Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

merbex

(3,123 posts)
Sun Feb 7, 2016, 01:48 PM Feb 2016

Does anyone else thinks it is odd that HRC is calling for ALL the other candidates to release 'their

paid speeches' and that then, she might, consider releasing her's?

All?

She is running against Bernie Sanders at the moment.

He could probably release he 'paid speeches' in about 30 seconds.

I believe I have read that he donates all speech fees to VT charities.....maybe, but I don't think he gets that many high profile requests that he can't gather those speeches together by the end of today and presto:have at them - read away.

Is she talking about the GOP?

Uh, why would they do anything to conform to what she is now making a 'condition'?

And correct me if I'm wrong: but didn't this whole matter of 'releasing her transcripts' originate with a question from Chuck Todd?

Chuck Todd, as a moderator, asked her the initial question during a debate.

Not the Sanders Campaign.

But go ahead, correct me if I'm wrong.

I just have to say - whoever is advising HRC about this......or this is her decision.....this is ridiculous.

Defensive, stonewalling, ...the perception is toxic.

She has had a brutal weekend.

Madeline Albright probably pushed every Berning leaning undecided woman in NH INTO the Bernie column with her over the top remark.

Now this.

She is doing this to herself.

It's incredible.

113 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Does anyone else thinks it is odd that HRC is calling for ALL the other candidates to release 'their (Original Post) merbex Feb 2016 OP
She does have a way of destroying her own campaign, doesn't she? Vinca Feb 2016 #1
He did... TCJ70 Feb 2016 #2
Less than $2000, and he donated the $$ to charity. flor-de-jasmim Feb 2016 #5
$2000??? LOL. In Hillaryworld that's called a tip. Vinca Feb 2016 #8
Or a cheap (to them) bottle of wine nt Jarqui Feb 2016 #56
And a cheap tip at that. lob1 Feb 2016 #98
And I believe $850 of that is for appearing on Bill Maher's TexasBushwhacker Feb 2016 #102
She's employing the "No one else is doing it, so why should I?" defense. Bubzer Feb 2016 #59
Bernie enid602 Feb 2016 #3
The financial elite that have given Hillary and Bill millions certainly wouldn't that's for sure. nt stillwaiting Feb 2016 #9
I want bills speeches too. elehhhhna Feb 2016 #19
"Who would pay Bernie to talk about anything?" you ask. senz Feb 2016 #26
But they aren't Banksters, Oligarchs, and 1%'ers... so they don't COUNT. AzDar Feb 2016 #52
She should be proud to release her speeches. noamnety Feb 2016 #4
More like "not in your lifetime" kind of refusal. Shady, to be sure. Nothing new under the sun. libdem4life Feb 2016 #25
She really should lay them out for all to see Plucketeer Feb 2016 #88
Maybe she was including all the republican candidates cali Feb 2016 #6
Nope. She's trying to set the standard of 'no double standards' for the rest of the campaign, ancianita Feb 2016 #7
Bernie should release whatever he has 6chars Feb 2016 #10
Ah, yes. Bjornsdotter Feb 2016 #11
I get the feeling: Her speeches might show her pitting industries/companies against one another. TheBlackAdder Feb 2016 #12
I have a feeling she will re-do her speeches for public consumption. senz Feb 2016 #28
Why, then, demand she release them? Empowerer Feb 2016 #50
I did not demand that she release them. senz Feb 2016 #64
I think we're learning a lot from the demands to release them Lordquinton Feb 2016 #79
Or there might be an overt quid-pro-quo remark... HooptieWagon Feb 2016 #31
who knows? ellennelle Feb 2016 #90
She has been paid A LOT OF MONEY by bankers to speak to them and address their concerns. Dustlawyer Feb 2016 #110
I was thinking that she might come out saying that she didn't have them. RDANGELO Feb 2016 #13
If she's looking for them... HooptieWagon Feb 2016 #33
I was thinking about that!! artislife Feb 2016 #36
I spent a geat deal of time convewrsing with a Hillary superfan last night tht appeared to claim Dragonfli Feb 2016 #35
Every time I have had a "conversation" with that one I am reminded of the old saying: A Simple Game Feb 2016 #96
Jury results. zeemike Feb 2016 #108
Thank you for the transparency, all I did was speak and link to the truth /nt Dragonfli Feb 2016 #111
Jake Tapper... TTUBatfan2008 Feb 2016 #14
Bernie's just too damn nice. Erich Bloodaxe BSN Feb 2016 #18
She keeps attacking him on a derivatives vote... TTUBatfan2008 Feb 2016 #22
Wasn't it also an omnibus bill? Fawke Em Feb 2016 #84
I believe it was but not 100% sure... TTUBatfan2008 Feb 2016 #87
But the voters do. And we are the ones who get to decide what is important artislife Feb 2016 #38
Precisely. senz Feb 2016 #69
He always takes the high road Merryland Feb 2016 #60
Not odd at all. Why should she be singled out? Why are there livetohike Feb 2016 #15
Gee, I dunno, could it be because Erich Bloodaxe BSN Feb 2016 #17
