Hillary Clinton has been looking into releasing her transcripts for 45 days.

[Orsino]

http://iwilllookintoit.com

"Hillary Clinton has been looking into releasing her transcripts for paid speeches to Wall St. and other special interests for 45 days."

[geek tragedy]

1. the transcript of her AIPAC speech is a lot more disturbing than anything in those

wall street speeches.

[Kip Humphrey]

5. I'll bet... I can't bring myself to listen to it though.

[upaloopa]

6. What is in those Wall Street speeches?

We need to compare Hillay with Trump and see who is better for Americans re: Wall Street.

[geek tragedy]

16. probably nothing but platitudes.

her AIPAC speech is indistinguishable from a speech George W Bush or Jeb Bush would have given.

[riversedge]

53. You are making stuff up without any evidence

[geek tragedy]

63. I read the transcript of her speech before AIPAC.

http://time.com/4265947/hillary-clinton-aipac-speech-transcript/

[Jackie Wilson Said]

80. Do we have a list of examples where she and Bernie differ on what is in that speech?

A credible list.

[geek tragedy]

83. she firmly rejects the idea that the US should be neutral between the Israelis and Palestinians

She even said that anyone who wanted us to be neutral has no business being president.

[Jackie Wilson Said]

86. Bernie is on record stating we should be neutral? In what ways?

Do you have a link to what he has said on this?

[Sunlei]

89. only republican trump said he is 'neutral'. To be neutral only emboldens the 'bad people'.

[geek tragedy]

96. so your claim is that (a) Bernie Sanders is emboldening the bad people and (b) there

are no bad people within the Israeli government?

http://www.haaretz.com/world-news/u-s-election-2016/1.707917

“All I can tell you is I will make every single effort to bring rational people on both sides together so that hopefully we can have a level playing field, the United States treating everybody in that region equally.” The crowd erupted in applause.

[Sunlei]

111. not equal rights, everyone all people should be treated equally!

It was TRUMP who said he was NEUTRAL.

[geek tragedy]

94. From 12 days ago

http://www.haaretz.com/world-news/u-s-election-2016/1.707917

“All I can tell you is I will make every single effort to bring rational people on both sides together so that hopefully we can have a level playing field, the United States treating everybody in that region equally.” The crowd erupted in applause.

[Jackie Wilson Said]

95. That is a very distinguishable position, for sure. Thanks.

[ihaveaquestion]

69. WELL - According to HRC herself...

She told Wall Street executives to "Knock it Off." There's gotta be more good inspiring stuff like that, right?

If so, what's the problem with letting us in on the rest of the story and inspiring us to vote for her?

[upaloopa]

75. Well for one nobody cares about those speeches except Bernie and

his supporters. For two she was a private citizen so it is nobody's business. Three the reason Bernie wants them is to hopefully find something to help his campaign
Four no candidate in modern history has been vetted like Hillary has

Fifth the primary is over for all intents and purposes Hillay has moved on to the general election

[frylock]

99. Nobody cares except for Bernie and his supporters?

Is that why the transcripts have been brought up in every town hall and debate since the question was originally asked? Because nobody cares except for Bernie and his supporters?

[upaloopa]

114. Yep the media wants a horse race. If she released speeches Bernie

would use them to make more of a horse race. But as I said it is all but over so nobody cares but Bernie and his supporters.

[frylock]

116. It's going to be funny watching her stammer and stutter when Trump..

releases his transcripts in the GE. What excuses can we expect her to use after that?

[upaloopa]

117. Like I said nobody but Bernie supporters care about it.

Do you see anyone anywhere but here talking about Hillary's speeches?

[frylock]

118. You mean other than in every debate or town hall since they were brought up?

Perhaps you need to spend more time in the real world, and less time in the HRC group.

[arikara]

112. Do you really think that a person's views as a private citizen

would have no bearing on how they really think as a candidate? Especially when the person made $250,000 for a one hour speech given to the crookedest most gouging entity in the world?

