Can we all agree that Hillary should release the transcripts of her Goldman speech?

[LittleBlue]

I can't imagine anyone would oppose that.

Is there any good reason we shouldn't know what she said to Goldman?

edit: Podesta representing the Clinton campaign and wouldn't answer the question. Uh oh.

[Flying Phoenix]

1. I'll get back to you on that...

(of course)

[99th_Monkey]

67. What she said

[Purveyor]

2. I want to hear the excuse she's going to come up with for not releasing them.

[awake]

8. Goldman will say that they payed for the speech so it was a work for hire and therefore

that means that Goldman holds the copyright and will not share them.

[Journeyman]

19. That's my initial take on it, as well . . .

I do graphics for a variety of corporations, but I'll not share anything I've done for one with another without the first company's consent. Even though it's all information designed for public distribution, and each company could easily get the same info if they just contacted the other company and asked for it, it's not my place to make that decision for my client. And the few times it's come up, each company has been happy with my decision, since it showed I have unwavering respect for their confidentiality.

[Peace Patriot]

46. Well, if she uses THAT excuse, that her speech is Goldman-Sachs proprietary info....

I frankly don't know how to say this in a reasonable tone of voice, but let me try. THIS IS A PRESIDENTIAL CAMPAIGN, FOR PRESIDENT OF ALL OF THE PEOPLE! IT IS NOT A WHOLLY OWNED SUBSIDIARY OF TRANSGLOBAL CORPORATIONS. THEY DO NOT HAVE PROPRIETARY RIGHTS TO HILLARY CLINTON'S SPEECHES TO THEM WHEN THEY'RE GIVING HER HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS OF DOLLARS TO FUCK US OVER!

Clinton is about as tone deaf as a rock of many issues, but I don't think she's THAT tone deaf--to refuse to release her speeches to the corporations that WE BAILED OUT because they OWN her speeches!

You can't be serious. Are you? You do know the difference between private business and running for president. (?)

[TBF]

82. They may have the legal right -

but we can also tell them where they can shove that when we knock her out of the primaries.

[thesquanderer]

86. That only makes sense if there is two-way communication.

If this is strictly a speech FROM her TO Goldman, then there is no way it includes any private Goldman content, unless they provided her with such information in advance and she referenced it in her speech.

[Purveyor]

34. Well then I guess production of the speakers agreement would be necessary then

To resolve that question.

Certainly there is a written agreement somewhere and in her possession.

[tex-wyo-dem]

43. What, like the secret Koch Bros meetings?

Surely Hill would not partake in such corporate secrecy, would she?

:/

[CorporatistNation]

23. It IS Up To CORPORATE PRESS To Push The Release... Not Bernie! THIS Was A YES or NO Question!

She could not answer it! She knows what she told these bastards... Losing control... Near FULL blown MELTDOWN during this segment! Getting personal!

[Voice for Peace]

48. I"m pretty sure this baby was born or conceived right here on DU

Seems like a long time ago, a few folks here were discussing this, that primary voters deserve to know what she said. Every time I shared it on FB it would get a gazillion likes and shares.

Pretty sure that's how AC thought of it:
social media, kids!!!!!

I fondly remember TAXY and Mitt's missing returns. We need a new character: Speechy?
Pleeease release me, let me go......"

[840high]

57. ..+1

[Paulie]

3. We should just stipulate to that yes.

[thesquanderer]

88. I can give you one potential good reason not to release.

Let's say that there is indeed something in there that weakens her as a candidate. Let's say she is the Democratic nominee. Have you just given the Republicans more ammunition to use against her in November?

I'm not saying I don't think she should release them... I'm just saying it's not black and white.

[Paulie]

89. So leave a ticking time bomb waiting for a recording to show up in November?

That's the problem with baggage.

[awake]

4. Hillary ahas asked us to look at her record, so lets see the whole record

[Skwmom]

5. I find it EXTREMELY hard to believe there were transcripts. And it is more than Goldman Sachs. n/t

[awake]

12. I would be very surprised if there were not videos

I have seen videos of other talks that were given to Goldman Sachs

[hedda_foil]

16. Apparently, NBC news has confirmed that all her talks were transcribed.That implies audio recordings

And maybe video. We'll look into it.

[840high]

58. Hope someone gets them.

[boston bean]

6. Did Obama release his? Was it demanded of him?

[LittleBlue]

10. The fact that it wasn't is evidence our system is broken. Answer the question

Do you oppose voters knowing what Hillary said to Goldman?

