Hillary Clinton's Wall St Speeches Published by Wikileaks
bbc.com
bbc.com
Anecdotal, but I'm convinced I'm not the only person with this experience.
Did Clinton take money (either for herself or for her campaign or for her foundation, it doesn't matter which) from businesses that are canonical symbols of Wall Street money and power? Then she's tainted in the eyes of everybody that is against corporate influence on politics. The contents of the speech isn't particularly important, because it is the influence of money that matters.
Stop looking for traditional political "scandals", and start noticing the anti-corporate-power, anti-globalism revolt that is causing a lot of people to vote "anybody but the usual bribed politicians".
No, but taking a large amount of money does. Even if you believe you aren't taking money for a "bribe" and maintain some level of independence in the actual content of your speech, there is a significant unconscious bias. If you want to get that kind of job again, you might not be as critical of the people paying you.
> The core question is whether the money will influence her policies.
Approach the question from the other side. No for-profit business is going to give large sums of money out without some expectation of a return on that investment. Someone is betting that they will be able to get more money having the ear of a politician than their other investment opportunities.
Regarding corporate influence in politics, I'm a combination of too cynical, too ill-informed and too jaded to offer you any worthwhile thoughts on the matter, and therefore fear I will be wasting your time! It seems to me that entities who generate immense wealth have and will always wield influence in society and the mechanism by which it is brought into order (i.e. politics).
Is anyone here really willing to stand up and say, "Yes, I was shocked by this recent news of Trump's comments?" Powerful men have always had access to pretty much whatever women they want. That's not unique to politics, it's not unique to our culture, it's not unique to the 20th or 21st century, it's literally the whole of human experience. (And beyond; it's true of all the primates, and quite a bit of mammalia.) The media frenzy isn't actual outrage... heck, the ringleaders of the outrage probably have personal direct experience that that is the case, and have probably at one moment of indiscretion or another said the same things themselves. But a show is put on, because it might sway the people.
Is there anyone here who is shocked, shocked by the idea that politicians have "a public and a private position", one of the leaked phrases from the putative transcripts? There may be some people out in the masses of voters who will be shocked by this, but by the same token that they would be shocked by this idea, they'll probably never hear about that quote either, so it's not much of an attack.
If you're being consistent, you really ought to admit that neither of these things is very interesting, and that there's not much about either of these thing that will change anybody's mind. The true believers on the relevant side will confirmation-bias their way through whichever of these stories tickles them, but it's very unlikely to sway much either way.
The most dangerous thing the Wikileaks story is merely that it might puncture the public persona of Clinton. The only remotely interesting email that I've seen pop up is this one: https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/927 which goes a long way towards explaining why those speeches have not been released. There's nothing in there that ought to surprise an even remotely careful observer... but there are things in there that puncture the public persona of Clinton. Imagine Clinton reading the excerpt about being out-of-touch with the middle class this weekend. Of course she's out of touch with the middle class. The entirity of Washington DC's political class, Democrat and Republican, and of course Donald Trump are out of touch with the middle class. It can't really be any other way; there's no scenario where the leadership of the sole superpower of the world is living a middle-class life, the idea they can or should is basically absurd. But it's not quotes the campaign wants floating around for the voting masses to see.
I am equally sure that the Trump campaign would not care to see transcripts of its internal strategy sessions floating about either. The public is not meant to see the sausage being made.
It's not clear to me that the recent Trump news punctures much at all about his persona, what it gives people is a "fake because" to drop support if that's what they wanted: http://blog.dilbert.com/post/138214308881/the-fake-because (first bit, you can skip the rest if you like, having recently read most of Influence it is in there but I can't link that). It's not clear to me that there's very many voters looking for a fake because, but the evidence suggests that there were some politicians that were. There will be hope that will cause a lot of other people to come forward and admit they're concerned about Trump to, but at this point in the campaign I'm not guessing there's going to be a lot of movement here.
