Why Hillary's Transcripts Don't Matter.

[retrowire]

Tell me why. I'd really like to know why a candidate that is as non transparent as possible doesn't raise an eyebrow for her supporters.

white noise machines too, I wanna know why those aren't a concern.

Thanks in advance.

[COLGATE4]

1. Perhaps because nobody but Bernie supporters

care about them???

[retrowire]

3. thats not a very logical answer...

It doesn't matter because it does matters to someone else?

That doesn't work.

Why doesn't it matter to you?

[COLGATE4]

5. Why would it?

[retrowire]

9. because it pertains to her private business with some of

Our nation's biggest crooks.

Her reluctancy to let you know what she said is the worst part. It's not just that she talked with them at all. That's fine. But why hide any of it?

[COLGATE4]

13. Probably because, like any other person's speeches they are

1) her private property, which she is under no obligation to share with anyone except with the target audience and 2) because she doesn't choose to do so. Works for me.

[retrowire]

15. gotcha.

I knew that would be the answer. XD

Alright, you're off the hook, run along now and be content with a politician that lies to you and then keeps secrets. After all she knows best and "that's the way it is"

Enjoy that, really.

[COLGATE4]

29. No, I'm neither enjoying or not enjoying it.

In fact, I couldn't give less of a shit about those speeches. I'm just not fixated as some of you seem to be.

[retrowire]

31. i know you dont care, carry on. nt

[COLGATE4]

39. That's what I plan to do. Thanks.

[2banon]

73. First clue: Anyone who doesn't care about this, obviously is financially invested

in her succeeding. "Doesn't Care" says it all right there.

[DisgustipatedinCA]

138. There's a reason you're not "fixated", and it's clear for all to see.

[haikugal]

33. Great question Retrowire.

Are you familiar with Bob Altemeyer's work The Authoritarians? Here is a link..it's free...and a very important piece of work. It answers your question.

http://home.cc.umanitoba.ca/~altemey/

[jack_krass]

68. "Its her turn"

These minor issues like corruption, cronyism, endless wars are just minor details

[AgingAmerican]

17. Transparency sucks!

[COLGATE4]

26. Please point me to all the examples of other

Presidential candidates being asked (required) to provide transcripts of their private speeches. Then we'll talk about 'transparency'.

[retrowire]

30. deflectionnnn

We're currently dealing with a 2016 presidential campaign try to keep up.

[COLGATE4]

41. Deflection for asking to see where this sudden

'obligation' unique to Hillary comes from? No, I don't think so.

[retrowire]

49. its unique for a politician to be demanded to release

Private information?

Then what the hell was that "Bernie release your taxes" all about?

[mythology]

85. Taxes and medical checks have been standard for multiple elections

This is the first time for speeches to my knowledge.

That said it's an interesting request as most people running for president are in office and wouldn't have these.

At this point unless she talks about making a coat out of puppies, putting the speeches out there would be better I think than not. But where does that then end for people running who aren't already in office?

[retrowire]

86. maybe it shouldn't end.

I'm perfectly fine with us demanding to hear what potential candidates have said to crooks they've exhanged money with in private.

[retrowire]

96. again, its who she talked to and for what.

That's the concern.

[COLGATE4]

95. Because asking Presidential candidates to release their

taxes is so much an integral part of our election process. It's been done by candidates for years. Bernie dragged his feet until the very last minute and then only released one year's return.

[Cassiopeia]

57. Hillary created this all on her own.

She claims that she'll be tough on banks. Now people want to know what she's been saying to those banks over the last 3 years.

[COLGATE4]

94. I prefer to judge people by their actions, rather than their

speeches.

[retrowire]

97. so speaking privately to crooks and accepting their money

Isn't an action?

Lol

[COLGATE4]

111. Please point me toward the people she spoke to who were convicted

(or, as you so delicately put it, 'crooks'). Here I was under the impression that she spoke to members of a large, important Wall Street firm employing thousands of average Americans and handling investments for hundreds of thousands of them. My mistake.