[boston bean]

22. I don't give a shite about the transcripts. Really I don't.

[roguevalley]

49. wow

[Logical]

72. Lol, of course you dont. Nt

[JonLeibowitz]

80. $10 says Boston bean has seen one such speech in person

[CincyDem]

81. Absolutely Not. She should go ahead a release the transcripts...

...assuming that she's the actual owner. Possible that Goldman owns the content of their seminar.

My only point is that there's no smoking gun here. It's going to be a boring 45 minute talk and it's likely that anyone who heard it has long forgotten what she said. No news to be had but by all means...let's read it.

More interestingly, if it's like any other conference, there's a video...let's see the video.

[Bonobo]

28. Why must you deflect?

Actually, forget it, I know why already.

If you were being honest, you would admit it is an important and fair bit to know about our candidate.

[karynnj]

30. His paid speeches - from when?

He could not get payment for a speech given as a Senator - that was not legal since 1989. So, you would be speaking of pre 2005 speeches - when he certainly was not seen as a likely Presidential nominee in 2008!

[boston bean]

32. He spoke to them while running for president and lets not forget

As I have been reminded many times that individual donations from people who work at Goldmans means they are owned by them.

[redstateblues]

7. And Obama's college transcripts

While you're at it

[LittleBlue]

13. Yeah totally the same

[UglyGreed]

9. The best way to handle it was to say

she would do so. Looking into sounds like she needs to ask her advisers.

[cyberswede]

85. "looking into" = find out how I don't have to

of course.

[UglyGreed]

94. Of course

you my friend are pretty, pretty good

[pa28]

11. Maybe she said one thing behind closed doors at Goldman and another to the public.

Maybe that's the reason she won't release transcripts from her paid speeches at financial institutions.

[Live and Learn]

60. A highly likely scenario. nt

[basselope]

14. God.. I hate defending Clinton BUT....

She might not be ABLE to release the transcripts. If she was paid by Goldman for the speech, the transcripts MAY be their property and it might not be up to her whether they are released or not.

I think she would have been better off to respond by explaining that she is okay with it, but it may not be up to her because when you are paid to give a speech (or write a script) the speech, script, etc.. often becomes the IP of the person who paid for it than saying "I will look into it", which sounded completely disingenuous.

[Luminous Animal]

20. She could ask them.

[basselope]

33. Absolutely, but they could say no.

So.. if they said no and she had said on the debate stage that she WOULD release them, it would make her look worse.

However, she SHOULD have explained it that way instead of the silly " I will look into it"

[askew]

21. Actually, her contracts required Goldman Sachs and others to pay for a transcriptor to

Create transcript and give to Hillary for her ownership.

[SusanCalvin]

25. Interesting.

Well there ya go.

[Purveyor]

36. Oh that is huge so its totally up to her to release them or not cool.

[basselope]

42. Do you know that for sure?? That she owns the IP?

[840high]

59. Thanks.

[CorporatistNation]

26. She Is Running For President! Sue The Fuckers!

!!!!

[ucrdem]

15. If they were privately hosted there's no good reason to release them

and no legal requirement to. It's just the latest nag. So, no.

[PonyUp]

47. Well maybe if she had given a better answer it wouldn't be such a nag. n/t

[reformist2]

17. I don't think she should... because it will make her look bad!!!

[EndElectoral]

18. Maybe she'll do it, but i imagine most of it will be redacted.

[silenttigersong]

24. Honestly

I, Would not believe they were real ,so it's ridiculous.

[valerief]

27. I actually don't care. I don't think there'll be a "47%" remark in them. nt

[2pooped2pop]

29. She is busy now making sure none exist

Hopefully some will surface anyway

[PonyUp]

50. She has a special transcript wiping cloth. n/t

[Empowerer]

31. Neither Hillary nor Podesta are stupid and aren't going to get trapped before they have the facts

Neither of them probably know whether there are transcripts and, if they are, where they are, who has them and what is the process for releasing them. Hillary would have been insane to say, "Yes, I'll release the transcripts" when she may not have had any idea about these details.

That said, we all know that if there are transcripts and they are released, if they don't have anything incriminating in them, she will be accused of destroying the incriminating ones and/or doctoring the released transcripts.

The call for releasing the transcripts has nothing to do with trying to get information. It's all about trying to play "gotcha"- and, as in the past, the absence of "gotcha" material does not stop them from insisting that there was DEFINITELY something corrupt going on - and the fact that there's no evidence of such corruption will be treated as actually proof of the corruption, since this absence must have been caused by a coverup.

[Duckhunter935]

35. I think she should

[TheSocialDem]

37. Just because paid speeches have become the norm

Doesn't mean we need to be ok with it. Just because that's what people have done before her doesn't mean the a majority of democrats think our representatives should continue to line their pickes with corporate money. Enough is enough and that's why Bernie is leading this political revolution! Get money out of politics!

