When Will Hillary Clinton Release Her Wall Street Transcripts?

[coffeeAM]

Last edited Sat May 14, 2016, 01:23 PM - Edit history (1)

She needs to do it soon because this charade is dragging the democratic party through the mud and giving the republicans a plenty of ammo to make the us look bad.

You know Trump is gonna unleash on them soon, so it is time to just release them.

[seabeyond]

1. Nevah. Nor should she. None of your business. What is Sanders hiding with tax returns?

[coffeeAM]

8. I am sure that argument will go over well with the General election voters.

You know the people that do not sit in front of their tv watching cable news 24/7. More like the people that watch reality shows and read the enquirer at the check out line.

[thesquanderer]

20. Her transcripts matter most to those who have no intention of ever voting for her anyway.

Likewise with Trump's tax returns.

[seabeyond]

45. Exactly.... Only used for a tool to attack. Nt

[GummyBearz]

49. Doesn't that make it a problem?

Why not release them and defuse the attack. I'm sure she told Goldman how she would never allow another bank bailout at tax payers expense, and would break them up so they were not "too big to fail". Right?

[dchill]

55. Absolutely, squeaky clean, nothing to hide...

so what's she waiting for?

[seabeyond]

106. There will always be another demand. No.

[GummyBearz]

116. Oh

Ok... I guess this one is just too big of a demand? She released like 50,000 emails, but a few hours worth of speeches is too much? I just wonder why? Hmm...

[seabeyond]

118. Yes, it is. Personal life that had nothing to do with govermental position. None of your business.

[GummyBearz]

122. The nature and beliefs of my future commander in chief is my business

That is how we decide which one we vote for.

[seabeyond]

156. Then I want to Sanders taxes, know about sending toxins to to Texas, selling his vote to Democrats.

The conversation he had with Lockheed/Martin, NRA and What he said about women at playboy. My right.

[GummyBearz]

159. Yea, someone should ask him those questions

Go ahead and ask him, I'd like to know more about him as well

[coffeeAM]

174. What do yu want to know?

[GummyBearz]

176. Everything

[coffeeAM]

181. What do you mean?

[coffeeAM]

123. A democratic Predidents Job is to keep wall street in check.

So we need to see the transcripts to make sure this would be achieved by President Clinton.

[seabeyond]

157. You can see by her 2007 plan she put together to address it. More than what Sanders has.

[seabeyond]

44. Ya, now the RW can pick up on what Sanders started, not that anyone cares, just something to pound

Clinton over the head with. And just think, If Sanders hadn't started this whole faux outrage, we wouldn't have to go thru it during GE.

Thanks Sanders.

[coffeeAM]

48. Just release them and we will not have to go through this, it is that simple!

[George II]

60. "We" aren't going through anything, the Sanders people are going through it for some odd reason.

[seabeyond]

64. No. By gosh, make your demands and expect them followed. No. I want Sanders taxes.

I want Sanders health reports. I want the notes when Sanders sold his vote to the Democratic party. I want to hear what Sanders was saying when discussing food lines to be a good thing. Give ME!!!

[spinboas]

223. +100

[reddread]

161. what world is this?

I hate to discount you completely, but to do otherwise
would be pretty stupid.

[brush]

201. Why? She was a private citizen then, not serving in an elected or appointed public office . . .

so there is no quid-pro-quo in question.

Additionally, what men have been asked to release transcripts?

[polly7]

21. Was Mitt Romney's leaked 47% remark no-one's business? nt.

[Sheepshank]

25. all those speeches, all those thousands of attendees and waiters and no leaking?

there's something very fishy about that.

[polly7]

32. I've read that she forbade anyone but her own transcriber to keep record of a single word she

said at those speeches. Also, that someone who attended one to a Wall Street corporation said she spoke so glowingly of them she may as well have been an executive. There is no way in hell she would speak against their predatory practices for that kind of money, also no way in hell they wouldn't be fully convinced their pay-to-play wouldn't buy favourable actions from her, knowing she was running for President. I don't know why she believes people are so stupid.

Mitt Romney's 47% remarks would never have become public either were it not for one brave person with a cellphone camera.

[Sheepshank]

75. she can say what she wants, people with an agenda will do what they will

I'm pretty sure Snowden was told not to release data.
The waiter with the cell phone also did what he wanted.

The Bernie crowd has already made fun of her telling Wall Street to "cut it out"...are you saying now that it worked?

[polly7]

77. Oh quit with the straw-man bullshit. I'm talking about her speeches to

predatory contributors to suffering around the world.

[Sheepshank]

79. your explanation was piled deep and broad here.

As if those with an agenda, could not have leaked info.

One of you co-horts on another thread claims to have found some long lost quote from a bank speech....is that then a lie? you calling your fellow Bernie Supporter a liar? Here, let me make it easy for you: http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=1948716

of course it was unsourced, but that doesn't matter to the likes of you, does it?

[polly7]

80. The likes of me?

I posted my opinion, the only agenda I have is against anyone, anywhere who supports the predatory super-billionaires spreading their suffering around the planet. Maybe 'the likes of you' have to look beyond your single-minded 'agenda' of preserving the status quo at all cost - those not making it under it are of no concern to you, are they?

