Who Does The Hillary Clinton Piper Play For? Wall Street!

hillary-clinton-wall-streetBy Brandon Turbeville

While Clinton makes veiled attempts at attacking Wall Street on the campaign trail, the fact remains that she is one of the most heavily Wall Street financed candidates in the race. All of her campaign diatribes against power of banks and how the US government must focus on “Main Street and not Wall Street,” are clearly nothing but empty campaign rhetoric that, in no way, has a basis in the reality of Clinton’s ideology.

Clinton’s 2008 campaign was overwhelmingly funded by Wall Street and Wall Street interests. We can also never forget that it was during Bill Clinton’s tenure as President that Wall Street received the benefit of seeing derivatives become fully unregulated, the implementation of NAFTA, as well as other anti-labor and anti-American policies that further destroyed the American economy and working class.

Before anyone argues that Clinton is not her husband and the tragedies of his tenure in office should in no way be pawned off on her, it should be noted that Clinton opposes the re-imposition of Glass Steagall, the bill that was repealed by her husband’s administration and that was so important in creating the conditions for the 2008 financial crisis.[1] [2]


In regards to Clinton’s money from Wall Street firms, consider the article “Delamaide: Wall Street Is In Hillary’s Corner,” written by Darrell Delamaide for USA Today. Here, Delamaide writes,

Behind the scenes, Hillary Clinton’s campaign for president belies the Wall Street reform rhetoric that she uses to appeal to left-wing Democratic voters.

It was Deep Throat’s reputed advice to reporters in the Watergate scandal that made “follow the money” the iconic slogan for those seeking to ferret out corruption in U.S. politics.

But the political slush fund in Nixon’s 1972 re-election campaign seems quaint in the wake of Citizens United, super PACs and the even darker pools of campaign funds that are the forms of corporate payoffs to politicians nowadays.

Much of the money is impossible to follow as dubious non-profit organizations mask the identity of their donors and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce fights efforts to make companies disclose their political contributions.

However, we can still see the tip of the iceberg through the tatters of campaign finance law that remain. And what that tip tells us is that Wall Street is still squarely behind Clinton.

….

One of the things making it “complicated” might be the unstinting support Clinton is getting from Wall Street.

An analysis of the most recent federal campaign contribution data by the Huffington Post found Clinton in the lead in donations from Wall Street with $432,610 from bank executives, employees and their spouses.

Republican hopefuls Jeb Bush and Marco Rubio trailed with $353,150 and $105,669, respectively.[3]

Delamaide points out that these types of donations, however, are only one small avenue from which Wall Street money is able to find itself in to the Clinton coffers. He writes,

Again, this is the tip of the iceberg, because it doesn’t include funds flowing into many super PACs and the very dark 501(c)(4) organizations like Americans for Prosperity that ostensibly promote social welfare but are shams for political advocacy.

This is on top, in Clinton’s case, of the millions she and her husband, the former president, collected in “speaking fees” in the months prior to the official declaration of her candidacy, including from Goldman Sachs, JPMorgan Chase and other Wall Street firms.

These ties are well known, but the fact that this support continues in the face of Clinton’s leftish rhetoric tells us Wall Street is not too worried about anything Clinton may do if she were to win the election.

This susceptibility to influence by mega-donors is not confined to Wall Street or financial services.

In a report this week on Clinton’s ambitious plans for increasing renewable energy, The New York Times quoted her own press secretary as noting that these goals met the bar to win her donations from hedge fund billionaire and environmentalist Tom Steyer. (The report also noted her plans would require new legislation that would be difficult to pass.)

As important as the money trail is, there are other indications behind the scenes that Clinton does not envisage any radical changes — or even any significant restrictions — on Wall Street.

Her top advisers include two former investment bankers who have a history of being soft on financial regulation. Both held high positions in Clinton’s State Department and would be obvious candidates for cabinet posts in a new Clinton administration.

Tom Nides, a veteran of Morgan Stanley and a former chairman of the main financial services lobbying group Sifma (Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association), was deputy secretary of state under Clinton.

Robert Hormats, a longtime vice chairman at Goldman Sachs and currently vice chair of Kissinger Associates, was an under secretary during Clinton’s tenure at State.

It was President Bill Clinton, let us not forget, who brought Goldman Sachs co-chairman Robert Rubin and his coterie of Wall Streeters into his administration and championed the financial deregulation that led to the 2008 financial crisis.[4]

Such high volumes of Wall Street money may show where Clinton’s bread is buttered, at least in terms of campaign finance money. However, the facts can never keep a good Clinton down. Hillary has blasted big banks, hedge funds, high-frequency traders, and other similar operations while on the campaign trail and, laughably to anyone with any political judgement at all, attempted to present herself as a political outsider. In fact, after giving an “anti Wall Street” speech at the New School only a week later, Hillary attended a private fundraiser with Raj Fernando, CEO of high-frequency trading firm Chopper Trading. The whole affair was an exercise in deceit and a testament to Clinton’s faux populism.[5]

Obviously, Clinton is a complete tool of Wall Street as her tenure as First Lady, Senator, and Secretary of State have already demonstrated.

