Goldman Sachs paid speeches
The 3 (I misspoke about 5 earlier) speeches to Goldman are attached with some parts highlighted. Below are some of the more noteworthy quotes. Here is the Politico story Mandy was referencing earlier http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2013/12/wall-street-white-house-republicans-lament-of-the-plutocrats-101047 *Clinton Said, With Dodd-Frank, There Was "A Need To Do Something Because For Political Reasons" Because Members Of Congress "Can't Sit Idly By And Do Nothing." *"And with political people, again, I would say the same thing, you know, there was a lot of complaining about Dodd-Frank, but there was also a need to do something because for political reasons, if you were an elected member of Congress and people in your constituency were losing jobs and shutting businesses and everybody in the press is saying it's all the fault of Wall Street, you can't sit idly by and do nothing, but what you do is really important." [GS2, 10/24/13] *Tim O'Neill Told Clinton "We Really Did Appreciate It" When She Had Been "Courageous In Some Respects To Associated With Wall Street And This Environment." *"MR. O'NEILL: By the way, we really did appreciate when you were the senator from New York and your continued involvement in the issues (inaudible) to be courageous in some respects to associated with Wall Street and this environment. Thank you very much. SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, I don't feel particularly courageous. I mean, if we're going to be an effective, efficient economy, we need to have all part of that engine running well, and that includes Wall Street and Main Street. And there's a big disconnect and a lot of confusion right now. So I'm not interested in, you know, turning the clock back or pointing fingers, but I am interested in trying to figure out how we come together to chart a better way forward and one that will restore confidence in, you know, small and medium-size businesses and consumers and begin to chip away at the unemployment rate. So it's something that I, you know, if you're a realist, you know that people have different roles to play in politics, economics, and this is an important role, but I do think that there has to be an understanding of how what happens here on Wall Street has such broad consequences not just for the domestic but the global economy, so more thought has to be given to the process and transactions and regulations so that we don't kill or maim what works, but we concentrate on the most effective way of moving forward with the brainpower and the financial power that exists here." [GS2, 10/24/13] *Speaking About Financial Regulations, Clinton Said "The People That Know The Industry Better Than Anybody Are The People Who Work In The Industry." *"There's nothing magic about regulations, too much is bad, too little is bad. How do you get to the golden key, how do we figure out what works? And the people that know the industry better than anybody are the people who work in the industry." [GS2, 10/24/13] *Clinton Said "I Represented All Of You For Eight Years. I Had Great Relations And Worked So Close Together After 9/11 To Rebuild Downtown." *"I represented all of you for eight years. I had great relations and worked so close together after 9/11 to rebuild downtown, and a lot of respect for the work you do and the people who do it, but I do -- I think that when we talk about the regulators and the politicians, the economic consequences of bad decisions back in '08, you know, were devastating, and they had repercussions throughout the world." [GS2, 10/24/13] *Clinton Said "Banks Are Not Doing What They Need To Do Because They're Scared Of Regulations, They're Scared Of The Other Shoe Dropping." *"I mean, right now, there are so many places in our country where the banks are not doing what they need to do because they're scared of regulations, they're scared of the other shoe dropping, they're just plain scared, so credit is not flowing the way it needs to to restart economic growth. So people are, you know, a little -- they're still uncertain, and they're uncertain both because they don't know what might come next in terms of regulations, but they're also uncertain because of changes in a global economy that we're only beginning to take hold of." [GS2, 10/24/13]
