The whole point of getting Hillary's transcripts . . .

[JonLeibowitz]

. . . is transparency, so that voters know all potential conflicts of interest and where people really stand on the issues.

If this were really about her opponents wanting to look for things she has said which are incriminating and politically damaging, the New York Times editorial board, which endorsed her candidacy, would not have called for her to release them.

That is all.

[Juicy_Bellows]

1. The ninja smoke bomb move only works if you aren't in the same place when the smoke clears.

[Skwmom]

2. This WILL not tell us where she really stands on the issues. The $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ she has received

,much more than $650,000, tells us where she stands. The rest is just a planned whitewash. The NY Times wouldn't have asked if it wouldn't benefit Clinton. Not after they've whored for her all election cycle and flushed any remaining journalistic integrity they had (not much, if any) down the toilet.

Her b.s. Wall Street "Blame the Regulators" Plan and her refusal to break up the banks and put Glass-Steagall in place tells me where she stands on the issues.

And taking MILLIONS from Wall Street is in itself a BIG CONFLICT OF INTEREST.

They really expect the public to buy this shit - her transcripts will reveal the real Hillary.

[BainsBane]

11. If you wanted to know where she stands on issues

You could have gone to Hillaryclintonsupporters/issues. Yet somehow few here do so.

Thanks for proving the point that I made down thread, that transparency is but a pretext.

[Fumesucker]

12. If you have nothing to hide you have nothing to fear

Hillary wants a "Manhattan Project" to break encryption so that the little people's words are all exposed to the government.

However her own words should be hidden from those same little people.

[BainsBane]

15. I haven't heard her say anything of the kind

but it would seem you support that yourself, since you feel her actions as a private citizen should be transcribed and disseminated to aid your efforts to ensure she isn't elected. Yet oddly no one else's. But of course this is all about transparency, transparency of one person only. Spare me.

[Ford_Prefect]

18. Hillary hasn't been a private citizen since Arkansas.

Last edited Fri Feb 26, 2016, 06:39 AM - Edit history (1)

Her actions as a lobbyist during and since her time as Secretary of State bring that part of her life directly into the public arena. Someone purporting to have the best interests of the People at heart should have no problems demonstrating that her actions and comments as a speaker represent those aims. It is indeed a fair question to ask.

If what she said to bankers, investment brokers, weapons manufacturers and international pharmaceutical companies is so innocent why has no one present at those events spoken out in detail? Surely there was nothing said that would amount to privileged comment or proprietary information. Why would anyone have a right to question her sympathies or her intentions with a speaking record and donation record like hers?

If Donald Trump, Marco Rubio, or Ted Cruz had equal success as a motivational speaker to such a set of clients wouldn't that raise similar questions about their intentions and political allies? Oh yeah, Dark Money only flows to the GOP side of the equation.

[JDPriestly]

19. Do you think that her words, if transcried and disseminated would ensure she isn't elected?

If so, why in the world support her?

Bernie has provided the transcripts of all the speeches he made. Most of his speeches were made in Congress, and you can watch them on YouTube.

Hillary should release her transcripts.

They probably won't harm her at all.

And she will be able to clear the air of all the doubts that her failure to release the transcripts are doing her.

If she releases the transcripts, very few people will read them because people don't have have time to do so and besides most people won't be interested in what she said. Unless she said something that will embarrass her or make her look like a liar.

If she doesn't release the transcripts, people will think she is a liar or is hiding something incriminating.

She is a public figure. When she decided to run for president, she pretty much gave up her claim to privacy with regard to those speeches. Nobody is forcing her to continue to run.

Hillary should release the transcripts of those speeches and let the chips fall where they may. The truth one way or the other will emerge about what she said, so what does she really have to lose?

Until she releases them, the story will be that she is hiding something and not releasing them.

She should release them asap.

[Herman4747]

34. I see. So if as a "private citizen" she gave...

a major speech to a "pro-life" group, we shouldn't know about that either, right? We should only trust what she puts on her website, right, despite her tendency to lie?

[The Redheaded Guy]

33. That link doesn't work...

It seems that the Clinton's important issues is 404'ed.

In other words, DOES NOT EXIST!

[NanceGreggs]

3. No, actually that's not all.

The transcripts didn't become an issue until it started becoming clear that Bernie isn't likely to win the nomination.

His supporters are hoping for a "47%er moment" comment in order to damage her enough to give Bernie a leg-up.