Really, who and how much answer the hrc questions for me. elehhhhna Feb 2016 #20
I think we all could guess with Mitt, too, but it was the actual proof that doomed him. nt Erich Bloodaxe BSN Feb 2016 #21
Exorbitant speaker's fees look dangerously close to bribery, Qutzupalotl Feb 2016 #23
Because she is so egregiously, shockingly, outlandishly corrupt, that's why. senz Feb 2016 #49
Drama much? n/t livetohike Feb 2016 #51
Blasé much? senz Feb 2016 #57
I actually doubt Sanders keeps 'transcripts' of his speeches. Erich Bloodaxe BSN Feb 2016 #16
The charge that Clinton required organizations to pay to make a transcript of her speech... PoliticAverse Feb 2016 #32
CORRECTION: She's calling for ANYONE who ever made a speech ANYWHERE to release their transcripts. frylock Feb 2016 #24
and even then she'll only "look into it further". n/t PoliticAverse Feb 2016 #34
I did two gardening talks last week - do I have to circulate my powerpoint slides? NRaleighLiberal Feb 2016 #97
If you wouldn't mind. frylock Feb 2016 #99
Lol and I think Faux pas Feb 2016 #27
Please. How does one go from broke (AR Statehouse) to 3 digit millions in what, 25 years? libdem4life Feb 2016 #29
.They went from broke to 3 digit millionaires in just15 years. NOT 25. hedda_foil Feb 2016 #41
OOps...even better question. How? Sign me up. libdem4life Feb 2016 #47
Yes, it is odd that she would think the same standards should apply to everyone 72DejaVu Feb 2016 #30
Why wouldn't she ask just Bernie to release his as the only other Democratic candidate in polly7 Feb 2016 #37
Why shouldn't it apply to Republicans as well? 72DejaVu Feb 2016 #39
It should. polly7 Feb 2016 #40
She's safe anyway 72DejaVu Feb 2016 #42
Well she knew she was safe on this one when she answered the way she did, anyway. nt. polly7 Feb 2016 #43
If I was the Sanders camp I'd leave this alone 72DejaVu Feb 2016 #45
No, I think the people who are either supporting or not supporting her deserve the right polly7 Feb 2016 #58
OK< but I'm saying it could be bad politics for Bernie 72DejaVu Feb 2016 #62
I don't think there's any chance she'll release anything but don't fault anyone - in Bernie polly7 Feb 2016 #63
I don't either 72DejaVu Feb 2016 #66
I don't think it would, even if he did allow it. People deserve truth, just as they polly7 Feb 2016 #68
Look at it this way 72DejaVu Feb 2016 #70
If she had roses, she'd have no problem presenting them. polly7 Feb 2016 #76
She owed them the speech she gave them 72DejaVu Feb 2016 #85
Why would she be giving speeches to GS and big money organizations though? polly7 Feb 2016 #89
this is a lose-lose for her roguevalley Feb 2016 #93
When sanders was asked if he wanted Hillary to relase them Lordquinton Feb 2016 #91
She reeks of corruption. senz Feb 2016 #83
So Madeline says I'm going to burn in hell....I met maddy in 2004 and I'm just shocked I tell you ViseGrip Feb 2016 #44
So, Vise, I guess you did not find Madeleine's argument convincing? Helen Borg Feb 2016 #61
... Spitfire of ATJ Feb 2016 #46
I don't find it odd at all - she's probably tired of the double standards Empowerer Feb 2016 #48
+1 Lucinda Feb 2016 #74
Bernie willing to be held to the same standard. n/t JonLeibowitz Feb 2016 #77
I find it odd that all these people have... Mike Nelson Feb 2016 #53
They all should release them. kstewart33 Feb 2016 #81
whatever is in those "speeches" Merryland Feb 2016 #54
Well it looks just like a qualified-limited-hang-out HereSince1628 Feb 2016 #55
Yes, like Trump and Obama with the birth certificate. n/t PoliticAverse Feb 2016 #101
It's damage control sop when stopped by a cop people proceed similarly HereSince1628 Feb 2016 #104
She included all candidates because she knows the R's LibDemAlways Feb 2016 #65
It's a reasonable move. kstewart33 Feb 2016 #78
Defensive, stonewalling, ...the perception is toxic. passiveporcupine Feb 2016 #67
No, I've explained multiple times. She's boxed in. It's a no-win,regardless of what she does. antigop Feb 2016 #71
YES... SoapBox Feb 2016 #72
agreed ellennelle Feb 2016 #73
Sounds fair to me. kstewart33 Feb 2016 #75
Agree! lucca18 Feb 2016 #107
oh, and by the way, you ARE wrong ellennelle Feb 2016 #80
It's a major problem for her. Old Crow Feb 2016 #82
Very true. senz Feb 2016 #86
it was a viewer's question --odd asked it for a viewer. nt grasswire Feb 2016 #92
Thank you - I did not realize that n/t merbex Feb 2016 #94
If I were Hillary I wouldn't do it gwheezie Feb 2016 #95
She has never been a particularly good campaigner. hifiguy Feb 2016 #100
not the slightest bit odd... magical thyme Feb 2016 #103
Why does she need to be bothered with releasing her transcripts? Hulk Feb 2016 #105
Hillary feels a little oily on this one. jalan48 Feb 2016 #106
Obfuscation. in_cog_ni_to Feb 2016 #109
She just admitted that she said things to Goldman Sachs for $675,000 Bernblu Feb 2016 #112
This is a question of speculation silenttigersong Feb 2016 #113

