Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
United States Democrats Politics

Transcripts of Clinton's Wall Street Talks Released in New Wikileaks Dump (reuters.com) 394

Emily Stephenson and Luciana Lopez, reporting for Reuters: U.S. Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton's full remarks to several Wall Street audiences appeared to become public on Saturday when the controversial transparency group Wikileaks dumped its latest batch of hacked emails. The documents showed comments by Clinton during question-and-answer sessions with Goldman Sachs Chief Executive Lloyd Blankfein and Tim O'Neill, the bank's head of investment management, at three separate events in 2013 in Arizona, New York and South Carolina. Some excerpts of Clinton's speeches had already been released. For more than a week, Wikileaks has published in stages what it says are hacked emails from the account of John Podesta, Clinton's campaign chairman. Clinton came under fire for months for not releasing full details of her paid speeches to big business audiences, as opponents accused her of a cozy relationship with bankers and other members of the U.S. financial system.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Transcripts of Clinton's Wall Street Talks Released in New Wikileaks Dump

Comments Filter:
  • by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 16, 2016 @01:32AM (#53083929)

    Quick, blame the Russians somehow!

  • Too Late (Score:5, Insightful)

    by amiga3D ( 567632 ) on Sunday October 16, 2016 @01:43AM (#53083941)

    The should have released this stuff when she was running against Bernie. This isn't going to change any minds now. Everyone knows now what she is and they're voting for her because of Trump or voting for Trump because of her. The stage was set weeks ago and the only thing that would change it now is absolute proof she killed someone. That's probably worth 5 or 6 points in the polls.

    • Re:Too Late (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Black Parrot ( 19622 ) on Sunday October 16, 2016 @02:04AM (#53083981)

      The should have released this stuff when she was running against Bernie.

      Everybody knew (and still knows) she's in bed with Wall Street. That was probably the main issue that let Bernie get to the populist/left side of her.

      She changed her tune to neutralize that advantage, but no one seriously believes she's going to get tough on Wall Street.

      This is more non-scandal in search of a headline. But everyone should have forseen that as soon as they saw "Wikileaks".

      • In fact, Hillary herself [commonsens...uation.com] says we should look to elect successful businessmen because they are typically above being bought. Implying that she CAN be bought. Of course, when she said that, she was giving a speech to really wealthy Wall Street folks, so the implication was a good ploy to ask for "donations"...
    • by Bob_Who ( 926234 )

      That's probably worth 5 or 6 points in the polls.

      You know, I'm beginning to think that is no longer true in this election.

      It should be worth 5 or 6 points - in our Norman Rockwell fantasy of American voters with a grip on reality, truth, ethics, and morality,

      Unfortunately, this election is political sumo wrestling porn.

      It's practically a fetish and an addictive vice that gets off on how much they can humiliate and be humiliated by our own countrymen, albeit political rivals. The winner is the biggest loser that defeats the opponent in a popularity contes

    • Two points ... (Score:5, Insightful)

      by golodh ( 893453 ) on Sunday October 16, 2016 @03:53AM (#53084221)
      (1) On reading reports of the transcripts on Fox news and CNN it's striking how moderate and sensible Mrs. Clinton's remarks are. If these transcripts are "news" I think they're good publicity for Mrs. Clinton. It shows that she'll think twice before laying into Wall Street. Regardless of whether or not you like her, her opinions and policies are well thought through and make sense.

      .

      People bashing Wall Street forget the following :

      (a) we (the electorate) have busily shaped the societal and legal environment in which Wall Street could become what it is now. Republicans have always vigorously supported business *in all of its facets) and Wall Street, with Democrats coming in closely behind. That policy has served us well, but is now starting to show some cracks. Time to figure out the minimum change required to fix that. That requires ingenuity. Lots of people see their personal interest compromised (job loss, no perspectives, feeling of not being needed by society, etc.), get "as mad as hell" and demand instant action. Well, they won't get it. Not with either candidate. One tells then they won't get instant gratification (but more of the same instead), the other does (sort of), but is so obviously clueless that his word is worth nothing.