You'll notice that the clamouring for those transcripts becomes more desperately shrill as newly-released polls show Hillary's commanding lead in the upcoming primary contests.

The NYT - just like every other newspaper in the nation - would love to have a juicy scandal to write about because it sells papers, endorsements or not.

Being as it's BS supporters who have been leading the charge on this "issue", the idea of it being solely about "transparency" is - well, transparently not what it's really about at all.

[JonLeibowitz]

5. If there is a 47% moment, don't we deserve to know?

And how will we know if there isn't one without the release?

Your dismissal of the NYT's calls for transparency are pathetic; who actually sincerely calls for greater opacity from our elected officials and candidates.

[NanceGreggs]

6. You've already assumed there is one.

So why don't you just go with that and see how far it gets you?

[JonLeibowitz]

7. I have not assumed anything. Why are you calling for opacity in our candidates?

[NanceGreggs]

8. It's like this.

As I've said, the transcripts were not an issue until it became apparent that Bernie is probably not going to win the nomination.

The more apparent that becomes, the more desperate his supporters are about accessing the transcripts.

There was zero discussion about the transcripts when Bernie was gathering steam last summer, when he was gaining in the polls, when he was drawing massive crowds to his rallies.

As long as BSers were confident that their guy could win on his own merits, no one was interested in transcripts. The demand for their release only arose when the reality kicked-in that the poll numbers weren't looking good for Bernie in upcoming primaries.

BS and his supporters have been ranting about Hill's paid speeches from day one. Why did no one demand the transcripts of those speeches until now?

[madokie]

14. National polls has Bernie winning the nomination

so how do you come off with this, "As I've said, the transcripts were not an issue until it became apparent that Bernie is probably not going to win the nomination." A whole shit pot full of Probably aren't worth the shit pot it's in.

Last I noticed Bernie is still drawing UUUUGE crowds, hell in Tulsa night before last over 9000 people came out to see him and that was on a 48 hour notice. Oklahoma is about as red of a state as there is, so theres that too. Bernie is still on message even after all these years. He's still not a millionaire and on and on. Bernie Sanders will be our, yours and my, next President.

Bernie is rising in the polls and Hill is dropping and you say that Bernie is not going to win. My question to myself is why do I bother reading this drivel anymore.. Amazing how far the mighty has fallen

I personally would like to know what Hillary has been telling the likes of Blankfein and his ilk. No matter how 'you' slice this issue Wall street is not our friend. Income inequality is THE issue in todays United States of America. This is our country, yours and mine, not just a hand full of rich bastards. Why can't you see that?

I remember when I used to think the sun rises and sets in Bill Clinton's ass but I no longer think that at all. On the road to figuring that out I also learned that Hillary is not our friend either and can't be trusted just like Bill can't. They'll say one thing to get your mind off the issue then when you're not looking they do right the opposite.

[BainsBane]

17. Then you've already defeated her

and she will go back to being a private citizen and you don't need to worry about what she does with her time.

[JonLeibowitz]

37. The transcripts were not an issue until some journalists in favor of govt transparency

asked for them and we were surprised that she laughed in his face. Then we became more and more concerned as she repeatedly deflected and refused to answer questions concerning them.

[JDPriestly]

20. Bernie has released the transcripts of his speeches.

Why do you think Hillary hasn't?

Is she afraid?

Is she ashamed?

What is her reason for not releasing the transcripts?

[artislife]

38. Because if we don't assume and actually vet the candidate

we would be more informed. Why don't you want to slam dunk all us haters with proof of her greatness?

[BainsBane]

13. In other words

The hundreds of millions the GOP has spent sifting through her life hasn't turned up what you want, so you are looking for more. That's not transparency. It's animus.

Now the NYT is to be respected, while anytime they publish anything tha doesn't portray Bernie as perfect they are assailed as a corporate, establishment rag.

i don't know why you even bother pretending. It's not like we haven't been reading this site over the past several months. The people who already hate Clinton make this an issue because they apparently feel they have little else. No one else gives a shit. People want to know what a president is going to do to improve their lives. The rest is cable news nonsense.

[JDPriestly]

21. If the only people who care about the transcripts are the people on this site, what does

Hillary have to lose by releasing them?

What in the world is preventing her from releasing them?

It should be an easy thing to do.

Bernie has released his, and spoke out in Congress leaving a video trail of his life over recent years.

Hillary looks like she is hiding something she did wrong. That's probably not the case, but then why doesn't she release the transcripts?