Vinca

(50,168 posts)
1. She does have a way of destroying her own campaign, doesn't she?
Sun Feb 7, 2016, 01:50 PM
Feb 2016

I wonder if Bernie has ever given a paid speech.

Jarqui

(10,110 posts)
56. Or a cheap (to them) bottle of wine nt
Sun Feb 7, 2016, 03:16 PM
Feb 2016

That wouldn't pay for Hillary's teleprompter and stenographer.

TexasBushwhacker

(20,043 posts)
102. And I believe $850 of that is for appearing on Bill Maher's
Sun Feb 7, 2016, 04:29 PM
Feb 2016

show. Since is considered entertainment (not news) they have to pay people and he got scale.

Bubzer

(4,211 posts)
59. She's employing the "No one else is doing it, so why should I?" defense.
Sun Feb 7, 2016, 03:17 PM
Feb 2016

Thing is, others aren't pretending their speaking fees are innocuous and nothing to be concerned about. She is.
In fact, her speaking fees are quite damaging as they impugn her integrity and independence from corporate influence. So, if she want's to keep mum on them, people will assume the worst...and that she's just business-as-usual establishment.

enid602

(8,524 posts)
3. Bernie
Sun Feb 7, 2016, 01:52 PM
Feb 2016

Who would pay Bernie to talk about anything? And why has Jane refused ALL requests to comment on the Burlington College mess?

 

senz

(11,945 posts)
26. "Who would pay Bernie to talk about anything?" you ask.
Sun Feb 7, 2016, 02:36 PM
Feb 2016

Guess you never noticed the tens of thousands waiting in line to hear him talk.

Hill never even came close.

So there's that.

 

noamnety

(20,234 posts)
4. She should be proud to release her speeches.
Sun Feb 7, 2016, 01:52 PM
Feb 2016

It's weird for her to act like she doesn't want people to read what she had to say.

 

Plucketeer

(12,882 posts)
88. She really should lay them out for all to see
Sun Feb 7, 2016, 03:40 PM
Feb 2016

There's a fair chance there'd be more corp... er, people willing to fork over $250K if they had a preview of what they'd get for their money!

ancianita

(35,812 posts)
7. Nope. She's trying to set the standard of 'no double standards' for the rest of the campaign,
Sun Feb 7, 2016, 01:56 PM
Feb 2016

however much or little it reveals over this particular issue.

It looks defensive, and it's also a fair framing of future fair rules about accountability.

6chars

(3,967 posts)
10. Bernie should release whatever he has
Sun Feb 7, 2016, 02:00 PM
Feb 2016

He can do it just for the hell of it, without asking that she do anything. His decisions are his, her decisions are hers.

TheBlackAdder

(28,070 posts)
12. I get the feeling: Her speeches might show her pitting industries/companies against one another.
Sun Feb 7, 2016, 02:07 PM
Feb 2016

.


This seems really odd.


There might be 47% comments in there, but since she talks to different companies and industries, she might be pitting different firms and industries against each other. What is said in private to one, might be said in opposite to the other.


There could also be comments about opening up the largesse of the government.


Who knows at this point.



.

 

senz

(11,945 posts)
28. I have a feeling she will re-do her speeches for public consumption.
Sun Feb 7, 2016, 02:41 PM
Feb 2016

Hillary is not honest, direct, and forthcoming about anything. I doubt she understands the concept of truth.