[retrowire]

122. goldman sachs just paid how big of a fine? thank you very much. nt

[COLGATE4]

126. What is it they were fined for?

A CIVIL matter going back to issues with mortgage-backed securities in 2007-8. Nothing to do with "crooks" and less to do with Hillary. But nice try.

[retrowire]

133. They were fined for doing something not bad?

Well hold my horses!

Oh wait, civil matter or not, they still fucked people over.

Try again. lol

[COLGATE4]

136. Old, old stuff with nothing to do with

Hillary. But the old 'guilt by association' meme never gets old for you guys.

[Merryland]

59. what OTHER candidates have gotten humongous sums of money from Wall Street

for speeches? NONE.

[COLGATE4]

90. Are you sure about Mitt? What about Shrub in his second campaign?

[retrowire]

98. we know the republicans are bought and paid for

Why should we accept that from one of our own?

[COLGATE4]

109. Even on DU tarring and feathering members of the opposition

party to try and support your point against one of ours is just bad taste. I keep hearing how "No one has ever done this before". And, when I point out that at least 2 recent candidates did, now the excuse is "Well, they're Republicans". Still sloppy reasoning.

[retrowire]

110. its still bad, either way. nt

[AgingAmerican]

74. She is the first

Even the GOP candidates havent done it. Its bad.

[COLGATE4]

89. Probably because no GOP candidate was worth it. nt

[hootinholler]

80. Please point me to all the examples of other

Presidential candidates being paid 6 figure speaking fees.

Thanks.

[COLGATE4]

88. So it's not the speeches, it's the fees she earned??? That clarifies.

a lot of things about this so-called 'complaint'.

[retrowire]

99. its both to me nt

[COLGATE4]

108. Got it. Maybe we should establish a 'minimum wage' for giving

speeches?

[hootinholler]

135. Same as it always was...

She was asked what made those speeches worth so much to Goldman, for instance, and her answer was noneyabidniss.

So go ahead and live in your green sky world.

[bigbrother05]

91. She's tried to co-opt one of Bernie's themes, Wall Street regulation

By saying "Me too" when speaking of regulating Wall Street, her private speeches become relevant in assessing her viability in the Dem contest. While both Hillary and Bernie are vastly superior to any in the GOP, we are now choosing our candidate and more info is better ought to be our standard.

[COLGATE4]

114. No, it's not 'assessing her viability'. It's deciding if YOU

want to vote for her. You may think it's important. Many (many) of us aren't that interestedf. And, talking about 'viability', why on earth would she give the Republicans anything like this so they can fly=speck every word, comma, Capital letter and pararaph indentation, over and over and over through the RW Echo Chamber. She'd be nuts to do it. I don't know why some Democrats insist on her playing right into RW hands with this.

[mindwalker_i]

70. Are tax retu also private?

I think the idea is that the public wants to know about them before voting for a person. It definitely applied to Romney. The public coulds also want to know about Hillary's speeches before voting for much the same reason: they would provide information we find critical to our voting. She could refuse to release them, just as Romney could have refused to release his tax returns, and then we could say we won't vote for Hillary.

Hillary won't release her speeches because they would show that she caters to big companies at the expense of little people. It would end her campaign, so she's better off with people questioning how much she's tied to fossil fuel and banking industries rather than being sure. I and many other people find this to be good reason not to vote for her.

[COLGATE4]

124. We have expected - and received Tax returns from our

Presidential candidates for years. We have never asked for their speeches. But, for you the good part is that rank speculation on their contents gives you an excuse to do what you weren't going to do anyway, which is vote for her.

[2banon]

71. Nope. They're no longer "Private Property" as a Public Servant.

Wrong, Wrong, Wrong.

And Wrong Headed.

[COLGATE4]

93. Tell me how she was a 'public servant'???

Nice theory - it's a shame the law doesn't support it.

[2banon]

132. There ya go. "Perfectly Legal".

Nice deal for you and your peeps.


Banana Republic Capital of the World.