Are they in-directly supporting Trump ?
I am far from USA and although who will be the next president most likely will affect everyone, I do not care that much for either one of them.
It is just strange for the russians to push so much for Trump and WikiLeaks are somehow assisting them.
It should be made clear that I am neither a US citizen nor a Trump supporter. Huge emphasis on the latter!
Admittedly, coverage during the primaries hailed Trump as the anti-establishment political maverick that would redefine the GOP. At the time, the coverage was nauseatingly positive and, at the very worst, ambivalent. The media coverage on Clinton, on the other hand, was clearly confrontational (perhaps because she was the "incumbent" candidate). This sort of coverage has elicited some soul-searching among journalists and mass media based on the logic that the media infatuated with The Donald and gleefully collaborated in his political ascendance (yes, Trump is a colorful man, but, truth be told, he is far worse things as a person, a subject that has been prominently covered).
And this brings me to the second point. The recent turn in Trump's media coverage (in terms of tone at least) is also fueled by his numerous scandals, mistakes, and missteps. It is beyond me when the tone really became adversarial (perhaps after the nomination when the attention shifted to him and there was a long overdue re-calibration in how the media engages with his campaign). In truth, this is a referendum for or against Trump and this argument is further compounded by the fact that staunch and prominent Republicans are abandoning their party's flag bearer in support (more or less) of Clinton (this is unprecedented considering the vitriolic opposition that the party and its supporters have for the Clintons.
While it can be argued that media coverage has shifted in Clinton's favor (mostly due to Trump's own fault as an individual and presidential candidate), the same cannot be said of Wikileaks whose agenda from the very beginning has been admittedly pro-Trump. Wikileaks is partisan and this, while not a disqualifier in of itself, says a lot about its motivations in releasing leaks that paint a non-flattering picture of the Clinton campaign.
That said, these transcripts do not reveal a lot that is new about Clinton as has been noted by other commenters here (except, perhaps, for the fact that she says political leaders need to have private and public positions on policy matters) and her campaign has already been vindicated by the administration's admission that there is a political motive behind the leaks. The political ramifications of these leaks may not be as dramatic (the fodder that they afford her opponents has been unsuccessfully utilized by her foe-turned-apologist Sanders) as Trump's recent bombshell video leak of supposed "locker room banter."
1. News Coverage of the 2016 Presidential Primaries: Horse Race Reporting Has Consequences (http://shorensteincenter.org/news-coverage-2016-presidential...)
2. A deep dive into the news media’s role in the rise of Donald J. Trump (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2016/06/2...)
It's flawed in that it assumes that equal amounts of such information exist. When Trump shoots some grandmother in the face, people expect equal prominence for "Hillary came to my house and left the bathroom light on".
Parts of the news media have been bending over backwards to avoid the appearance of partisanship, which gave us the endless faux-scandal regarding her mailserver.
The same principle leads to news media sometimes creating the impression that global warming is some sort of scientific debate, because they feel the need to give equal billing to the doubters while reality is 99-1 lopsided.
Trump may actually have a positive impact in the end, in that he may stretch the concept until it breaks. Indeed we can see it breaking down in the last few weeks with, for example, newspapers publishing harsh editorials and endorsements against him whereas they remained quite in previous elections.
If the current trend could continue for another six months, we'd see every article in every newspaper end with "cetero censeo Trump delende est"
https://theintercept.com/2016/08/06/accusing-wikileaks-bias-...
As to why there's nothing on Trump, it may be anything. Actual support indeed, or just no documents coming up on the republic party.
Why does it have to be a conspiracy that they're trying to help Trump? He's beaten up in the news everyday. He doesn't seem to need any help getting into trouble.
Is there any real, substantial proof the Russians support Wikileaks?
>Are they in-directly supporting Trump ?
Yes. I doubt that Wikileaks, Trump and Russia are actively conspiring towards Trump's election, it just happens that the goals of the Republican Party, Russia and Julian Assange all happen to neatly correlate - Trump wants to be elected, Russia would rather Trump than Clinton was elected, and Assange wants Clinton to not get elected.
