EMAIL: Hillary opposed Bill canceling Wall Street speech 3 days after campaign launch

AmericanMirror: Not even an official announcement of running for president could dissuade the Clintons from speaking to Wall Street firms and accepting their big fees.

A newly released email on Friday by Wikileaks shows an internal conflict among campaign staffers over whether or not Bill Clinton should cancel a speech to Morgan Stanley just three days after Hillary announced her campaign for president.

“Morgan Stanley is coming down–so we’re good to go,” campaign manager Robby Mook wrote to Jennifer Palmieri and Huma Adbein on March 11, 2015.

“Did you ask them to do that?” Abedin wrote in reply.

“Yeah, john did,” Mook wrote back, presumably referring to campaign chairman John Podesta.

“HRC very strongly did not want him to cancel that particular speech,” Abedin responded.

“I think if John is getting involved in this scheduling matter, he must feel strongly. I will have to tell her that WJC chose to cancel it, not that we asked.”  MORE

2 Comments on EMAIL: Hillary opposed Bill canceling Wall Street speech 3 days after campaign launch

  1. This isn’t an “election.” Not even in the way your civics indoctrinators molded your mind to think about. It is a hostile takeover. No scare quotes, hyperbole, nor “just like” intended in that term. Hillary Clinton’s financiers saw a severely wounded, but not even nearly bankrupt, business structure, and decided that they were willing to spend the money needed to give them control of what that business did, in the short term, after they might acquire control. And, importantly, the goal in a hostile takeover is to acquire unchallenged control without being required to actually spend the money to buy ownership.

    In 2009 Tim Kaine was the Governor of Virginia, and was also named the chairman of the Democratic National Committee. For some reason in 2011 (not a scandal, not the opportunity of another title that required giving up the DNC chairmanship, nothing public), just a year before the next national elections that included the office of President of the United States (Obama versus Romney, et al) he resigned the chairmanship of the DNC to “pursue other challenges.” Debbie Wasserman Schultz, who was what can politely be described as “the least obvious choice” of the contenders to replace Tim Kaine, was named the new DNC chairman. The reason she was “least obvious” is, based on her résumé, she shouldn’t have been a contender, at all. However, since she was given the title, she, obviously, must have been eligible for some, nonpublic, reason. Debbie Wasserman Schultz, in 2011, began being paid to do the work needed to make Hillary Clinton the President of the United States in 2017 (the procedural activity being required to lock in that title taking place in late 2016). Google may still be your frenemy if you don’t understand the difference between overseeing the legitimacy of a contest, no matter how contrived, and making sure that all the proper forms are followed during a ceremonial procedure. Even Bernie Sanders understands that.

    After a rousing parade to the title, it became public that Debbie Wasserman Schultz’s job had been to oversee Hillary Clinton’s installation, and not an actual contest. That (the revelation) is a scandal, and Debbie Wasserman Schultz resigned the DNC chairmanship to “pursue other challenges.” Google may still be your frenemy if you don’t know what those were. Of course, that didn’t change why the undertaking was being financed, so Bernie Sanders “fought the good fight” right up to the end, before Hillary Clinton was given the title of Democratic nominee for President of The United States. Tim Kaine was then given the title of Democratic nominee for Vice President of The United States. Google may still be your frenemy if you might believe that decision was made after Hillary Clinton was named the nominee, or even after filing enough forms to become the presumptive nominee.

    One of Prescott Bush’s progeny who had not already been President of The United States, was supposed to play Bernie Sanders’ role in the general election production of the show. That deal fell through.

    In a hostile takeover, the parties intending to acquire control do not pay for full ownership in the open market. Nor do they make a financial offer that is seen as sufficiently valuable by a majority of the current owners to convince them to sell out. Rather, they seek to acquire control of 50% plus one (with as large a business as The United States, that is quite a bit less than 51%) of the elements allowed to name the executive controllers of the business, and simply shut out the financial interests of the remaining share holders. What usually happens to the remaining assets of such a business, after takeover, is pro forma. Again, Google may still be your frenemy, if you don’t remember how vulture capitalism has always worked (most likely, since before you were born).

    There is no independent third party to turn to, in this case, if you are not already subscribed to profit from Hillary Clinton taking over the office of President. The only arbiters you could turn to in a smaller takeover are owned (no scare quotes, hyperbole, nor “just like” intended in that term) by the organization that is the takeover target. There is no assurance that an honest vote will prevent Hillary Clinton from being named President of The United States, allowing her to change the legal ownership of whatever assets remain. If you are not already subscribed to profit from Hillary Clinton taking over as President, and your voting is all you are willing to accept for your stake in the future of The United States as an ongoing enterprise, then your only option is voting to deny the title to Hillary Clinton. Of course, if you think that will make Hillary Clinton’s financiers just walk away from their sunk investment, then you obviously don’t remember how vulture capitalism works.




    0

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.




Do NOT follow this link or you will be banned from the site!