There is no good argument for refusing to release them.

[MrMickeysMom]

28. This only plays out in your mind... It's baseless, but thanks for playing...

You conveniently forgot that the ties to corporate-ocracy are right through the NYT... The lead up to the phony Iraq war is one example.

Better to bang the drum of phony excuses, when all along the races thus far, the delegate count is neck and neck. Talk about desperately shrill rhetoric.

[LemmingWarrior]

31. The transcripts became much sought after

when Hillary-smillery stood and spoke the words, "I am a Progressive" (like a queen ready for her coronation) after her flea-burp-win in Iowa.

[0rganism]

4. HRC could benefit too

right now, what's being speculated about the speeches + the weird secrecy around them is probably more damaging than the transcripts themselves. it's possible there is absolutely nothing interesting in them, from the POV of making attack ads, and she could put an end to this line of attack

[BainsBane]

16. What weird secrecy?

What other candidates or public officials have turned over transcripts of speeches? I don't recall anyone ever making it an issue in previous elections. it's not like there are public transcripts of everyone's speeches but hers.

At least one of those speeches has been videotaped. I've posted it here several times but no one watches it. It seems even the people demanding transcripts don't really care what she said.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/12511219624

[JDPriestly]

22. Bernie has turned over the transcripts of the speeches he made.

It's Hillary's turn.

[JonLeibowitz]

36. Bains' link doesn't even have to do with speeches -- it's a pathetic smear against his small $ donor

[Live and Learn]

9. K&R nt

[BainsBane]

10. Please

The point is to comb through them to find more quotes out of context to use against her.

Transparency never extends to Bernie, what he knew about the data each, excessive campaign contributions in violation of the law. What about this charity his wife has chartered in the Caribbean? Where does that money come from? Who attended the fundraisers he hosted in Martha's Vineyard and on Palm Beach, or at Abbey Rockefeller's house. Bankers who donate recount he had conversations with them. What did they discuss? And why does he continue to tell voters he doesn't take money from Wall Street, when he has?http://www.cnn.com/2016/02/05/politics/sanders-democratic-fundraisers/
What did he know about the inappropriate claims of endorsement or use of logos in mailers? Did he approve those mailers and the email misrepresenting Clintons fundraiser? What about the campaign people who trespassed, took Union pins to wear while campaigning for Sanders? Are any of his campaign staffers held accountable for those problems? What sort of climate exists that such things happen time and time again?

We are supposed to uncritically any excuse Sanders tells the public for his voting record,yet none of you are remotely interested in why Clinton cast the votes she did or even what her voting record is. We are berated I f we don't uncritically accept everything he says, while Clinton is called a liar irrespective of evidence.

Also, I have trouble believing that transparency is some abiding principle when posts recounting Bernie's voting record or life history are censored.

The absolute deference to Sanders is as diametrically opposed to transparency and accountability as possible. When proclamations of transparency extends only to opponents and not politicians one favors, it isn't transparency at all. As long as people demand absolute fealty to a politician, I find such proclamations of principle absurd.

And yes, I'm quite aware that this post is likely to be hidden for my audacity in questioning Bernie, which only proves my point.

[JDPriestly]

23. Bernie has released the transcripts of speeches he made to the extent that he has them.

Hillary needs to match what Bernie has done in terms of transparency

Even videos of Bernie as the mayor of Burlington have been released.

Hillary is making herself look bad in this for no reason.

Surely her speeches will not embarrass her that much.

As long as she refuses to release the transcripts of her speeches this is an issue.

Hillary just needs to get it behind her. I seriously doubt that the speeches will harm her in any way. If only people on this website are interested, then she has nothing to fear from releasing them.

As long as she fails to release them, her failure to do so is a distracting issue. If as you say there is nothing problematic in the speeches, she should end this issue and just release them.

I am inclined to think that releasing them will not be in any way a problem for her or embarrassing for her, but her failure to release them makes it appear that they are.

She should just release them and remove the issue from the political discussion.

[Ford_Prefect]

25. "The point is to comb through them to find more quotes out of context to use against her." Baloney!

If that were true the GOP would have already done it through their well known connections to the same industrial clients.

It is NOT and never was about what she does as a private citizen. It's about what she has said to those same audiences since announcing for the POTUS. Why has no one present at those events related her remarks in an interview? Why can no one discuss the details of what was said? Why do we "little people"deserve one version of HRC when the big donors are clearly getting another version?
Did David Brock throw a hissy fit over the idea that there is anything in those speeches that could damage HRC?

Were you present at any of those speeches? Do you know what was said? Do you have a friend who told you the content? Do you have a personal line in disinformation for David Brock? I assume for the moment that the answer is no and you speak as an interested voter rather than a party shill. Fair enough.

I accept that Hillary Clinton has been for some time the target of well funded, foul and misogynistic personal attacks by the GOP propaganda machine.

I have been a registered Democrat since Nixon lied his way into office. I am a former union member, and a former technician whose career was off-shored. I have reasons to ask what was said and deserve answers. If HRC cannot answer them I have no reason to trust that she will act in my behalf. I cannot guarantee her attention to my needs since I cannot afford to donate $500,000 or more to the PACs or the Clinton Foundation. I only have the one vote.

I would like to be persuaded that trusting HRC is worth that vote. So far I see little to encourage that proposal.

[leftofcool]

24. Please don't insult my intelligence.

I know exactly what the Bernie campaign is up to.

[MrMickeysMom]

29. Your intelligence on this matter speaks for itself...

.... self-forfilled and ready to insult those who don't align to it.

Frankly, you CAN'T insult intelligence like that.

[Hoyt]

26. Naw, I believe the point is more to raise a ruckus over nothing.

Don't know much about the Examiner, but I think this is pretty much true.

"The problem is, the search never ends. If Clinton were to turn over 3 transcripts of her talks to Goldman Sachs and other Wall St. firms, that would only open a new round of questions and faux controversy.

“How do we know these are the true transcripts?”
“What was left out?”
“Did she ever go off-script? If so, to say what?”
“What did she mean by this line?”
“Was there a Q&A?” Where are those transcripts?”
“Why did she praise Wall Street if she truly wants to reign them in?”
“Did she reveal any classified secrets?”
“What did she say in other speeches to non-financial firms?”
“What about Bill’s paid speeches? What did he say in private?”

http://www.examiner.com/article/the-hillary-clinton-strip-search?CID=examiner_alerts_article

[LemmingWarrior]

32. OR, "Hillary, you said in Iowa that

you're a Progressive then why do your speeches sound otherwise?"

[think]

27. Goldman Sachs isn't known as the Vampire Squid because it is a benevolent corporation

Not sure whether some are truly that gullible or if there isn't some culpability involved...

[Carolina]

30. Her opponents already

have reams of video footage of HRC's incriminating duplicity coming straight from her own mouth. The web is a veritable treasure trove of stuff going all the way back to 1994. They don't need the transcripts, but we the people do. We need to know what she really values and to whom she's truly loyal. I think we already know, or at least some of us do, that the answer is the BIG money club that we're not part of.

You don't get paid that much money for speeches for nothing; plus HRC's past is prologue including all the legislation pushed by Bill when when he was POTUS. After all, they were the two-for-one team and when she ran for POTUS in 2008, she included her 8 years as FLOTUS as part of her alleged, oft stated 20 years experience. So, everything is on the table: the Crime Bill, NAFTA, Telecommunications, Welfare Reform, Glass-Steagall reversal, IWR, Patriot Act, Bankruptcy Bill, disasters in Honduras, Libya, Syria... TPP, Keystone Pipeline, fracking...

Based on her record, she's is a disaster. The transcripts are likely the damning icing on the already rotten cake.

[bunnies]

35. "Hillary Clinton Tells Wall Street She Believes Anti-Wall Street Rhetoric ‘Foolish’"

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/12/22/1264660/-Hillary-Clinton-Tells-Wall-Street-She-Believes-Anti-Wall-Street-Rhetoric-Foolish

^^^^^^^^^^^^^ THAT is why she wont release the transcripts. You know damn well they're FILLED with that shit & she doesnt want the left to know how much she despises us. Period.

[oasis]

39. With all those documents at their disposal it would be easy

for the average political hack to craft something out of nothing.

Hillary knows it, and ain't having it.

[thesquanderer]

40. The point is transparency? Really?

If you're looking for transparency, I think everyone knows, Hillary is not your candidate.

[UglyGreed]

41. Can't have tranparency

we all need our secrets and cliques....

[Orsino]

42. There are multiple agendas at work, but onus is still on the candidate with the only keys to the saf

Unless she is NDAed by Goldman-Sachs, she has no excuse for not releasing her speeches...and if her oath to G-S must take precedence, we really ought to know.

She is hiding them for some reason of her own.