Nevertheless, continuing on the discussion of Clinton’s campaign contributions from Wall Street, consider the article “Clinton Rakes In Wall Street Cash Amid Tough Talk,” by Jacob Pramuk of CNBC. Pramuk writes,

During her nascent presidential campaign, Hillary Clinton has called for expanded regulation of the financial system, slammed wealth disparity and pushed for tougher punishment on individual rule breakers.

All of that rhetoric has mattered little to Wall Street. Already among the biggest donors to Clinton’s political career, employees of some megabanks have funneled big money into her bid for the 2016 nomination.

Employees of five financial firms—Citigroup, Goldman Sachs, JPMorgan Chase, Morgan Stanley and Bank of America Merrill Lynch—gave about $290,000 to Clinton’s campaign committee through June 30, according to a MapLight analysis of Federal Election Commission data. While it makes up less than 1 percent of the roughly $47 million raised by Clinton’s committee this cycle, it follows a precedent set in her 2008 presidential campaign, when the firms’ employees were among her biggest donors.[6]

An April, 2014 blurb in The Week also mentioned how Clinton is so amenable to Wall Street that big banks see a Clinton or Bush presidency as being one about the same as the other.[7] The article reads,

Most alarmingly to liberals, Clinton has appeared downright chummy with big business and Wall Street in her long political career, raising concerns about whether she would ignore white collar malfeasance to the detriment of the middle and lower classes.

That concern isn’t unfounded, either.[8] And in the latest sign of Clinton’s coziness with moneyed interests, an in-depth story from Politico on Monday reports that Wall Street has three favorite candidates in the early 2016 jockeying.[9] Those candidates, in preferred order: Former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush, New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie — and Clinton.

“If it turns out to be Jeb versus Hillary we would love that and either outcome would be fine,” a “top Republican-leaning Wall Street lawyer” told Politico. [10][11]

The Politico story mentioned by The Week also contains an interesting quote by Lloyd Blankfein who told Politico that “I very much was supportive of Hillary Clinton the last go-round,” he said. “I held fundraisers for her.”[12]

Even more open about Clinton’s connections to Wall Street was a relatively positive story about her Presidential bid announcement. As MJ Lee wrote in “Hillary Clinton’s Wall Street Dilemna,” for CNN,

Wall Street is more than ready for Hillary Clinton.

The former secretary of state confirmed on Sunday what the political world has expected for months — eight years after her first failed White House bid, Clinton will once again seek the Democratic Party’s nomination for president.

“I’m hitting the road to earn your vote, because it’s your time,” Clinton said in a video released Sunday afternoon officially kicking off her campaign. “And I hope you’ll join me on this journey.”

As Clinton sets off onto the campaign trail to reintroduce herself to voters and court donors across the country, Wall Street elites are ready to roll out the red carpet. But while the enthusiastic support from the industry will be a financial boon for Clinton’s newly launched campaign, it will also pose a delicate balancing act when it comes to appeasing a vocal wing of her party that is antagonistic toward the banking sector.

Clinton, 67, has long enjoyed a close relationship with the financial industry.

As a New York senator for almost a decade, she represented Wall Street and courted the industry aggressively during her last presidential campaign. And there is a certain degree of nostalgia within the industry for her husband’s two-term presidency, marked by the 1990s bull market and broad financial deregulation, including the repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act, which separated commercial banking from riskier investing activities.

Now Clinton’s allies in the finance world are eager to galvanize a broad network of potential donors in New York and beyond. Many on Wall Street and in the broader business community view her as a dependable, business-friendly force within a Democratic Party that has grown increasingly populist during President Barack Obama’s time in office.

….

Robert Wolf, the former CEO of UBS Americas and a close Obama associate who will back Clinton in 2016, said there’s an “incredible amount of enthusiasm” for her campaign to get off the ground.

“We know the secretary from the years of being first lady to the senator to the secretary, so we have decades of working relationship with her,” Wolf, who now runs a boutique consulting firm headquartered in Manhattan, told CNN. “I don’t think it’s surprising that the former senator of New York is close to the finance community.”

Longtime Clinton friend and prominent Democratic fundraiser Alan Patricof, who founded the venture capital firm Greycroft Partners, said Clinton has “an enormous following” both inside and outside of the finance world.

“There are a lot of people who perhaps didn’t know her as well before who are all set to jump on the bandwagon,” Patricof said. As compared with 2008, he added: “There is no diminishment, just the opposite — an acceleration of interest in her running for the presidency.”

But the fanfare won’t sit well with everyone.