      (b) the idea of "Give Enterprise a Free Run and only regulate when the body count becomes too high to ignore" is part and parcel of our society and our culture. There certainly is a lot of anger and an appetite for "change", but I still can't get my head around what it actually wants. It's not prepared to accept the consequence that more prevention means less freedom. Being proactive with policy, (or even enforcing existing laws aimed at e.g. environmental protection) is violently opposed (sometime literally with guns in hand). Take for example that Bundy fellow. In violation of federal laws. Lost several court cases. Shouts his head off in the counterculture media, assembles a band of rogue hillbillies that actually point guns as federal officers. Is cheered on by a certain segment of society, and actually gets away with it. Unlike a steady trickle of you-know-who's who are shot dead in or near their car by police officers for making a false move or not complying fast enough or clearly enough with officers' commands..

      (c)" Wall street is the nexus of how we as a country manage wealth. It's a giant market that can (and does) set a price on goods, services, policies, and lives. In doing that, it is a forum that co-shapes a certain part of our national decision making. In that sense it's what has always set the US apart from e.g. the Soviet Union (plan economy) or China. You don't steer or reform a market like that by dropping corporate taxes to 10% as some Republicans (among which a presidential candidate) propose, prohibiting municipalities from offering public services that compete with private enterprise (think broadband initiatives), or annulling wide swaths of environmental protection laws. You might be able to steer it by imposing regulations. Not so much regulations on how it's supposed to trade, but laws that regulate what it's trading in. Well ... try that and watch the (mostly conservative) nay-sayers come out of the woodwork in force. It's also a major source of our wealth. We need it and we should regulate it only with care and insight. To dump on a presidential candidate for displaying that insight is beyond ridiculous. It's adversarial politics.

      (d) It so happens I would have preferred Sen. Sanders to be the Democratic candidate. Or at least see a substantial part of his views acted upon and some of his policies enacted. But there is simply no support for that. The inertia of mainstream politics (well, lets be thankful for that) and Wall-street related views. So it's compromise time. We're going to get a much more business-friendly candidate. Oh, and in case anyone wishes to cavil about Wall Street's influence on politics, remember the rulings those fine Conservative gents on the Supreme Court handed down? Com

      • Oh noes, a voice of reason!

        If I had mod points right now... alas, I don't. Please mod parent up. Wayyyyyy up.

      • by NotAPK ( 4529127 ) on Sunday October 16, 2016 @08:07AM (#53084719)

        "(a) we (the electorate) have busily shaped the societal and legal environment in which Wall Street could become what it is now."

        No we haven't. The vast majority of the population has been too busy working 2-3 jobs to make ends meet. The concentration of wealth created by Wall St has become self fulfilling, since that wealth makes it possible for banking interests to influence politics directly through lobbying, or bribery. The democratic process is significantly distorted and representation is no longer proportional.

        This is part of the problem [inequality.org].

        Ideas like those here are part of the solution. [amazon.com]

        • Shaped by action, shaped by inaction. Shaped by 401k, shaped by social security, shaped by welfare?

          The system (2-party) is a mess, and congressional inaction is a huge result... which is likely the intent from the invisible hand.

          Ultimately, the problem with Wall Street is that it has gotten too big. The stock market is much less attractive today than 10/15/20 years ago because of some of the games played on the Street. This makes it much harder for kids today to build wealth, which will cause major probl
    • Wikileaks is useless.
      Hillary has made her reputation with bipartisanship reach out. With that type of work you can't just go and blast your opponent all the time. You need to find common ground and work with them. We are all stuck on wall street is evil or the government is evil. While the truth is everyone is working for their own self interests if they have the money or power they will push it. A good politician knows that and will work with everyone to show that their self interests is considered an

    • "they're voting for her because of Trump or voting for Trump because of her."

      I'm embarrassed for my country that it has come to this. And yet people still won't vote for candidates other than these two clowns. At presidential debates we only see the clowns, none of the other candidates. Just ridiculous.

