Clinton Dodges On Releasing Paid Speech Transcripts

[Purveyor]

By Nick Gass

Asked whether she would be willing to release the transcripts from her paid speeches to Goldman Sachs and other organizations, Hillary Clinton dodged.

“I will look into it. I don’t know the status, but I will certainly look into it," said Clinton, whose paid speeches, particularly those to the financial institution for which she has received $675,000 for three speeches, Goldman Sachs. Earlier in the debate, Clinton mentioned that she had spoken not only to financial institutions, but also to doctors and organizations like the American Camping Association.

Clinton reiterated that she "spoke to a lot of different groups with a lot different constituents, a lot of different kinds of members, about issues that had to do with world affairs."

"I’ve probably described more times than I can remember how stressful it was advising the president about going after bin Laden," she said, alluding to her speech material. "So my view on this is, look at my record, look at what I am proposing, and we have a vigorous agreement here. We both want to rein in the excesses of Wall Street."

Read more: http://www.politico.com/blogs/new-hampshire-primary-2016-live-updates/2016/02/clinton-paid-speech-transcripts-218789#ixzz3zH98zx68

[99th_Monkey]

1. No! you don't say.

[SHRED]

4. I recognize that...Lol

[CorporatistNation]

49. The Speaking Contract Says.. She OWNS The Fucking Transcripts!

Release THE GD TRANSCRIPTS HILLARY... BE ACCOUNTABLE TO THE NATION OF PEOPLE THAT YOU SO WANT TO BE PRESIDENT OF!


Pathetic!

[CorporatistNation]

50. Again... Release The GD Transcripts!

Hillary Controls the TRANSCRIPTS from her speeches... DEMAND THAT SHE RELEASE THEM AND FACE PUBLIC SCRUTINY! Like and SHARE WIDELY! https://www.facebook.com/Hillary-Be-Accountable-Release-The-Damn-Transcripts-209952662689158/?skip_nax_wizard=true

[avaistheone1]

26. When I saw this Hill pic and its caption

Why I just

[NanceGreggs]

2. Goldman-Sachs owns the transcripts ...

... as do the other organizations she's given speeches for. It is not her call as to whether they're released or not.

[Purveyor]

3. I'll wait for the details of her 'speakers contract' before making that conclusion...

She will be willing to produce that contract, I presume?

[NanceGreggs]

6. Why should she?

Look, I know there's a contingent here who are hoping against hope that there is something in those transcripts so explosive, it will torpedo Hillary's campaign - thus paving the way for BS to get the nomination.

The fact that that's what you're hoping means you have no hope that Bernie can get the nomination otherwise.

[CBGLuthier]

8. No, we just want to know what she tells people for all that money.

Honesty, transparency. Little things like that.

[NanceGreggs]

9. Why?

Because you've realized that Bernie's only chance of winning the nomination is if there is something in those transcripts explosive enough to knock HRC out of the race?

Because you know that Bernie's only shot is uncovering a negative about Hillary, because he doesn't have enough positives to win the nomination on his own merits?

"Transparency". Yeah. Like the sudden clamoring for transcripts by BS supporters isn't transparent on its face.

[safeinOhio]

10. I don't think Bernie ever asked to see it.

For either side, don't blame the person for what crazy supporters say.

[NanceGreggs]

20. And I'd like to know ...

... what Bernie tells his campaign staff about stealing HRC's computer data, unauthorized use of organization logos to imply endorsements he doesn't have, posing as union members to gain access to restricted areas.

Honesty, transparency. Little things like that.

[CanonRay]

14. If there's nothing in the transcripts, why not release them

and you can't tell me if she picks up the phone to Goldman she wouldn't have them in a minute flat.

[NanceGreggs]

15. "If there's nothing in the transcripts, why not release them."

I assure you there is nothing untoward in my email exchanges with relatives and friends. I would not "release" them to anyone. Do you assume I should, just based on "well, why not"?

This little fishing expedition is transparent on it face. BSers are hoping there's something there because Bernie isn't doing well, and his only hope of getting the nomination is if Hillary is knocked down. It's kinda sad.

[DefenseLawyer]

17. A paid speech to a bank board of directors

By a public figure is nothing REMOTELY like your private email exchanges with your family. Seriously, your defense of your candidate is admirable, but if this is the best you can come up with you're in trouble.

[NanceGreggs]

18. Even a "public figure" ...

... is not on "public time" 24/7.

My reference to my own emails was in response to the notion (which has been posted here all day) that if Hillary refuses to release transcripts, it's an automatic assumption that they contain something nefarious. And of course, if she did and there was no smoking gun to be found, the cry would be that she altered the transcripts.

She is under NO obligation to disclose everything she has ever said to any individual, group, or organization just because she's a "public figure".

We all know BS isn't doing well. Iowa was not the big Bernie blow-out his fans have been predicting, and he will soon be facing primaries in states where Hillary has a commanding lead. He has no path to winning - unless, of course, someone can dig up some dirt in HRC's speeches that would seriously impact her campaign.

It's sad that this is what BS supporters are down to - a fishing expedition in hopes of finding something to stop HRC's momentum, because that would be Bernie's only prayer.