[upaloopa]

115. Seems you already made up your mind Hillary is up to no good.

[arikara]

121. I wouldn't call it "already"

when actually I used to admire her very much. My change of mind evolved after years of political observation. Many disappointments later, yes I've sadly come to the conclusion that she is as you so succinctly put it... up to no good.

[dchill]

7. Possibly, but how would we know?

[Orsino]

8. Would be nice to be able to check your assertion.

But she is not permitting that.

[geek tragedy]

21. to me, transcripts are a gimmicky argument

so she releases one transcript, then what about the rest?
so she releases all of the wall street transcripts, what about the rest of her speeches?
so she releases all of her transcripts, how do we verify the accuracy? is there video?

etc etc.

she gave the speeches, for a lot of money, and it was not only politically stupid, but rather disrespectful to the mood of the electorate and oblivious to the need to avoid even the perception of corruption. we don't need the transcripts to recognize that

[Orsino]

25. Only one argument is being made.

Some voters still want this info, while Clinton is no longer acknowledging that the info even exists.

[geek tragedy]

26. how many of the voters calling for those transcripts would ever dream

of voting for her in the primary?

[Orsino]

35. I'm dreaming rather heavily of late.

If those transcripts are as damaging as her behavior suggests, and she deliberately conceals them from voters, well, are we just supposed to hope that the GOP can't get at them, either?

What is the justification for continued secrecy?

[geek tragedy]

39. justification=no benefit to releasing them, and as I said even if she releases them

then the question becomes "how do we know this is what she actually said?"

And every sentence gets microparsed, etc.

No upside to her in releasing.

[Orsino]

55. How damaging do you suspect them to be?

I would have guessed not very, but the long holdout looks more and more sinister.

[geek tragedy]

64. I suspect it would be nothing scandalous but not terribly flattering

They didn't pay her $225,000 to scold them.

The hold out seems like typical Clintonism to me, they don't like to disclose. I'm not a huge fan of hers.

[Orsino]

67. The extant news reports suggested some rah-rah content...

...but did not hint of anything incriminating.

[geek tragedy]

68. rah rah for Wall Street is kind of incriminating in a general way,

not evidence of wrongdoing but still kinda yucky

but, we already know the situation is pretty yucky

[Orsino]

70. "Not evidence of wrongdoing" is a funny conclusion...

...when we are not allowed to see the evidence.

[geek tragedy]

73. if there's a trial alleging legal misconduct, those transcripts would be subpoenaed.

it's already been established that she's guilty of bad political judgment and contemptuous hubris.

[Orsino]

82. That's still glossing over the issue of (IMO) greatest import.

I want to know what was said by our candidate, and why the veil of secrecy.

Even the greatest corruption of our time may be perfectly legal, and I am not okay with her waiting for a subpoena that will never be issued.

[geek tragedy]

84. I certainly respect your right to want to see those

but at the end of the day, from her campaign's calculus, you're not a persuadable primary voter.

[Orsino]

87. That is probably the least sinister possible interpretation.

Fuck transparency.

[geek tragedy]

93. people for whom transparency is a dealbreaker are voting for Sanders no matter what nt

[Orsino]

97. More than deal-breaking or the primary is at stake.

Are we to be informed voters, or not?

So far, the answer is not.

Do we have a surprise awaiting us in the general?

[geek tragedy]

98. by that standard, every single email and private conversation she's ever had--or that

any candidate ever had--should be on the table.

[Orsino]

100. Nope. Standards are different for the secret architects of economic ruin.

Goldman-Sachs are very, very important. I would like to believe that they were important mainly as disinterested donors/employers, but that would be a naive assumption.

Why the special secrecy rules? Why should Clinton sit on the only transcripts?

[geek tragedy]

101. As I said, it's your right to place that importance on them.

I don't.

[Orsino]

103. How do you know you should discount this issue? n/t

[geek tragedy]

104. because I don't care. she gave the speeches, took the money, from

Wall Street types and other businesses and orgs willing to give her $200K because of her celebrity status.

it's gross, it was a sign she was taking the Democratic electorate for granted, and was generally tone deaf to the populist sentiment in the electorate.

I don't need transcripts to tell me any of that.

Do I think there's a 47% moment in those transcripts? No.

