Posted on 02/08/2016 4:18:01 PM PST by Libloather
**SNIP**
Over the last 16 months, Clinton raked in at least $30 million - chiefly, the New York Times reports, from closed-to-the-press speeches to corporations, banks, etc.
Care to bet on any other ex-secretary of state being so "lucky"?
Interest in just what Clinton could deliver in exchange for such largesse has prompted many requests over the last year for transcripts. She has consistently refused.
For the record, we doubt it's anything too shocking. Most likely, she just doesn't want to be outed as having been kissy-kissy with the likes of Goldman chief Lloyd Blankfein. Why give a gift to Bernie Sanders when he has already tied her in the polls?
Clinton can't admit that, of course - but she should have expected the question to pop up at the debate.
(Excerpt) Read more at nypost.com ...
El Rushbo - Why Mrs. Clinton Can't Release Her Goldman Sachs Speech Transcripts
So when I see the banks propping up the Clintons, I mean, they're not being offered $250,000 to come speak because what they say is so unique and the banks can't get it anywhere else and whoever the banks' audience for these speeches are, either other employees or investors, it's not that the Clintons come and offer things that they can't get anywhere else. It's not that the Clintons have insight that others don't have. This is how the people in that club keep the individual members wealthy. It's how the wealth is spread. In the case of the Clintons, it is also how they invest in the possibility of the Clintons once again returning to the White House and thus being able to return favors.
An American success story!
Dead broke in 2001.
Now even her child has a $10m Manhattan condo.
Goldman Sachs?
Where have I heard that name?
Seems like I ought to remember...
I dunno about that. The L.A. Times hasn’t released the Khalid Bash tapes.
When mikes and cameras are supposed to be off, it seems like someone is secretly recording. There is audio and video out there somewhere.
-——What did *Bubba’s so-called wife tell bankers that was worth $30 million?-—
I want my cut
Sure she can. She has most of the lamestream media running interference for her.
Sure she can, she’s a democrat and a Clinton.
Her phrasing with George Stephanopoulos on Sunday morning was so wonderfully Clintonian:
George: You said you would look into releasing the transcipts. Will you release them?
Hillary: Well, if everyone else releases all their transcripts, if everyone is held to the same standard, and releases all of their records ... then ... I will look into it ... some more.
She didn’t tell them anything that was worth 30 million.
The speeches will be totally banal, repetitive BS. The scandal is that they paid her because she was influential, and wanted to be on her fast-dial list.
The Dem supporters will say, “See, there’s nothing in the speeches.” That’s exactly the point. Why would anybody pay for boring claptrap, unless there was a different, hidden reason? That reason is access.
English Translation: "Hell no."
It is shameful that the press fails to ask the follow up question "What do you have to hide?"
Instead they ask, "How do you remain so wonderful in the face of such mean spirited lies by conservatives."
What would we do without such an unbiased press?
Not very “transparent” is she?
Over twenty-five years in public life, the Teflon B*tch has proven, time and again, that she can dodge *any* questions forever, with the help of the sycophant media.
She’s got a record that would impress John Gotti - even he got caught eventually.
Yes she will.
George should have said “Nobody else is running for president.” And he would have if he didn’t work for the Clintons.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.