[COLGATE4]

137. Nice try at creating a new category of people that never

had anything to do with giving speeches to private groups when you're NOT a government employee. The same meme Bernie tried yesterday. Won't work, though.

[blackspade]

72. I seem to remember that Romney surrogates said about the same thing in 2010...

Was that your stance on his speeches/doner pitches as well?

[COLGATE4]

92. Yep. I didn't give a shit about his speeches/donors then

and I don't now.

[blackspade]

131. Really.... Interesting.

Interesting in that his comments were revealing about his true views about the electorate. They fucked his campaign.

[lumberjack_jeff]

4. The people who paid to hear those speeches cared a lot.

[COLGATE4]

14. I very much doubt it. They paid for a "name", and a chance

to be touchy-feely with a Senator.

[katsy]

112. The republicans will make it an issue

in the general if she's our nominee.

Remember mittens' 47% speech? Private fundraiser. It got leaked and I believe cost him the election... Well maybe he would've lost anyway but I've no doubt it cost him somehow. He lost any moral high ground he may have had with voters in that one speech. He was fully within his legal rights and had the constitutional right to speak his mind. Tough shit. He lost the moral high ground.

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/man-who-secretly-videotaped-mitt-romneys-47-percent-remarks-comes-forward/

Legally HRC is on solid ground to refuse.

But people's perception will be what it is. They understand the difference between "legal" and just plain secretive... Which further implies unethical. When we elect representatives and leaders, we hold them to a higher standard. That's why we ask for tax returns & medical info. And here's the glitch here: no one else's in either party gave these speeches. So they already hold the moral high ground when HEC is perceived as dishonest. That will not serve her well.

There are legal loopholes in our corporate tax structure... but people are appalled at the unfairness of these loopholes.

Yeah. Fine. Let her keep them a secret. Let's watch the gop capitalize on that nugget.

This argument of "it's hers she's under no obligation to release these speeches" don't hold water in the court of public opinion. None. Petulant.

[COLGATE4]

121. And you believe they won't if she releases them?

[katsy]

129. They will. The uncertainty & secrecy

in not releasing the transcripts will not work to her advantage.

If I were a betting woman... I'd put my $ on HRC explaining any uncomfortable interpretations of her speeches to her advantage.

As Democrats, we stand for honesty (not infallibility) and transparency in our dealings. She needs to fall in line with these values or the gop will beat us to a pulp with our hypocrisy.

[COLGATE4]

139. I defer to her and her advisors as to when is the

best time to release them.

[jwirr]

116. If that is the case this country is in worse condition than any

of us realize and it is not just the Rs that have brought us to this point. When Democrats do not care about corruption in our elections then we are no longer Democrats. And there does seem to be a part of the party that does not care as long as it is their candidate.

[COLGATE4]

119. Corruption in elections". How dramatic. Also how incorrect. Elections

have always been about money. Nothing has changed except for the amount.

[jwirr]

123. Read How Hillary Clinton Bought the Loyalty of 33 State

Democratic Parties. And when you are done you probably will ignore it but I would like you to explain how this primary is an election in any form when it was decided by one deal before any votes were cast? Before a single debate?

I really need to understand this - I am a delegate and can plainly see that there are no choices offered in this "election" and elections by their very definition require choices.

If this is the kind of elections South America used to have I can certainly understand why their history contains so many overthrown governments.

[COLGATE4]

125. I think i read this some time back

on Free Republic.

[jwirr]

128. LOL It has been on line for a while and 17 states who did not

join in the deal have spoken out about it - but none of the 33 have come ahead and denied it.

Not to mention that the Clooney circus this weekend is one of those rich donors to this deal.

Deny all you want - the facts are going to come out.

[COLGATE4]

141. I'll be anxiously awaiting that moment.

[COLGATE4]

142. I also read that 33 states have not yet

denied that unicorns exist! The shame!!

[metroins]

2. Honestly

Because paid speeches that are only an hour long are fluff speeches used by companies to bring people to meetings that they normally wouldn't go to.