...Now, Jacques was talking about Eleanor Roosevelt, and I hope a lot of > you have seen the extraordinary Ken Burns documentary series on PBS about > the Roosevelts. It's just riveting. And you should see it if you haven't, > because it tells stories and shows pictures that have never been seen > before of Teddy Roosevelt and Franklin Roosevelt and Eleanor Roosevelt. > > But Eleanor Roosevelt in particular is someone that I admire as one of my > predecessors, and I adore the book that Jacque's mother-in-law has written > about the relationship that she and her late husband, who was Eleanor's > personal physician, had with Eleanor Roosevelt. > > And you look at the documentary and you really are struck once again how > every generation has to do what it can to make sure that economic > opportunity is broadly shared and upward mobility remains at the core of > the American dream and experience. > > I mean, Teddy Roosevelt said it well. His commonsense slogan, the square > deal, captured the American imagination and still resonates today. > > Just think about the changes that were going on at the turn of the last > century: technological transformation, growing economic inequality, the > steady accumulation of vast power and wealth in the hands of a select few. > > Roosevelt was a Republican from the party of big business, but he resisted > both the elites who sought to protect their gilded age advantages and the > rising tide of populist anger that threatened to sweep the nation. > Instead, he stood up for the level playing field, no special deals, just a > fair shot for everybody willing to get out there and work hard. > > I think that's a message worth recalling today when so many hardworking > American families, and I add European families feel like they're falling > further and further behind, while they see, in their view, the playing > field becoming more unlevel, and feeling as though it doesn't matter how > hard they work because the game is rigged against them. > > Now, to me this is not just about fairness, although I think that's an > important principle. We now know, based on research done by the IMF and > others, that income inequality holds back growth for the entire economy. > There is no more important driver of growth around the world than the > purchasing power of American consumers. That is once again becoming clear > as we move forward more dynamically than a lot of our friends and allies > are economically. > > Stagnating wages translate into fewer customers, and that's not a new > insight. Just ask Henry Ford who first articulated it. > > And it's no surprise that many Americans feel frustrated, some even angry, > as you probably see in news coverage. And a lot of that anger has been > directed at the financial industry. > > Now, it's important to recognize the vital role that the financial markets > play in our economy and that so many of you are contributing to. To > function effectively those markets and the men and women who shape them > have to command trust and confidence, because we all rely on the market's > transparency and integrity. > > So even if it may not be 100 percent true, if the perception is that > somehow the game is rigged, that should be a problem for all of us, and we > have to be willing to make that absolutely clear. And if there are issues, > if there's wrongdoing, people have to be held accountable and we have to > try to deter future bad behavior, because the public trust is at the core > of both a free market economy and a democracy. > > So it is in everyone's interest, most of all those of you who play such a > vital role in the global economy, to make sure that we maintain and where > necessary rebuild trust that goes beyond correcting specific instances of > abuse of fraud. > > Last year, the head of the Chicago Mercantile Exchange, Terry Duffy, > published an op-ed in the *Wall Street Journal* that caught my > attention. He wrote, and I quote, "I'm concerned that those of us in > financial services have forgotten who we serve, and that the public knows > it. Some Wall Streeters can too easily slip into regarding their work as a > kind of moneymaking game divorced from the concerns of Main Street." > > We heard a similar point from a more global perspective this spring at a > conference in London on inclusive capitalism organized by my friend, Lynn > Rothschild, who's here with us tonight. Mark Carney, the Governor of the > Bank of England, offered what we in America might call straight talk about > how the financial industry has lost its way and how to earn back public > confidence. > > And I think his words are worth both quoting and thinking about. Here's > what he said. "The answer starts from recognizing that financial > capitalism is not an end in itself, but a means to promote investment, > innovation, growth and prosperity. Banking is fundamentally about > intermediation, connecting borrowers and savers in the real economy. In > the run-up to the crisis, banking became about banks not businesses, > transactions not relations, counterparties not clients." > > And then Mark Carney went on to outline proposals for stronger oversight, > both within the industry and by government authorities, but he noted > "Integrity can neither be bought nor regulated. Even with the best > possible framework of codes, principles, compensation schemes and market > discipline, financiers must constantly challenge themselves to the standard > they uphold." > > So this is a time when for all kinds of reasons trust in government, trust > in business has eroded. And I believe that it has to be rebuilt, not only > by those in offices in Washington or Albany but by so