Empowerer

(3,900 posts)
50. Why, then, demand she release them?
Sun Feb 7, 2016, 03:09 PM
Feb 2016

since if she releases them and you don't find anything in them to hang her with, it sounds like you'll say it's because she doctored them ... So what's the point of insisting she release them if you don't think you'll learn anything from them?

 

senz

(11,945 posts)
64. I did not demand that she release them.
Sun Feb 7, 2016, 03:23 PM
Feb 2016

I do, however, agree that the American people have a right to know what Hillary was up to during and after her SOS stint. If she wants us to hire her, she owes us a more complete resume than the one she's offered.

If her version of what she said to these power centers could be corroborated by the attendees, then perhaps we'd have a better idea why she was paid so handsomely.

Lordquinton

(7,886 posts)
79. I think we're learning a lot from the demands to release them
Sun Feb 7, 2016, 03:34 PM
Feb 2016

Her waffling answers, this new demand of everyone else first.

 

HooptieWagon

(17,064 posts)
31. Or there might be an overt quid-pro-quo remark...
Sun Feb 7, 2016, 02:42 PM
Feb 2016

...that could start a corruption investigation.
Regardless, it seems apparent that the content of the speeches would be more harmfull to her campaign than the bad PR of not releasing them.

ellennelle

(614 posts)
90. who knows?
Sun Feb 7, 2016, 03:41 PM
Feb 2016
There could also be comments about opening up the largesse of the government.


but, that is the point after all, is it not?

should we not know these things? transparency, accountability, of geese and ganders and all that?

Dustlawyer

(10,493 posts)
110. She has been paid A LOT OF MONEY by bankers to speak to them and address their concerns.
Sun Feb 7, 2016, 04:48 PM
Feb 2016

We can all stop speculating about what was said, she told them what they wanted to hear. It's not rocket science. The problem with it is that what they wanted to hear would be things that are not fair to the 99% of us. That would be the only reason she has freaked out and said that even if EVERYONE ELSE released ALL of the transcripts for all of their speeches she would have to still think about it, "further!"

When you think about how many YEARS it takes the average person to make $300,000, what she made in less than 1 hour, it makes you sick! Her foux outrage over the issue should tell anyone what they need to know about her.

RDANGELO

(3,430 posts)
13. I was thinking that she might come out saying that she didn't have them.
Sun Feb 7, 2016, 02:08 PM
Feb 2016

After saying that she would look into it during the debate, it would look like she looked for them and couldn't find them. That at least would seem plausible since according to the contracts, she would be the only one to have copies. This appears to be a total dodge.

 

HooptieWagon

(17,064 posts)
33. If she's looking for them...
Sun Feb 7, 2016, 02:44 PM
Feb 2016

...she can probably find them on the dining room side table, under the Rose Law Firm billing records.

Dragonfli

(10,622 posts)
35. I spent a geat deal of time convewrsing with a Hillary superfan last night tht appeared to claim
Sun Feb 7, 2016, 02:45 PM
Feb 2016
She had no records, and that the producers and Chuck Todd were lying about them existing, I noted to that poster that Using Occam's razor to only cut one's throat was a bit silly.

Exchange started here: http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=1162553

But continues in earnest here: http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=1163179

I am still not sure if that one is a staffer (for Clinton or some Republican trying to make us look stupid)
Or just so drunk on Kool-aid that he/she can no longer make cogent arguments.

A Simple Game

(9,214 posts)
96. Every time I have had a "conversation" with that one I am reminded of the old saying:
Sun Feb 7, 2016, 04:01 PM
Feb 2016

Never mud wrestle with pigs, you will both get dirty and the pig likes it.

zeemike

(18,998 posts)
108. Jury results.
Sun Feb 7, 2016, 04:44 PM
Feb 2016

REASON FOR ALERT

This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.

ALERTER'S COMMENTS

Rude, a call out and name calling of a DUer that's not even participating in this thread. Please hide.

You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Mon Feb 8, 2016, 05:33 AM, and the Jury voted 3-4 to LEAVE IT.

Juror #1 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: There is nothing wrong with this post.
If you don't want to be quoted then don't post on a public forum.
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #4 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #6 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #7 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given

TTUBatfan2008

(3,623 posts)
14. Jake Tapper...
Sun Feb 7, 2016, 02:12 PM
Feb 2016

Jake Tapper asked Bernie today if he wanted to see Hillary's transcripts and Bernie said "NO."

Erich Bloodaxe BSN

(14,733 posts)
18. Bernie's just too damn nice.
Sun Feb 7, 2016, 02:18 PM
Feb 2016

He wants to win simply because his ideas are better, and not because voters get to see what his opponents think of the American people when there aren't any cameras around.

