Monday, February 08, 2016

Goldman Sachs-gate Tightens Around Hillary Clinton's Thick, Jowly Neck

by JASmius

Can you believe that we're even discussing this nonsense?  Or that a woman who is drowning in one criminal scandal that rotates around the releasing of (email) transcripts is willingly giving media oxygen to a political non-scandal about her Wall Street speeches that employs precisely the same nomenclature, guaranteeing that both and the common-thread image they reinforce will remain front and center in voters' minds?

Actually, yes, we can.  Because this is plainly and simply who and what Hillary Rodham Clinton is, and she's incapable of pretending to be anyone and anything else.

So now she is refusing to release her Goldman Sachs speech transcripts because, "F**k you":

“Yes, you know, here’s another thing I want to say. Let everybody who’s ever given a speech to any private group under any circumstances release them. We’ll all release them at the same time,” [Mrs.] Clinton stated. “You know, I don’t mind being the subject in Republican debates, the subject in the Democrat primary. That kind of goes with the territory. I’ve been around long enough.”

i.e. She minds.  Hugely.

“But at some point, you know, these rules need to apply to everybody,” she continued. “And there are a bunch of folks, including, you know, my opponent, who’s given speeches to groups, and people on the other side who’ve given speeches to groups. Let’s — if this is now going to be a new standard, then it should apply to everybody and then I’ll be happy to look into it further.”

The "everybody does it" defense.  Which never works whenever she deploys it, because no, not everybody is a lying, arrogant, hypocritical, "progressive" Wall Street whore with the transparency of a light-year of carbon neutronium.  And suppose it turns out that "Weekend Bernie" Sanders hasn't bellied up to the Wall Street rhetorical trough?  Doesn't this "you show me yours and I'll show you mine" sneer commit her to reciprocity on the matter?  And do you think she'd make good on that commitment?

The similarities to Emailgate and, yes, Watergate itself are simply stunning, and brings up the question of why Mrs. Clinton wanted transcripts of her "talks" made in the first place:

Hillary Clinton, who faces mounting pressure to release transcripts of her paid speeches, routinely demanded that a stenographer be present at her events so she could maintain a record of what she said.

At least four of [Mrs.] Clinton’s contracts include a clause stating a transcript would be produced for [Mrs.] Clinton and that the former [commissar] of state would own them and control their release, according to contracts obtained by McClatchy.

“The sponsor will transcribe Speaker’s remarks as they are being delivered, which should be solely for the Speaker’s records,” according to her contract with the University of Buffalo, which paid her $275,000.

Identical words appear in contracts between the Harry Walker Agency, which represents [Mrs.] Clinton, and the University of Connecticut, which paid her $250,000; the University of Nevada at Las Vegas, which paid her $225,000, and the University of California at Los Angeles, which paid her $300,000.

Ego was probably part of it; she doubtless believes that everything she screeches, profanity and all, is of profound historical significance and will - must - wind up in the National Archives, the Library of Congress, and the Smithsonian one day.  But it's likely more the renowned Hillarynistic default paranoia.  She wanted to have the transcripts on file so she could prove what she said or disprove what somebody else accused her of saying on any given occasion.  She evidently never imagined that the speeches themselves would ever come into question, because she was ALWAYS running for president again.

So what was in those Goldman Sachs speeches?  The reason why she doesn't want Weekend Bernie to see them, of course:

But [Mrs.] Clinton offered a message that the collected plutocrats found reassuring, according to accounts offered by several attendees, declaring that the banker-bashing so popular within both political parties was unproductive and indeed foolish. Striking a soothing note on the global financial crisis, she told the audience, in effect: We all got into this mess together, and we’re all going to have to work together to get out of it. What the bankers heard her to say was just what they would hope for from a prospective presidential candidate: Beating up the finance industry isn’t going to improve the economy — it needs to stop. And indeed Goldman’s Tim O’Neill, who heads the bank’s asset management business, introduced [Mrs.] Clinton by saying how courageous she was for speaking at the bank. (Brave, perhaps, but also well-compensated: [Mrs.] Clinton’s minimum fee for paid remarks is $200,000).

Certainly, {Mrs.] Clinton offered the money men — and, yes, they are mostly men — at Goldman’s HQ a bit of a morale boost. “It was like, ‘Here’s someone who doesn’t want to vilify us but wants to get business back in the game,’” said an attendee. “Like, maybe here’s someone who can lead us out of the wilderness.”

There really is a sucker born every minute, isn't there?  Funny how this sort of thing is working gangbusters for Trump but is just digging Hillary's hole ever-deeper, huh?

[Mrs.] Clinton’s remarks were hardly a sweeping absolution for the sins of Wall Street, whose leaders she courted assiduously for financial support over a decade, as a senator and a presidential candidate in 2008. But they did register as a repudiation of some of the angry anti-Wall Street rhetoric emanating from liberals rallying behind the likes of Senators Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) and Sherrod Brown (D-OH). And perhaps even more than that, [Mrs.] Clinton’s presence offered a glimpse to a future in which Wall Street might repair its frayed political relationships. [emphasis added]

How do you think the Democrat base would respond to Herself after skimming these transcripts?  But she was stupid enough to have them prepared at the time, she knows what's in them, and that it is simply one more death blow for her already dying presidential dream.  So she's not, nor will she ever, release them, on the principle that "innuendo" that is common knowledge and part and parcel of why her campaign is imploding is still better than documentary proof of it that will blow it sky high.

Here's further proof of that conclusion: La Clinton Nostra is wildly and indiscriminately playing the gender card like a jackhammer, or an unimaginably bad bout of PMS.

And just think - the Empress hasn't even "officially" lost a primary or caucus yet.  I guess she's getting a leg up on tomorrow.

No comments: