Lest we forget: 312 hours since Hillary started looking into releasing her transcripts.

[Joe the Revelator]

We're waiting.

[Duckhunter935]

1. I am sure she is almost ready to.......

Start looking into it.

[Cheese Sandwich]

2. Yeah she wonders why nobody trusts her

[Joe the Revelator]

3. Has she even mentioned it again? Has the media even asked her how her 'looking into it' has gone?

I'm pretty sure I know the answer.

[840high]

33. She's hoping we forgot.

[Duckhunter935]

42. she is probably right

That is why I keep this up

[Gregorian]

4. If she waits until the general, she jeopardizes the Democratic party.

[RufusTFirefly]

17. That's OK. She believes she's worth it.

Hillary Clinton: Not US. Me.

[Dragonfli]

22. There's a reason for that

[Babel_17]

5. Maybe the team the tobacco companies hired to look into cancer connections is being used

They're still looking into that as well.

Edit: The countdown clock: http://iwilllookintoit.com/ (though it's actually counting up the time)

Thanks goes to MrMickeysMom, and this thread: http://www.democraticunderground.com/12511235370

[cosmicone]

6. She already said yes

provided all candidates release transcripts of all the speeches.

Will Bernie release transcripts of his speeches in front of socialist groups or the Israeli communist kibbutz where he spent several years?

[Joe the Revelator]

7. That would seem to be a dodge, no? Hillary Clinton should lead by example.

[cosmicone]

8. No -- it is called fairness

Let Bernie release transcript of all his speeches in front of communist/socialist groups.

[Joe the Revelator]

9. Hillary was asked to release one specific set of transcripts over a specific issue with a specific

set of paid speeches. See how specific this is?

[cosmicone]

10. Hillary shouldn't be singled out - it is unfair.

I'd like to see Bernie's speeches before socialist/communist groups where he could have wanted a revolutionary overthrow of the US constitution and installing a politburo to loot wall street and eliminate private ownership of property. Let's see those transcripts !!!

[Joe the Revelator]

11. You can dodge and shout out silly things all you want, the fact remains....

If you want to prove you're not owned by Wall St., you should release what you said to them when they bought you.

[cosmicone]

14. I am serious

Fairness is where all candidates are asked to do the same thing.

What you are asking is for only one candidate to do something that the other is not willing to do.

So, let Bernie put up his speeches before communist/socialist groups and Hillary would be forced to comply.

[Joe the Revelator]

15. Ok, Champ

[Old Crow]

34. Illogical argument.

What kibbutz has paid Bernie Sanders $675,000? What Democratic Socialist group has the power to wreck the U.S. economy in the way Goldman Sachs can?

Your attempts to equate Hillary's paid $225,000-and-up speeches to powerful interests that destroyed the U.S. economy once already with Bernie's speeches at kibbutzes reeks of desperation, frankly.

[Gene Debs]

36. By the way, you can probably stop Rubio-ing "communist/socialist" over and over—not too many

people are scared of the old boogeyman words any more.

[frylock]

13. Hillary should use that the next time the transcripts come up.

[Babel_17]

19. If there are transcripts of a Sanders speech she'd like to see, let her offer a trade in the debate

Let's countdown for her to do that.

[Live and Learn]

23. What makes you think Bernie has any transcripts of any meetings anywhere?

He doesn't suffer the egotism that Hillary does and Nixon did.

[Divernan]

32. Red Scare Joe McCarthy called - he wants the 1950's back!

Actually, I just love your posts! Proof positive you are on the rocks of desperation.

[Babel_17]

16. She told a questioner she'd look into it

It would be silly for someone like Anderson Cooper to ask Senator Sanders about transcripts of an innocuous speech. But if he did, we'd get Sanders response. And then we'd go from there, like we're doing with Secretary Clinton

Maybe Clinton can ask Sanders, to his face. lol What speech is she asking for? Will she offer a quid pro quo? I'd buy that for a dollar.

What's not fair about that? But if Clinton thinks the question from Anderson Cooper, of all people, was too rough on her, by all means then she should speak up about that. That way the Republicans won't dare to even consider using those paid speeches against her.


http://www.vanityfair.com/news/2016/02/hillary-clinton-goldman-sachs-speeches

Clinton’s Speeches for Goldman Sachs Described as “Glowing”

[cosmicone]

47. Later, on Rachel Maddow show she said she would if everyone would n/t

[Babel_17]

48. If everyone would what? The request to Clinton is specific. Can't she be specific in return?

The request can from Anderson Cooper (among others). Why isn't Cooper concerned about Sanders speeches? Is he biased?

[cosmicone]

49. It is fairness -- why should Clinton be held to something that

other candidates are skating on?

Why doesn't Bernie release the transcripts of his speeches to socialist/communist/libertarian groups and then force Hillary to release her transcripts to Goldman Sachs.

What if Sanders was talking about overthrowing the constitution and eliminating private ownership of property in one of his socialist meetings? Don't people have a right to know that as much as Clinton probably being supportive of investment banking?

[Babel_17]

51. Let her ask for a specific speech, like Sanders, Cooper, and others have

That's fairness. What you're talking about is moving the goal posts to the point of reductio ad absurdum.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_absurdum

You can do it right here, right now. Get all Clinton supporters to sign a petition. What speech do you want? Maybe it will get Secretary Clinton's notice and she'll be inspired to echo your request.

I urge her to do so.

"Why don't you release the transcripts of your speeches to socialist/communist/libertarian groups?"

That's the question, correct?

We know the tenor of what Clinton has said. I urge Secretary Clinton to listen to you and echo what you're implying in your request.

If you start the petition I'm talking about, worded like you've said to me, I'll sign it, and maybe other Sanders supporters will as well.

Shall we count down to it? 3 ... 2 ... JK.

The request to Clinton is one we'd be making of any Republican, in similar circumstances. We can't expect our candidates to be held to lower standards then we ask for from the media for Republicans. It's that simple. We held Romney to a certain standard, now it's our candidates turn.

[cosmicone]

52. Meh n/t

[CorporatistNation]

64. "Specificity" Is NOT In Hillary's DNA!

Fer sure!

[Lordquinton]

37. What was that?

[Joe the Revelator]

46. Thats a good looking Shepherd.

[Lordquinton]

58. Thanks

He says hi

[Duckhunter935]

43. that is not what she said

It was anyone that has EVER made a paid speech. That us impossible as most of them are dead. She is a lawyer and knows exactly what she said. Of course she sat there and lied to the voters when she said she was looking into it. Why do people support a liar like this?

[frylock]

12. tick-tock

[Logical]

18. She knows the transcripts will kill her. No way she releases them. Nt

[Babel_17]

20. Check out the Vanity Fair article, if you haven't already

http://www.vanityfair.com/news/2016/02/hillary-clinton-goldman-sachs-speeches

Clinton’s Speeches for Goldman Sachs Described as “Glowing”

Transcripts of the events would “bury her,” according to the report.
by

Tina Nguyen

As Hillary Clinton prepares to shake off an almost-certain loss tonight in New Hampshire, her ability to close the gap with Bernie Sanders may hinge on how well she can address questions about the six-figure speaking fees she received for three speeches for Goldman Sachs, in 2013, while the country was still reeling from the aftereffects of the financial crisis. But a new report, released just hours before the first polls opened, characterizing her speeches to Goldman as “glowing” and “rah-rah,” may make her problems far worse.