They're used to bring in your best customers so you can do more business with them. They're used to prop up employee morale and make everybody see how well the company is doing. They're marketing spots to either bring in business or donations.

It really doesn't matter what she said...they just needed her name. They didn't pay her for a favor, they paid to use her public personality.

That is why I don't care, it's not a matter that will effect anything. If they were released all I'd see is fluff.

[retrowire]

8. then why does she refuse to release them?

It is her mere refusal that grants WAY MORE WEIGHT to them.

If she had released them immediately then people would have cared less. But again, the mere refusal to do so has made them all the more incriminating.

Even if it is fluff as you say, are you not concerned about her reluctancy to be transparent to you? This was her private business with some of the largest crooks in our nation. Why wouldn't you want to know what was said?

[EndElectoral]

10. if "It really doesn't matter what she said"...then what's the big deal in releasing them?

[Armstead]

11. I'm curious to see the "fluff"...If it's really iunnocuous she should just reassure people

Not releasing them creates ckouds of suspicion.

If they are harmless, refusing to release them creates more harm than good.

That's what's wrong with the Clintons. they tend to allow their opponents to make mountains out of molehills because of their arrogance and and clumsiness that they are "above it all."

The right wing smear machine was/is bad. But the Clintons feed it with their own carelessness, corruption and elitist attitudes and behavior.

[retrowire]

18. exactly

If it's just fluff then for the love of the Democratic party, PROVE IT before it gets out of hand oh shit too late...

[haikugal]

36. She doesn't have to earn anyone's vote..it's in the bag and it's her turn.

[Cassiopeia]

60. If this were in any way true

They would have been released long ago instead of being the anchor tied around her neck.

[jack_krass]

66. Add to that: a chance to get a powerful politician to "owe them a favor"

[thereismore]

6. Intergrity is what you do when no one is watching. She thought when she took that money, no one was

listening. So I want to know what she said when she thought no one was listening.

[DemocracyDirect]

7. Hillary gave $300k speeches to many of the people she would need to regulate...

... or bring down mighty legislation against on behalf of the American people if she were elected president.

I'm sure even the most hardened Hillary supporter can understand the optics of this.

And it's actually quite unprecedented, despite the spin saying the opposite.

[VulgarPoet]

23. They're probably being paid /not/ to understand. nt

[DemocracyDirect]

27. I think Bernie has made it clear enough that anyone who heard this will understand it.

While I don't have much hope for the spin agents here....

I have great hope for Tuesday.

California is waiting for New York to nominate Bernie!

[VulgarPoet]

28. I certainly hope so. Otherwise when the decision comes down to board me, I'm writing my congressmen

to get them to expedite the medical board. I refuse to work for her.

[DemocracyDirect]

35. I understand...

... and I really don't know what they are thinking even letting her run...

... let alone trying to railroad her through to the nomination.

She really is the worst candidate I can even imagine.

[haikugal]

43. They don't care!

As long as the candidate is bought and payed for the TPTB win, either side, it's all the same to them. So Clinton is their candidate on our side, they own her and by her attitude she doesn't much like us anyway.

Bernie isn't bought and he works for us...they have to eliminate him AND his 'revolution'!

[LiberalArkie]

12. I would be surprised if anything was said at all during most of them.

I always saw them as a way of funneling bribes to to people. I imagine everyone just sitting around having drinks and telling stories and then someone stands up and tells some crude and off color stories and everyone finishes eating and drinking and goes home.

As far as the white noise masking the voices, why would she want any "non paying scum of the earth" to be able to hear her for free. That would be like a restaurant allowing the homeless to have the leftover food for free instead of making sure it is uneatable.

[Orsino]

20. I would like to believe that these speeches were just easy money for Clinton...

...with no particular strings attached. It might be so--our wealthiest citizens tend to be paid, counterintuitively, precisely because they are already wealthy. G-S can indeed afford to throw away such money on fluff speeches by big names; treating political celebrities like performing animals is a way to reinforce the power dynamics.