TTUBatfan2008

(3,623 posts)
22. She keeps attacking him on a derivatives vote...
Sun Feb 7, 2016, 02:26 PM
Feb 2016

even though her husband's advisers slipped it into the bill and her husband signed it into law. "I'm the only one on this stage that didn't vote for it." Dirty stuff, lol. Someone in the TV media needs to call her out next time she says it. Tapper failed to do so today.

Fawke Em

(11,366 posts)
84. Wasn't it also an omnibus bill?
Sun Feb 7, 2016, 03:37 PM
Feb 2016

If Bernie didn't vote for it, he would be voting not to fund the government. He doesn't do shit like that.

TTUBatfan2008

(3,623 posts)
87. I believe it was but not 100% sure...
Sun Feb 7, 2016, 03:38 PM
Feb 2016

Either way pretty lame to say "I didn't vote for it" given the fact she was the First Lady in the White House and likes to brag about her influence on the POTUS at the time. He ended up signing the bill into law and his advisers were the ones who put the terrible derivatives thing in the bill.

 

artislife

(9,497 posts)
38. But the voters do. And we are the ones who get to decide what is important
Sun Feb 7, 2016, 02:52 PM
Feb 2016

She has all the micro movements of being obtuse. It is as if she is arguing what "is" is all the time. This is what kills the trust factor in a lot of voters' minds. You walk away from someone like that feeling that if you had asked the question differently, the answer would have been different. The facts remain for you to try to ferret out and her argument will be on semantics.

livetohike

(22,084 posts)
15. Not odd at all. Why should she be singled out? Why are there
Sun Feb 7, 2016, 02:12 PM
Feb 2016

demands on her and everyone else skates by? It's harassment.

Erich Bloodaxe BSN

(14,733 posts)
17. Gee, I dunno, could it be because
Sun Feb 7, 2016, 02:17 PM
Feb 2016

she's the one getting paid 200k to 700k a pop for speeches at which her contract states that no one else can record them, and she gets to keep the only transcript? People wanted to know what Mitt Romney spoke of behind closed doors too, and when they found out, it killed his run for the WH. Hillary certainly learned from that - she learned to make sure absolutely no one had a chance to know what she was saying behind closed doors.

Qutzupalotl

(14,230 posts)
23. Exorbitant speaker's fees look dangerously close to bribery,
Sun Feb 7, 2016, 02:27 PM
Feb 2016

since they go directly in the pocket — unless the proceeds are donated to charity, in which case it's fine. I will grant that as a former SoS and first lady, she is in higher demand than a mere senator. And she is correct that all candidates should release details of what was said by them for money. She has a chance here to lead by example and go first.

 

senz

(11,945 posts)
49. Because she is so egregiously, shockingly, outlandishly corrupt, that's why.
Sun Feb 7, 2016, 03:08 PM
Feb 2016

Bernie doesn't do that shit. I doubt Martin O'Malley did it either. I haven't heard of any of the Republican candidates doing it to that extent, either.

SHE is the one who's got a whole lot of explaining to do.

And do not even try to call it "harassment." Do not cheapen the term.

 

senz

(11,945 posts)
57. Blasé much?
Sun Feb 7, 2016, 03:16 PM
Feb 2016

This may be very difficult to understand, but politicians are not supposed to be corrupt.

Bribery is a form of corruption. Hillary Clinton regularly engages in activities that reek of corruption.

Some of us find that objectionable.

You apparently do not. You owe it to yourself to give it further thought.

Erich Bloodaxe BSN

(14,733 posts)
16. I actually doubt Sanders keeps 'transcripts' of his speeches.
Sun Feb 7, 2016, 02:14 PM
Feb 2016

But then, neither does he likely demand that no one else record him as part of his speech contracts. His 'transcripts' are simply whatever video or audio other people have made at his speeches.

PoliticAverse

(26,366 posts)
32. The charge that Clinton required organizations to pay to make a transcript of her speech...
Sun Feb 7, 2016, 02:43 PM
Feb 2016

exceeds what Sanders was paid for any of his speeches even.

frylock

(34,825 posts)
24. CORRECTION: She's calling for ANYONE who ever made a speech ANYWHERE to release their transcripts.
Sun Feb 7, 2016, 02:30 PM
Feb 2016

Even Joe Sixpack's speech on tying flies down at the Elk's Lodge 1339.

 

libdem4life

(13,877 posts)
29. Please. How does one go from broke (AR Statehouse) to 3 digit millions in what, 25 years?
Sun Feb 7, 2016, 02:41 PM
Feb 2016

She can't make them public. They will crucify her. Better just to look Shady than Guilty. The Clinton's wear Shady quite well.

