Joe Cooper
2016-02-07 17:24:52 UTC
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 youre inclined to think Wall Street is robbing you blind, invoking
Goldman Sacks is enough to make you grab a pitchfork. Thats 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
hes on board, too, though he wont say it publicly because he doesnt
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 Clintons
biggest patrons.
So when Bernie Sanders calls Clinton the candidate of Wall Street, hes
not lying.
Hillary, naturally, denies this charge. She says shes never changed her
positions based on who gives her campaign donations. This may be true.
But campaign contributions generally arent 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?
Sometimes you pay someone to do something, sometimes you pay someone not
to.
The charge of being the candidate of Wall Street got Hillary angrier in
Thursday nights debate than shes 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 Hillarys 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 couldnt 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 isnt 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.
Its highly likely Hillary Clinton sang the praises of Goldman Sachs,
investment firms and Wall Street in general.
She couldve gotten away once with telling them theyre 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 theyre awful, theyd hire Don
Rickles for a lot less money and a lot more laughs.
So why wont Hillary release the transcripts? Because the contents of
those speeches would be damaging to her narrative that shell stand up
to Wall Street. You cant stand up when youre 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 wasnt in any position to help them
at the time, there was no doubt she was running for president. Hillary
claims she wasnt 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 were left with Hillary receiving a huge sum of money to talk for a
short while on topics were left to speculate about. One thing Id 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?
Maybe it was just the benefits of friendship.
PS: If youre looking for a great vacation this summer, consider coming
to Italy with me and my listeners. An amazing 11-day vacation you will
never forget.
Source: http://bit.ly/1Xc2tUg
--
Obama Nine Hours Before Paris Terror Attack: "We've Contained ISIS."
ISIS: "We've contained Obama."
"Never underestimate the willingness of white progressives to be offended
on behalf of people who arent and to impose their will on those who
didnt ask for it." (Derek Hunter)
"No doubt Hillary would like to call [Paula] Jones a liar, but Bill paid
Jones $850,000 to settle her sexual harassment suit. Can you imagine the
fun Donald Trump, for one, would have with that? Plus, it was Bill
Clinton, not Paula Jones, who was found by the presiding federal judge to
have committed perjury."--John Hinderaker
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 youre inclined to think Wall Street is robbing you blind, invoking
Goldman Sacks is enough to make you grab a pitchfork. Thats 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
hes on board, too, though he wont say it publicly because he doesnt
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 Clintons
biggest patrons.
So when Bernie Sanders calls Clinton the candidate of Wall Street, hes
not lying.
Hillary, naturally, denies this charge. She says shes never changed her
positions based on who gives her campaign donations. This may be true.
But campaign contributions generally arent 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?
Sometimes you pay someone to do something, sometimes you pay someone not
to.
The charge of being the candidate of Wall Street got Hillary angrier in
Thursday nights debate than shes 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 Hillarys 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 couldnt 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 isnt 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.
Its highly likely Hillary Clinton sang the praises of Goldman Sachs,
investment firms and Wall Street in general.
She couldve gotten away once with telling them theyre 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 theyre awful, theyd hire Don
Rickles for a lot less money and a lot more laughs.
So why wont Hillary release the transcripts? Because the contents of
those speeches would be damaging to her narrative that shell stand up
to Wall Street. You cant stand up when youre 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 wasnt in any position to help them
at the time, there was no doubt she was running for president. Hillary
claims she wasnt 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 were left with Hillary receiving a huge sum of money to talk for a
short while on topics were left to speculate about. One thing Id 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?
Maybe it was just the benefits of friendship.
PS: If youre looking for a great vacation this summer, consider coming
to Italy with me and my listeners. An amazing 11-day vacation you will
never forget.
Source: http://bit.ly/1Xc2tUg
--
Obama Nine Hours Before Paris Terror Attack: "We've Contained ISIS."
ISIS: "We've contained Obama."
"Never underestimate the willingness of white progressives to be offended
on behalf of people who arent and to impose their will on those who
didnt ask for it." (Derek Hunter)
"No doubt Hillary would like to call [Paula] Jones a liar, but Bill paid
Jones $850,000 to settle her sexual harassment suit. Can you imagine the
fun Donald Trump, for one, would have with that? Plus, it was Bill
Clinton, not Paula Jones, who was found by the presiding federal judge to
have committed perjury."--John Hinderaker