[CanonRay]

47. Seriously, aren't you just a little curious about what she really tells the big boys?

Remember Mitt's little talk to the big donors? We weren't supposed to hear that, either.

[CanonRay]

46. A speech to an audience

is not quite the same as an e-mail to your relatives. Nice straw man. I don't care to see Hillary knocked down, I'd just like to know what she tells the 1%ers when I can't hear.

[MrMickeysMom]

16. There's also another contingent, and it's not just seen on DU...

These are people who want the sun to shine on the priorities of who they vote for. They would like to evaluate in the more objective way who is in a better position to connect with working class families. Most of all, they want to see who is talking and walking the walk about campaign finance reform. It's been one of the most important steps in getting the best candidates into office since Paul Tsongas.

When people running for office would rather hide behind the private sector then say, "You want to see it? Fine.", you can bet it's more about having no hope that they, themselves fear not get the nomination.

[NanceGreggs]

19. If we have a right to know what's going on with the candidates ...

... how about we put Bernie and his campaign staff under oath, and find out what he knew and when he knew it about his staff accessing Hillary's computer data?

I think it's far more relevant for voters to have that "full story" than to know what Hillary said in a speech that had nothing to do with her presidential campaign.

Has Bernie released all of the communications between himself and his staffers when the data theft was going on? Texts? Emails? Has he been asked about what discussions took place about the theft, with whom, and what was discussed?

Funny how what Hill said at a private event, which had nothing to do with her campaign, is soooo important, but Bernie's staff stealing information in the midst of a campaign has been relegated to the "nothing to see here, folks" dustbin.

[MrMickeysMom]

22. Fine to ask those questions, and also a nice distraction ...

... especially when the Sanders campaign brought the breach (as they were supposed to) to the attention of the DNC, who sat on it for quite a while. You'll know this story because the due process actions were taken, and the DNC, without due process froze the Sanders campaign from getting the information. So, let them complete that task.

Put that on the scale with the disclosure now and tell me what the Clinton campaign will now do to open the window and let some sun in on the transcripts.

I know how the Sanders campaign acted on behalf of the data breach. We don't know IF the Clinton campaign will act on behalf of the Wall Street invested interest in payer her huge bucks to talk.

Do you care at all that your candidate's special interest is with Wall Street after what has gone on in this country?

[Live and Learn]

21. Not according to this:

According to her standard speaking contract, Clinton will remain at the event no longer than 90 minutes; will pose for no more than 50 photos with no more than 100 people; and won’t allow any press coverage or video- or audio-taping of her speech.

The only record allowed will be made by a stenographer whose transcription will be given only to Clinton. The stenographer’s $1,250 bill, however, will go to the UNLV Foundation.

http://www.reviewjournal.com/news/las-vegas/high-fashion-expense-hillary-travel

[NanceGreggs]

25. Then she owns the transcripts.

So what? She's still not under any obligation to release them.

And you can fabricate any story you like about what they contain - because if she did release them and contained nothing nefarious, the accusation would be that she altered them before she released them.

It's unfortunate that Bernie can't win the nomination on his own merits - so his supporters have to keep fishing for something they hope will stop Hill in her tracks.

[Live and Learn]

27. Just wanted to hear you admit you were wrong. I already knew you were.

I haven't fabricated a thing nor was I planning to and your implication is rather dishonest itself.

If she doesn't want to release them then she should be honest enough to say so. Why is honesty so hard for her and some of her supporters?

[azmom]

28. Nicely done.

Bravo

[NanceGreggs]

29. I'd already said I was wrong in other threads on the topic.

In my experience, it is unusual for a corporation not to maintain ownership of transcripts, so they can be reproduced for staff who did not attend the speech, excerpted for marketing materials, etc.

The "she'll just alter the transcripts anyway" meme is already in circulation.

She hasn't definitively stated whether she'll release them or not - so there's no dishonesty there. If I were her, I'd be trying to come up with a politic way of saying "go pound sand" to those who think they have a right to know what was said at a private event that had nothing to do with her campaign.

[Live and Learn]

33. Once was enough. You don't have to keep admitting it.

I don't think there really is a polite way to say, "go pound sand," but please keep trying to find polite ways to say things. It will be a refreshing change.

[JackRiddler]

23. Something's telling me they're likely to get out...

Even at evil empires, there are leaks.

[NanceGreggs]

32. Yes, of course.

Keep waiting.

The bigger question is why BSers are counting on some smoking gun that will stop Hill's momentum, instead of relying on Bernie's ability to win the nomination on his own merits.

Funny how TranscriptGate became a big issue after Bernie's big blowout in Iowa failed to happen. Straw-grasping at its finest: "We can still win this, people, if we can just nail Hillary with a gotcha moment."

[JackRiddler]

34. "Stop Hill's momentum"?

I think we're operating on different laws of physics. Let me know when she's got any mo.

If she was so worthy on her own merits, there wouldn't be a strong challenger. Generally the two go together: the one you prefer and the one you don't, both with reasons. Doesn't that make sense?

Hmmmmm... spin away!

[NanceGreggs]

36. Have you looked at the polls?

HRC is far ahead of BS in all but a handful of states - and she's ahead on her own merits.