[CincyDem]

38. I've seen a lot of these speeches - there will be nothing of interest in the transcripts.

These speeches are typically keynotes at conferences for either high dollar investors and/or their advisors. For a number of years, I had a chance to attend some of these - NOT Goldman conferences but the equivalent with another well known name.

I got to hear:

Condi Rice: Putin is a thug. Russia is 100% dependent on oil prices and god help us if the price of oil collapses (said when oil was $110 a barrel vs $30 today).

Bob Gates: Here's how you think about defense policy in a world where the threats are changing. When asked some convoluted question by an audience member during the Q&A that included what seemed to be a lot of code words, his response...'Sir, the fact that you can even formulate that question tells me that you know I can not answer it in a crowded room so rather than try to dance around it, I'll just say I can not legally respond to that question". He was the most impressive of the group.

Barney Frank: the Dodd-Frank regs were designed to reconnect taking financial risk and generating financial reward - a connection that has been broken since Glass-Steagal was repealed. ( and by the way - if he had spent even 5 minutes preparing, he might have been good. Instead, at 9:30 in the morning he presented himself like a deshelved old drunk).

Mitt Romney: Running for president is no fun. Glad I did it. Sorry I lost...and the Republican's will rise again.

Jeb Bush: Look at all I did for education in Florida.

Michael Hayden: The biggest security threats in the world are the "ungoverned areas"...and the largest ungoverned area in the world is actually in northwestern Mexico. Be afraid.

James Caravelle: Amazing to hear him assess the 2012 election (this was in Summer 2012). Great speaker, good stories, learned a lot.

Mary Maitlin: Waste of time. Did a 45 minute Faux News rant with all the snide racist comments about BHO.

My point with this litany - these speeches are benign. My guess is that HRC said absolutely NOTHING to the Goldman crowd that she hasn't said to dozens and dozens of other groups. IF the transcripts are ever released I am sure most readers will fall asleep in the first 4-5 paragraphs. They're just not that interesting.

There's always this question floating around "but what will Goldman expect from Hillary for their $675k payment". The answer - absolutely nothing...they already got their payout. They headlined her at a conference that made them look important to their clients/advisors. She was window dressing. They got to put her name on the invite.

I'm not saying lobbying money isn't a problem but focus on Goldman's lobbying budget...not their conference/advertising budget.

[Red Oak]

44. You are probably correct

If the transcripts are released, the speeches will be seen as being so boring that people will wonder why on Earth they were worth $250,000 each. That will then lead to the systemic question as to whether or not this is just a form of legalized bribery in a rigged system. That is a valid question.

[bullwinkle428]

78. BINGO! "She got paid $675K for that pablum?"

[beac]

97. That's not what she got paid for. n/t

[retrowire]

51. i wouldn't call those speeches benign. nt

[Recursion]

73. Hayden's point makes a lot of sense (nt)

[bullwinkle428]

77. Ari Rabin-Havt TOTALLY agreed with your assessment this morning! For those

who don't know, ARH hosts a progressive talk show on Sirius/XM. He said that there is literally no chance the content will be the least bit controversial, but the more she drags out the release, the bigger a story it becomes.

[polly7]

79. She was up here speaking across Canada and getting paid mostly by the two big banks

backing the Keystone XL, just before announcing her presidency. I'd love to know what happened there, too.

[mhatrw]

39. Any good reason we shouldn't audit the Iowa results?

Any good reason we originally scheduled just four democratic debates?

Any good reason we should not have single payer healthcare?

Any good reason we should not have publicly funded campaigns and automatic voter registration?

[betsuni]

40. And reveal her diabolical Illuminati world domination plot and secret Rosicrucian handshake?

Not a chance, man.

[in_cog_ni_to]

41. I agree!

PEACE
LOVE
BERNIE

[Old Crow]

45. It would be a SERIOUS nail in the coffin of her campaign if those speeches go public.

This is, after all, the Hillary Clinton who adopts a southern drawl when addressing southern audiences. She panders more shamelessly than any politician I know. You can be sure that she was kissing the feet of those Goldman Sachs executives, marvelling at their business savvy and confiding that she thinks it's a pity that they don't get more recognition in the current political climate for what wonderful people they are.

The transcripts of those Goldman Sachs speeches would quickly expose the lie of her recent anti-Wall Street dog and pony show.

She'll "look into" releasing the transcripts--ha! I won't be holding my breath.

[daleanime]

52. Trust me, they will....

[Spitfire of ATJ]

53. I'd like to know what $675,000 worth of words looks like.

[Geronimoe]

54. Here is my guess of what she said

Cut it out guys. Stop giving me $675,000 for speeches.

