Is Hillary lying to Goldman Sachs, Democrat activists, or everybody?

Hillary is the consummate lying politician. Unfortunately, she is not alone. What makes Hillary different is that she is a well educated, well supported, well connected spin meister who gets away with her iniquities sans consequence.

Excerpt from following article:
Maybe the mixed messages by Clinton can be explained in another leak of another speech – to Goldman Sachs – in which she said it sometimes prudent and necessary for politicians to take two positions on issues, one for private elite consumption and another for the great unwashed.

Clinton told the Wall Street insiders: “It is unsavory, and it always has been that way, but we usually end up where we need to be. But if everybody’s watching, you know, all of the backroom discussions and the deals, you know, then people get a little nervous, to say the least. So, you need both a public and a private position.”
 
All too often the above justification for outright lying is not only true, but is used as a a cover for the politician's own nefarious agenda. For a subjectively ranked list of the worst of the worst, go here . The reader will agree with some, be shocked at others, and may want to add a few names of his/her own. 

From hacking to fracking: Bombshells in Hillary speeches

by Joseph Farah

WASHINGTON – There are some startling revelations in the WikiLeaks data dump on what Hillary Clinton told the insiders at those speeches for which she was handsomely compensated.

In 2014, Clinton told a Canadian public-relations firm, tinePublic, that Russian oligarchs were behind the funding of the anti-fracking campaign in the U.S. – even to the point of creating phony environmental groups who supposedly opposed the extraction of oil from shale because its impact on “climate change.”

Clinton told the company: “We were up against Russia pushing oligarchs and others to buy media. We were even up against phony environmental groups, and I’m a big environmentalist, but these were funded by the Russians to stand against any effort, oh that pipeline, that fracking, that whatever will be a problem for you, and a lot of the money supporting that message was coming from Russia.”

That’s quite a revelation, indeed. She portrays a picture of old-fashioned disinformation right out of the old KGB playbook. But wait a minute! Hasn’t Hillary Clinton told Americans “climate change” represents one of the greatest threats to global stability and the survival of the human race? Hasn’t she opposed “fracking” for years? Wasn’t it a major issue in her campaign for the Democratic nomination? Yes, to all of the above.

So why is Clinton portraying herself in battle with Russian oligarchs and as a proponent of “fracking”?

It’s certainly understandable why Russia would covertly support the anti-fracking campaign in the U.S. given its position as a leading oil power. Fracking as produced so much oil in the U.S. that America is now said to have more reserves than Saudi Arabia.

But what about Clinton’s dual positions?

“Here’s Hillary Clinton essentially knowing full well that the Russians were trying to undermine fracking in this country,” said Rush Limbaugh Monday. “They were paying for the PR campaign that the Democrat Party, whether by accident or by design, agreed with.”

Meanwhile, she has portrayed Russia as bad guys that only she is tough enough to deal with as president.

Maybe the mixed messages by Clinton can be explained in another leak of another speech – to Goldman Sachs – in which she said it sometimes prudent and necessary for politicians to take two positions on issues, one for private elite consumption and another for the great unwashed.

Clinton told the Wall Street insiders: “It is unsavory, and it always has been that way, but we usually end up where we need to be. But if everybody’s watching, you know, all of the backroom discussions and the deals, you know, then people get a little nervous, to say the least. So, you need both a public and a private position.”

“It’s exactly what we knew was going on,” exclaimed Limbaugh. “While she publicly reams ’em and rips ’em to shreds, she winks at ’em. ‘Don’t worry! I have to do this. You know I have to do this,’ and they are cool with it! When she made speeches to Goldman Sachs and other Wall Street banks, she suggested that Wall Street insiders are what are needed to fix Wall Street. Now, you wait ’til the Bernie Sanders voters find out about this. The Bernie Sanders voters believed in Bernie because they believed he hated Wall Street, that they were the big problem. Bernie was gonna fix ’em; he’s gonna punish ’em. And Hillary is out there trying to say the same thing. In fact, she’s met with them and she said (summarized), ‘Look, I have to say these things publicly, but in truth I think you’re the only people that can help fix what’s wrong, you Wall Street insiders.’ They’re in bed with one another is the point.”

Here’s what Clinton told Goldman Sachs insiders in 2013: “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.”

Then the question becomes: Who is she really lying to – Goldman Sachs, Democrat activists, or everybody?

Bernie Sanders, throughout the primary campaign, warned Americans that Clinton was telling Wall Street fat cats what they wanted to hear while getting paid millions of dollars. No wonder she refused to release transcripts of those speeches. Now WikiLeaks has begun to do just that.

This could hurt Clinton immensely with her base – but only if Democratic voters get wind of it. And, to date, ABC, CBS, NBC and the Big Media remain more fixated on what Donald Trump said to Billy Bush 11 years ago on a hot mic.

Here’s another bombshell from WikiLeaks.

In Sunday night’s debate, Clinton hung her national security hat on her ability to protect secrets about the takedown of Osama bin Laden. Yet portions of a speech she gave to a Toronto business group show she offered details that may have indeed been classified and certainly had never been made public before. In fact, it varies from what was released to the public.

“I was in the small group that recommended to the president that he go after bin Laden,” Clinton said. “The amount of work that was required to get a strong-enough basis of information on which to plan took more than a decade … and then all of a sudden putting this matrix together and saying, ‘This guy used to protect bin Laden – he has just made a phone call. He said this in the phone call. We need to figure out where he is. Then we need to follow him.’ And that is how we found this compound in Abbottabad [Pakistan] — where a team of Navy SEALs took out bin Laden in May 2011.”

Was this primarily self-promotion? Or was she offering insider information for personal gain? Or was it a little of both?


In a talk to a Brazilian bank in 2013, Clinton said her “dream” is “a hemispheric common market, with open trade and open borders,” and she asked her audience to think of what doubling American trade with Latin America “would mean for everybody in this room.”

She was supporting a European Union-style merger of the U.S. Mexico and Canada – a subject much covered for years in WND, dating back even before Barack Obama entered the White House.

The leaks came from roughly 2,050 emails sent to and from John Podesta, who is Hillary Clinton’s campaign chief and served as former chief of staff to President Bill Clinton. WikiLeaks claimed to have up to 10,000 emails.

Joseph Farah is founder, editor and chief executive officer of WND. He is the author or co-author of 13 books that have sold more than 5 million copies. Before launching WND as the first independent online news outlet in 1997, he served as editor in chief of major market dailies including the legendary Sacramento Union.

Source:  WND

Knowledge is power. The Realistic Observer is a non-partisan, non-profit blog dedicated to keeping our readers as informed as possible.