The former first lady’s perceived coziness with Wall Street is a source of irritation for liberal activists, who hope to push the eventual Democratic nominee to embrace progressive ideals during the 2016 primaries.

Clinton, who lost her first presidential campaign to a challenger from the left, seems to recognize that the liberal wing of the party has grown even more vocal and influential since then, especially on economic matters.[13]

This might be the best insurance against economic collapse (Ad)

The Daily Kos also mentioned Hillary’s Wall Street ties as a potential problem for her 2016 campaign amongst true liberals.[14] It wrote in April 2015,

One can have many arguments about Hillary and Bill Clinton. The vote for the AUMF, welfare reform, and NAFTA can be argued in various ways. But one you cannot have is about the connection between the Clintons and Wall Street. It is simply a fact. Consider the top 10 donors to Hillary Clinton’s campaigns:[15]

….

Five of the top 10 donors to Hillary Clinton were Wall Street investment banks, and many were the beneficiaries of the Wall Street bailout. Two others, DL Piper and Skadden Arps, are Wall Street law firms.

….

And make no mistake: Wall Street has hopes for Hillary Clinton. Consider this from the author of a book on Goldman Sachs and its influence:

While the finance industry does genuinely hate Warren, the big bankers love Clinton, and by and large they badly want her to be president. Many of the rich and powerful in the financial industry—among them, Goldman Sachs CEO Lloyd Blankfein, Morgan Stanley CEO James Gorman, Tom Nides, a powerful vice chairman at Morgan Stanley, and the heads of JPMorganChase and Bank of America—consider Clinton a pragmatic problem-solver not prone to populist rhetoric. To them, she’s someone who gets the idea that we all benefit if Wall Street and American business thrive. What about her forays into fiery rhetoric? They dismiss it quickly as political maneuvers. None of them think she really means her populism.[16][17]

White Out Press covered yet another Clinton confab with Wall Street interests as far back as 2014, describing the political climate with Clinton. According to interviews conducted with attendees, Clinton rushed in to assure bankers and financial predators that she would usher in an era that was free of “bank bashing,” and that all Americans were responsible for the 2008 collapse, not just bankers and her own aristocratic class. White Out Press reports the following:

Two weeks ago at the luxurious Conrad Hotel in lower Manhattan, some of the world’s richest and most powerful people got together for what seemed at times like a political rally. Prospective 2016 Presidential candidate Hillary Clinton even reportedly took home no less than $200,000 as her minimum speaking fee. By her side giving his own six-figure keynote speech to the gathered Wall Street elite was her husband and former President Bill Clinton.

After being introduced by Goldman Sachs executive Tim O’Neill, Hillary Clinton went on to reassure the crowd of bankers and wealthy investors that a Clinton administration wouldn’t hold Wall Street responsible for the nation’s economic ills the way the current Obama administration has. Illustrating the two hypocritical faces of the Obama White House, the bankers love his policy of giving them trillions in free money. But they don’t like being called “fat cats” by the President at the same time.

According to a report from Politico which interviewed guests at the high profile event, Hillary Clinton insisted that all Americans were to blame for the country’s ever-growing economic failings over the past three decades, not just Wall Street as many from both of America’s two establishment parties contend. Bank-bashing, she told them, was counter-productive and needed to stop.

….

After speaking to a number of attendees, the report goes on to quote or paraphrase their reactions to Clinton’s speech. One pleasantly surprised Wall Street insider told the publication, “It was like, here’s someone who doesn’t want to vilify us but wants to get business back in the game. Like, maybe here’s someone who can lead us out of the wilderness.”

Hillary Clinton is no stranger to Wall Street’s richest and most powerful insiders. As first lady, a US Senator, Presidential candidate, and then Secretary of State, she has literally spent decades courting them for political contributions and watching many of them grow up from their first years out of college to their positions at the helms of the wealthiest corporations on Earth. And she’s been a vocal and loyal supporter of Wall Street the entire time.

The Bill Clinton administration was so pro-Wall Street that it was accused by many of being responsible for the global economic collapse of 2007-2008. Clinton removed the barrier between investment banks and commercial banks, allowing all of them to take citizen deposits and then gamble them in the casino-like financial markets. He also incentivized them to increase home loans, even to those who didn’t qualify, in an attempt to put as many Americans as possible into their own home.[18]

Clinton’s close ties to Wall Street are even pervasive when it comes to her choice of aides and cabinet during her tenure as Secretary of State. In fact, two of these State Department aides – Tom Nides and Robert Hormat – are so scurrilous they were given the honor of an article in The Guardian devoted to them and their revolving door between government and banking (as well as Kissinger Associates).

As Ben Jacobs wrote in his article “Hillary Clinton Aides’ Wall Street Links Raise Economic Policy Doubts,”[19]

The Wall Street ties of two top aides to Hillary Clinton at the State Department are raising concerns among progressives about the composition of a future Clinton White House.