[Sheepshank]

85. Yes, you have opinions and they often mean squat to me

and you are big on opinions you try to pass as facts...just like the link I gave you, with un-sourced info..."the like of you" tend to pass of hit pieces, as fact.

[polly7]

86. And yours and 'the likes of you' mean squat to me.

Last edited Thu May 12, 2016, 01:29 PM - Edit history (1)

[George II]

125. I've read that she allowed anyone who asked to be allowed in the room(s).

[polly7]

128. Really? That's odd ........... never seen mention of that at all.

You'd think those huge corporations and banks would be more concerned about who attended their events. I doubt they'd allow just anyone with an interest to attend. Strange, if they were so open to the public, there'd be no transcripts or video ........... anywhere.

What's with the white-noise machine she used recently? Obviously she didn't want 'outsiders' to hear what she was saying. Doesn't make sense, if she was as open to outside scrutiny as you claim.

[George II]

132. Nor I your "I've read....."

[polly7]

133. I've read it HERE. Good try though. nt.

[COLGATE4]

61. Yep. It's almost like there's nothing there.

Amazing.

[seabeyond]

46. It was a gotcha moment, and no, not really. I get you are looking for a gotcha. Hey, I want to hear

Sanders conversation with the Democratic party selling his vote to them in '91, or chatting about how food lines are a good thing. Might find some gotcha there too. Or conversation with a bunch of men at Playboy. Lets see what he says about women.

[polly7]

47. It was more than a 'gotcha' moment.

I can completely understand why you need to minimize the importance of where possible presidential loyalties really lie, but that 47% 'gotcha moment' (is that like Palin's 'gotcha' moments re journalists questions???) firmly cemented in millions of people's minds how corruptible he was and how little he cared about the 'little people'.

Preserve the status quo at all cost!

The rest of your post makes no fucking sense whatsoever.

[seabeyond]

62. Of course it became a gotcha moment. So, lets demand peoples diary entry so we can really see what

they think.

Hey.... why not the same for Sanders? Doesn't work that way for you though, as you make a post of fabricated accusations of insults.

You do not have the same expectation of your candidate as you do the one you oppose. I am consistent. You are not.

[polly7]

71. Wtf are you going on about? Not a single reply to what I said.

Sanders never gave speeches to Big Banks pushing the TPP, Wall Street predators, global giant corporations. She said she was the most transparent politician running, and that she'd release the transcripts when everyone else did - that was a 'gotcha' moment, no? - she fucking knows no-one else made millions being paid by the people ruining the lives of millions.

FFS.

[seabeyond]

105. WTF are you going on about. Personal earning outside of government, bad. Sanders within government

doesn't have to be transparent. Got it.

[polly7]

107. She was planning on running for President.

The MSM had been going on about even in 2014. Your 'personal earning' meme is complete bullshit. All those speeches were pay-to-play - and those corporations and banks causing so much suffering throughout the world knew damned well she was going to run. Get it???

[seabeyond]

110. She was planning on...? Cough up personal, private stuff. Sanders not planning so hide his stuff?

[polly7]

112. Good god.

[seabeyond]

113. I know, right?

[polly7]

117. I'm glad you know. Exactly what ........ I have no idea. nt.

[seabeyond]

119. Wow, witty, .... Bah ha hahahah.

[polly7]

120. Wasn't meant to be witty.

[George II]

126. I posted some of that a few months ago, it got hidden in a Burlington minute.

[LisaM]

179. I believe the remarks were made at an actual campaign event

so far more relevant.

[spinboas]

224. +100

[Orsino]

160. Private addresses for money to the architects of the Great Recession ought not to remain hidden.

Looks corrupt as hell to keep hiding them. Up to Clinton to dispel our suspicions, and she can do it any time she likes.

Unless Goldman-Sachs has her under an NDA. Should a future president have a prior oath to our enemies?

[seabeyond]

164. No it does not look corrupt. It looks like a desperate campaign looking for a gotcha, dependent

on outside circumstance to beat an already winner, Clinton.

[Orsino]

165. That's not what hiding transcripts looks like. n/t

[seabeyond]

166. Nothing about hiding. All about... none of your business. See how you create your scenario. Hiding?

[Orsino]

167. Hidden per the contracts she signed. That's her creation..

..unless there is some secret agreement with G-S that prevents her simply publishing the transcripts she owns.

[seabeyond]

168. As it should be. This was handled in normal fashion. Absolutely.

[Orsino]

169. Normal for wealthy elites who block journalistic access...

...and bar anyone else from making a record.

However, the voters live on Planet Earth.

[seabeyond]

170. Speakers and their material, end of story. Again, creating a bullshit scenario.

[Orsino]

171. What's in the transcripts that only Clinton and G-S should know? n/t

[seabeyond]

172. Her personal stuff, in her personal life, that is none of your business. She does not need to

justify that time in her life nor give you documents from teh job she was doing. You do not get to look at her diary, either.