The secrecy, though, stinks. Clinton ensures that no one but her has transcripts, and then pretends that their release is something she has to dither over? Could G-S also have her under NDA? Does she have a direct and ongoing financial relationship with G-S not previously disclosed?

Why try to pretend the speeches never happened by continuing to hide the evidence?

[BernieforPres2016]

44. If there were no strings attached

Why wouldn't they have spent the money on somebody who is at least entertaining? Companies don't lay out $225K to listen to Hillary Clinton drone for any reason other than to gain favor with her.

[LiberalArkie]

115. Oh, I believe they expect something for the money they gave her, but speeches were just

the way to launder it.

[Mike__M]

101. "That would be like a restaurant . . ."

doing this:



Restaurant Puts ‘Public Fridge’ On The Street So Homeless People Can Take Leftovers

http://winningdemocrats.com/restaurant-puts-public-fridge-on-the-street-so-homeless-people-can-take-leftovers-imagesvideo/

Who would do that if the food was worth $2700 a plate?

[athena]

16. Here is why.

Dare to read it?

http://m.dailykos.com/story/2016/4/15/1515992/-About-Those-Speaking-Fees

Despite the innocuousness of these events I can honestly say that were I in Secretary Clinton’s shoes, I would not release those transcripts unless every candidate released the transcripts for every single speech or public talk they ever gave. And here’s why.

First and foremost, transcripts are notoriously monotonous. There are no voice inflections in the written word — except what the reader puts there. There is no speaker’s face to watch, no body language to read. There is no narrative text that would explain the ensuing dialogue. Consequently, what was a joke, or even sarcasm, can come across as dead serious.

Second, and let’s be honest, not only would Senator Sanders’ campaign folks and the GOP pounce on those pages like a pack of starving sharks on a school of minnows, but the media would tear apart every single word. Pundits would have an entire summer of words to read and spin and regurgitate and debate ad nauseum. And it’s a fairly sure bet that very little of any regurgitation would give Secretary Clinton the benefit of the doubt.

(snip -- worth reading as well, but excluding because of the four-paragraph rule)

And lastly, if anyone who has followed Secretary Clinton these past 30 years — alternately hating her and liking her and admiring her grit — honestly believes she’s careless or stupid enough to risk an entire life in public service and under the public eye by saying or doing something dishonest or unethical I can only say they’re smoking something I wish I had growing in my back yard.

[retrowire]

21. read it

Okay two options...

1. Release the transcripts and have the benefit of honesty and transparency with you, even though things may be misconstrued you at least were forthright with it.

OR

2. Refuse to be transparent and let everyone lose trust in you while also having the worst inferred from your actions to be secretive.

I know it's damned if you do, damned if you don't as anything is in politics, but clearly when you've got the lowest favorability and trustworthiness rates around, one of these is the better answer.

[athena]

22. The article responds to the question you asked.

It shows why those who support Hillary don't have a problem with her not releasing the transcripts.

And now that your question has been answered, you do what is most common among Bernie supporters on DU: you change the question. And you think that we don't notice what you're doing.

[retrowire]

24. lol i changed no question

Didn't even ask a question. I said what her two "damned if you do damned if you don't" options were and left it at that with my opinion on what would be better.

Haha you saw a new question? XD too funny.

Anyways, now that you mention it I DID happen to ask 2 questions in my OP. It's not a new question so don't think I'm "moving goalposts" or anything lol.

White noise machines? Why don't they matter?

[athena]

42. Your original question was why Hillary's transcripts don't matter to her supporters.

Tell me why. I'd really like to know why a candidate that is as non transparent as possible doesn't raise an eyebrow for her supporters

I posted a lengthy article that explains why Hillary's supporters don't think the transcripts don't contain anything scandalous.

In response, you change the question to whether it's politically wise for Hillary to release the transcripts. You also use your post to smear Hillary with insinuations of dishonesty.

As for white noise machines, the reasons for using them are the same ones stated in the article I posted. If I were Hillary and giving a private speech, I wouldn't want the media to pick out words through the door and then publish something they misheard. There is enough hearsay and lies floating out there already.

