payback" thing there... shoulda proof read better.

      --
      --- Please remind me if I haven't been civil to you: I'm channeling MDC. ---Gaaark 2.0 ---
    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 10 2016, @06:25PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 10 2016, @06:25PM (#412566)

      Vote for the ass-hole who can do the least harm, is what i think the Buzzard (and I) are saying.

      Typical lesser of two evils bullshit. How will this help us topple the corrupt and authoritarian two-party system, which can do far more harm over decades and centuries than even several horrendous candidates? If a third party acts as a "spoiler", then that is good because we may be able to terrify the dominant parties into becoming slightly better, bit by bit.

      • (Score: 3, Interesting) by Gaaark on Monday October 10 2016, @07:34PM

        by Gaaark (41) on Monday October 10 2016, @07:34PM (#412595) Journal

        Except when voting 3rd party gets you evil.
        eg. (simplified)

        1. you have the Nazi party: 49% popularity (seem corrupt and criminal)
        2. you have the Dancing Clowns party: 49% popularity (seem buffoonery and balloon animals)
        3. you have Urkel: 1% popularity (seems to be Urkel)

        1% undecided

        Are you really gonna vote for Urkel and chance the Nazi's getting into power?

        I'd rather vote for the Dancing Clowns party. At least buffoonery and party animals will be fun.
        Nazi's aren't as much fun. Really. Trust me.

        Wait until there are 2 candidates that aren't as harmful and there isn't soooooo much at fracking stake! Then vote 3rd party... Urkel all the way, then!

        example: real life
        I've been voting Green in Canada, but voted for the party that i felt, in the last election, that had the greatest chance of getting Harper out of power (for the most part, he is Hillary + Trump + Bush + Cheney all in one).
        Next election, i will probably go back to voting Green to help get their numbers back up.

        --
        --- Please remind me if I haven't been civil to you: I'm channeling MDC. ---Gaaark 2.0 ---
        • (Score: 2) by SanityCheck on Monday October 10 2016, @08:08PM

          by SanityCheck (5190) on Monday October 10 2016, @08:08PM (#412612)

          U vote for Urkel. You do this often enough so that both sides are stung by it, they will change the system. Since they are the only ones with power to change it, you have to convince them that the system is not working for them.

        • (Score: 2) by hendrikboom on Monday October 10 2016, @10:05PM

          by hendrikboom (1125) Subscriber Badge on Monday October 10 2016, @10:05PM (#412663) Homepage Journal

          Next election, there's a good chance we'll have either proportional representation or a preferential ballot. In either scenario there is a real point to voting for a "third" party. There will be a realistic prospect that voting for a party will actually help them gain seats in the House of Commons.

          • (Score: 2) by Gaaark on Tuesday October 11 2016, @02:58AM

            by Gaaark (41) on Tuesday October 11 2016, @02:58AM (#412775) Journal

            Oh Lordy, Lordy, let there be a God who hugs you! (And gives you beer!)

            Yes it would be nice to finally have your vote REALLY mean something when voting 'outside the box', so to speak.

            Pirate party for Canada! Arrrr!

            --
            --- Please remind me if I haven't been civil to you: I'm channeling MDC. ---Gaaark 2.0 ---