Hillary Goldman Clinton

Aside from "the establishment," there is no bigger boogeyman in the 2016 election than the dreaded "Goldman Sachs."

"The establishment" is a bipartisan Freddie Krueger, haunting the dreams of people whose only knowledge of the term is an abstract notion spun by those selling something. Goldman Sachs, on the other hand, is a tangible company, a legal company, but perhaps more demonized on the left than anything this side of the Koch Brothers.

If you're inclined to think "Wall Street" is robbing you blind, invoking Goldman Sacks is enough to make you grab a pitchfork. That's why its name has become a pejorative attack term.

Of course, Goldman Sachs is just one of many investment banks in the world. But saying so-and-so is "the candidate of Deutsche Bank" would only confuse some Democratic primary voters into thinking they were talking about a lesser-known Bond villain. So Goldman Sachs it is.

The candidate of Goldman Sachs, without any question, is Hillary Clinton. Clinton earned $675,000 for three - count 'em, THREE - speeches to various branches of the company. The CEO of Goldman, Lloyd Blankfein, and his wife are Clinton supporters - she has maxed out to her campaign and he's on board, too, though he won't say it publicly because he doesn't want to hurt her chances.

This is nothing new. During her Senate career, Goldman was second only to Citigroup when it came to campaign cash for Hillary Clinton. JPMorgan Chase, Morgan Stanley, even Lehman Brothers also were among Clinton's biggest patrons.

So when Bernie Sanders calls Clinton the candidate of Wall Street, he's not lying.

Hillary, naturally, denies this charge. She says she's never changed her positions based on who gives her campaign donations. This may be true. But campaign contributions generally aren't just to "get things done." Often times they are to stop things from getting done. To hold government at bay.

In her time in Washington, Hillary Clinton has talked a good game about the evils of the wealthy and Wall Street. But what has she done about it?

The charge of being the "candidate of Wall Street" got Hillary angrier in Thursday night's debate than she's been since she was railing against President George W. Bush. The mere suggestion that nearly three-quarters of a million dollars for a couple of hours of talking could have any influence on her was akin to suggesting she kicked puppies for fun.

Indignant, Clinton said nothing could be further from the truth. That employees of a large investment firm wanted only to hear her regale them with tales of the raid that killed bin Laden - which she was, at best, tangentially involved in.

So Hillary's defense is this story - the unclassified parts of which were readily available publicly - was so compelling that Goldman Sachs employees needed to hear it three separate times? Or three separate divisions of Goldman decided they must hear it for themselves?

Maybe her first speech rippled through the firm like layoff rumors and others couldn't resist the siren call of the account of vague details and listening to radio traffic. Doubtful.

When companies plunk down huge sums for a speech it isn't to entertain their employees.

Hillary, of course, could end any speculation on the subject by releasing the transcripts from her speeches. But, in traditional Clinton style, the gatekeeper of that information (her), after promising to "look into it" in front of a crowd, is now refusing to do it away from television cameras.

Why? Because when companies hire speakers, they tend to want them to say something relevant to their industry and favorable about their company. It's highly likely Hillary Clinton sang the praises of Goldman Sachs, investment firms and Wall Street in general.

She couldâ€™ve gotten away once with telling them theyâ€™re the root of all our economic ills and pure evil, but not two more times. If companies wanted to pay a lot of money to be told they're awful, they'd hire Don Rickles for a lot less money and a lot more laughs.

So why won't Hillary release the transcripts? Because the contents of those speeches would be damaging to her narrative that she'll "stand up to Wall Street." You can't "stand up" when you're on the record bowing down.

So what did Goldman Sachs get for its $675,000, plus huge campaign contributions? For one, you can rest assured when it calls, she answers. Although, as a private citizen, she wasn't in any position to help them at the time, there was no doubt she was running for president. Hillary claims she wasn't sure she would run then, but the Washington Post was. As was everyone else on the planet.

Goldman Sachs paid a friend, a powerful friend, mostly to leave it alone should Hillary ever find herself in a position to truly upset the apple cart. What she says to get votes, as is the case with most politicians, is irrelevant.

Or course, all of this is unprovable. Clinton is corrupt but not stupid. Presidents can find all manner of reasons to oppose legislation that have nothing to do with the purported purpose of a bill.