The former aides, Tom Nides and Robert Hormats, have shuttled between government and Wall Street for years. Nides, who is frequently described as a Clinton confidant, is a longtime Morgan Stanley executive who served as deputy secretary of state for management and resources from 2011 to 2013 before returning to Morgan Stanley. Nides is also the former chairman of the Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association (Sifma), the main lobbying group for Wall Street in Washington DC.

Hormats, a former vice-chairman of Goldman Sachs, served as under secretary of state for economic growth, energy and the environment from 2009 to 2013. He is currently vice-chairman of Kissinger Associates, the consulting firm founded by the former secretary of state Henry Kissinger.

Neil Sroka, a spokesman for the progressive advocacy group Democracy for America, expressed his angst about the influence of the two in Clinton world. “It’s hard to imagine how a presidential candidate is going to seriously confront the powerful, greed-driven interests on Wall Street when they’re taking advice and staffing cabinet posts with people who just clocked out of the same big banks and investment firms that made bundles from wrecking our economy,” Sroka said.

Both Nides and Hormats have a strong history of taking pro-business stances on financial regulation and other issues near and dear to progressives. While at Morgan Stanley, which received a federal bailout, Nides pushed for the Obama administration to “find the right balance” in avoiding criticism of Wall Street in the aftermath of the financial crisis. He also played an important role in the Bill Clinton administration lobbying members of Congress to vote for Nafta in 1993.[20]

Hormats, who has been described as Clinton’s “economic guru”, boasted of the Clinton State Department’s support of the business community in a 2013 interview.[21] He is also on the record being supportive of partial privatization of social security. Hormats also touted the benefits[22] of “widescale deregulation” in the 1990s and strongly supported increased trade with China.[23]

Nides, in particular, has played a major role in Clinton’s current campaign. He has been one of the campaign’s top bundlers of contributions and responsible for raising over $100,000 for the former secretary of state. He has been tipped as a future White House chief of staff in a Clinton administration.[24] Further, employees of Morgan Stanley, where Nides serves as vice-chairman, have given Clinton more than $90,000 in the past quarter.[25] This is more than every Republican candidate combined has received from the firm. [26]

Everyday Carry Gear – 11 Items You Should Always Have on You (Ad)

Of course, the Wall Street political donations did not begin with Clinton’s 2016 run. Her failed 2008 bid was also replete with Wall Street dollars. As Ellen Simon of Investopedia documented,

Workers in the finance, insurance and real estate industries donated $21 million to Hillary’s 2008 presidential campaign, according to the Center for Responsive Politics.[27] Securities and investment workers were her third largest source of campaign donations behind lawyers and retirees.[28] Citigroup Inc. (C) employees donated $765,192, more than employees of any other company.[29] Goldman Sachs (GS) employees were next, with donations of $682,990.[30] DLA Piper was in fourth place, Morgan Stanley (MS) was fifth and JPMorgan Chase & Co (JPM) was sixth.[31] However, a review of filings from Ready for Hillary, a political action committee, shows few banker or investor supporters. Clinton associate Tom Nides, a Morgan Stanley executive, has begun lining up support and donations for Hillary on Wall Street, according to a November report in Politico.[32]

….

Wall Street has also played a role in helping the Clintons rebuild their personal finances. Hillary Clinton has said that by the time President Bill Clinton’s presidency ended in January 2001, the family was “dead broke.”[33] Between 2000 and 2008, however, Bill and Hillary had jointly earned $109 million.[34] Some of that fortune came from the speaker circuit, where Wall Street firms have been eager clients.

In 2011 and 2012, Bill Clinton gave paid speeches at companies including American Express (AXP), Bank of America Corp. (BAC), Deutsche Bank AG (DB), Goldman Sachs, HSBC Holdings plc (HSBC), JPMorgan Chase, Jefferies LLC, the Mortgage Bankers Association, PricewaterhouseCoopers, Pershing LLC, TD Bank (TD)., the Vanguard Group, UBS AG and Wells Fargo & Company (WFC).[35] His starting fee, per speech, was $165,000.[36] Mrs. Clinton also became a paid speaker after she left the State Department in 2013.[37] Since then, she’s been paid a reported fee of roughly $200,000 per speech for clients including Goldman Sachs and JPMorgan.[38] [39]
Critics say the speeches are a way for special interest groups to buy access to a presidential candidate. “You and I, most of the people we know, there’s no way in hell we can afford to have Clinton come speak and spend time with us,” Meredith McGehee, policy director at the Campaign Legal Center, told Mother Jones.[40] “This speaking engagement game is a game that favors the wealthy interests, just like our campaign finance system.”[41]

It is also worth noting that Clinton’s connection to Wall Street is not just one of ideology or money, there is now a blood connection as well. Chelsea Clinton’s recent marriage was to a Goldman Sachs executive, Marc Mezvinsky, now a founding partner in Eaglevale Partners, LP., a hedge fund worth $400 million that was launched in 2011.