many of you. > > Over the years, I've had the privilege of working with many talented, > principled, smart people who make their living in finance, especially when > I was Senator from New York. Many of you here were my constituents, and I > worked hard to represent you well. And I saw every day how important a > well-functioning financial system is to not only the American economy but > the global economy. > > That's why as Senator I raised early warnings about the subprime mortgage > market and called for regulating derivatives and other complex financial > products because even among my smartest supporters and constituents I never > understood what they were telling me when they tried to explain what they > were. > > I also called for closing the carried interest loophole, addressing > skyrocketing CEO pay and other issues that were undermining that all > important link between Wall Street and Main Street. > > Remember what Teddy Roosevelt did. Yes, he took on what he saw as the > excesses in the economy, but he also stood against the excesses in > politics. He didn't want to unleash a lot of nationalist, populistic > reaction. He wanted to try to figure out how to get back into that balance > that has served America so well over our entire nationhood. > > Today, there's more that can and should be done that really has to come > from the industry itself, and how we can strengthen our economy, create > more jobs at a time where that's increasingly challenging, to get back to > Teddy Roosevelt's square deal. And I really believe that our country and > all of you are up to that job... >
COMMENTARY ON SPEECH
Could we just get someone to say she quoted Duffy and Carney to them, to the effect that Wall Street had lost its way? On Nov 23, 2015, at 11:51 AM, Mandy Grunwald <gruncom@aol.com> wrote: I worry about going down this road. First, the remarks below make it sound like HRC DOESNT think the game is rigged -- only that she recognizes that the public thinks so. They are angry. She isn't. Second, once you start looking at speeches, you run smack into Maggie Haberman's report for Politico on HRC's Goldman Sachs speech, in which HRC isn't quoted directly, but described as saying people shouldn't be vilifying Wall Street. Maybe you think the Deutsche Bank speech takes the sting out of the Goldman report -- but I am concerned that the passage below will exacerbate not improve the situation. *Mandy Grunwald* *Grunwald Communications* *202 973-9400* -----Original Message----- From: Brian Fallon <bfallon@hillaryclinton.com> To: Dan Schwerin <dschwerin@hillaryclinton.com> Cc: Jennifer Palmieri <jpalmieri@hillaryclinton.com>; John Podesta < john.podesta@gmail.com>; Jake Sullivan <jsullivan@hillaryclinton.com>; Mandy Grunwald <gruncom@aol.com> Sent: Mon, Nov 23, 2015 11:41 am Subject: Re: Deutsche Bank Reviving this thread because AP is working on a story similar to Pat Healy's article in Sunday's NYT about HRC's "Wall Street image problem." The reporter, Lisa Lerer, plans specifically to note that her paid speeches to banks were closed-press affairs, and transcripts are not available. She is asking if we wish to characterize her remarks in any way. I think we could come up with a vanilla characterization that challenges the idea that she sucked up to these folks in her appearances, but then use AP's raising of this to our advantage to pitch someone to do an exclusive by providing at least the key excerpts from this Deutsche Bank speech. In doing so, we could have the reporting be sourced to a "transcript obtained by [news outlet]" so it is not confirmed as us selectively providing one transcript while refusing to share others. On Fri, Nov 20, 2015 at 3:03 PM, Dan Schwerin <dschwerin@hillaryclinton.com> wrote: > Following up on the conversation this morning about needing more arrows in > our quiver on Wall Street, I wanted to float one idea. In October 2014, > HRC did a paid speech in NYC for Deutsche Bank. I wrote her a long riff > about economic fairness and how the financial industry has lost its way, > precisely for the purpose of having something we could show people if ever > asked what she was saying behind closed doors for two years to all those > fat cats. It's definitely not as tough or pointed as we would write it > now, but it's much more than most people would assume she was saying in > paid speeches. (Full transcript is attached and key riff is pasted below.) > Perhaps at some point there will be value in sharing this with a reporter > and getting a story written. Upside would be that when people say she's too > close to Wall Street and has taken too much money from bankers, we can > point to evidence that she wasn't afraid to speak truth to power. Downside > would be that we could then be pushed to release transcripts from all her > paid speeches, which would be less helpful (although probably not > disastrous). In the end, I'm not sure this is worth doing, but wanted to > flag it so you know it's out there. > >
Sent from my iPad