The assurance there will be no serious, dogged follow-up questions or investigative reporters dispatched to uncover the content of those speeches is a given.

So we're left with Hillary receiving a huge sum of money to talk for a short while on topics weâ€™re left to speculate about. One thing I'd like to know is why she charged UCLA $300,000 for a "20- to 30-minute speech." And when the school asked for "the public university" reduced rate, they were told that was the reduced rate for schools.

So why did she charge UCLA more than Goldman Sachs? Does she care more for investment banks than colleges? Or was it all those campaign contributions?

Hillary and Goldman Sachs have been BFF.

Then-US Sen Clinton and then-Sen Corzine on the Capitol steps.

EXHIBIT ONE Corzine was fresh out of Goldman Sachs executive suite, buying his NJ Senate seat office for $65 million; then buying the NJ governorship. Out of office, he ran a hedge fund where $1.5 B went missing....that employed both Bill Clinton and then-Secy of State Hillary's top aide Huma Abedin.

EXHIBIT TWO When Chelsea Clinton's husband started a hedge fund, he gained access to investors who had ties to the Clintons and to Goldman Sachs. Back in 2011, Mezvinsky, now 37, and two former Goldman Sachs'ers â€” Bennett Grau and Mark Mallon â€” began raising money for Mezvinsky's Eaglevale Partners LP hedge fund.

Some of Mezvinsky's investors included Goldman Sachs CEO Lloyd Blankfein. Wall Street Blankfein, a slavish Democrat supporter, said he had "always been a fan of Hillary Clinton." The WSJ reported extensively on the hedge fund's underperformance since its inception and Mezvinsky's mediocre investing and strategizing.

===========================================

EXHIBIT THREE Then-US Sen Jon Corzine (D-NJ), used his office to pass a special tax exemption for a Japanese bank he owned----his Goldman Sachs crony, Christopher Flowers---adminstrator of Sen Corzine's "blind trust"--- used Corzine's assets to takeover the Japanese bank.

LAUGH BREAK Corzine later said he "did not know" the legislation he sponsored "benefited" him.

================================================

There's a saying in Congress---"One hand washes the other. You vote for my bill; I vote for your bill." Did Hillary vote for Corzine's legislation....giving tax breaks for a Japanese bank Corzine's "blind trust" owned? And what other Wall Street deals did Corzine make w/ Hillary to enrich himself...and her?

"Bernie, I insist you go first."

ROTFLMAO

....what about the emails? Was she selling these top secrets? Is anyone following the money? ....

LET/S PLAY CONNECT THE DOTS.

EXHIBIT ONE---Hillary/s State Dept Aide Shared Classified Information With Clinton Foundation, Email Shows; Cheryl Mills sent information marked confidential to Clinton Foundation in 2012 / BY Alana Goodman September 28, 2015

A key aide of Hillary Clinton emailed classified information about the government in Congo to a staffer at the Clinton Foundation in 2012, according to a copy of the correspondence obtained by the Washington Free Beacon.

Cheryl Mills, Clinton/s chief of staff at the State Department, sent the email to the Clinton Foundationâ€™s foreign policy director, Amitabh Desai, on July 12, 2012.

The message, which was originally obtained by the group Citizens United through a public records request, is partially redacted because it includes foreign government information that has been classified Confidential by the State Department......but was not marked classified by the State Department until this past summer, intelligence sources tell the Free Beacon that it would have been classified at the time Mills sent it because foreign government information is considered classified from inception.

The message could add to concerns from congressional and FBI investigators about whether former Secretary Clinton and her aides mishandled classified information while at the State Department.

About half of the forwarded message was redacted due to its classified nature before the State Department released it to Citizens United last month. Although it is not clear what the redacted section includes, the State Department said in a court motion filed last week that it concerns both foreign government information and critical aspects of U.S. foreign relations, including U.S. foreign activities carried out by officials of the U.S. Government.

The State Department added that the disclosure of this information has the potential to damage and inject friction into our bilateral relationship with African countries whose cooperation is important to U.S. national security.

The Clinton Foundation and the State Department did not respond to request for comment about the email, or say whether Desaiâ€”a non-government employee who has worked at the foundation since 2007â€”would have been authorized to view â€œConfidentialâ€ information.