72DejaVu

(1,545 posts)
30. Yes, it is odd that she would think the same standards should apply to everyone
Sun Feb 7, 2016, 02:41 PM
Feb 2016

You would think she'd be used to special rules just for her by now.

polly7

(20,582 posts)
37. Why wouldn't she ask just Bernie to release his as the only other Democratic candidate in
Sun Feb 7, 2016, 02:49 PM
Feb 2016

her race?

No need to answer - because she knows he'd have no problem with it, and that by including the GOP candidates who would definitely refuse to, she's golden.

72DejaVu

(1,545 posts)
39. Why shouldn't it apply to Republicans as well?
Sun Feb 7, 2016, 02:53 PM
Feb 2016

Unless, of course, you don't really care about the principle of the issue and just want something to use against Hillary.

polly7

(20,582 posts)
40. It should.
Sun Feb 7, 2016, 02:54 PM
Feb 2016

But she knows there is no way in hell they would release anything, so she's safe by including them and doesn't have to release hers.

72DejaVu

(1,545 posts)
42. She's safe anyway
Sun Feb 7, 2016, 02:58 PM
Feb 2016

And gains more by refusing to be pushed around than she losses by giving her haters another thing to kick their feet about.

72DejaVu

(1,545 posts)
45. If I was the Sanders camp I'd leave this alone
Sun Feb 7, 2016, 03:04 PM
Feb 2016

Because if they push it, and the rest of the speeches turn out to be as innocuous as the ones we've already seen, the egg will be on Bernie's face, not Hillary's.

polly7

(20,582 posts)
58. No, I think the people who are either supporting or not supporting her deserve the right
Sun Feb 7, 2016, 03:17 PM
Feb 2016

to know, just as Romney's 47% speech illustrated just where his loyalties lie. This isn't Bernie Sander's fault. He's not owned by Big Money and would have no problem with any of his speeches being released for people to judge him on - how many are there, by the way - I heard he earned just a couple thousand and gave it to charity?

72DejaVu

(1,545 posts)
62. OK< but I'm saying it could be bad politics for Bernie
Sun Feb 7, 2016, 03:20 PM
Feb 2016

If his campaign ramps up demands for the transcripts (And I don't think they will), and there's nothing damaging in them, Hillary will get a political windfall out of it.

So, yeah, go for it, Team Sanders.

polly7

(20,582 posts)
63. I don't think there's any chance she'll release anything but don't fault anyone - in Bernie
Sun Feb 7, 2016, 03:21 PM
Feb 2016

Sander's camp or not, for wanting to know what's in them.

polly7

(20,582 posts)
68. I don't think it would, even if he did allow it. People deserve truth, just as they
Sun Feb 7, 2016, 03:25 PM
Feb 2016

did when Romney's leaked video came out.

72DejaVu

(1,545 posts)
70. Look at it this way
Sun Feb 7, 2016, 03:28 PM
Feb 2016

If I demand you show everyone what's in your pocket, and build up the expectations and speculation that it's something terrible, and you pull out a rose, which one of us looks foolish?

polly7

(20,582 posts)
76. If she had roses, she'd have no problem presenting them.
Sun Feb 7, 2016, 03:32 PM
Feb 2016

Everyone loves giving flowers. But even if they were flowery no-content speeches, what's in them is irrelevant when you consider she now owes the people who paid her for them, right? Who gives away millions for nothing??

72DejaVu

(1,545 posts)
85. She owed them the speech she gave them
Sun Feb 7, 2016, 03:38 PM
Feb 2016

It's been shown over and over that the amounts they paid are not out of line for speakers of her statute.

Anyway, I've made my point, and I appreciate your thoughts, but we are going around and around.

But, if it turns out she is setting Bernie up on this issue, remember who said it first

polly7

(20,582 posts)
89. Why would she be giving speeches to GS and big money organizations though?
Sun Feb 7, 2016, 03:41 PM
Feb 2016

What would both parties gain by that? I'm pretty sure they were aware of her political ambitions and are smart enough to realize a more progressive candidate just might possibly hurt their profits.

She's not setting Bernie Sanders up. Imo, she brought it on herself, he has nothing to hide. I appreciate your thoughts too, you're a very nice Clinton supporter.

roguevalley

(40,656 posts)
93. this is a lose-lose for her
Sun Feb 7, 2016, 03:48 PM
Feb 2016

she doesn't release them and it allows everyone to fill in the blanks: corrupt, liar, hides shit

she releases them and everyone can see she sold herself to the corporations and if she edits them someone somewhere will say so and she's over. It's simple. If they were innocuous she would be leaping over peons to show it.

No matter how this goes, her arrogant self belief that she would have a cakewalk to the white house was her undoing. Taking bribes/zillions from the people who are gutting our country just before election season and not even bothering to hide their crimes from public view doomed her and she didn't believe it would matter because inevitability.