[coffeeAM]

173. Giving speeches to wall street is not her personal business once she decided to run for president!

[seabeyond]

192. Yes. It is.

[coffeeAM]

195. Ya, in your dreams.

[seabeyond]

197. What a silly comment. This was done in her personal, private world nothing to do with a gov position

Kerry didn't have to provide his small business information. No other speaker for any reason being demanded to give up speech notes. None of your business. You all make a demand. And expect Clinton to provide. Not consistent. Not asked of others. NO.

We cannot even get Sanders taxes. He has no right to make demands of any one else. Just another example of his hypocrisy.

[coffeeAM]

206. Oh come on, you really do not believe that..

[seabeyond]

216. Don't tell me what I believe or not. I think its petty yelling,... transcripts. Looking for a gotcha

I think these demands that are constantly put on Clinton is all about her being a woman and the diffferent standards we live to men.

Do not tell a me what I believe, how arrogant.

[Orsino]

226. What was so special in these talks to auditoriums full of G-S personnel...

...that her contracts barred any other recording of the events?

"Personal"? That's ludicrous. "Private," yes, but that was more or less my point. Why were these speeches so private? What is her secret agenda in dealing with the authors of the Great Recession?

"Cut it out" wouldn't need to remain a secret. Something else is in there, and I suspect it's chummier than Clinton has so far let on.

[seabeyond]

227. Nothing is special, and still... none of your business. People do not get to make demands of Clinton

and just expect her to meet your demands.

None of your business.

No gotcha. Nothing special and still....

None of your business.

People do not get this. All the past, all those today, no running president has not had this demand placed on them. But, Sanders decides he wants to see her transcripts and demands she accommodates. No.

[Orsino]

230. Pathetic spin.

The actions and agenda of a presidential candidate are indeed subject to special scrutiny. Typically, this means television or print coverage, or the presence of reporters who make teir own recordings for later transcription/commentary.

"Personal" is a silly label when she didn't know and never met most of the people in those rooms.

"Special," undoubtedly, since she took unprecedented care to ensure that only she could reveal the texts of her speeches. Just exactly what was so special, though, remains her secret.

I think it's mostly because her tone was too chummy or too laudatory, and would contradict her "cut it out" claim.

[seabeyond]

231. I do not think it is spin at all. I would strongly advocate that Clinton does not buckle under your

and Sanders demand. Never enough, always demands, ... No.

[Orsino]

232. I think we should demand openness of our candidates...

...to include financial disclosures and tax returns.

Particularly the "private" assurances or harangues Clinton made to the architects of financial ruin when she tnought none of us could hear.

[seabeyond]

233. I want Sanders taxes, Discussion on how grand food lines are, Theories on overthrowing SAmerica

countries, conversations with communist Russia.

[Orsino]

234. This makes no sense when excusing Clinton...

...from disclosure on her secret addresses to the financial sector in the run-up to her candidacy.

[seabeyond]

235. I think it is outrageous for me to demand Sanders hidden conversations on communism and

his true beliefs of socialism, which absolutely has a huge impact on his governing style, as it is outrageous demanding Clintons transcripts. The difference. We would NEVER make that demand of Sanders, or any man in the same posiiton of Clinton. What us women know, is making these demands of women are normal, and people expect and further demand a woman comply. How dare she say no to Sanders. Pisses him and his people off that much more.

[Orsino]

236. Nonsense.

We need to know what our likely nominee and Goldman-Sachs have planned for us.

[seabeyond]

237. As I want to know Sanders Socialist/Communist positions.

[pinskinny]

239. I believe it is my business since she is running to be president of the country.

[Orsino]

253. If we can't get those transcripts...

...is it because they locked up under a secret NDA with G-S, are classified, are unflattering, or have been lost?

Or is there another explanation for the continued secrecy?

[NorthCarolina]

211. She is running for the highest office in the land, and yet you tell voters "none of your business"?

Really, none of our business, just vote and hope for the best?

[seabeyond]

212. You cannot take a peek into her diary, either.

[NorthCarolina]

213. Please...

you embarrass yourself.

[seabeyond]

215. No, I do not. Because I do not fall in with your agenda is no embarrassment at all.

[reddread]

214. that ugly word democracy is so passe

[seabeyond]

217. Except, Clinton is the only one having these demands made on her. No other politician, ever.

I do not buy it. I think it petty. I think it is all about arrogance of man, making his demand, looking for a gotcha.

[reddread]

218. after the massive meltdown, bailout and the dead sea that is our current economy?

nothing to see there?
payday loans.
falsified mortgage paperwork and foreclosures.
a list so long I will just stop here, knowing you know it too.

what issues concern you?

[seabeyond]

219. Ya. I dunno. That would be the Repugs to go after. I get Sanders and his "Dems" are more comfortable

attacking Dems, totally ignoring the Repugs that brought us that, by again, I do not buy that agenda.

[reddread]

220. republican or Democrat, the economy matters

so what issues beside affiliation concern you?