---SNIP---

REST AT http://freebeacon.com/politics/clinton-aide-shared-classified-information-with-foundation-email-shows/

========================================

EXHIBIT TWO Cheryl was also feathering her own nest----Mills currently runs the BlackIvy Group, a consulting firm that focuses on developing dirt-poor Sub-Saharan Africa.

SUB SAHARAN AFRICA / State Dept list
African Union Benin Botswana Burkina Faso Cameroon Congo (Brazzaville) Congo (DRC-Kinshasa) Ethiopia Ghana Guinea Ivory Coast Kenya Lesotho Madagascar Malawi Mauritius Mozambique Namibia Niger Nigeria Rwanda Senegal Sierra Leone South Africa Swaziland Tanzania Togo Uganda Zambia.

===================================================

EXHIBIT THREE--- Sub Sahara Muslim immigrants are streaming into the US at an unprecedented rate, all subsidized by struggling taxpayers. What do Obama, Cheryl Mills, and Hillary know about this?

============================================

EXHIBIT FOUR--- The State Dept email, which discussed the relationship between the governments in Rwanda and the Democratic Republic of Congo, was originally drafted by Johnnie Carson, the State Department/s assistant secretary for African affairs, who sent it to Mills State Department email address.

Cheryl Mills later forwarded the full message to the foundation/s operative along with talking points for ex-President Clinton shortly before Bill Clinton was scheduled to visit the Congo region.

The head of a Canadian company with an enormous interest in the Congo's mining and oil sector, Lukas Lundin of Lundin Mining, announced a $100 million donation to the Clinton Foundation on the heels of Hillary/'s first presidential campaign.

After the Congolese government attempted to regain control of its own mines, the State Department intervened on behalf of Lundin Mining and another mining company, Freeport Mines, also a Clinton foundation donor.

A round of talks in 2010, thought to be aided by the Clinton State Department, concluded with the pair of well-connected companies retaining their stakes in the mines and with the Congolese government being shut out of its own resources. (hat tip Schweizer book---Clinton Cash)

=================================================

MORAL OF THE STORY When Hillary smells money, she will flout the law to suck-up to Clinton Foundation donors....particularly w/ financial stakes in the lucrative oil/mineral mining industry.

I read last week her and the rapist are now worth $110 million. Wow that/s a lot of speeches.

At first glance, the Clintons astounding honoraria and humongous Foundation donations seem to provide the bulk of the couples mega income.

Bills honoraria increased dramatically pocketing some $50 million during Hillarys four-year term as Secretary of State....including an Irish scholarship fund, a Korean conglomerate, and, a Nigerian newspaper company......each of whom paid Clinton more than half a million dollars for a single speech.

The Wash/Post reports Hillary earned $11.7 million for 51 speeches since Jan 2014.....she pocketed an astonishing $625,000 for two speeches in one day.

===============================================

I firmly believe the Clinton Foundations gigantic donor list, and their astonishing blizzard of speaking honoraria, are a smoke screen for their secret wealth....and the way they make billions sub rosa....intertwining their vaunted do-goodism and their multiple tax-paid public offices.

The calculated Clintons have sought to branch out into other business activities. All of that is kept under wraps. Very little is known about the exact nature and financial worth of Bill and Hillarys non-speech business interests.

Reports keep surfacing indicating the Clintons were party to multi/billion dollar Mideast arms deals....Kazakhstan uranium mines....and Haitian gold mines...Libyan oil deals....telecom businesses, deals w/ financial powerhouses like Teneo, Goldman Sachs.....etc etc etc.

THE CON ARTIST CLINTONS GRABBED EVERYTHNG THAT WASNT NAILED DOWN Lucrative business interests were cunningly intertwined w/ the Foundations transparent do-good activities....enabled by Hillarys catbird seat at the State Dept.

At last count, the Clintons apparently raised an astounding $2 billion from their foundation activities and their political campaigns.....

.....does not include monies flowing in from the various lucrative business ventures, interest accrued, safe deposit boxes, real estate assets, passive income on which they pay no taxes, income from Chelseas hubbys hedge fund, monies invested in Goldman Sachs, interest in financial powerhouse Teneo..... etc etc etc.......

================================================

The Clintons are worth a bundle.....accumulated in record time. Their livelihood was collected as they marched through American politics.

They co-opted taxpayers by using OUR govt and information they were privy to by virtue of govt office in order to pocket big bucks.

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.