Ellen Simon of Investopedia expands upon this connection by writing,

A New York Times report found that “tens of millions of dollars raised by Eaglevale can be attributed to investors with some relationship or link to the Clintons.”[42]

Among those investors are hedge fund managers Marc Lasry and James Leitner; an overseas money management firm connected to the Rothschild family; and Goldman Sachs CEO Lloyd C. Blankfein. Rock Creek Group, a Washington-based investment advisory firm that briefly sublet office space to Mrs. Clinton after she stepped down as Secretary of State, placed $13 million from the California Public Employees’ Retirement System (CalPERS) and another public pension fund with Eaglevale in late 2011 and early 2012, according to the Times. The pension funds have subsequently withdrawn their investments; CalPERS left as it moved money away from hedge funds.[43] [44]

Clinton’s direct donations from Wall Street are not the only source of banker cash, however. The Clinton Foundation, which will be covered in a future article, is another.

In the meantime, it should be beyond question that Hillary Clinton is nothing if not a creature of Wall Street. Not only her campaign contributions originate from the halls of major banks but her political and governing staff members are picked from the same organizations. Her social life is one that is firmly within the circle of the wealthy aristocratic class, encompassing many oligarchs and elites, especially those of banks. If anyone is supporting Clinton because of her rhetoric against banks or the public perception to that end created by the mainstream media and other “perception managers,” they are following a pied piper indeed.

Image Credit

Notes:

[1] Reich, Robert. “Robert Reich: Hillary Clinton Is Making A ‘Big Mistake’ By Not Reinstating The Glass-Steagall Act.” Salon. July 18, 2015. http://www.salon.com/2015/07/18/robert_reich_hillary_clinton_is_making_a_big_mistake_by_not_reinstating_the_glass_steagall_act_partner/ Accessed on September 1, 2015.

[2] Cirilli, Kevin. “Bill Clinton Defends Repeal Of Glass-Steagall.” The Hill. August 11, 2015. http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/250838-bill-clinton-defends-repeal-of-glass-steagall Accessed on August 1, 2015.

[3] Delamaide, Darrell. “Delamaide: Wall Street Is In Hillary’s Corner.” USA Today. July 28, 2015. http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/2015/07/28/delmaide-wall-street-support-hillary-clinton/30781705/ Accessed on September 1, 2015.

[4] Delamaide, Darrell. “Delamaide: Wall Street Is In Hillary’s Corner.” USA Today. July 28, 2015. http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/2015/07/28/delmaide-wall-street-support-hillary-clinton/30781705/ Accessed on September 1, 2015.

[5] Krieger, Michael. “Hillary Clinton Blasts High Frequency Trading Ahead Of Fundraiser With High Frequency Trader.” Liberty Blitzkrieg. July 14, 2015. http://libertyblitzkrieg.com/2015/07/14/hillary-clinton-blasts-high-frequency-trading-ahead-of-fundraiser-with-high-frequency-trader/ Accessed on September 1, 2015.

[6] Pramuk, Jacob. “Clinton Rakes In Wall Street Cash Amid Tough Talk.” CNBC. July 21, 2015. http://www.cnbc.com/2015/07/21/clinton-rakes-in-wall-street-cash-amid-tough-talk.html Accessed on September 1, 2015.

[7] Terbush, Jon. “Wall Street Would ‘Love’ Hillary Clinton Vs. Jeb Bush In 2016.” The Week. April 28, 2014. http://theweek.com/speedreads/454351/wall-street-love-hillary-clinton-vs-jeb-bush-201 Accessed on September 1, 2015.

[8] Graham, David A. “Why Liberal Democrats Are Skeptical Of Hillary Clinton, In One Paragraph.” The Atlantic. December 12, 2013. http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2013/12/why-liberal-democrats-are-skeptical-of-hillary-clinton-in-one-paragraph/282304/ Accessed on September 1, 2015.

[9] White, Ben; Haberman, Maggie. “Wall St. Republicans’ Dark Secret.” Politico. April 28, 2014. http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2013/12/why-liberal-democrats-are-skeptical-of-hillary-clinton-in-one-paragraph/282304/ Accessed on September 1, 2015.

[10] White, Ben; Haberman, Maggie. “Wall St. Republicans’ Dark Secret.” Politico. April 28, 2014. http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2013/12/why-liberal-democrats-are-skeptical-of-hillary-clinton-in-one-paragraph/282304/ Accessed on September 1, 2015.

[11] Terbush, Jon. “Wall Street Would ‘Love’ Hillary Clinton Vs. Jeb Bush In 2016.” The Week. April 28, 2014. http://theweek.com/speedreads/454351/wall-street-love-hillary-clinton-vs-jeb-bush-201 Accessed on September 1, 2015.

