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: 4, Informative) by GreatAuntAnesthesia on Monday October 10 2016, @04:34PM
> "But Trump isn't qualified!
I find this quit amusing. Doesn't anyone else remember back in 2007/ 2008 when one of the inescapable right-wing talking points about Obama was that he was unqualified because he'd never run anything more important than a local political office?
It isn't just that Trump is "unqualified"[1], it's that he is fundamentally unfit for the post. If he was unqualified but otherwise intelligent, articulate and ready to learn it would be one thing. But Trump is quite clearly a raging spoilt child who doesn't know when to keep his mouth shut. Hilary's claims that he lives in an alternate universe inside his own imagination are spot on. Whenever he makes a mistake or things don't go away there is absolutely no introspection on Trump's part whatsoever, he just blunders on ahead according to his own version of reality instead, which usually manifests as either claiming that it never happened in the face of all evidence, or making wild accusations and trying to shift the blame. See his response to the results of the first debate for an example. And then when something does touch a nerve - and he seems to have quite a few of those exposed - he just blurts out whatever offensive shit happens to be in his head at that moment, even if it's not in his best interests to do so. Hence his constant 3AM twitter fights that his staff have to clean up after every morning. I know it suits his bombastic "fuck you and your politically correct book-learnin" image to spout offensive crap but it really doesn't make any logical sense for him doing it deliberately. For example that fight with the parents of the dead muslim soldier - All he had to do was say something diplomatic or nothing at all, and he could have avoided alienating the entire US armed forces. Or the "Miss Housekeeping" comment - I'm pretty sure a couple million Latino votes would have been pretty useful for him, but he flushed them all away for what? To appease a bunch of ignorant right-wingers who were already in his pocket? Doesn't make any sense. The only explanation for this behaviour is that he just can't help himself. He runs his mouth off because he believes so profoundly in his own untouchability that he cannot conceive that his actions have consequences, so he just does and says whatever the fuck he wants, whenever the fucks he wants to. Is that really who you want representing your country in sensitive international negotiations? Is this the guy you want in charge of your missiles and drones? He's more than just unqualified, he is UNFIT.
As for your offhand dismissal of his racism - Well, I guess that says a lot. I know I wouldn't want a racist representing me.
The tax thing is a clear indicator that he doesn't represent the average, working, republican-voting, middle-class Joe as he claims, but that he represents the interests of the very wealthy.[2]
[1] Although I don't really see why the word "unqualified" should be preceded by the word "just" - It's an important job and I don't think it unreasonable to insist upon someone with the skills to do it competently.
[2] Or more specifically, of one very wealthy person.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Runaway1956 on Monday October 10 2016, @07:38PM
I've said this a couple different ways, on various posts, but I want to be sure you know my position.
Trump is hardly fit to be president, we all know that. But, Trump will be a lame duck president from day one. He lacks the political clout to do the crazy shit he might want to do. He won't convince very many people of anything, and he can't coerce congress. Trump is an embarrassment, no more and no less than he was as a TV show host. But, Trump isn't dangerous.
Clinton, on the other hand, has a screwy left wing backing her. At least 1/4 and probably more of congress will happily line up to grovel for her. Much of the rest of congress will grovel with a little coercion. Left and right, it doesn't matter - there really is only one party. Hillary plays ball just like the career politicians like to play ball.
And all of that makes her dangerous, even before you consider her positions on issues - whatever those might be this week. She constantly "pivots" - meaning that she tells each handpicked audience whatever the hell they want to hear. She has been quoted as saying that her private position is not the same as her public position. She lies, lies, lies.
Hillary is the most dangerous person in America. She won't be the lame duck that Trump would be. And, precious few of us are going to like any of her positions when they are revealed.
Remember that bullshit, "We've got to pass the bill before you can read the bill"? That's Hillary Clinton.
(Score: 2) by SubiculumHammer on Tuesday October 11 2016, @12:41AM
and how mang times can you forget the foreign relt
ations power that Trump would have. My God, what heve we done, is what we'd say after he sends a missle at Mexico for giving Trump the finger.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 11 2016, @05:10PM
I'm sorry, but you're making an assumption here: that Trump will "play along the rules".
Because: all previous presidents of the U.S.A. (maybe except for Nixon) have "played along the rules", so you're making the assumption that a president Trump will, too.
But that is not how dictators work. That may be how they *get* to power. But I'm sure Trump has enough followers/believers/2nd amendment people who wouldn't mind blindfolding the entire U.S. Congress & putting them against the wall. And, face it, it is really not difficult to spin the execution afterwards as "they had it coming for their crimes against you, the American people!". I'm foreign, but I've seen the documentary/comedy "The Distinguished Gentleman" [wikipedia.org] starring Eddie Murphy.
After the U.S. Congress has thus been "dismissed", I'm sure Ted Cruz will find some like-minded politicians to repopulate the "new & improved" U.S. congress. And they will do as their leaders say; because they can see the plastered-over bullet holes in the Capitol wall.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Runaway1956 on Wednesday October 12 2016, @02:17AM
Uhhhh, yeah. What you describe is far more likely to happen if Clinton is elected. Whichever chump gets the office, there are checks and balances in place. It seems that you assume those checks and balances have no real power, outside of a court room? There are many different armed services paid for by the government. They answer to several different authorities, such as the president, the governors, congress, justice, county judges, mayors. If the president decides to become the de facto dictator, he's going to have to quell a lot of resistance before it happens. Not to mention armed civilians.
I don't know where your nightmares come from, but they ain't happening for real.
Stop worrying about the bumbling fool, and worry more about the traitorous bitch who sold fissionables to Russia.