If you have evidence that Hillary said something objectionable in her speeches, please go ahead and provide it. In the absence of such evidence, it is dishonest to claim that the speeches contain something objectionable. That Hillary refuses to release the transcripts is not evidence of wrongdoing, as the article I posted explains clearly.

[retrowire]

46. i would love to have evidence about her speeches!

But the thing is, Hillary doesn't want to be transparent. So I have no evidence to present you. I can't clear her name or incriminate her but what I and many others do have, is less trust in her.

I expect my candidate to be a little more clear with me about her association with crooks, why wouldn't I?

Also, what you just said about the white noise machines doesn't fit with your article.

The article said that written text could be taken out of context because no inflections could be read, jokes could be misconstrued as serious.

But that's not possible with an oral speech, we can detect sincerity and inflection! So, the transcript defense doesn't work for an oral speech.

And again I changed no questions. I didn't intend for you to give me an answer on that since it wasn't a question, I only gave my opinion on her decisions.

[jack_krass]

69. Ok, release the videotape then :)

[Broward]

19. They don't care. She voted for the Iraq War FFS

and they don't even bat an eye.

[awake]

25. They do mater if you want to know what Hillary is promising to give to her Wallstreet friends

Now if you do not care what Hillary is really planing to do and you just want to keep your head in the sand so be it. I feel that like with Romney's 47% statement that he made to his donors, people would like to know. If Hillary gets the nomination Trump will release what Hillary said to his 1% friends down on WallStreet so is it not best that we know what was said before it comes out and bites us all. How do we know it will hurt well if it would have helped Hillary she would have shared them by now. How dumb does she think the American people are, she is like the 3 year old with chocolate all over their face that tries to tell you that they have no idea what happened to the cookies.

[polichick]

32. Followers don't question.

[griffi94]

34. She was a private citizen at the time

I don't care at all what she said in a paid speech.

[DemocracyDirect]

37. That's very bright of you...

... not caring that she gave private $300k paid speeches to dozens of corporations...

that she would have to regulate or pass mighty laws against on behalf of the American people.

It's not like she never thought she might run for President.

[griffi94]

45. Right

I don't care.

[DemocracyDirect]

50. Some of the people that will be needed to vote to win a general election...

... might care.

Go think about it.

[retrowire]

52. man, i thought an apathetic voter was one who didnt care to vote

I had no idea there was another type that didn't care what they voted for.

[griffi94]

53. I don't have to think about it

it doesn't matter to me at all.
I don't care that she won't release the transcripts.
It's not an issue for me.

[DemocracyDirect]

55. Well thank you for proving our point.

Those people who don't want the transcripts released don't care about anything except...

... Hillary!

[griffi94]

58. I certainly don't care about

transcripts to some paid speech.

[DemocracyDirect]

64. I heard about that new machine learning system that malfunctioned...

... and kept spewing out ridiculous posts.

[griffi94]

65. And it's ridiculous why?

Because you don't agree with my lack of outrage.

I don't care what she said in a paid for speech.
It's not an issue for me at all.
It's not even a blip on my radar.

[DemocracyDirect]

67. Blip

GE

[retrowire]

38. ...?

So if she had literally had a speech that said thanks for the dough GS, I'll always have your back!

...It wouldn't matter today because she was a private citizen then?

That's like saying it doesn't matter that someone's drug test showed up positive for meth because they were unemployed then so it's cool!

Smh lol

[griffi94]

47. Exactly

I don't care...at all.

[retrowire]

51. we know. :) nt

[griffi94]

54. Well you asked.

So I answered you.

[retrowire]

56. thanks for answering. :) nt

[KPN]

40. Because her supporters don't care and will vote for her anyway ...

since she represents (a) their interests (status quo privilege), and/or (b) what they think are their interests.