[seabeyond]

221. I do not get your post

[thesquanderer]

2. If Trump isn't going to release his taxes, I don't know that he'd make an issue over her transcripts

In the mean time, I don't see Hillary doing anything that could complicate her path to the nomination. For her not to have released them early on, I think it's safe to assume that there's a source of some bad PR in them, even if they are truly fundamentally benign. Even if only in the way one phrases the same idea to a group of people friendly to an idea than you would present it to the general public. So I don't assume there's anything truly terrible in them, but yeah, for her to have felt the bad PR of not releasing them was worth it, she must feel that the PR would be worse if she released them.

[blm]

13. Trump has many speech transcripts, too. Wasn't he the highest paid speaker on the circuit

for many years?

Of course, what IDIOTS would pay to hear Mr Word Salad? The same ones who pay Ms Word Salad Palin.

Idiots.

And when are DUers going to stop pretending that Trump is all powerful and untouchable on this level? OPs like this one are all about deflating Dems as if they have no counter to what Trump does or will do going into November. I think this post is exceedingly disingenuous.

Plus:
What's with your use of the word 'us', anyway? You think WE should be shivering in our boots and need to buy into every lie and 'scandal' the GOP propaganda machine crafted for us? They do that 24/7 nonstop since 1980. Guess you never bothered to NOTICE, eh?

[thesquanderer]

18. Hillary has transcripts of her speeches. Donald probably does not.

Donald mostly speaks off the cuff, and I would not be surprised if he had no interest in having anyone transcribe what he said.

[blm]

22. Not the point, is it? You can shiver in your boots and entertain the RW propagandists

all you want, but, those of us armed with insight into how they operate on the internet will not.

[GummyBearz]

56. I don't remember trump using static noise to prevent people from hearing his speeches

It is odd that someone who is supposed to be opposed to Trump's crazy ideas wants to keep her speeches so secret.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/hillary-clinton-static-noise-speech_us_570930dae4b0836057a16748

[NewImproved Deal]

3. Yep. The Former First Lady...

...is more Nixonian than Nixon.

?1459715983

[NurseJackie]

7. A polite way for Hillary to say "Kiss My Ass".

[Merryland]

29. Hillary's Dislikebility factor is captured in that smug smile & quote. n/t

[reddread]

34. Nixon x Bush

this is the product.

[Ohioblue22]

42. Benghaziiiiiiiiiiii!

[polly7]

50. Gee, that's always such a funny reply. It's too bad good people died though. nt.

[Ohioblue22]

83. It's also a pointless witch hunt. It can be more than one

[NurseJackie]

4. Only when it's to her advantage so to do.

Aside from that, there's really no compelling reason for her to do that. It makes no sense for her to "release the transcripts" simply to flatter the egos of people who have no intentions of voting for her anyway. And the "transcripts" make no difference to anyone else.

Time to face another fact and another disappointment. Bernie fans will not get their "47%" moment. Hillary is too smart for that.

[cwydro]

5. This is about the millionth thread on this.

Too funny.

[NurseJackie]

24. To distract from Bernie's FEC legal issues ...

... obviously.

[griffi94]

6. Never I hope

What she said in a paid speech as a private citizen
doesn't matter at all.

Al Franken said in his book that he liked speaking at
the private corporate functions because the fees were high.

As far as I know nobody's ever asked for the
transcripts to any of his speeches.

[Merryland]

28. He ain't running for President unless I missed something...

[griffi94]

30. He's a senator

[laruemtt]

9. What's breathtaking is that

yesterday she was going after Trump to release his tax returns, saying, "What's he hiding?" My mouth just hung open when i saw her saying, "We're' going to get to the bottom of it." Until she releases her transcripts, she's never going to get away with this line of attack on him.

[COLGATE4]

65. Yep, because a potential Presidential candidate who has the obligation to disclose

his tax returns just like every other candidate for many years now hasn't done so is obviously equal to someone releasing private speeches given to private groups when she wasn't a candidate. =/=

[Arkansas Granny]

10. I don't think she will and I see no reason for her to do so.

She gave those speeches as a private citizen, not an elected official, at a private, not public, affair. End of story.

[dana_b]

93. She's running for President and she wants our votes

if she doesn't release them and provide full transparency, then I see no reason for her to expect anyone to vote for her.

End of story.

[SmittynMo]

11. The real problem with this

Last edited Thu May 12, 2016, 04:01 PM - Edit history (1)

post is not her transcripts. Who really gives a shit. The REAL problem is the CONSTANT BULLSHIT surrounding HRC. There's always something. I'm guessing people are use to it, and just accept it as part of life.

[laruemtt]

12. + 1,000!

[Buzz Clik]

14. She already did while you were gone. We read them, fell asleep, and moved on.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

16. What is crazy is Bernie and Donald are the only candidates who refused to release tax returns.

What are they hiding?


I suspect former is much richer than he lets on and the latter is much poorer.

[ebayfool]

94. What are you on about? Sanders released his 2014 return, complete and fully. 12 days after ...

saying he would do so. IRS 2015 deadline is just past, unless an extension was needed because of campaigning.

Guess what? He wasn't hiding any pay-for-play Foundations in them!

[DemocratSinceBirth]

96. One year of tax returns. The Clinton have released thirty!!!

[ebayfool]

97. Could it be because they've been running for Prez for damn near 30 years, between the 2 of em?

How about 1 tax return for 1 speech?

