Report: Hillary Clinton Was "Glowing" About Goldman Sachs During Paid Speech

by Chris Menahan
InformationLiberation
Feb. 09, 2016

While Hillary Clinton is refusing to release the transcripts of her speeches to Goldman Sachs and others for which she and her husband were handed millions of dollars, Politico went and found some attendants to two of her Goldman speeches and asked them what they recalled.

Politico reports:
When Hillary Clinton spoke to Goldman Sachs executives and technology titans at a summit in Arizona in October of 2013, she spoke glowingly of the work the bank was doing raising capital and helping create jobs, according to people who saw her remarks.

Clinton, who received $225,000 for her appearance, praised the diversity of Goldman’s workforce and the prominent roles played by women at the blue-chip investment bank and the tech firms present at the event. She spent no time criticizing Goldman or Wall Street more broadly for its role in the 2008 financial crisis.

“It was pretty glowing about us,” one person who watched the event said. “It’s so far from what she sounds like as a candidate now. It was like a rah-rah speech. She sounded more like a Goldman Sachs managing director.”

At another speech to Goldman and its big asset management clients in New York in 2013, Clinton spoke about how it wasn’t just the banks that caused the financial crisis and that it was worth looking at the landmark 2010 Dodd-Frank financial reform law to see what was working and what wasn’t.

“It was mostly basic stuff, small talk, chit-chat,” one person who attended that speech said. “But in this environment, it could be made to look really bad.”

Clinton spokesman Brian Fallon dismissed the recollections as “pure trolling,” while the Clinton campaign declined to comment further on calls that she release the transcripts of the three paid speeches she gave to Goldman Sachs, for which she earned a total of $675,000.

[...]The person who saw Clinton’s Arizona remarks to Goldman said they thought there was no chance the campaign would ever release them. “It would bury her against Sanders,” this person said. “It really makes her look like an ally of the firm.”
So there you have it, all she did was deliver more boring Clinton speeches, which were hardly worthy of $675,000 to find out, as she said, "what [she] thought" about the "complicated world."

It's a blatant legal bribe, if the speeches were so deep and meaningful she would have released them and let all our minds be blown. Instead, she's afraid they'll be seen as garbage fluff like everything else she produces.













All original InformationLiberation articles CC 4.0



About Us - Disclaimer - Privacy Policy