[12] White, Ben; Haberman, Maggie. “Wall St. Republicans’ Dark Secret.” Politico. April 28, 2014. http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2013/12/why-liberal-democrats-are-skeptical-of-hillary-clinton-in-one-paragraph/282304/ Accessed on September 1, 2015.

[13] Lee, MJ. “Hillary Clinton’s Wall Street Dilemna.” CNN. April 12, 2015. http://www.cnn.com/2015/04/12/politics/hillary-clinton-2016-wall-street/ Accessed on September 1, 2015.

[14] Armando. “Left Flank Critique Of Hillary Clinton: On Wall Street Ties.” Daily Kos. April 12, 2015. http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/04/12/1376828/-Left-flank-critique-of-Hillary-Clinton-On-Wall-Street-ties# Accessed on September 1, 2015.

[15] “Hillary Clinton.” Open Secrets.: Center For Responsive Politics. http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/contrib.php?cycle=Career&cid=N00000019&type=C Accessed on September 1, 2015.

[16] Cohan, William D. “Why Wall Street Loves Hillary.” Politico. November 11, 2014. http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/11/why-wall-street-loves-hillary-112782#ixzz3WRSylybp Accessed on September 1, 2015.

[17] Armando. “Left Flank Critique Of Hillary Clinton: On Wall Street Ties.” Daily Kos. April 12, 2015. http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/04/12/1376828/-Left-flank-critique-of-Hillary-Clinton-On-Wall-Street-ties# Accessed on September 1, 2015.

[18] Wachtler, Mark. “Hillary Clinton Aligns With Wall Street For 2016.” White Out Press. January 2, 2014. http://www.whiteoutpress.com/articles/2014/q1/hillary-clinton-aligns-with-wall-street-for-2016/ Accessed on September 1, 2015.

[19] Jacobs, Ben. “Hillary Clinton Aides’ Wall Street Links Raise Economic Policy Doubts.” The Guardian. July 26, 2015. http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/jul/26/wall-street-links-hillary-clinton-aides-economic-policy-doubts Accessed on September 1, 2015.

[20] “The A Team That Saved NAFTA’s Bacon.” Bloomberg Businessweek. December 5, 1993. http://www.bloomberg.com/bw/stories/1993-12-05/the-a-team-that-saved-naftas-bacon Accessed on September 1, 2015.

[21] Belvedere, Matthew J. “In My Mind, Hillary’s Running, Says Her Econ Guru.” CNBC. August 22, 2013. http://www.cnbc.com/id/100980699 Accessed on September 1, 2015.

[22] “Robert Hormats: Economic Issues And The 2000 Democratic Convention.” CNN. August 16, 2000. http://www.cnn.com/chat/transcripts/2000/8/16/hormats/index.html Accessed on September 1, 2015.

[23] Glassman, James K. “Jim Glassman Interviews Robert Hormats.” Ideas In Action. July 3, 2000. http://www.ideasinactiontv.com/tcs_daily/2000/07/jim-glassman-interviews-robert-hormats.html Accessed on September 1, 2015.

[24] Haberman, Maggie; Thrush, Glen. “After 2008, Who Would Hillary Clinton Hire?” Politico. May 28, 2013. http://dyn.politico.com/printstory.cfm?uuid=1AAF087C-60C2-489C-ABFF-6BE5F54AF2AC Accessed on September 1, 2015.

[25] Blumenthal, Paul. “Wall Street Is Putting Money Behind These Presidential Candidates.” Huffington Post. July 23, 2015. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/wall-street-is-putting-money-behind-these-presidential-candidates_55b143e7e4b08f57d5d414ad Accessed on September 1, 2015.

[26] Jacobs, Ben. “Hillary Clinton Aides’ Wall Street Links Raise Economic Policy Doubts.” The Guardian. July 26, 2015. http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/jul/26/wall-street-links-hillary-clinton-aides-economic-policy-doubts Accessed on September 1, 2015.

[27] “Hillary Clinton: Contributions By Industry, 2008 Cycle.” Open Secrets. Center For Responsive Politics. https://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/indus.php?cycle=2008&cid=N00000019 Accessed on September 1, 2015.

[28] “Hillary Clinton: Contributions By Industry, 2008 Cycle.” Open Secrets. Center For Responsive Politics. https://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/indus.php?cycle=2008&cid=N00000019 Accessed on September 1, 2015.

[29] “Hillary Clinton.” Influence Explorer. http://influenceexplorer.com/politician/hillary-clinton/597e02e7d1b04d83976913da1b8e2998 Accessed on September 1, 2015.

[30] “Hillary Clinton.” Influence Explorer. http://influenceexplorer.com/politician/hillary-clinton/597e02e7d1b04d83976913da1b8e2998 Accessed on September 1, 2015.

[31] “Hillary Clinton.” Influence Explorer. http://influenceexplorer.com/politician/hillary-clinton/597e02e7d1b04d83976913da1b8e2998 Accessed on September 1, 2015.