[Orsino]

107. That is understandable.

I also doubt there's a 47% moment in there.

And yet...she would have us believe the primary's already over, and that we now owe her our fealty. Is the secret so potentially damaging that she fears it's release even in the general? Would she be revealed as even cozier with Big Finance than any Republican opponent? I think she should have gotten this out of the way long ago, though she may have seen Sanders as more of a threat early on.

Troubling questions remain, as an MSM reporter would say when faced with similar stonewalling.

[geek tragedy]

109. the political calculus on these things is pretty simple

benefits of disclosing plus costs of not disclosing minus costs of disclosing and benefits of not disclosing.

[Human101948]

30. They are in storage along with Christie's Bridgegate notes...

right next to Jimmy Hoffa's body.

[PoliticAverse]

9. What in her AIPAC speech is something that isn't known already re Clinton's positions? n/t

[geek tragedy]

19. compare it to Obama's interview with Jeff Goldberg from last week.

Obama recognizes that the entire Middle East is a shitshow that we can't fix.

Clinton has not learned the right lessons.

[DanTex]

2. The Dem electorate doesn't care about this smear. Ergo her 300+ delegate lead.

If the GOP wants her to release them, they're going to need to release their own.

[HassleCat]

10. Absolutely correct.

All we care about is winning. This makes us different than the other party, because all they care about is winning.

[global1]

24. I Think We Know What The Relationship Is Between The Repugs And Wall St....

there wouldn't be any surprises in the Repugs transcripts. So her saying she won't release her transcripts until the GOP releases theirs is just a bogus dodge.

However, I'm asked to make a decision between two Dem candidates - Hillary and Bernie. I want to be able to compare and contrast their positions on Wall St so I can make an informed decision. I want to be voting for someone that will be protecting my interests and not the interests of the Bankster's and 1%er's. The only way I will know that Hillary is not telling us one thing and saying something completely different to the Goldman Sach's of the world is to see her transcripts.

If she has nothing to hide - then there shouldn't be any problem with her releasing her transcripts of these speeches. All I can assume from her stonewalling this is that she has something to hide.

Am I being unreasonable here? I'm sorry - I like to make informed decisions on any product I'm considering buying. Be it a new TV, a smart phone or my next President.

[DanTex]

29. Well, if you think Bernie is a better candidate because of the speech, then go ahead.

Personally, I don't care about it, and evidently most Democratic primary voters don't care either.

And if she does release the transcript, I'm sure that the GOP is going to go quoting it out of context to damage her in the GE. Since I don't want the GOP to win, I'm glad she's holding out until the GOP releases similar transcripts of their own.

[global1]

51. I Guess That Is The Difference Between You And I.....

I can't accept things on blind faith. I don't like to be made to look foolish after the fact if I didn't gather all the info I could to make and informed decision.

I would really be upset with myself if my candidate was deceiving me in any way and I accepted their word - and when they got elected they went ahead and took advantage of me or turned out to be like their Repug opponents.

That to me is the problem with most Dem primary voters - they just don't care. They don't do good due diligence on their candidates and they wind up shooting themselves in the fool in the process. Actually - I shouldn't just single out Dem primary voters as it is the problem with most Americans that don't gather all the facts before they make an important decision as to who will be running their country. Didn't we learn anything from the BushCo administration? Are we doomed to keep making the same mistakes over and over?

And the GOP won't be quoting her speeches out of context - because - if they happen to be pro-Wall St & bankster's - they would be implicating themselves as well. I don't see any of the GOP candidates asking for her to release these transcripts. Only Dem voters that don't want to be made to look like fools.

[DanTex]

62. I'm not accepting anything on "blind faith."

I'm looking at both candidates in their totality. Both have blemishes. For example, there's no possibility that Bernie will live up to his forecast of a decade of 5.3% GDP growth. If you want to talk about "due diligence," I'd suggest you start with that number, which is so absurd it would make the GOP blush.

From my assessment of the candidates in their totality, the content of her Goldman speeches doesn't matter much. Maybe it's because I've been to some corporate events with paid speakers, what the speeches are most of all is boring.