  • by Tablizer ( 95088 ) on Sunday October 16, 2016 @01:56AM (#53083955) Journal

    For the most part, it's the same speeches she gives on the campaign trail. Her detractors comb through to find some interpretation that can be spun as sinister, and dance around the news cams with it like a kid who found his lost jaw breaker under the couch.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 16, 2016 @01:58AM (#53083961)

    It's strange that the news is almost entirely about the release of the remarks and, at least in linked article, no mention of what those remarks are. Could it be that the remarks aren't actually interesting or even newsworthy?

    • by tlhIngan ( 30335 ) <slashdot&worf,net> on Sunday October 16, 2016 @03:07AM (#53084123)

      It's strange that the news is almost entirely about the release of the remarks and, at least in linked article, no mention of what those remarks are. Could it be that the remarks aren't actually interesting or even newsworthy?

      More the likely. Also look at the day it's released - I mean, it wasn't released on a day known for big news. Similar to the Friday Afternoon Dump, you release on these days when it's really bad for you, the releaser.

      These leaks themselves aren't terribly interesting. So the only thing Wikileaks is cashing in on is goodwill based on earlier leaks that news of leaks is news itself.

      And if you're curious, it's likely a political play by Assange - apparently Ecuador is going to have a presidential election and the current president, Rafael Correa, is not running for another term. This scares Assange because it could easily mean the end to his asylum, and if he's handed over to the US, he'd rather be under a president Trump than Clinton. Perhaps hoping he'd at least get a pardon or something out of it. That's the political play, at least

      • At least nothing interesting to people who have looked at Clinton's past at all. She's cozy with Wall St. Well no fucking shit. Nobody except for everyone knew that one :P

        I've been very underwhelmed with the leaks given the "bombshell" claims about them. It's all shit that was already known about her, or shit that is totally unsurprising about any politician. I can't see it changing anyone's mind.

        Now maybe I've missed something juicy or there's something major yet to come, but if there's a big thing they th

    • This quote seems bad on the surface: [npr.org]

      SECRETARY CLINTON: That's a really interesting question. You know, I would like to see more successful business people run for office. I really would like to see that because I do think, you know, you don't have to have 30 billion, but you have a certain level of freedom. And there's that memorable phrase from a former member of the Senate: You can be maybe rented but never bought.

      • by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

        She appears to be arguing that independently wealthy individuals are less prone to being influenced by campaign contributors. It's well known that some politicians are little more than fronts for corporations. If that's the most controversial thing she said, there is nothing here at all.

        • If that's the most controversial thing she said, there is nothing here at all.

          Agreed. however...

          She appears to be arguing that independently wealthy individuals are less prone to being influenced by campaign contributors. It's well known that some politicians are little more than fronts for corporations.

          It's a stupid argument at best, because it's provably untrue. The best kind of politician stays bought once bought. And if you buy them enough times, then if they stop staying bought, you can simply leak the fact that you've been buying them all along and their career hits the skids.

  • by waspleg ( 316038 ) on Sunday October 16, 2016 @10:00AM (#53085003) Journal

    REAL journalists:

    These are all from the last week or so and mostly from the hacked emails. Oldest first. Yes these people go after Trump too but as far as I'm concerned has no chance in hell anyway.

    Hillary Clinton Sympathized with Goldman Sachs over financial reform. [theintercept.com]

    What Major Donors like Goldman Sachs want from the Democratic Party [theintercept.com] (they also fucking hate Elizabeth Warren - shock.)

    Hillary Clinton repeatedly Praised Wal-Mart in paid speeches [theintercept.com] This bitch knows who signs her checks and kisses heavy amounts of ass accordingly.

    Clinton aide PLANTED ANTI-BANK COMMENTS in a paid speech to throw off reporters. [theintercept.com]

    Democrats trying to work out how to pass huge corporate tax cuts. [theintercept.com] If you read it's essentially the same thing Trump wants. Remember: same corporate hand, different puppets.

    BONUS: Hillary Clinton's encryption proposal impossible. [theintercept.com] Because she wanted secure communication between people that could still be monitored by the gov't.

    For the record I think Bernie Sanders / Elizabeth Warren would have been the dream team. Fuck Hillary and Trump both.

    PS. In case you didn't know The Intercept = Glenn Greenwald = Snowden's choice for disclosure. They're good guys.

"I will make no bargains with terrorist hardware." -- Peter da Silva

Working...