Why won't Hillary release her Wall Street speeches?
 

Hillary has promised transparency. Didn't she say she "likes transparency and accountability"?

What is she hiding?

No freebies. Her words are worth millions.

"Clinton’s most lucrative year was 2013, right after stepping down as secretary of state. That year, she made $2.3 million for three speeches to Goldman Sachs and individual speeches to Deutsche Bank, Morgan Stanley, Fidelity Investments, Apollo Management Holdings, UBS, Bank of America, and Golden Tree Asset Managers."

Did you attempt to look online for them yourself?

what does that have to do with hill's refusal to release her Wall Street speeches?

she wont release the transcripts because page after page of "[slurping sounds]...[more slurping sounds with light moaning].. [spitting sounds]" doesnt make for very interesting reading.

Dude seriously, have you attempted to look for her speeches online instead of believing that they were unatainable or being withheld from you?

Think for yourself and find your own answers.

that explains why pantsuitporn.com is available

gofuckyourself. and gtfo my thread if you can't carry on a fucking convo without snarky bullshit. you seem to want to make this about me and make assumptions then bullshit crass remarks based on those demands and assumptions.

fucking clown. gtfo. you don't have 1 single fucking clue wtf i've googled.

the fucking bullshitiest part of your fucked up bullshit is you've clearly not googled it yourself.

gtfo

Her speeches were about economically empowering women in third world countries. All the speeches were recorded and posted to the Goldman Sachs Youtube page. Here's one from 2014

if libtards held hillary as accountable as they try to hold random gfyers, maybe they'd have a better candidate to present to the country. instead, their candidate is loosing ground to Trump while they poke fingers at Trump supporters or anyone that "vets" their girl.

The Goldman Sachs YouTube page is here check them out for yourself: https://m.youtube.com/channel/UCyz6-taovlaOkPsPtK4KNEg

obviously that keynote address is not one of the many wall street fat cat speeches hills refuses to release.

Hillary Clintons Wall Street Talks Were Highly Paid, Friendly - WSJ

“She didn’t often talk about the financial crisis, but when she did, she almost always struck an amicable tone. In some cases, she thanked the audience for what they had done for the country. One attendee said the warmth with which Mrs. Clinton greeted guests bordered on ‘gushy.’ She spoke sympathetically about the financial industry.”




Lament of the Plutocrats - POLITICO Magazine

“Clinton offered a message that the collected plutocrats found reassuring, 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, ‘We all got into this mess together, and we’re all going to have to work together to get out of it.’”

Your logic is any speeches and transcripts you see aren't valid because she's hiding something.

You can go date by date from her financial disclosures and see/read each speech and they're all boring as fuck.

I'll give you a head start

those are not the private paid speeches in the matter.

as mentioned in the blurb i just quoted, just one of the speeches, 1 to G-S was at a completely different time. there were other speeches to BofA and more banks. if they're boring as fuck, then the transparency and accountability hills boasts about should not even be a barrier to her releasing them. and certainly not a reason for her bizarre promise that she'd release them if her republican counterparts did the same.

you're not getting it. this isn't about me, as hard as you're trying to make it. i know you consider yourself a googling internet super sleuth but you've not uncovered the transcripts.

yet you're giving me a headstart, as if you've done a quick google and uncovered what the entire media couldn't, other than hearsay.

not sure why you're on this track anyway. never had a sitch with you. but i've seen it before, it's how liberals handle people that don't high 5 them over hillary. you attack.

give this guy a head start too bladewire! ::::::

"the longest-running mystery of the Democratic primary — a mystery that’s been ongoing for over seventy days — which is this: why would anyone pay $225,000 for an hour-long speech by a private citizen who (at the time) claimed to have no interest in returning to politics?

Mr. Sanders has implied that there are only two possible answers: (a) the money wasn’t for the speeches themselves, but for the influence major institutional players on Wall Street thought that money could buy them if and when Clinton ran for President; or (b) the speeches laid out a defense of Wall Street greed so passionate and total that hearing it uttered by a person of power and influence was worth every penny.

Per Clinton surrogates and attendees at these speeches, the answer appears to be both (a) and (b)."

Release of Clinton's Wall Street Speeches Could End Her Candidacy for President

I've done the work and shown you where to look and what to look for. Just go speech by speech and Google search by date range.