Clinton has struggled in recent weeks to defend her decision to give the paid speeches. She has pointed out that several other former secretaries of state have received big speaking fees from major banks, and responded, “That's what they offered,” when pressed by Anderson Cooper as to why she accepted $675,000 from Goldman. She attempted to recast the issue during Thursday’s debate by attacking Sanders for smearing her relationship with Wall Street and, as the pressure continued to mount, told ABC's George Stephanopoulos that she would release the transcripts of her speeches so long as “everybody who’s ever given a speech to any private group under any circumstances” did so, too. (In short: she will never release the transcripts.)

But a picture of Clinton's comments for Goldman is now coming into focus, thanks to Politico's Ben White, who reconstructed her speeches from sources who attended the talks. And it doesn't look good for the Democratic candidate. An anonymous attendee described one as “pretty glowing about us” and that “it’s so far from what she sounds like as a candidate now. . . . She sounded more like a Goldman Sachs managing director.” If the transcript came out, “it would bury her against Sanders,” the source added later. “It really makes her look like an ally of the firm.”

[Logical]

21. Wow! Scary actually! Nt

[Live and Learn]

24. And they will, in the General Election if she gets that far. nt

[Babel_17]

27. I wonder who has access to the transcripts,

and/or has access to recordings of what was said.

[Live and Learn]

31. Only she does, per the contract. But there were plenty of witnesses there and they are bound

to talk. She will be forced to release them at some point.

[Old Crow]

35. "Smooch smooch smooch smooch smooch!"

That's the sound of a bunch of banksters rear-ends being smothered with kisses.

[AzDar]

25. Tick-Tock...

[Nyan]

26. Thanks for the remind. nt

[lasttrip]

28. While you are waiting..

https://m.

[Ichingcarpenter]

38. Time has come today

Time has come today
Young hearts can go their way
Can't put it off another day
I don't care what others say
They say we don't listen anyway
Time has come today
(Hey)

Oh
The rules have changed today (Hey)
I have no place to stay (Hey)
I'm thinking about the subway (Hey)
My love has flown away (Hey)
My tears have come and gone (Hey)
Oh my Lord, I have to roam (Hey)
I have no home (Hey)
I have no home (Hey)

[MrMickeysMom]

62. LOL!

Appropriately cheesy!

[lasttrip]

65. Thanks!

Peace.
LT

[Fairgo]

29. Any minute now...

Any minute, yep. Any. Minute...

[TeamPooka]

30. Why do I feel like they probably have this similar named type thread over at freeperville?

[Peace Patriot]

39. You really don't understand the vetting of candidates in primaries, do you?

You think we should, um, forget this? Cover it up? Pretend she didn't go selling her candidacy to Goldman Sachs (& others)? You think that this isn't already all over the internet, and on many peoples' minds, including Hillary's and her staff's, and, maybe it would all go away if we just shut up about it here at DU?

If you're for Hillary, it's MUCH better for her and our party if we don't shut up, if it gets fully vetted now, and best of all for Hillary, if she releases the transcripts NOW, and does some explaining. I can actually imagine a defense, even a convincing one (to others anyway). 'Left the White House 'penniless,' huge legal bills compliments of Kenneth Starr, became the breadwinner when Bill got sick, and didn't see anything wrong with expressing my views to the one of the most influential financial institutions in the country, and getting paid for it at a normal rate in such venues--equal pay for women, no?. Important to have lines of communication open, for when I come after them with a new Glass-Steagall.'

Well, I'm laughing, but many others might think it sincere, kinda like Nixon's "Checkers" Speech.

If she wins the nomination, and has to face this, time and again, from Trump or Cruz, or freeperville, or CNN, she would be much better off to have released the transcripts, and given her explanations months before. That way she can say, 'We've been over all this. I've been honest. I've released the transcripts. Enough is enough!'

I can hear her now. But, if she doesn't release them, she won't have Bernie Sanders coming to her rescue as he did on the emails. She will be all on her own, keeping what will be perceived by all as a sell-out a secret. They'll kill her with it!

So, just from the point of view of getting stuck with her as a candidate up against the vicious dogs of Pukeville, I don't want that to happen. I want to know NOW what we will be up against.