Clinton's turn.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

98. Richard Nixon started the tradition of presidential candidates releasing years of tax returns.

Certainly that's not too high a hurdle for the Vermont independent to overcome.

We have two candidates in the race who are reticent to release tax returns. I suspect that is because they would indicate one is much richer than he lets on to be and the other is much poorer.

[ebayfool]

99. Oy! I gotta get ready for work.

But will revisit the convo, if you like, when I get off later. Have a good one.

[yallerdawg]

15. How about when everyone else who runs for office...

has to release "transcripts" of speeches they give as private citizens?

We can't even get two candidates to release a record of tax returns like every candidate does!

Let's try to hold everyone to the same standards - even if it is Hillary!

[Lindsixo]

104. No one is saying she has to do it but it's in her best interest.

You can't blame voters who withhold their vote as a consequence of her not showing them.

[yallerdawg]

108. So if we have a President Trump in November...

I shouldn't blame you - "Just release the transcripts, Hillary!"

OK. I won't.

[polly7]

17. I want her to release the transcripts of speeches up here paid for the two big banks

pushing the Keystone XL. Did she talk to them about pipeline safety? How to run a pig down the line? What??? Nah ....... she was voicing her support to them in getting it to pass, all while knowing she was going to run for President. She gave other speeches in various cities sponsored by other groups (mostly also paid for by those big banks) schooling us on 'Terror, Terror'! and how we need to be alert and ready. I guess she forgot Canada lost troops from the very beginning in some of the most dangerous areas in Afghanistan - and the hundreds committing suicide since getting back home. Reporters following the speeches asked her about the Keystone XL, which she never mentioned, and replied "No comment".

As a tax paying citizen, I want to know why my taxes helped pay for someone from another country to give speeches to backers of yet another pipeline that not only affects her own country but ours also.

And yes ............. I do have the right to know.

[COLGATE4]

66. Actually, you don't.

[polly7]

100. Yes, I do!

My taxes help pay for all of this, in one way or another. It's not just you who are affected by yet another pipeline - Canadians have been protesting it from the start. We don't need a 'private citizen' (if you really believe she had no plans to run for President) from another country pushing it in speeches. If she did, I want to know why.

[COLGATE4]

134. I'm confused. Are you a U.S. citizen?

[polly7]

135. No. I'm not.

I've said where I was from 200 times here. Why are you confused, I said in my post that Canadians have been protesting the pipeline and we have a right to know why someone from another country is up here speaking to the backers of it. Is she a pipeline safety expert in her personal life? Why wouldn't we be allowed to know what she said to them ...... news articles of her other speeches regarding 'terra!!' were sent out - why the secrecy on the Keystone XL?

[COLGATE4]

136. Just wanted to be clear on the facts. Is there an international agreement of some kind that

suggests that citizens of a foreign nation may intervene in the internal political affairs of another nation, demanding that one of its candidates provide some given 'information'?

[polly7]

137. I don't give a crap if there is or not, 'I', as a tax-paying citizen want to know! nt.

[COLGATE4]

139. Do you pay taxes in the U.S. ?

[polly7]

140. She gave these speeches up here - all over the place. nt.

[COLGATE4]

141. Thanks. I was aware of that. Now, as I mentioned

before, do you pay taxes in the U.S. ?

[polly7]

142. Do you pay taxes in Canada? nt.

[COLGATE4]

144. No, since I'm neither a Canadian citizen nor do any business in Canada.

Do you pay taxes in the U.S,?

[polly7]

145. No, I don't.

Why do you believe I have no right to know who and what affects what goes on up here?

[COLGATE4]

146. You may believe you have a 'right to know'. What do you not have is

the right to demand from a country's internal political system where you are neither a citizen nor taxpayer.

[polly7]

147. I have an absolute right to know, regardless of WHERE that person is from.

She's not so special that I don't get to know how she's affecting decisions wrt pipelines that cross our land also. Every other speech she gave schooling us on 'terra' was reported on - issues that affect the environment and that so many Canadians have protested, including those indigenous people whose lands are affected by all of these pipelines, should be suddenly secret. Bullfuckingshit.

[COLGATE4]

150. Only in your own mind. You have every right to demand things

from your own government and/or political party. I, as a non-citizen and non-taxpayer would not. The reverse is also true. None of our Presidential candidates owes you any explanation or justification nor do you have any right (except an imaginary one) to demand it. You are attempting to insert yourself into a process where you are merely a bystander.

[polly7]

153. Mine and many others' minds. Only in your mind is it given that we

have no right to know.


Good luck with that.

[COLGATE4]

154. I said you have no right to demand. (Your words)

Obviously there must be some legislation somewhere which supports your contention. Do you also believe that you have a right to vote in our primary elections?

[polly7]

155. I demand? My words??? - where exactly did I use the word 'demand'?

Why would I believe I have a right to vote there?

You seem to be making shit up from nothing.