[32] Cohan, William D. “Why Wall Street Loves Hillary.” Politico. November 11, 2014. http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/11/why-wall-street-loves-hillary-112782#ixzz3WRSylybp Accessed on September 1, 2015.

[33] “Hillary Clinton Memoir: We ‘Were Broke’ After Presidency.” The Guardian. June 10, 2014. http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jun/10/hillary-clinton-memoir-broke-after-presidency Accessed on September 1, 2015.

[34] Gonyea, Don. “Clintons Earned More Than $109 Million Since 2000.” NPR. April 4, 2008. http://www.npr.org/2008/04/04/89388172/clintons-earned-more-than-109-million-since-2000 Accessed on September 1, 2015.

[35] “Executive Branch Personnel Public Financial Disclosure Report. OGE Form 278 (Rev. 12/2001) 5 CPR Part 2634.” U.S. Office Of Government Ethics. Hillary Rodham Clinton. http://pfds.opensecrets.org/N00000019_2012_term.pdf Accessed on September 1, 2015.

[36] “Executive Branch Personnel Public Financial Disclosure Report. OGE Form 278 (Rev. 12/2001) 5 CPR Part 2634.” U.S. Office Of Government Ethics. Hillary Rodham Clinton. http://pfds.opensecrets.org/N00000019_2012_term.pdf Accessed on September 1, 2015.

[37] “Clinton Farewell Speech To State Department/Hillary Clinton Says Goodbye To State Department.” Youtube. Posted by thebreakingnews0. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xhJy-tELFRI Accessed on September 1, 2015.

[38] Chozick, Amy. “Hillary Clinton Taps Speechmaking Gold Mine.” New York Times. July 11, 2013. http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/12/us/politics/hillary-clinton-hits-the-lucrative-speechmaking-trail.html?_r=0 Accessed on September 1, 2013.

[39] Confessore, Nicholas; Chozick, Amy. “Wall Street Offers Clinton A Thorny Embrace.” New York Times. July 7, 2014. http://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/08/us/08wallst.html?_r=0 Accessed on September 1, 2015.

[40] Corn, David. “Hillary Clinton’s Goldman Sachs Problem.” Mother Jones. June 4, 2014. http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2014/06/hillary-clintons-goldman-sachs-problem Accessed on September 1, 2015.

[41] Simon, Ellen. “Hillary Clinton’s Wall Street Ties.” Investopedia. http://www.investopedia.com/articles/investing/030415/hillary-clintons-wall-street-ties.asp Accessed on September 1, 2015.

[42] Goldstein, Matthew; Eder, Steve. “For Clintons, A Hedge Fund In The Family.” New York Times. March 22, 2015. http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/23/business/dealbook/for-clintons-a-hedge-fund-in-the-family Accessed on September 1, 2015.

[43] Goldstein, Matthew; Eder, Steve. “For Clintons, A Hedge Fund In The Family.” New York Times. March 22, 2015. http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/23/business/dealbook/for-clintons-a-hedge-fund-in-the-family Accessed on September 1, 2015.

[44] Simon, Ellen. “Hillary Clinton’s Wall Street Ties.” Investopedia. http://www.investopedia.com/articles/investing/030415/hillary-clintons-wall-street-ties.asp Accessed on September 1, 2015.

Brandon Turbeville – article archive here – is the author of six books, Codex Alimentarius — The End of Health Freedom, 7 Real Conspiracies, Five Sense Solutions and Dispatches From a Dissident, volume 1 and volume 2, The Road to Damascus: The Anglo-American Assault on Syria, and The Difference it Makes: 36 Reasons Why Hillary Clinton Should Never Be President. Turbeville has published over 500 articles dealing on a wide variety of subjects including health, economics, government corruption, and civil liberties. Brandon Turbeville’s podcast Truth on The Tracks can be found every Monday night 9 pm EST at UCYTV. He is available for radio and TV interviews. Please contact activistpost (at) gmail.com.

  • yEshUA ImmAnUEl * ben-‘Adam

    “Man betrays his character, his heredity, his ideas, and all his past life in every lineament of his face, in the pose of his body, in his gait, in the lines of his hands, in the tones of his voice and in the expression of his eye especially. No man possesses character. Character is that which he is, and not something apart from himself. One needs only to observe, to think, and to reason on what he sees. The individual who is really sincere and devout will not fail to recognize sincerity and true devotion in an acquaintance or in any character in history that possessed these virtues. Hence, the Student learns to recognize by unfailing signs those in the present or the past who knew True Wisdom and those who were pretenders.”

    • yEshUA ImmAnUEl * ben-‘Adam

      “The real Master is often held in contempt and denounced by the populace because he is neither time-serving nor willing to barter the truth for gold.”