So I'm not worried about being made to look like a fool. The only concern I really have is that somehow the GOP wins in November. Everything else is a trivial concern compared to that.

[dchill]

3. She is being exceptionally kind...

She doesn't want us to be embarrassed for accusingly demanding to see those completely innocent documents.

[amborin]

4. the transcripts plus the missing email

[upaloopa]

11. How about her chocolate chip cookie recipe too.

We need to know everything Hillary has ever written, said or thought so we can find something that will help with the delegate deficit.

[Orsino]

15. After 45 days, no answer. n/t

[upaloopa]

56. Nobody cares nt

[SwampG8r]

32. Her cookie recipe is

The one on the chocolat chips. Much like her resume she took credit for what others did.

[upaloopa]

59. Nobody cares nt

[Human101948]

38. I knew Betty Crocker, and she is no Betty Crocker...

What a fantastic reply! You ought to trademark that one.

[islandmkl]

12. nothing unusual...I have cleaned drawers, etc. of things and put something in a new place

for 'safekeeping'...and then later, when I need to find it, I can't remember the new hiding place...or it is not the same place I thought it was...

for instance, it just happened with my passport a couple of months ago...

turns out my cat had found the hiding place and made it safer...kind of...

does Hillary have a cat?

[SwampG8r]

33. I bet they were on the server she wiped with a cloth!

[islandmkl]

47. hopefully she is not under the misconception that unplugging the server

would wipe out its memory...

kind of like trusting 'delete'...

[Kelvin Mace]

13. I am guessing that someone on the Right will release it

in October.

[NWCorona]

22. I think the same

[RufusTFirefly]

23. Bingo!

And my guess is that Hillary's "team"'is already planning what to do as a response that will provide a sufficient distraction for at least a news cycle or two.

[Orsino]

110. Hm.

It was probably easy to record audio. You'd think that opportunity researchers could have released this stuff already. If it's all that embarrassing.

[Kelvin Mace]

120. More damaging in late September or October

If they release it now, HRC would have months to try and mitigate the damage, and would have to do deals to shore up he left flank. Worse, it could cost her the nomination by causing her numbers to plunge. They do not want Sanders as the nominee since all they can really do is call him a socialist. He is not a cesspool of scandals, real and imagined.

[Lizzie Poppet]

14. Surprised it's taken that long to get them scrubbed...

...and to track down possible sources of intact versions.

I can't manage to give a single fuck about them at this point. I'd no more trust their accuracy than I'd trust my cat unattended around a plate of tuna salad.

[global1]

31. There It Is - The Next Excuse......

"See - I can never win. I released my (scrubbed - my word not hers) transcripts and there is nothing there and they still don't believe me. They're all against me. It is a vast RW conspiracy."

[oasis]

17. Transcripts and much more will be available for viewing at

The Hillary Clinton Presidential Library in 2028.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

18. She's showing her "decisive" side.

[RufusTFirefly]

20. Darnit! It's Ted Cruz's fault!

If Cruz would just release his, Hillary would finally be able to release hers!! She's so anxious to do so, but you know, it's kind of out of her hands.

Darn that Cruz!

[riversedge]

36. Campaigning for @Hillary in Az today: @LaborSec @DoloresHuerta @wendydavis @RonBarberAZ

HILLARY IS TOO BUSY TO PLAY YOUR SILLY GAMES

Latinos for Hillary Retweeted
Ian Sams ?@IanSams 1h1 hour ago

Campaigning for @HillaryClinton in Arizona today: @LaborSec @DoloresHuerta @wendydavis @RonBarberAZ ... and @HillaryClinton herself! #GOTV





thepoliticalcat ?@thepoliticalcat 16h16 hours ago

Labor leader @DoloresHuerta speaks on Sanders & immigration: https://medium.com/@DoloresHuerta/on-immigration-bernie-sanders-is-not-who-he-says-he-is-b79980adff6a#.8qil63uga … | #Latinos #YouNeed2Know

Dolores HuertaFeb 193 min read
On Immigration, Bernie Sanders is Not Who He Says He Is.