[rachacha]

48. Ethics matter. It's a massive conflict of interest.

[elana i am]

61. i come at this from a different perspective

i don't think the speeches matter because they are beside the point. they're nothingburger subterfuge for the quid pro quo (read: bribes). it's beyond the pale that she even went there and did that in the first place. we don't need to see the speeches to know she's nothing but a grifter.

clinton is now connected to goldman sachs in a big way. what kind of progressive democrat thinks that's a good look?

[retrowire]

62. this is true

Some see it as a nail in the coffin though. There are still, for some reason, many doubters to the idea that when you're paid large sums of money that people expect something in return.

[DebDoo]

63. because Hillary said so! What more reason do you need?

[4ricksren]

75. americans need the full videos, not just transcripts

thousands of corporate people saw those speeches

there is no secret

what's the delay, hillary clinton?

[randome]

76. Jerry Seinfeld and Lady Gaga also gave speeches to GS for the same amounts.

It's something that GS does on a regular basis and most people, so I believe, don't really care what Clinton does in her spare time.

Unless you think Jerry Seinfeld is also conspiring with GS to...to...whatever.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]The truth doesn’t always set you free.
Sometimes it builds a bigger cage around the one you’re already in.[/center][/font][hr]

[retrowire]

78. are jerry seinfeld or lady gaga

Claiming that they will reign in wall St and are currently running for president?

No?

Okay then.

[randome]

82. So suspicion is all you're going with, then.

Does that mean you need to listen in to every conversation she might have with Chelsea should Clinton favor some regulation regarding new mothers?
[hr][font color="blue"][center]The truth doesn’t always set you free.
Sometimes it builds a bigger cage around the one you’re already in.[/center][/font][hr]

[retrowire]

83. lol no

Hillary's conversations with known crooks are what concerns me.

And yes, I am suspicious. As are many folk. Because we're concerned with one of our candidates reluctancies to be transparent.

[HassleCat]

77. We are accustomed to this.

Democrats now are comfortable with their candidates taking money from special interests and being very cozy with certain sectors of corporate America. It's how we roll now.

[ChisolmTrailDem]

79. I guess none of this matter either...

vimeo.com/163178551

[LiberalFighter]

84. It wouldn't matter what answer anyone gives you.

[retrowire]

87. thats what you think! ;)

Because you've been rendered unfaithful in your fellow persons by the sheer amount of snarkiness and insincerity we witness on the internet.

BUT BEHOLD... I have received one, count it, ONE reasonable answer as to why Hillary shouldn't release the transcripts. The answer was basically saying that the written format of a transcript carries no context and therefore could be misinterpreted since you can't detect jest or sincerity or inflection in written word.

Basically, the speech could be perfectly fine but some would take it out of context so there's no real reason to release it.

Personally I see that she's damned if she does and damned if she doesn't but I think it would be better of her to dispel people's imaginations by being forthright about it. Instead since she sweeps it under the rug it leaves her looking suspicious.

No one in this thread has given a sufficient answer for the white noise machines though.

There, is your faith in your fellow persons lifted a bit? To see that I'm not some troll that will consistently scream "NUH UH" at any reply?

Try me, I am reasonable despite what many will assume of me.

[Mudcat]

100. Because as bad as it is for her not releasing them...

... it would be even worse if she did. Otherwise she would have released them already.

So it doesn't matter. Those who stand by her, would continue to do do.

[randome]

103. Her opponents on both the left and right would pick it apart to score points.

They would take the most innocuous comment out of context and hope they can use it to damage her. That's why she likely won't release the transcripts. Why give ammunition to her opponents?
[hr][font color="blue"][center]The truth doesn’t always set you free.
Sometimes it builds a bigger cage around the one you’re already in.[/center][/font][hr]

[katsy]

120. They already have the ammunition

because she won't release these transcripts.

If she argues gop corruption in the GE, they'll slap her down with "release the transcripts" and "none of us made paid speeches to wall st".

If she argues gop obstruction in the GE, they'll slap her down with "what are you afraid of? Why haven't you released the speeches".

