2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumEveryone Knows Why Hillary Clinton Won't Release Her Goldman Sachs Speeches
John Judis says he's worried about Hillary Clinton again:
I don't understand why she can't put the Goldman, Sachs question behind her. I initially assumed that she either didn't have transcripts or that what she said was the usual milquetoast stuff politicians offer up. But her continued refusal to provide transcripts (which I now assume must exist) suggests that there must be something damning in them.
If she gets the nomination, she'll face these questions again in the fall, and if Trump or Cruz is her opponent, these questions will detract from the attention that their past utterances about Mexican rapists or masturbation or whathaveyou.
For what it's worth, I think we all know what's in those transcripts: a bit of routine praise for the yeoman work that investment bankers do to keep the gears of the economy well oiled. Maybe something like this:
more: http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2016/04/everyone-knows-why-hillary-clinton-wont-release-her-goldman-sachs-speeches
Lil Missy
(17,865 posts)John Judis can go piss up a rope.
The Old Lie
(123 posts)Then why not release the transcripts and prove it!
Bernie released his full tax information, and it's full of absolutely nothing! That Schedule? Just a mere mortgage write-off.
Lil Missy
(17,865 posts)Hoyt
(54,770 posts)take a sentence out of context; say the transcript has been edited; ask what she said before an after her speech; not accept that she's delivered similar speeches to the American Camping Association, Women's Realtors; colleges, environmental groups, Canada 20/20, etc.; ask if she went off script; are there other transcripts; and worse.
Fact is, most of the speeches were given in big meeting halls with attendees that included Democrats, Clinton detractors, people who'd love to catch her saying something on their recorder, etc. If she'd said anything to suit critics purposes, they'd have a video or account. Nada.
Did they get their monies worth, such that she owes them nothing -- heck yeah, she increased attendance, has stories which are interesting, and made them look like they have contacts that know what is going on in the world. They'd have to spend millions to get that message across doing an ad campaign.
Response to Hoyt (Reply #3)
silvershadow This message was self-deleted by its author.
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)landscapers, etc.
silvershadow
(10,336 posts)COLGATE4
(14,732 posts)other Americans, have Limited Liability Companies set up in the United States. Reason: to shield their personal assets in case of being sued. Nothing illegal, nefarious, illicit or even immoral about doing it.
silvershadow
(10,336 posts)COLGATE4
(14,732 posts)of all the mudslinging and insinuations xome of you folks feel compelled to keep posting here. And by proof I mean "proof" - not, as the latest responder told me "Well, everybody knows so". So- prepared to show some proof?
The Old Lie
(123 posts)But i don't have 5 shell companies that is in DE hiding the incomes from the world.
silvershadow
(10,336 posts)have accounts in Panama, or Grand Cayman. In fact, all of his accounts are local. I suppose the 1% is accustomed to this kind of maneuver. I've been reading articles of late indicating they are sometimes used for tax avoidance.
COLGATE4
(14,732 posts)be slander) that a Limited Liability company doesn't let anyone hide any income. By law, income from a Limited Liability Company is treated as direct, personal income to the LLC's owner(s). No way to hide a penny.'
Autumn
(45,120 posts)MrMickeysMom
(20,453 posts)He did an excellent, "Clinton-something, the candidate years" take on Bill and Hillary listening to those tapes. I'm pretty sure that version would not be good.