Clinton v Bush

How's that working out for you, JEB! and HRC?

the longer this go, the most direly it harms her. But then, she hasn't done anything right yet, so ...

Lordquinton

(7,886 posts)
91. When sanders was asked if he wanted Hillary to relase them
Sun Feb 7, 2016, 03:43 PM
Feb 2016

he said "No" This is the media that has been asking. If, after all this stonewalling and excuse making, they do turn out to be innocuous like you claim, the story will be "Why was she hiding this?" It will dovetail nicely into the perception that she's not trustworthy. She's dug herself into a hole, she'll have to take the hit on it eventually.

 

senz

(11,945 posts)
83. She reeks of corruption.
Sun Feb 7, 2016, 03:37 PM
Feb 2016

She should welcome a chance to clear the air.

I hope her supporters don't think they can wrap her and all her highly questionable activities up into an opaque little bundle and then sneak the whole stinky mess past the American people and into the presidency.

It's not supposed to work that way. Hillary is applying for a job and we, as the employers, have every right to know what she has done in the past.

We won't let her just fake her way in.

Mike Nelson

(9,903 posts)
53. I find it odd that all these people have...
Sun Feb 7, 2016, 03:13 PM
Feb 2016

..."transcripts" of their paid speeches? But, yes, everyone will have to "release" them, now.

kstewart33

(6,551 posts)
81. They all should release them.
Sun Feb 7, 2016, 03:35 PM
Feb 2016

The information would be useful. And if Clinton has to, they all have to.

Merryland

(1,134 posts)
54. whatever is in those "speeches"
Sun Feb 7, 2016, 03:13 PM
Feb 2016

must be toxic to the max. the arrogance of someone surrounded by sycophants.

HereSince1628

(36,063 posts)
55. Well it looks just like a qualified-limited-hang-out
Sun Feb 7, 2016, 03:16 PM
Feb 2016

wherein she sorta agrees to revealing the transcripts but qualifies it so that it's very unlikely to happen.

One of the games she's also known for is baiting her political opponents into deadends, this draws out the notion of conspiracy theories of people out to get her, and then it blows up in their face.

If I were the Sanders campaign I'd stay out of this and let the media take the risks. For Sanders it's enough that an apparent money connection exists between HRC and her sponsoring banks

HereSince1628

(36,063 posts)
104. It's damage control sop when stopped by a cop people proceed similarly
Sun Feb 7, 2016, 04:33 PM
Feb 2016

look cooperative say as little as possible

LibDemAlways

(15,139 posts)
65. She included all candidates because she knows the R's
Sun Feb 7, 2016, 03:23 PM
Feb 2016

would never release the content of their paid speeches. She's using the others as a shield for whatever the hell she told the banksters instead of simply owning up to what she said and accepting the consequences. Typical Clinton weasel move.

passiveporcupine

(8,175 posts)
67. Defensive, stonewalling, ...the perception is toxic.
Sun Feb 7, 2016, 03:24 PM
Feb 2016

It's because she knows (as we all do) that she has said things in her speeches to wall street and other big money groups that would come across like Romney's 47% comment. And she can't allow that. She saw what that did to Romney.

No way in hell she didn't say things to Wall Street that can't hurt her. It's why she is prevaricating and stonewalling, and she's sounding desperate to me.

antigop

(12,778 posts)
71. No, I've explained multiple times. She's boxed in. It's a no-win,regardless of what she does.
Sun Feb 7, 2016, 03:29 PM
Feb 2016

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.

ellennelle

(614 posts)
73. agreed
Sun Feb 7, 2016, 03:30 PM
Feb 2016

just beyond absurd.

actually, just as with her coy suggestion of one more debate before NH, i think bernie ought to take her bait. for that situation, she dangled the one debate, which to some here looked like the perfect trap for bernie, damned if he does and if he doesn't. but he, slyly, took the bait and ran circles around her, suggesting three more debates, with DNC approval. point bernie.

in this situation, his list would be most impressive, if your info is accurate (that's my memory, as well; donated to VT charities). it would put the differences in fees - and what's done with them - in bold comparison, first. but second, if she balks at ponying up, he could then simply ask, gosh, do you really mean to say you want to draw this particular comparison with the republicans? really?? what sense does that make here, and what a fully ingenuous challenge. point bernie.

it's almost sad how poorly she is playing these things, but too much like 8 years ago. you are right, she's done this to herself.

as for albright, also agree, but only for those who are still on her side after blankfein first pushed a few clinton and GOP supporters over to bernie.

kstewart33

(6,551 posts)
75. Sounds fair to me.
Sun Feb 7, 2016, 03:32 PM
Feb 2016

If Hillary releases the text of her speeches, why shouldn't Bernie and every other Republican candidate do the same? Why does one expectation apply to Hillary but not to anyone else?

