8 ms·

Hillary Clinton's Wall St Speeches Published by Wikileaks

51 points by JohnHammersley 10y ago

Upvoter33 10y ago
i suspect Assange is going to be enemy #1 of the Clinton administration...
- microcolonel 10y ago
  Already the enemy of most national governments, with a personal vendetta from the most powerful secret agencies in the world... Yeah, Julian is probably going to be captured and tortured if he hasn't already been.
drinchev 10y ago
Can someone elaborate how pro-globalization speech can hurt her campaign? As far as I can see the leaks are not corruption evidence of some sort. Disclaimer I'm away from politics and US.
- douche 10y ago
  There is a sizable chunk of the electorate for which globalization is as much a dirty word as populism is for another segment of it. It's not quite the same faultlines as the classic Slatestarcodex Blue and Red tribes, but it's the same principle
- maxerickson 10y ago
  There's strong anti trade sentiment in the US right now, with much of it being among people who are not especially partisan (so they are more likely to vote the issue rather than a party).
- blisterpeanuts 10y ago
  It's probably not the pro-trade stance so much as the spotlight that's on the $26 million she was paid for those speeches. It conveys the impression that she is beholden to Wall Street financial interests. 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.
- pdkl95 10y ago
  There is a rapidly growing group of people that are tired of the status quo. They are reacting strongly against the neoliberal and technocratic establishment. To the very large masses of blue collar workers, globalism means watching their jobs move to cheaper markets. 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]. [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bkm2Vfj42FY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bkm2Vfj42FY
- dredmorbius 10y ago
  The history of various trade pacts is that they've not much lived up to their promises. They're universally opposed by the rank-and-file of both the Democrat and Republican parties now. 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 https://eff.org/issues/tpp
potrebitel 10y ago
Pardon my ignorance, but I cannot help myself understanding why WikiLeaks are pushing so much crap towards Clinton and not doing the same to Trump ? 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.
- rubberstamp 10y ago
  Well, if wikileaks had any thing that shows Trump in a different light, like if he isn't what he claims to be, then am certain they would release damaging reports about Trump too. Wikileaks is not creating these evidences. Some people who sees discrepancy in what a politician says and what that politicians do in private(that concerns people being governed, not private things about their personal life), then people will release evidence of that discrepancy. If they have such discriminating evidence about Trump, then that will come out too. If Clinton is bad person than trump, then Clinton will have more skeletons in closet and chances of skeletons coming to public view is greater for Clinton than for Trump
- zrail 10y ago
  They are directly supporting Trump.
- williamgb 10y ago
  One could ask a similar question about most media vendors, replacing Trump with Clinton. WikiLeaks, whether deliberately or not, is simply doing its part to redress the balance in negative and scandalising news coverage. It should be made clear that I am neither a US citizen nor a Trump supporter. Huge emphasis on the latter!
  - iamjeff 10y ago
    There may be some truth to your assertion that recent Trump coverage has become more negative. This is primarily for two reasons. 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-primaries/ 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/2016/06/24/a-deep-dive-into-the-news-medias-role-in-the-rise-of-donald-j-trump/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2016/06/2...)
xapata 10y ago
I've only seen a few quotes from these leaked transcripts, but they've been in articles claiming very damaging statements. Instead, the quotes seem to be mostly benign comments and nothing shocking.
- williamgb 10y ago
  I've noted several negative reactions toward Clinton based on prior leaks from people who had simply inferred wrong-doing on the basis that the most notable leaks tend to reveal duplicity. This handful of people whom I have observed felt it unnecessary to actually delve into the documents before passing judgment. Anecdotal, but I'm convinced I'm not the only person with this experience.
  - pdkl95 10y ago
    You're missing the forest for the trees. 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".
    - treebeard901 10y ago
      It is clear she took money from many people because they hired her to give a speech. This isn't really in debate. The core question is whether the money will influence her policies. Giving a speech doesn't mean you're bribed or influenced by default. The content of the speech is very important, so it's good we are seeing what was said.
      - pdkl95 10y ago
        > Giving a speech doesn't mean you're ... influenced by default. 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.
freddref 10y ago
