What did Hillary Clinton say in her speeches to Goldman Sachs?

 During one of the debates Hillary Clinton stated she would look into the possibility of releasing the transcripts of her speeches she made to Goldman Sachs. Speeches in which she was paid over $200,000 to give by the way.

  However last week when she was asked about making good on this promise she claimed there was a double standard, in other words she played the gender card. Hillary Clinton supporter Howard Dean also made the same claim in defending the former Secretary of State but in doing so he admitted what many of us have known for a long time: labor unions are nothing more than Democratic Super PACs that “Democrats like” and that the Democrats “go after” (Lois Lerner and the IRS anyone?) political opponents. If you missed that story check out this post I did on it.

  Now while she has not released the transcripts of the speeches (for obvious reasons) we are starting to get reports of what she said, and needless to say, it differs from what she has been saying during the campaign.

  Here is more:

When Hillary Clinton spoke to Goldman Sachs executives and technology titans at a summit in Arizona in October of 2013, she spoke glowingly of the work the bank was doing raising capital and helping create jobs, according to people who saw her remarks.

Clinton, who received $225,000 for her appearance, praised the diversity of Goldman’s workforce and the prominent roles played by women at the blue-chip investment bank and the tech firms present at the event. She spent no time criticizing Goldman or Wall Street more broadly for its role in the 2008 financial crisis.

“It was pretty glowing about us,” one person who watched the event said. “It’s so far from what she sounds like as a candidate now. It was like a rah-rah speech. She sounded more like a Goldman Sachs managing director.”

  “It was pretty glowing” and she sounded like a managing director according to one person who claims to have been there. Another says it was not that bad but could be made to look so during the campaign:

“It was mostly basic stuff, small talk, chit-chat,” one person who attended that speech said. “But in this environment, it could be made to look really bad.”

  Considering the fact that she is now railing against Goldman Sachs I would say of course it would look bad, even in context, because it apparently still was the opposite of what she is saying now. So which is it Hillary? It would take the willing suspension of disbelief to think that Goldman Sachs paid Hillary Clinton over $200,000 to listen to her berate them so I think it is obvious what the generality of the speech sounded like.

  Either Hillary Clinton was lying about her feelings toward Goldman Sachs back then for the money or she is lying about her feelings toward Goldman Sachs today for the power. I do not know which is worse…

malo periculosam libertatem quam quietum servitium