backdoordraft
?@boycotkochbros

“Well, that’s funny. In 2007, Bernie voted against Senator Ted Kennedy’s immigration reform bill.” — Dolores Huerta https://medium.com/@DoloresHuerta/on-immigration-bernie-sanders-is-not-who-he-says-he-is-b79980adff6a#.fr2rmpepd …

[RufusTFirefly]

66. Impressive non sequitur!

[riversedge]

72. Just plain Impressive will do it for Hillary. Lots of support and volunteers in AZ

[randome]

27. She should never have said she would consider releasing them. It was a faux pas on her part.

She was a private citizen at the time and her opponents will use every means at their disposal to tear every word apart and turn it into a weapon.

Seriously, what do you think could possibly be in those speeches? Groundless suspicion is not a useful tactic. Most of us don't care about what-ifs and maybes.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Treat your body like a machine. Your mind like a castle.[/center][/font][hr]

[Orsino]

90. Many primary voters also have a vested interest in remaining ignorant.

A candidate's words ought to be dissected, IMO--particularly the ones being concealed so adamantly.

The "private citizen" talking point is stupid. She had been a senator and was presumed by all to be a future presidential candidate. She has helped to negotiate the TPP. Why are we not all insisting on transparency. Why was her agenda a secret to begin with?

[Trust Buster]

28. She's locked up the nomination. No need to release anything at this point.

[Human101948]

42. That's what Nixon said back in 1972...

look how that turned out.

[Trust Buster]

44. Watergate was not about private transcripts from a private sector speech.

Nixon's government records were the property of the people. Kind of shocked that you didn't know that. Thank you and have a nice day.

[Human101948]

48. It was about dishonesty and obfuscation...

I am shocked that you are so ill-informed.

[Trust Buster]

54. No, it was about obstruction of justice and NOT private transcripts of a private citizen.

The End.

[Orsino]

50. Whose needs are we concerned with?

Just Clinton's?

[FreakinDJ]

34. BULLSHIT

[casperthegm]

37. HRC would like you to stop asking and let it die

Too bad. I feel that Democrats should demand better from candidates within our party. It's quite unfortunate that this is just seen as the norm and accepted as "everyone else does it." No, not everyone does it and even so, should this be ok? Giving speeches for hundreds of thousands of dollars to Wall Street, accepting super pacs (while saying you opposed Citizens United), and not disclosing transcripts? What has happened to this party, where we now just accept the cozy relationship with Wall Street and corporate America? Isn't that one of the things we despised about the GOP?

[randome]

40. 'Everyone' as in Lady Gaga and Jerry Seinfeld. They gave speeches, too.

Goldman-Sachs apparently has money to burn but these type of invites and speeches are pretty routine for them.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Treat your body like a machine. Your mind like a castle.[/center][/font][hr]

[casperthegm]

45. Is Lady Gaga running for President?

No, she is not. And it still doesn't answer my question from my post. When the heck did this cozy relationship with Wall Street and corporate America become no big deal? Fracking? Eh, that's fine. Speeches for hundreds of thousands with no transcript. Eh, whatever. NAFTA, love it. War in Iraq? Eh, what's a few trillion more in debt? Glass Steagall? Eh, we'll tell the banks to "cut it out." How are these things ok for Democrats? What has happened to this party?

[Orsino]

49. Gaga and Seinfeld would not have hidden their speeches from voters...

...and then with a straight face run for president.

[randome]

61. And they would not have had their speeches weaponized, either.

Like I said, she should not have said she'd consider releasing them but imo, it's not a big deal.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Treat your body like a machine. Your mind like a castle.[/center][/font][hr]

[Tarc]

41. The transcript issue is of no interest to anyone that isn't already a Sanders supporter, so...

There's really no motivation into releasing them this late in the season.

[Trust Buster]

46. Finally, a voice of reason.

[Scuba]

43. Well, with the media hounding her about them every day, I'm sure we'll see them soon enough.

Oh wait ...


http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/03/01/breaking-hillary-clinton-actually-takes-questions-from-reporters-after-87-days/

BREAKING: Hillary Clinton actually takes questions from reporters, after 87 days

Perhaps she was inspired by the end of Supreme Court Associate Justice Clarence Thomas’s streak of silence on Monday.

