The fact that Hillary Clinton received $600,000 in speaking fees from Goldman Sachs was brought up for the second time in the most recent Democratic town hall.While both Democrat candidates are vying to be the biggest enemy of the financial system, for Hillary, the truth is getting in the way (as it often does for her). The ginormous speaking fees she’s received from the likes of Goldman Sachs have begged the question of how much she’s actually in the pocket of Wall Street — and what she might have promised in exchange for these large sums of money.
During the debate Hillary said she’d “look into” releasing the full transcripts of her speeches at Goldman, but that deflection was clearly aimed at hoping we’d all forget about the issue eventually.The New York Times is reporting that those transcripts are not going to be released, with a Clinton pollster justifying the decision by saying she doesn’t think “voters are interested in the transcripts of her speeches.”
We beg to differ. And we’re not the only ones, apparently.
As reported at WZ:We don’t have the transcripts yet, but we do have some insight into what she said from this Politico article from 2013, which we quote in pertinent part.
Ordinarily these masters of the universe might have groaned at the idea of a politician taking the microphone. In the contentious years since the crash of 2008, they’ve grown wearily accustomed to being called names—labeled “fat cats” by President Obama and worse by those on the left—and gotten used to being largely shunned by Tea Party Republicans for their association with the Washington establishment. And of course there are all those infuriating new rules and regulations, culminating this week with the imposition of the so-called Volcker Rule to make risky trades by big banks illegal.
But Clinton offered a message that the collected plutocrats found reassuring, according to accounts offered by several attendees, declaring that the banker-bashing so popular within both political parties was unproductive and indeed foolish. Striking a soothing note on the global financial crisis, she told the audience, in effect: We all got into this mess together, and we’re all going to have to work together to get out of it. What the bankers heard her to say was just what they would hope for from a prospective presidential candidate: Beating up the finance industry isn’t going to improve the economy—it needs to stop. And indeed Goldman’s Tim O’Neill, who heads the bank’s asset management business, introduced Clinton by saying how courageous she was for speaking at the bank. (Brave, perhaps, but also well-compensated: Clinton’s minimum fee for paid remarks is $200,000).
Perhaps this pandering to one of her key constituencies — banks — is what Hillary so desperately doesn’t want her newest voting bloc — socialists — to see.
And we can only imagine the full transcripts contain worse than what we’ve already seen. As the cliché says; if she has nothing to hide she has nothing to fear. So why is Hillary so afraid of revealing what’s in those transcripts?[Note: This post was authored by The Analytical Economist]