They're boring speeches with hundreds of people and usually multiple speakers & press reporting.

You can say something isn't available, when it is, but you won't be speaking the truth.

Not sure why you'd think I'm being mean or picking a on you. I'm chilling here watching TV with the windows open trying to help you from my phone. If you're riled up then chill out that's not where I'm coming from.

Found one which is worth at least 250,000.
Real classy!!

i don't feel like you're picking on me at all. i know that you are 1)dodging and deflecting since hills is your girl and 2) not up to speed on the matter.

even that left wing rag salon wants to know what you seem to think is on google page 1

What's Hillary waiting for? 80 days after promising "I will look into it", Clinton still has not released her paid speeches to Wall Street - Salon.com

I'm not a partisan follower of any candidate. My blood pressure doesn't rise when thinking of candidates, other than Trump.

I'll leave you alone. I'm sorry for picking on you.

adios :thumbsup

Even before Clinton uttered her look-into-it promise, word had leaked that her standard speaking appearance contracts, negotiated by the prestigious Harry Walker Agency, include provisions that prohibit all press coverage of her talks, as well as audio- or videotaping. However, other typical provisions, some of which were reproduced in a Feb. 7 BuzzFeed article, require that stenographic transcripts be made and that Clinton be accorded sole ownership and control of the transcripts. The decision to release the speeches apparently is hers and hers alone.

Details on what Hillary Requires for Her Speeches. From UNLV speech: a Jet, for one

I'm not sure why this is something we are even discussing. How much does Colin Powell make from speeches? Or Rice?

i totally agree rochard. so what's so big in those transcripts that hills is making a big deal out of not releasing them? the entire matter could have been over with hills simply releasing the transcripts.

10 Highest-Paid Public Speakers In the World - OnlineUniversities.com

1. Donald Trump, $1-1.5 million: In 2006 and 2007, The Learning Annex shelled out a hefty fee to have Donald Trump at their Real Estate Wealth Expos, paying him a whopping $1.5 million per speech for a 17-seminar conference. Trump only had to speak for an hour at each one, but audience members say he gave them their money’s worth by staying to answer audience questions. This was after Trump had already raked in one million per speech speaking at the same seminars in 2005. The company felt Trump was well worth the money, however, as few others have the celebrity and business savvy he does.
   
2. Ronald Reagan, $1 million: Back in 1989, the Fujisankei Communications Group in Japan paid this former president a cool million per speech to come to the country and tour. Reagan gave two speeches while there as well as speaking at media outlets and giving interviews. Still, Reagan didn’t make out too shabby with $2 million (in 1989 dollars) under his belt for sharing his business and presidential experience with the company desperately in need of public relations help. The Reagans created a national sensation in Japan, boosting the company’s profile.
   
3. Tony Blair, $616,000: On a lecture by lecture basis, Blair is likely the world’s best paid speaker. In 2009, he made almost $616,000 for two half-hour speeches given in the Philippines, raking in over $10,000 a minute. Listeners didn’t get to hear what he had to say for free, however, and many tickets to the event topped $500. Even in a time of economic crisis when many have slashed their fees, Blair’s have remained buoyant, due perhaps to his lengthy stint as Prime Minister and the insight and analysis he can offer as a result of it.

This was written in 2010 before Hillary Clinton hit the jackpot with paid honorarium fees.

From 2007 -- http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/09/we.../09seelye.html
And for My Second Act, I’ll Make Some Money

By KATHARINE Q. SEELYE SEPT. 9, 2007
This is not anything new ... You can argue ethics all day long but it is absolutely legal. Most politicians are in it for the money that follows ...

nice find Barry. i wonder if Trump will release his speech transcripts and play HIll's bluff on releasing her's if her republican counterpart does.

:1orglaugh:1orglaugh

If someone, whose positions are not too radically out of line with mine, offered me $10,000 plus my travel expenses (1st class) to talk about the ''issues at hand'' for an hour or two -- I would say when would you like me there. :)

So why are we even discussing this? Both of them have made millions from speeches. It's not even remotely interesting. Or related to anything important.

of course. and it's not like there was some sort of plotting discussed at those events, which is why i wonder why hills wouldn't simply defuse the situation by releasing them. seems the smarter play. instead she gives the gop fodder, even after her "i'll look into it".