All that requires is from Wikileaks is a willingness to publish anything that even appears damaging to one party and nothing damaging to the other. Luckily for Trump, anything published by Wikileaks appears damaging by default, because people assume a level of impartiality and due diligence on their part that they may not really be engaged in.
The fact alone that there are leaks related to the Democrats and not the Republicans will lead people to assume that the Democrats are more corrupt, and the Republicans more trustworthy.
[0]https://theintercept.com/2016/08/06/accusing-wikileaks-bias-...
The trouble with @Wikileaks obsessively and indiscriminately tweeting anti-Hillary leaks of greatly varying significance is that it tends to do a lot less damage than one or two really big revelations. I mean, it's really not Hillary's message and target audience I'm worried about when @Wikileaks tweets about her "private Jewish speech" when she - shock, horror - apparently observed that Saudis had exported a lot of extreme ideology in recent years...
It also reduces peoples' trust in Wikileaks and the veracity of the information they release.
Wikileaks' reputation as a (mostly) "impartial" actor was one of their greatest assets, and they seem to be throwing that away simply to sate Assange's desire for revenge...
So it's your opinion that because Trump is extremely bad, Clinton is immune to criticism? It doesn't matter if she also has problems?
Criticizing Clinton does not necessarily mean support for Trump. They are both terrible candidates, just in different ways. While Russia does seem to be pushing for Trump, criticism of Clinton's ties to Wall Street are another matter.
(That also does not imply some sort of false equivalency. When it's time to vote, a strategic vote for the lesser evil may be necessary, but that doesn't mean Clinton shouldn't be criticized for her own problems.)
Doesn't mean I agree with this, tho I mostly do, at some point you need to realize that there is a time and place for criticism and this isn't it.
I actually want to see less-biased media. I rarely see negative articles about Clinton and when the mainstream media covers something up, it's like they are all reading from the same playbook. The words are very similar.
The last set of wikileaks showed us that most of the mainstream media are an extension of the DNC. They first destroyed Sanders (an enemy of Clinton) and now they are trying to destroy Trump.
I also find it interesting that nobody cares that the majority of these Trump leaks are the result of illegal wiretapping. Yet, when there are wikileaks, we nees to focus on illegal russian hackers and not the content of the leaks.
It's scary to think that illegal activity is perfectly acceptable...as long as it is hurting someone you don't like.
I'm supporting Jill Stein even though I feel she's a little over the top personality wise and a little odd. Bernie was the right amount of crazy progressive while working within the confines of what he was given. I will never support another Democrat until the party is ripped a part or totally reformed. Case closed. The only exception are ones that run under against trade, have strong climate change policies, and are against corporate money and corruption in politics.
We desperately need to pass the anti-corruption act on a national level getting all corporate donations out of politics. Money is a 'vote' and corporations should not have a say it's "we the people" not "we the corporations and a few people who we allow to matter".
As far as I can see the leaks are not corruption evidence of some sort.
Disclaimer I'm away from politics and US.
It's not quite the same faultlines as the classic Slatestarcodex Blue and Red tribes, but it's the same principle
It may not damage the Clinton campaign, though, because Trump's womanizing talk came out the same day and is attracting more attention.
This election season has a scandal-of-the-week feel to it, and many Americans are looking forward to it being over already.
This is the environment where populist movements arise, which are not tied to traditional right/left politics. Hence the rise of populists like Trump, anti-establishment reactions like brexit, and a long list of similar movements that have been popping up around the world.
For a good explanation of this (with charts!), see Mark Blyth's recent lecture[1].