"Mrs Clinton told bankers that they were best-placed to help reform the US financial sector" - which is true, but she failed to mention that was also the problem. Bankers are in the best position to reform, but the most unlikely to provide meaningful reform. edit: formatting, emoticon removal
Dowwie 10y ago
So.. what is the worst that has come out of these speeches? Clinton probably withheld the speeches to disarm her opponents, not because she said something so outrageous that in itself would destroy her chances of presidency.
- tmalsburg2 10y ago
  She needs Bernie Sanders' supporters but for these people the transcripts show that Clinton is the devil, friends with Wall Street, not trustworthy, etc.
extra88 10y ago
So this is the result of a pretty recent hack. Publishing the speeches would've done a lot more harm early in the primaries, making it harder for Clinton to shift her emphasis (and occasionally positions) in response to Sanders.
- tmalsburg2 10y ago
  You're assuming that whoever leaked this primarily wanted to harm Clinton but the alternative is that they want to help Trump, which is not the same thing. In the latter case, the timing is perfect.
  - ap22213 10y ago
    This election has been so bizarre that I now believe that none of it has been by chance. I dislike conspiracy theories, but lately I've actually been wondering if something really heavy has been brewing in the basement of the illuminati.
    - adiabatty 10y ago
      I can't imagine that they all are of one mind on which candidate is better for them, assuming such a group exists and meets in secret.
      - ap22213 10y ago
        It's pretty clear to me that Trump is the ideal Putin-like character. He just took out an entire political party like it was nothing. When he destroyed Jeb Bush with almost no effort, I was convinced that he would win the presidency, easily. My liberal friends thought I was crazy. But, at this point, there's nothing that can be done but enjoy the ride. 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.
- 10y ago
adam12 10y ago
Not one mention of this on CNN or MSNBC this morning. It disappoints me how rigged this election. 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.
microcolonel 10y ago
Does anyone think that if the corporate news media, owned almost exclusively by avid Clinton supporters, would hold anything back on Trump if they had it? Maybe there's just more data on Clinton, dirty or clean. 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.
- PeterStuer 10y ago
  "Does anyone think that if the corporate news media, owned almost exclusively by avid Clinton supporters, would hold anything back on Trump if they had it? Maybe there's just more data on Clinton, dirty or clean.". It is all a matter of timing releases for maximal impact or damage control, so yes, they hold back data until it is needed. Do you think the timing of the Trump sexist video release is coincidental and unrelated to these Clinton speech releases?
  - douche 10y ago
    What I've seen of the Trump soundbites is pretty tame, if people are going to be honest and cut the hypocritical faux outrage. Moreover, it seems like an idiotic angle to play if it was orchestrated by Clinton's camp, given old Billy's escapades over the years.
- krapp 10y ago
  >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?
AlexCoventry 10y ago
Anyone got a link to the transcripts?
- adam12 10y ago
  Check out wikileaks on twitter. https://twitter.com/wikileaks/status/784572142444740615 https://twitter.com/wikileaks/status/784572142444740615
  - AlexCoventry 10y ago
    I'd really like to see the full transcripts.
    - adam12 10y ago
      As far as I know, there are only excerpts.
thaw13579 10y ago
Meta-question, is this considered on-topic for HN? I wonder how it is distinguished from another notable leak about another candidate that hasn't made the front page.
- r721 10y ago
  It just depends on the amount of user flags and whether there is a relative lot of comments (when points < comments "flame war" detector is usually triggered). P.S. I recommend https://news.ycombinator.com/active https://news.ycombinator.com/active for the biggest discussions.
icantdrive55 10y ago
Nothing game changing, but she's obviously very happy with the current status of this--great economy, and our wonderful foreign leaders. These fair, moralistic, truthful, immune to corruption Foreign leaders. "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 ------?
hayksaakian 10y ago
what systems are in place to prevent posts like this one from disappearing off the front page thanks to flag brigades?
gremlinsinc 10y ago
"After the dust has settled in this election, the divisions within the Democratic ranks will likely re-emerge" -- as a lifelong democract/progressive I can say honestly that the divisions have NOT been mended for this election. 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".

i suspect Assange is going to be enemy #1 of the Clinton administration...

microcolonel 10y ago
Already the enemy of most national governments, with a personal vendetta from the most powerful secret agencies in the world... Yeah, Julian is probably going to be captured and tortured if he hasn't already been.