[southerncrone]

55. Pandora's Box has been opened. She

will be hounded until it happens. Or at least she should be. We'll see how MSM handles this.
In the meantime, we the people should constantly keep it in the forefront on social media. Every week we should all post that question on our walls or tweet:
"Hillary, when will you release the transcripts of your paid speeches to Wall Street? We need to know what you discussed."

[840high]

61. Good idea. I will do it.

[Recursion]

56. I honestly can't bring myself to care which vapid bromides she said to them

And I'm not sure why those bromides are so important to some people.

You don't invite Clinton to speak to hear what she has to say, you invite Clinton to speak to be able to say "Clinton spoke here".

[Chicago1980]

62. What do you think she said. steal from the peasants?

[Truprogressive85]

63. Question

What if someone recorded one her many speeches to these banks ,and say the person decided to put it out there

one that person get a trouble doing so ?

[JDPriestly]

64. All of her speeches. Not just that one.

Same for ALL CANDIDATES.

[NanceGreggs]

65. The transcripts are not hers to release.

They are the property of the company that paid to have them prepared.

I've been a court reporter for 30 plus years, and have often been hired by private companies, groups, organizations, etc. to prepare transcripts of their meetings, convention speeches, guest speakers, etc. THEY own the transcript. I have NO right to disseminate it, reproduce it, or simply just hand it over to anyone. Ever. I have often had to sign confidentiality agreements stating that I won't even discuss their contents with anyone.

If you want the Goldman-Sachs transcripts, you're going to have to get them from GS. And understand that when they laugh their asses off at the idea, they are well within their rights to do so. They are under no legal obligation to make those transcripts available to you or anyone else.

[pnwmom]

68. Finally, some common sense. Yes, the transcripts are owned by G.S. n/t

[thesquanderer]

87. If she gives the identical speech to 10 companies, who owns it?

As an aside, according to another post here, her contract stipulates that there will be only one transcript, and it will be owned by her.

[pnwmom]

90. In any case, it is the intellectual property of someone -- not the Internet. n/t

[thesquanderer]

93. If it is HRC's IP, then she could choose to make it available. (n/t)

[NurseJackie]

75. It's a fishing expedition in hopes of finding a "47% moment". (They're getting desperate.)

Lacking the opportunity to do so, the default response is to publicly wonder "what-she's-hiding" ... as if this veiled accusation will somehow motivate her to comply with the demands ... and/or to create a false narrative that she's hiding something.

It's a tactic that's as transparent as the thin ice they're walking on, and the glass walls of that house they live in.

[thesquanderer]

95. see post 87, please (nt)

[NanceGreggs]

96. Very unusual, in my experience.

Usually corporations pay for and keep the transcript, so that they can excerpt passages from it for marketing or internal purposes, or even reproduce it in full for employees unable to attend the actual speech.

If HRC's contract states that she gets the only copy, then she owns the transcript.

[Binkie The Clown]

66. So after reading all the replies to this question, the answer is "NO, we cannot agree"

The Hillary people don't want them to be made public. There's just too much risk of revealing things they don't want generally known. Whether that risk is real, I don't know, but it does seem very apparent that Hillary supporters want to avoid that risk.

[xloadiex]

69. She was asked directly about transcripts

after NH town hall. This was on was on January 22nd,2016

https://vimeo.com/152786370?ref=tw-share

[tomm2thumbs]

70. 'inauthentic' should have a picture of Hillary by it in the dictionary

It says a lot that she hasn't 'looked into it' after being asked repeatedly... and we'll see if she 'looks into it' or if she fails to 'look into it'.

I'd say she's going to wait to 'look into it'.

I hope someone puts a reward out there for a copy of the transcripts... would be money well-spent I'd say

[xloadiex]

71. Thank you!

I just realized that after noticing a different necklace. I corrected the post

[stillwaiting]

74. I'm wondering why they couldn't just rewrite the speech and release it as the transcript.

Would anyone at Goldman come forward and say that it wasn't the speech she gave?

[betsuni]

76. Words words words words words words.

What are words worth?

[H2O Man]

83. Yes, definitely.

Recommended.

[oasis]

84. Begin to "imagine" a NO.

Bernie folks would just love snatching a part of the transcripts and spinning it into their version of Mondale's "47%" moment. No thank you.

[ViseGrip]

91. I want the Monsanto speech! 'Yummmm, GMO's are good!" said Hillary.

[ViseGrip]

92. And she's hired Monsanto's big gun to work on her campaign. Go figure.

http://www.nationofchange.org/2015/04/26/hillary-clinton-hires-former-monsanto-lobbyist-to-run-her-campaign/

Hillary Clinton Hires Former Monsanto Lobbyist to Run Her Campaign