There are very strong arguments that what's holiding back economic potential and equality is not more itereations of NAFTA or WTO talks -- global import/export trade is already a phenomenal amount of all commerce. Price savings, where they're realised, seem to be based more on wage depression and raping the environment than real gains in per-worker prodictivity or comparative advantage. Worse, the current round of international agreements being shopped as "trade pacts" are far more in the style of power grabs for corporate and oligarchical interests, including ever more regressive copyright, trademark, and patent laws, a two-tier courts system through ISDS, and numerous actions which will raise prices through increased corporate profits rather than wages.
There's a long list of economists and other experts opposed to the TPP, TTIP, BITS, and TiSA treaties, including Nobel Prize laureate Joseph Stiglitz, Tony Atkinson, former US Labour Secretary Robert Reich, and anti-poverty crusader Jeffrey Sachs, among many others. I've been making something of a sport of posting TPP and related items to my G+ profile over the past few months -- Google support the TPP.
For tech issues, see the EFF's explainer: https://eff.org/issues/tpp
Bankers are in the best position to reform, but the most unlikely to provide meaningful reform.
edit: formatting, emoticon removal
edit 1: It is however on their websites. The Clinton campaign was smart to counter attack. I still would expect them to cover this on tv, though.
edit 2: CNN is covering it now.
I dislike conspiracy theories, but lately I've actually been wondering if something really heavy has been brewing in the basement of the illuminati.
The US is an economic and military superpower that has been ripe for the taking for decades. It has a weak, fractured, and anemic culture and political environment. And, while internally its citizens bicker about the edge cases of wedge issues, it has been easy to inject Trojan horses and more political instability.
P.S. I recommend https://news.ycombinator.com/active for the biggest discussions.
It's amazing how quickly they blame Russia. Russia may be a shrewd international manipulator, but that doesn't mean that every time data come out on the Clintons, they're from some 400 pound dude in the Kremlin.
Have people considered that Trump has had considerably less public interaction, and is not tied to as many organizations as Hillary is? I mean, there could be lots of good reasons why all the dirt we can find is on her.
Trump is a billionaire globalist, an elite among elites. He's been a celebrity for decades, embroiled in countless public scandals and lawsuits, and this isn't even his first Presidential run. His attack surface is as vast as his ego.
> I mean, there could be lots of good reasons why all the dirt we can find is on her.
I think your apparent conflation of "all the dirt Wikileaks publishes" with "all the dirt we can find" is in error, or at least can't be substantiated.
Perhaps some people are simply dismissing what "dirt" there is on Trump (there's plenty) as being smear tactics and lies manufactured by the "Clinton owned news media," and assuming the "dirt" on Clinton is far more damaging than it actually is?
Or perhaps Trump and his supporters are simply more effective at propagandizing through social media than Clinton?
"My dream is a hemispheric common market, with open trade and open borders,"
Yes--it worked well for her, and the wealthy.
It hasen't helped me much? Oh, wait----I'm waiting on 6 X 6v halogen bulbs for my microscope. They are coming from China. It's been 26 days. They cost me $9.99. Free shipping picked up by the Chinese government. If I get them; I will have benefitted! Yea!
"Mrs Clinton told bankers that they were best-placed to help reform the US financial sector."
Oh really? Banks won't lend to me. They raised my fees to jaw dropping levels. I sometimes wonder why I even have a bank account.
I probally won't vote this year. I don't think it will matter who gets into office. Part of myself is hoping for Trump. He will throughly piss everyone off, and maybe we can regain some democtractic congressional seats?
As to the all important Supreme Court nominees; just because they go in conservative, doesn't mean they won't do a bed flip while in office? History has proved this, or at least that's what Dr. Helbright said in political Science 101 in that hot classroom years ago. I did double check his claim, at the time. Why did that conservative justice (Robert's) save Obamacare? They are not robots. They seem to get more understanding with age? It's not so black/white when in their glory days, with the exception of Clarance Thomas. He is quite the consistent guy?
I'm not a Rebublican, or Democrat. I'm still waiting for the right party/person. And it's not that other idiot. Forget his name, but my goodness--is he fried, or just ------?