The ammunition was given to them by HRC's shortsighted decision to give these speeches to the same group that blew up our economy. And it would've been fine if she was just "former" Sec'y or senator. But she wants a future role in shaping policy for this country. Now she's held to a higher standard. And she's not doing very well in being transparent in her dealings with certain groups.

Wall st doesn't have a stellar reputation with voters. These aren't women's groups, faith groups or nurses unions or teachers unions with whom the average person can relate. These are scoundrels. Her perception of the 2008 crash affects her leadership role in the future. It matters.

[retrowire]

105. i think youre right. hmmm nt

[Jefferson23]

102. The responses from her supporters are fucking amazing..not in a good way. n/t

[retrowire]

104. yeah so far ive got

One reasonable explanation but not really an answer as to why it doesn't matter.

Two "don't cares"

And one deflection saying there's no use in giving me an answer.

I actually do wait and hope for legit answers. Last time I asked a question it took me 2 hours before I got a legit answer! Wonder how long until I get one this time?

[Jefferson23]

107. Corruption, its only a Republican thing. lol

I think you may have a long wait.

[Mike Nelson]

106. Because...

1...we know she said nice things about those paying her - there is no revelation. If she committed a crime, it would have been reported at the time.

2...the Bernie voters who want to see them are voting for Bernie anyway.

3...she's on track for winning the nomination, after which the demand will die.

4...we know enough - too much, in fact -- about Hillary Clinton.

[LonePirate]

113. I'm guessing this issue is so low on the priority list that it doesn't matter.

I don't give a damn about the transcripts and I voted for Bernie. Why would you think a Hillary supporter cares about them?

[immoderate]

117. I think the transcripts will be significantly insignificant.

It's not the speech; it's the payoff.

--imm

[Dems to Win]

118. I don't need to see the transcripts. $20million in speeches, cashing in on her public service

It's legal, but I see it as greedy, sleazy, and corrupt. Same for Bill's $200million haul, cashing in on his public service.

It was also politically tone-deaf for someone planning to run again. Hillary shot the fat middle finger to Occupy Wall Street every time she went through the bank doors. Now she doesn't understand why young people and people in financial despair don''t want to vote for her.

It'd be funny, if she wasn't the likely Democratic nominee, supported by almost all Democratic leaders.

She should have had the political smarts to know that these speeches would be toxic in any future campaign. The fact she didn't is one more example of her poor judgement.

[ecstatic]

127. The cost to hear a former First Lady, Senator, and Secretary of State speak is going to be high.

Oops, make that a former State and US First Lady, US Senator, first female presidential candidate to almost win a major party's nomination, and Secretary of State.

In the world of speaker fees, how much do you think that background is worth, considering how someone like Donald Trump has pulled in 1.5 million a speech, and artists and celebrities have tours where they take in millions from audiences?

What exactly is the objection here: is it the fee or the audience? Would it have been OK if the fee was $50, or is it that you object to her speaking to a financial institution that you don't like?

If it had not been a financial institution, would a large speaking fee be OK, or would there now be an objection to her taking money out of the hands of a noble organization?

We've already established that Clinton has never given special treatment to the banks or Wall Street. So where does the criticism end? Is the issue, at the end of the day, that you object to how much money the Clintons have made? What is the cut off dollar amount for when someone is evil/corrupt?

Oh, and please name one famous person who regularly makes free speeches. One!

[retrowire]

134. Wait, you've established that the Clinton's never gave special treatment to banks or wall st? nt

[Fritz Walter]

130. Quick question: was she under protection of the Secret Service at the time?

As former First Lady, she's been receiving that protection since her husband's first election. Protection paid for by taxpayers. Doesn't that negate the "private citizen" argument?

I don't know many other private citizens who draw that very expensive benefit from the government.

[Octafish]

140. Shell companies in Delaware.

Seems like a lot of trouble to hide something.

[Bob41213]

143. Does anyone really think there isn't a cell phone recording of these somewhere?

In this day and age, I can't imagine that there aren't a few copies of these speeches out there. I'm willing to bet something surfaces by say November.