Hillary isn't the one hoping against hope that a Bernie "gotcha" moment will win her the nomination.

If she was reduced to finding a gotcha moment, she could always ask "what Bernie knew and when he knew it" when his campaign staffers were stealing her computer data. And that would actually be relevant.

She doesn't need to "go there" to win - but obviously BS needs to go fishin' in GS speech transcripts in order to stay alive.

[JackRiddler]

37. Poll: Sanders nearly tied with Clinton nationwide

http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/268362-sanders-tied-with-clinton-nationwide-poll

Not that I put stock in polls generally, to be truthful. It's easy to see how things are moving at the moment for the Senator from Wall Street and the Secretary of Take Out Iran.

[NanceGreggs]

38. Okay.

Now look at the polls for the states where HRC is still waaaaay ahead of BS, and then explain to me how nation-wide, he could be "nearly tied".

[JackRiddler]

42. Ask me if I care.

I happen to remember the last 25 years or so very well, including the time I even voted for the senator. She is not a friend to any politics I care to see. A lot of people have woken up to that and are waking up to that. Talk about polls all day, spin every datapoint how you like. But the voting is actually underway. We'll talk again next week, and the week after that.

[NanceGreggs]

43. Yes.

Undoubtedly we will.

I'm just a bit confused as to why you brought up a poll that showed HRC and BS almost tied - and then, when challenged on the obvious disconnect given the state polls, you chose to go with "ask me if I care".

If you don't care, why did you bring up the "they're almost tied!" poll to begin with?

[JackRiddler]

44. Because you were talking about polls. And "momentum."

And talk about polls in a primary season is little more than a form of electioneering. So back atcha. Also, it came out today and tough, it says what it says. Bet you were quoting this same pollster, back when it fit your narrative?

[NanceGreggs]

45. Look.

If you need/want to believe that HRC and BS are almost tied, that's your prerogative.

Just ignore the state polls that say otherwise - which, of course, you'd have to.

[JackRiddler]

52. Look. If you need to detect every thoughtcrime that offends

your adherence to a rigid and untenable line (and this on behalf of the Wall Street candidate!), and if you need to reply to every deviation from that premise (even if it's merely pointing out the spread of possibilities, rather than endorsing your own preferred dream result 100%), and if your "reply" always consists of a "No, I'm right!" post otherwise empty of anything other than your unearned and bottomless indignance, which reads as if from a person incapable of nuance or humor, but who considers themselves very smart nevertheless, then please have the last word in this exchange. I'm sure it will come up again in future weeks, when we will not be talking about polls but results. Meanwhile, you can chase me all over the board as I post the Quinnipiac poll on every thread, since that's what everyone does on this forum: they post polls as if some are right and others wrong. Hurry, hurry, correct me! Stop the spread of the Qunnipiac poll result that shows Sanders bridging a 30 point gap in a month! It's wrong! Furthermore, it's enemy fire! See ya!

[UnBlinkingEye]

39. Corruption...

When you hear the word corruption, do you think of Hillary or Bernie?

[NanceGreggs]

41. If I honestly told you ...

... what I think of as "corruption" as I post on this particular site, I'd be in for yet another "hide".

I'll just tell you that I don't think of either Hillary or Bernie in connection with that word - but I do think of something else.

[Ichingcarpenter]

5. ''I'll look into it'' but first I need to get instructions

from the Sith Lord

[PonyUp]

11. Reminds me of Dr. Evil and Mini-Me, but he's standing on a chair. n/t

[840high]

40. ..+1

[Bonobo]

7. She will release them.

On the very same day that God's heavenly choir of angels sings at the Bat Mitzvah of Adam Sandler's daughter.

[PonyUp]

12. "The skies will open, the light will come down, celestial choirs will be singing...

...and everyone will know we should do the right thing and the world will be perfect."

[Bonobo]

13. That's some pretty bitter shit right there. nt

[Art_from_Ark]

31. Holy crap!

Imagine her instead of John F. Kennedy giving the moon speech back in 1961

"We choose to launch a satellite in this decade-- or maybe next decade, or the decade after that-- and perhaps do some other things, not because they are easy, but because we don't have a magic wand. But that goal will serve to at least pad our portfolios, and that challenge is one that may be realistic and pragmatic enough to accept, albeit one we are willing to postpone, if we think we can't win"

[JackRiddler]

24. I bet they end up leaked.

[SammyWinstonJack]

30. Whole lot of words, nothing of substance.

[JackRiddler]

35. Very short copy-paste, nothing at all.

[PatrickforO]

48. I think the topics and points set forth by Clinton in these speeches are quite relevant to the this

primary. She should release them when possible, and if 'owned' by the Wall Street companies to whom she gave the speeches, they should release the text.

[antigop]

51. It's a no win situation, regardless of what she does. She's boxed in.

If she doesn't release them, it looks like she's hiding something.

If she does release them, then

1) The transcripts have damaging information -- in which case she's screwed.

or

2) The transcripts reveal that nothing of importance was said -- in which case the question will be asked, "Why the hell did GS pay so much for that?"

She's boxed in.