Can someone elaborate how pro-globalization speech can hurt her campaign? As far as I can see the leaks are not corruption evidence of some sort. Disclaimer I'm away from politics and US.

douche 10y ago
There is a sizable chunk of the electorate for which globalization is as much a dirty word as populism is for another segment of it. It's not quite the same faultlines as the classic Slatestarcodex Blue and Red tribes, but it's the same principle
maxerickson 10y ago
There's strong anti trade sentiment in the US right now, with much of it being among people who are not especially partisan (so they are more likely to vote the issue rather than a party).
blisterpeanuts 10y ago
It's probably not the pro-trade stance so much as the spotlight that's on the $26 million she was paid for those speeches. It conveys the impression that she is beholden to Wall Street financial interests. 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.
pdkl95 10y ago
There is a rapidly growing group of people that are tired of the status quo. They are reacting strongly against the neoliberal and technocratic establishment. To the very large masses of blue collar workers, globalism means watching their jobs move to cheaper markets. 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]. [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bkm2Vfj42FY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bkm2Vfj42FY
dredmorbius 10y ago
The history of various trade pacts is that they've not much lived up to their promises. They're universally opposed by the rank-and-file of both the Democrat and Republican parties now. 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 https://eff.org/issues/tpp

potrebitel 10y ago

Pardon my ignorance, but I cannot help myself understanding why WikiLeaks are pushing so much crap towards Clinton and not doing the same to Trump ? 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.

rubberstamp 10y ago
Well, if wikileaks had any thing that shows Trump in a different light, like if he isn't what he claims to be, then am certain they would release damaging reports about Trump too. Wikileaks is not creating these evidences. Some people who sees discrepancy in what a politician says and what that politicians do in private(that concerns people being governed, not private things about their personal life), then people will release evidence of that discrepancy. If they have such discriminating evidence about Trump, then that will come out too. If Clinton is bad person than trump, then Clinton will have more skeletons in closet and chances of skeletons coming to public view is greater for Clinton than for Trump
zrail 10y ago
They are directly supporting Trump.
williamgb 10y ago
One could ask a similar question about most media vendors, replacing Trump with Clinton. WikiLeaks, whether deliberately or not, is simply doing its part to redress the balance in negative and scandalising news coverage. It should be made clear that I am neither a US citizen nor a Trump supporter. Huge emphasis on the latter!
- iamjeff 10y ago
  There may be some truth to your assertion that recent Trump coverage has become more negative. This is primarily for two reasons. 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-primaries/ 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/2016/06/24/a-deep-dive-into-the-news-medias-role-in-the-rise-of-donald-j-trump/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2016/06/2...)

xapata 10y ago

I've only seen a few quotes from these leaked transcripts, but they've been in articles claiming very damaging statements. Instead, the quotes seem to be mostly benign comments and nothing shocking.

williamgb 10y ago
I've noted several negative reactions toward Clinton based on prior leaks from people who had simply inferred wrong-doing on the basis that the most notable leaks tend to reveal duplicity. This handful of people whom I have observed felt it unnecessary to actually delve into the documents before passing judgment. Anecdotal, but I'm convinced I'm not the only person with this experience.
- pdkl95 10y ago
  You're missing the forest for the trees. 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".
  - treebeard901 10y ago
    It is clear she took money from many people because they hired her to give a speech. This isn't really in debate. The core question is whether the money will influence her policies. Giving a speech doesn't mean you're bribed or influenced by default. The content of the speech is very important, so it's good we are seeing what was said.
    - pdkl95 10y ago
      > Giving a speech doesn't mean you're ... influenced by default. 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.