ellennelle

(614 posts)
80. oh, and by the way, you ARE wrong
Sun Feb 7, 2016, 03:35 PM
Feb 2016

about the source of that question.

it was NOT chuck todd, tho he did ask it in the debate.

it was first asked by lee fang of the intercept.

https://theintercept.com/2016/01/23/clinton-goldman-sachs-laugh/

Old Crow

(2,212 posts)
82. It's a major problem for her.
Sun Feb 7, 2016, 03:35 PM
Feb 2016

I already posted on this when the issue first arose Friday:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=1145764

Her stonewalling confirms my opinion that she was cozying up to Goldman Sachs to such a shameless degree that the public would be disgusted by what they read--particularly in light of how often she's proclaimed she told Wall Street to "CUT IT OUT!" (her words, her shouting delivery).

Considering that her trustworthiness numbers are already in the basement--and this will drive them still lower--the content of the transcripts has to be pretty bad if she thinks stonewalling is the smarter choice.

gwheezie

(3,580 posts)
95. If I were Hillary I wouldn't do it
Sun Feb 7, 2016, 03:58 PM
Feb 2016

She's not looking only at the primary race. Bernie has already hung the hint of corruption on her with no proof. But if she is the nominee who ever the GOP nominee is will have every speech handed to them to use against her.

 

hifiguy

(33,688 posts)
100. She has never been a particularly good campaigner.
Sun Feb 7, 2016, 04:23 PM
Feb 2016

She tends to be stuff and rather brittle. Add arrogance, a gigantic, Nixonesque sense of entitlement to the office and a tin ear for the public mood and this is what you get. "The rules are for thee but not for me" is as egotistical as you can get.

She has the common touch of Marie Antoinette and the humility of Napoleon.

 

magical thyme

(14,881 posts)
103. not the slightest bit odd...
Sun Feb 7, 2016, 04:32 PM
Feb 2016

She knows that all bazillion clowns on the GOP side will not call her bluff. At least one will hold out (probably all). So then she gets to refuse without saying 'no' by laying down conditions that will not be met.

Doesn't matter. Bernie didn't ask for the transcripts; others did. Bernie said he doesn't need or particularly want to see them.

Personally, I'd love to see them, but know it's unlikely I (or we) ever will. We already do know that she blamed homebuyers for the fraudulent loans. God only knows what else she blamed us for in her speeches to her donors.

Really, this is all I need to see:

 

Hulk

(6,699 posts)
105. Why does she need to be bothered with releasing her transcripts?
Sun Feb 7, 2016, 04:33 PM
Feb 2016

More bull shit. We already know she is taking huge sums from Wall Street. If you weren't asleep during the 90's, you might have already realized rather clearly that the Climton administration was not much better than gop-lite.

This is just another worthless distraction. HRC is a shill for Wall Street. I know, she told them to "cut it out" once upon a time. Ouch! That really set her apart.

I think anyone with an objective point of view can already figure out that HRC most probably sucked up to Goldman Sachs, and any other Corp that was willing to fork out six figures for her "wise words of wisdom".

Come on America, save your time, energy and attention for things that matter.

(Get ready for the label of "enabler, etc." from the peanut gallery.....3, 2, 1.....)

in_cog_ni_to

(41,600 posts)
109. Obfuscation.
Sun Feb 7, 2016, 04:44 PM
Feb 2016
Full Definition of obfuscate

ob·fus·cat·edob·fus·cat·ing

1
transitive verb

2
1
a : darken

b : to make obscure <obfuscate the issue>

3
2
: confuse <obfuscate the reader>

4
intransitive verb

5

: to be evasive, unclear, or confusing



—ob·fus·ca·tion play ˌäb-(ˌ fəs-ˈkā-shən noun


—ob·fus·ca·to·ry play äb-ˈfəs-kə-ˌtȯr-ē, əb- adjective


"Hillary Speeches" instead of the "Nixon Tapes"......What did she say and when did she say it.

PEACE
LOVE
BERNIE

Bernblu

(441 posts)
112. She just admitted that she said things to Goldman Sachs for $675,000
Mon Feb 8, 2016, 04:43 AM
Feb 2016

that she doesn't want the public to know about. How can we then believe anything she says about Wall Street? The answer is we can't.

silenttigersong

(957 posts)
113. This is a question of speculation
Mon Feb 8, 2016, 05:14 AM
Feb 2016

With all the activity between agencies of Gov,what is the possibilities of the SEC,or FBI(because of investigation of Clinton's server)having interviewed people, esp Goldman Sachs?
Latest Discussions»Retired Forums»2016 Postmortem»Does anyone else thinks i...