The linked video did not contain, nor did the article mention, any indication that she was asked about the transcripts of her Wall Street speeches.

[Perogie]

52. it is taking long because she keeps getting this......

[leftofcool]

57. Hillary doesn't have to release jack shit!

She never did and never will. Dumb move on Weaver/Devine's part even asking for somethings that Dems could care less about.

[Orsino]

65. Tautology.

It is clear to all that Clinton's concealment is not illegal.

We should learn why she continues to conceal information relevant to the presidency. I want to know what she told our enemies when she thought we couldn't hear, and I want to know whether she is or was under a NDA.

[leftofcool]

78. Once again, voting Democrats don't give a shit about her speeches

She was a gawd damn private citizen and can do as she pleases. Get over it.

[frylock]

106. Hillary is the President and can do as she pleases. Get over it.

Coming to a theater near you.

[ihaveaquestion]

74. Of course she doesn't, but she keeps telling us how she told Wall Street off.

Just like a confirmation, that's all. Oh and if she really did tell them to quit ripping us off, that would be nice to read about, too. Might even change my opinion about her. I sort of doubt that this is the case though. Otherwise, why keep us in the dark?

[Dawgs]

81. Um, 45% of Dems care plenty. n/t

[LynnTTT]

58. Let's hear from Trump, Cruz and Kasich also

You know that Trump and Cruz have spoken to Wall Street. Let's see those transcripts also.

[NorthCarolina]

60. Releasing her speech transcripts would be the end of her campaign. Not gonna happen.

It's privileged information not intended "for the masses".

[drokhole]

71. Are they under the desk?

Nope, not there!

*shoulders bouncing up and down* "Hehehehe"

[Bjornsdotter]

76. The fact that she won't release them

...tells me everything I need to know.

[lewebley3]

77. Hillary should not be subject to a double standard: She would not release transcripts

Until other Sec States release theirs; Hillary was a private citizen
when she gave speeches: she should not be releasing anything.

[Orsino]

85. That is absurd.

She's supposed to be running for president. What did she tell the architects of the Great Recession? What promises did she make them? Why the secrecy?

These are relevant questions.

[randome]

88. No one makes 'promises' at these speeches! They're just for fluff and show.

Goldman-Sachs has speakers all the time! You think they're all making secret plans to rule the world or something?

All hail Queen Gaga and Prince Seinfeld!
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Treat your body like a machine. Your mind like a castle.[/center][/font][hr]

[Orsino]

92. So what's the secret?

Why did Clinton insist on secrecy? Did G-S also have her under NDA?

[randome]

113. Because they will be picked apart word for word to use against her.

A skilled obfuscator can work with the most meager of ammo.

I wish she had released them, it would put this non-story away. But it's about as useful as a cudgel against her as the email non-issue. Oh, wait, I guess I just proved my point about using anything and everything against her.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Treat your body like a machine. Your mind like a castle.[/center][/font][hr]

[Orsino]

119. Clinton is certainly treating the matter with contempt.

And yes, it can probably remain a non-issue for at least as long as she chooses.

The contempt is giving me a hard time, but I am honestly trying to adjust expectations.

[atomingai]

79. She's a slow proofreader

[yourpaljoey]

91. Trump will release them, timed for maximimum effect

He will carry a copy with him to every debate... and read a passage from them
every now and again. Time and again she shall be hoist with her own petard.

[Betty Karlson]

102. And come November, they will have been 'mislaid'.

She cannot be trusted.

And worse: she is a follower, not a leader. Can we trust those who lead her?

[karynnj]

105. Well ... it took nearly 2 years after she left before she gave the SD her work emails

To me, that is a bigger deal than releasing transcripts that she is not obligated to release. Her failure to leave her emails meant that the SD could not really satisfy any Congressional inquiries. That was her "parting gift" to Obama and the State Department.

[Orsino]

108. According to her contracts, she has the only transcripts.

The delay is all on her...unless her employers kept her under NDA.