[pinskinny]

240. Uh, we all deserve to see the speeches because maybe she's hiding something she doesnt want u to see

[COLGATE4]

241. Really?

[pinskinny]

242. Considering her track record, yes really!

[COLGATE4]

243. I was commenting on the depth and sophistication

of the phrasing of your question.

[pinskinny]

244. Seems like you need it plain and simple since you are having difficulties seeing the problem

So that is where I left it!

[COLGATE4]

245. Most of us have gotten past using 5th Grade logic

when discussing serious issues but you keep on keeping it "plain and simple". Obviously works for you.

[pinskinny]

247. Over analyzation has clouded your brain.

But keep on trying to justify your thoughts even though the simple facts stair you straight in the face.

[COLGATE4]

252. Simple facts like the word you want is "stare", not "stair"?

[JustABozoOnThisBus]

19. Never, because there's only one transcript.

Slightly modified for each audience, I'd bet.

[tonyt53]

35. I'd say you just hit the nail on the head.

Obviously Bernie, and his supporters, are not aware that groups, organizations, and companies will hire speakers for events and meetings. Rarely do they ever speak about the business of those groups, organizations, or companies. They are hired to speak about their life experiences. The more interesting those experiences, the more they are paid. I've been fortunate to hear a lot of interesting paid speakers over the years. None ever spoke about the functions of those groups they were addressing. So yes, it is the same speech, with a little ad lib tossed in.

[Darkhawk32]

23. Gotta love the suspension of morality...

By Hillary supporters regarding this. I have a feeling Trump has something in his back pocket on this for a nice October Surprise.

[coffeeAM]

39. That is what I am thinking and fear.

[zappaman]

63. Sure you do.

Suuuuure.

[Merryland]

26. What if there ARE NO TRANSCRIPTS?

No "speeches" - just a wink, nod and a bribe? Poor Hillary, there's nothing to produce, just maybe?

[COLGATE4]

67. That must be it. As a matter of fact, I think I read that

over at Free Republic.

[Lindsixo]

74. True so many people would have attended

There would be thousands of people out there who have listened to her speeches and not one of them has come forward yet? It is odd.

[oldandhappy]

27. never

[krawhitham]

31. she is a fool if she thinks they will not get leaked

Release them now and get out in front of it, or this may be the October surprise. If leaked at the prefect moment this could make Trump President

[procon]

57. Its likely there are no transcripts.

Maybe you imagine that printed transcripts of her speaking engagements were handed out to the audience? Since she was speaking as a private citizen, her notes, drafts, outlines, and any texts would have come from her personal computer or her private office, so you're envisioning a fantasy that someone on her staff is a Bernie mole who would have unlimited access to her IT systems, steal her speeches, risking criminal charges for the theft of Clinton's intellectual property, and face a lawsuit for violating any non disclosure agreements?

Like many public speakers, Hillary often gives extemporaneous talks, in which case there is nothing in writing. Or she only uses a general outline of the key topics she wants to highlight. How is that so important that someone is going to risk their career to leak it?

[COLGATE4]

68. I believe you are right on.

[PufPuf23]

33. Never. Hillary Clinton has cornered herself into a lose-lose regards the transcripts.

If the transcripts make Hillary Clinton look good, they would have been released long ago.

It is ludicrous to believe that the sums of monies taken from such economically powerful institutions would not effect past and subsequent acts by Clinton.

Bad for the Democratic party.

[coffeeAM]

38. Bingo!

[840high]

131. yep

[George II]

36. When is someone going to come up with a valid reason for her releasing them? How do you know.....

....if there even are "transcripts" of any speeches she gave as a private citizen?

[DetlefK]

37. The day after Sanders releases his tax-returns. Bazinga!

[ebayfool]

95. He did already. Bazinga!

And damn you for making me say "Bazinga!"

[Ohioblue22]

40. You have no right to see her transcripts. You'll need to look elsewhere for your ammo

[coffeeAM]

43. She is Running for president of the United States, we the tax payers have every right!

[COLGATE4]

69. Says you. Not convincing authority.

"But I want it!!!!!"

[coffeeAM]

72. We the tax payers, not me the tax payer.

[COLGATE4]

73. Did I miss the memo where you were designated spokesperson

for all the tax payers?

[Ohioblue22]

82. You are wrong

[coffeeAM]

91. ?

[lumberjack_jeff]

111. Did Nixon have a right to keep his transcripts secret? n/t

[Ohioblue22]

121. Nixon lol. You have zero rights to those transcripts

[procon]

41. Hillary must release her Wall Street transcripts, so says another Bernie fan.

No, she doesn't. This is your issue, the guileless Bernie fan club thinks this is their ticket to an easy victory, but no one cares. Here's a shocker; Hillary's speechifying was probably probably pretty anodyne and saccharinely polite to her audience -- at the very least, $225,000 would get them some pleasant sounding words -- but that’s likely about the extent of it.

Mrs. Clinton mainly offered what one attendee called “a tour of the world,” covering her observations on China, Iran, Egypt and Russia. This person said Mrs. Clinton also discussed the dysfunction in Washington, how to repair America’s standing in the world after the government shutdown and also talked a bit about the Affordable Care Act, which had had a difficult rollout.

http://www.nytimes.com/politics/first-draft/2016/02/05/hillary-clintons-campaign-resists-releasing-transcripts-from-goldman-speeches/

Yeah, sounds real devastating to Hillary's campaign.