      • Today virtually everyone sees Christianity as a religion but it was actually developed as a system of mind control to produce slaves that believe God decreed their slavery. From their position as the ‘Pontiff Maximus’ – the official title for Caesar’s position as head of the pagan college of Roman priests – the Pontiff’s of the Roman Catholic church oversaw the feudal system wherein christianized serfs gave their work product to the authorities without complaint. Their docility was caused by the fact that they were Christians and therefore believed the Apostle Paul when he wrote: “slaves should be obedient to their masters in everything”. (Titus, 2)

        Though serfs were indeed slaves – the word “serf” can be traced back to the Latin word servus, meaning “slave” – the group that became serfs did not start out as slaves and were originally called coloni (sing. colonus), a Latin word meaning a farmer who farmed his own land. (One interesting etymological point is that the word ‘colonized’ was first used to depict a coloni changing wild land into farm land.)
        When Rome was a Republic the coloni had numerous rights including the ability to sell their land, but these freedoms steadily eroded during the imperial era. Around 300 CE the Caesar Dioclecian implemented a tax that unified a piece of land with its inhabitants. It thereby became more difficult for coloni to sell their plots.
        In 306 CE, upon the death of his father Constantius, Constantine became co-Emperor with his brother-in-law Maxentius. The two were bitter rivals however, and war soon broke out. Before the battle of the Milvian Bridge in 312 CE, Constantine had his famous but absurd vision in which Christ purportedly instructed him to place a particular sign on the battle standards of his army. This symbol was called the chi-rho ( The Chi Rho superimposed the first two letters of the Greek word “ΧΡΙΣΤΟΣ” or Christ in such a way to produce the monogram that invoked the crucifixion of Jesus) and was described by Eusebius as “a long spear, overlaid with gold, which included a bar crossing the spear to form the shape of the Christian cross. On the top of the whole was fixed a wreath of gold and precious stones, and within this the symbol of the Savior’s name, two letters indicating the name of Christ by means of the initial letters, the letter X intersection P at the center.” Included with the banner were the words: “In hoc signo vinces” (in this sign thou shalt conquer).

        Armed with the ‘power of Jesus’, Constantine defeated his rival and became dictator. His reign is best remembered for the Edict of Milan in 313, which fully legalized Christianity, and the Council of Nicea, which he chaired in 325, that began the era where the religion enjoyed the power of the Roman state.
        Because of his assistance in making Christianity the state religion, Constantine enjoys a positive historical legacy. In fact he was among the most wicked men in history. What has been overlooked by historians is that his efforts on behave of Christianity were just one half of his legal ‘reforms’ and when one half is juxtaposed to the other an entirely different picture emerges. Constantine used Christianity to make the enslavement of most of the european population acceptable to the victims because it was an act of God.
        Constantine’s other edits were the true beginning of medieval serfdom. They officially ended the coloni’s ability to sell their land but bound them to it forever. Another set of edicts forbid the lower classes from changing profession. Constantine thereby froze an unfair society in place. And to prevent any intellectual resistance from the newly created slaves, Constantine also began the process that made Christianity the state religion. When viewed in their true historical context it is self evident that the sole purpose for the specific combination of Constantine’s edicts was to enslave serfs and make the rebellion a sin.
        Below is the order of rank that Constantine’s edicts created – the Feudal System :

        The Pope
        The King
        Bishops
        Nobles
        Knights / Vassals
        Priests
        Freemen
        Yeomen
        Servants
        Serfs

        Eventually the degradation of the coloni’s legal status to serf was formalized with the creation of a ceremony known as “bondage”. During the ceremony a serf placed his head in the lord’s hands – akin to the ceremony where a vassal placed his hands between those of his overlord. The serf would then swear oaths that bound him to his lord in a feudal contract which defined the terms of his slavery.
        A 7th century Anglo Saxon “Oath of Fealty” between a serf and his Lord still exists. It states : “By the Lord before whom this sanctuary is holy, I will be true and faithful, and love all which he loves and shun all which he shuns, according to the laws of God and the order of the world. Nor will I ever with will or action, through word or deed, do anything which is unpleasing to him, on condition that he will hold to me as I shall deserve it, and that he will perform everything as it was in our agreement when I submitted myself to him and chose his will.”
        When I speak with Christians, many describe the spiritual growth their relationship with Jesus has given them. I know they are sincere but I always wonder how they would feel about Jesus if they were forced to take an Oath of Fealty to his earthly representative.

        The Christian Enslavement of Europe
        by Joseph Atwill 2012

        • wisdom of the knowing

          “Today virtually everyone sees Christianity as a religion but it was
          actually developed as a system of mind control to produce slaves that
          believe God decreed their slavery.”

          religion is mind control through fear, and a lot more stuff used to control people.

          thank you seems to be true

  • gweneth

    Not to mention China – sold emails – then delete them.

    What would Vince Foster do?

Thank you for sharing.
Follow us to receive the latest updates.

Like Us On Facebook
Follow Us On Twitter