If you are a Sanders supporter--as I am--you want to know because you have a right to now. One of my chief concerns--and a big reason I support Sanders--is the critically perilous state of our financial system without Glass-Steagall. (Dodd-Frank doesn't do it!) Not to mention the multi-billion dollars of OUR TAX MONEY that was already gifted to the criminals who crashed our economy and the world economy. Sanders has been especially good on this issue. I believe that what he is saying is right on, and that he is saying it sincerely and will act on it as president.

He is never going to falter on this issue and he has no baggage.

As a Democratic Party member and supporter for 56 years now, I'm being asked to reconsider my support for Sanders, change my vote to Clinton and support Clinton in the general election. I want to know WHAT I would be supporting, if I did that. That is a decision that many people will have to make. Should we support her, warts and baggage and wars and all? HOW will we defend her on items like this, if she is not forthcoming about it? Do we tell undecided voters to shut up and go away, when they ask about this?

That's basically what she said to us in the debate. "I'll look into it." How about WE look into it, see what she have to say about it and judge it for ourselves?

I don't know how I can defend her. I don't know if I can. But she should be giving Democrats some help on the matter, and she is giving no help whatsoever to anybody, even to her surrogates, apparently.

She is a Democratic CANDIDATE! A person to be judged by US. I think this is why Sanders said to her, in the last debate, "You are not in the White House yet." She's acting like she's above questioning on a most vital issue. She's acting like it's a matter of National Security!

No doubt the transcripts will make her look bad. And we Sanders supporters will surely use it. But it is best for everybody to have that happen NOW.

If it's as bad as it smells, and she can't explain it and make it go away, then she should NOT be the Democratic candidate. If the transcripts are so bad she can't release them, she should end her campaign. Sanders has no such problem.

This is what vetting IS. So now you can go over to freeperville and come back and tell us what they are saying about this. It might be useful. And it should be pretty funny to see the corporate shills of freeperville condemning a Democrat for sucking up to their heroes at Goldman Sachs.

[TeamPooka]

40. When the GOP throws a stick you chase it for them. fake issue, like getting all her emails for them.

[restorefreedom]

44. yes, because we all know the fbi takes orders from freepers

i am sure the 150 agents working on the case check the website daily for advice.....

[Joe the Revelator]

45. Is that even still a thing?

[Babel_17]

50. Like we have threads laughing at some of their candidates, as do they?

I'm guessing, as I don't visit there. And like here, they surely mock Senator Sanders for being too progressive.

So those kinds of threads will stop here in 3 ... 2 ... 1. I'll now go check to see if Sanders isn't criticized here like the right wing sites do.

Just kidding! It goes without saying that any arguable objection to a candidate will be brought up during the primaries. And objections regarding experience, intelligence, ethics, etc., are by their nature non-partisan objections.

If a questioner in a debate will ask it, it's ok for us to ask it. That's how I see it.

Edit: Spelling in the title

[whistler162]

41. Thanks for letting us know it has been only 11 days

[JonLeibowitz]

53. Kick.

[EndElectoral]

54. They're working on redactions.

[oasis]

55. Hillary's watching from a window upstairs

while her detractors "go kick rocks".

Props to the Alkaline Trio.

[Warren Stupidity]

56. Well you got a response of sorts.

See the recent idiotic op from a prominent camper demanding sanders release something or other

[DVRacer]

57. The Other side will not forget

My guess they will use this like Rmoney and his tax returns just a feeling.

[BainsBane]

59. There is a video of one of her Goldman speeches

I posted it 11 days ago, yet somehow the same people demanding transcripts aren't interested in watching it. I can't imagine why?

[AtomicKitten]

60. still waiting ...

[bunnies]

61. Apparently she's not so great at getting shit done after all.

Go figure.

[TheFarS1de]

63. If only she took this amount of time

considering going to war things might be different . Only when it affects her is any consideration given .