[brewens]

51. She'll do it before I vote for her, that's all I know. n/t

[Lil Missy]

52. not even a good try. The Democratic Party doesn't give a shit about her transcripts.

Here 6 days and already stirring shit. Enjoy your stay.

[B Calm]

53. Trump probably already has the transcripts, OCTOBER SURPRISE?

[Skwmom]

54. In the general election when she is looking to attract certain Republicans.

[B Calm]

58. That could very well be it! +1

[COLGATE4]

70. Yep. Hang on to that (new) false hope. It'll keep you warm,

at least until she's elected President.

[lumberjack_jeff]

59. You'll read them in her presidential library

Along with an explanatory text of why the 2016 election was a turning point in favor of the lovely oligarchy Panem that you and your grandchildren know and love.

[yourout]

76. when Satan purchases a snowmobile.

I have a better chance of seeing Bigfoot.

[Rass]

78. Hillary is cooked

Hillary has an honesty problem, you are assuming the speech money was for an actual speech.

For argument's sake, let's assume a real speech was given. All Trump has to do is offer a reward for it. He will get it in no time and use it to bash the democratic party along with Hillary. Trump already has plenty of material to use against Hillary. She has a metric ton of baggage. All done while painting himself as an outsider populist. The corporate media will help him win.

Let's hope Bernie wins so we can avoid the embarrassment.

[jamese777]

81. Thus Far

Primary Elections Popular Vote as of May 12, 2016
Hillary Clinton: 12,647,581
Bernie Sanders: 9,570,415

Contests Won
Clinton: 26
Sanders: 20

Pledged Delegates
Clinton: 1717
Sandeds: 1437

Superdelegate Endorsements
Clinton: 503
Sanders: 41

Total Delegate Support
Clinton: 2220 of 2384 required (93%)
Sanders: 1478 of 2384 required (62%)
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_Party_presidential_primaries,_2016

[coffeeAM]

84. Nearly 10 million dems say IM NOT WITH HER after the establishement rolled out the red carpet 4 her

and the media has done everything imaginable to bury the Sanders movement. What does that tell ya?

[Fla Dem]

163. That nearly 13 million DEMOCRATS have said "I'm with her" tells me HRC will be the nominee.

In addition there is the disturbing fact that some of those 10 million votes BS had gotten are from Republicans who would not vote for him in the GE.

Trump voters boost Sanders in West Virginia
05/10/16 09:30 PM—UPDATED 05/11/16 08:00 PM
By Alex Seitz-Wald

>>>snip<<<

Unfortunately there has been a trend of Republican voters casting their votes for Bernie Sanders.

In fact, 39 percent of Sanders voters said they would vote for Trump over Sanders in the fall. For Clinton, nine percent of her voters say they plan to come out for Trump in the general election.

West Virginia has an open primary, meaning independents can vote in the Democratic contest. With the GOP nomination wrapped up, it’s possible mischievous Trump supporters sought to damage Clinton, the likely Democratic nominee, by voting for Sanders.

There was also a competitive Democratic gubernatorial primary Tuesday – and no Republican one – so Trump voters might have turned out for that and then weighed in on the presidential ballot line while they were at it.

Either way, Sanders’ coalition in West Virginia doesn’t fit with many of the patterns we’ve come to expect of Sanders voters after more than 40 primaries and caucuses.

For instance, Sanders, the Vermont Democratic Socialist, won self-described conservative voters. He also won 62 percent of voters who said they want less liberal policies than Obama’s.

That suggests some of Sanders’ voters may have been motivated more by a desire to vote against Clinton, rather than to support Sanders’ policy ideas.

More>>>>

http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/trump-voters-boost-sanders-west-virginia

[Lindsixo]

196. and suppressing votes too dont forget.

[spinboas]

222. +100

[Rass]

90. Superdelegates have not voted yet

Nice of you to inflate her numbers. I wouldn't be surprised if Bernie wins the remaining states since corporate media suppression tactics don't last long term. We are taking it all the way to the convention.

[BootinUp]

87. Don't hold your breath!

The only people clamoring for her speeches she made as a CITIZEN are the Bernie supporters. This is an intrusion on her private life, painting it any other way is nonsense. She is doing the right thing by holding the line on over intrusiveness.

[Lindsixo]

114. Its part of the vetting process and that involves looking into any possible scandal.

[Ferd Berfel]

88. The Republicans will release them once it's too late

for even the Neo-Dem machine to do anything about it.

She is having yet another laps in judgment right now by not releasing them.

[coffeeAM]

92. She is dragging the party through the mud and making it look bad, that is the reason!

[Lindsixo]

101. yes and we're constantly hearing about how Hillary is vetted and Bernie is not.

And meanwhile there's those transcripts floating around. It's unbelievable.

[George II]

115. NOBODY cares!

[coffeeAM]

124. Yup, nothing to see here, just move along folks!

[DesertRat]

103. I don't understand what you mean

Please explain how "Hillary is dragging the party through the mud and making it look bad".