freddref 10y ago

"Mrs Clinton told bankers that they were best-placed to help reform the US financial sector" - which is true, but she failed to mention that was also the problem. Bankers are in the best position to reform, but the most unlikely to provide meaningful reform. edit: formatting, emoticon removal

Dowwie 10y ago

So.. what is the worst that has come out of these speeches? Clinton probably withheld the speeches to disarm her opponents, not because she said something so outrageous that in itself would destroy her chances of presidency.

tmalsburg2 10y ago
She needs Bernie Sanders' supporters but for these people the transcripts show that Clinton is the devil, friends with Wall Street, not trustworthy, etc.

extra88 10y ago

So this is the result of a pretty recent hack. Publishing the speeches would've done a lot more harm early in the primaries, making it harder for Clinton to shift her emphasis (and occasionally positions) in response to Sanders.

tmalsburg2 10y ago
You're assuming that whoever leaked this primarily wanted to harm Clinton but the alternative is that they want to help Trump, which is not the same thing. In the latter case, the timing is perfect.
- ap22213 10y ago
  This election has been so bizarre that I now believe that none of it has been by chance. I dislike conspiracy theories, but lately I've actually been wondering if something really heavy has been brewing in the basement of the illuminati.
  - adiabatty 10y ago
    I can't imagine that they all are of one mind on which candidate is better for them, assuming such a group exists and meets in secret.
    - ap22213 10y ago
      It's pretty clear to me that Trump is the ideal Putin-like character. He just took out an entire political party like it was nothing. When he destroyed Jeb Bush with almost no effort, I was convinced that he would win the presidency, easily. My liberal friends thought I was crazy. But, at this point, there's nothing that can be done but enjoy the ride. 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.
10y ago

adam12 10y ago

Not one mention of this on CNN or MSNBC this morning. It disappoints me how rigged this election. 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.

microcolonel 10y ago

Does anyone think that if the corporate news media, owned almost exclusively by avid Clinton supporters, would hold anything back on Trump if they had it? Maybe there's just more data on Clinton, dirty or clean. 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.

PeterStuer 10y ago
"Does anyone think that if the corporate news media, owned almost exclusively by avid Clinton supporters, would hold anything back on Trump if they had it? Maybe there's just more data on Clinton, dirty or clean.". It is all a matter of timing releases for maximal impact or damage control, so yes, they hold back data until it is needed. Do you think the timing of the Trump sexist video release is coincidental and unrelated to these Clinton speech releases?
- douche 10y ago
  What I've seen of the Trump soundbites is pretty tame, if people are going to be honest and cut the hypocritical faux outrage. Moreover, it seems like an idiotic angle to play if it was orchestrated by Clinton's camp, given old Billy's escapades over the years.
krapp 10y ago
>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?

AlexCoventry 10y ago

Anyone got a link to the transcripts?

adam12 10y ago
Check out wikileaks on twitter. https://twitter.com/wikileaks/status/784572142444740615 https://twitter.com/wikileaks/status/784572142444740615
- AlexCoventry 10y ago
  I'd really like to see the full transcripts.
  - adam12 10y ago
    As far as I know, there are only excerpts.

thaw13579 10y ago

Meta-question, is this considered on-topic for HN? I wonder how it is distinguished from another notable leak about another candidate that hasn't made the front page.

r721 10y ago
It just depends on the amount of user flags and whether there is a relative lot of comments (when points < comments "flame war" detector is usually triggered). P.S. I recommend https://news.ycombinator.com/active https://news.ycombinator.com/active for the biggest discussions.

icantdrive55 10y ago

Nothing game changing, but she's obviously very happy with the current status of this--great economy, and our wonderful foreign leaders. These fair, moralistic, truthful, immune to corruption Foreign leaders. "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 ------?

hayksaakian 10y ago

what systems are in place to prevent posts like this one from disappearing off the front page thanks to flag brigades?

gremlinsinc 10y ago

"After the dust has settled in this election, the divisions within the Democratic ranks will likely re-emerge" -- as a lifelong democract/progressive I can say honestly that the divisions have NOT been mended for this election. 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".