[lumberjack_jeff]

109. Not except in response to a congressional subpoena.

But that won't matter because audio of one of the events will be a Republican campaign commercial.

[SusanCalvin]

127. Never. nt

[Gomez163]

129. How about never??? Does never work for you???

[coffeeAM]

138. No it does not and it should not work for anyone that values transparency!!

[Gomez163]

143. She doesnt have to. Bernie is TOAST.

[coffeeAM]

149. She doesnt have to, butshe is making the party look bad by not doing it!

[silvershadow]

130. I see the goal posts are moving yet again, even in this thread. The

answer is: never. She never intended to, and never will. What does that make her?

[reddread]

162. the "we cant" campaign becomes "we wont"

alleged democracy minded voters shrug.
real ones shudder.

[pansypoo53219]

148. they could be a USEFUL weapon for the RIGHT wing in oct. what is she afraid of?

[Jackie Wilson Said]

151. I saw them, I have a friend who knows the organizer. She said Wall Street folks arent evil

So, you gonna vote for Trump now?

[MrMickeysMom]

249. You "saw them", did you?

Are we all on "Double Secret Probation", and you're not giving it up like Dean Werner?

[SylviaD]

152. Never, nor does she need to.

Nor will she ever shrink from attacks whether from Trump (expected) or from fellow "Democrats" (unexpected and getting more and more desperate by the day).

[redStateBlueHeart]

158. Does she really need to?

I think most people have their minds made up already.

[Lindsixo]

175. There are now stories popping up about the gop looking for them. Which I'm sure they are.

[coffeeAM]

183. What stories?

[Lindsixo]

184. I saw this video.

[coffeeAM]

185. This guy is saying exactly what is gonna happen, the dems need to open their freakin eyes!

[coffeeAM]

191. Do you mind if I put thid video in the main body of the post?

[Lindsixo]

193. Not at all. I'm just passing it along.

and the more people that see it the better.

[coffeeAM]

194. Thank you, I just have to figure out how to do it..

[Rhiannon12866]

204. You did it.

You just have to post the YouTube link and it shows up. DU is very YouTube friendly.

[doc03]

177. I would say the day after Hell freezes over. n/t

[Thinkingabout]

178. Still waiting for the transcripts of Sanders and conversations he has had with NRA, GE,

Lockheed Martin. We know he was influenced by NRA, and with continuation of funding to Lockheed Martin for the F-35 program, wonder what else we will find.

[coffeeAM]

186. So your basically saying Clinton will be influenced by wall street?

[Thinkingabout]

188. Never said that, i know Sanders has been influenced, Sanders and others has not

Produced a relationship where Hillary was influenced.

[coffeeAM]

189. ya im sure they just give 15 million away for the hell of it.

[coffeeAM]

198. Sanders has been influenced? In what alternate universe?

[Thinkingabout]

200. As in voting five times against the Brady Bill after the NRA donated $18,000

To defeat his opponent when he was elected to Congress.

[coffeeAM]

203. Excellent vote by him considering what was attached to those bills by the establishment!

[Lindsixo]

187. We dont know anything of the sort.

The difference is that he does not say one thing to one audience and then completely change position for a different audience. He has already taken the heat for his position on guns and not tried to backtrack unlike what Clinton does all the time. So no one is going to be ever be surprised by something he has said.

[MrMickeysMom]

248. Yes... That's why he rated a "D-" from the NRA...

Next myth?

[Jarqui]

180. After Romney's 47% taped remarks, I suspect

some GOP folks at Goldman Sachs or one of those Wall Street speaking engagements had some way of recording her.

They're just waiting for the right moment like the folks who released Romney's 47% remarks did.

Things like this seem to have a way of getting out.

The GOP obviously know if she's not releasing them, that they're damaging politically.

[deathrind]

182. People keep thinking...

That this issue of her transcripts is a RW talking point but it is not. Had 2008 not happend maybe that is all it would be but 2008 did happen and many thousands if not millions of people's lives were turned upside down because of the fraud done and then to add insult to injury those same people were forced to bail out the very bankers that created the mess. One of my biggest disappointments with President Obama was he side step of holding Wall Street accountable for its actions.

So what HRC said to bankers is important to many people.

[laserhaas]

190. never!

Kabesh!

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

199. When the price is right.

[NewImproved Deal]

202. Transcripts, schmanscripts...

I'm with HER!!

[coffeeAM]

205. with Wall street?

[Recursion]

207. If I had to guess, late June, and they'll be boring as hell

But they definitely kept you guys distracted for a few months.

[spinboas]

225. I think she will release them next month.

I think she is just waiting for things to calm down.

[primnickel]

229. What has given you that idea?

[Cheese Sandwich]

228. not happening

[pinskinny]

238. why would she show the world the favors she owes wall street?

[Logical]

246. She knows she would look terrible so she's weighed the risk and decided not to.

[pinskinny]

250. Ya but she looks like she is lying by not releasing them.

[Logical]

251. I 100% agree.

[primnickel]

256. Yes she does!