Transcripts will leak - and it is obvious why they have not yet.

[JackRiddler]

As we know, for years the Wall Street banksters, military contractors and many other transnational corporations paid big money to legally bribe the Clintons to deliver closed-door speeches. And many of these entities are now raining millions on the Clinton campaign, in expectation of political service. That's how the system works. It's wrong. It's bad for us. And it's legal.

No doubt there are hundreds of people among these organizations who can get their hands on transcripts of, or who already have unauthorized recordings of one or more of these speeches. (Hello, the year is 2016!)

Some ask, why haven't we seen any leaks of transcripts yet? But is this a serious question?

It's a safe guess most of the audience members liked what they heard, don't want to violate non-disclosure rules, don't care, support her -- I bet a majority of these crowds do, why would they not? -- or would not think of taking the bother or the risk. And again, most will not have access to records.

Most also probably don't think it's a "secret" how Clinton really stands on the issues dear to them. Puh-lease, what's secret after three decades of corporate kowtowing by the Clinton machine? (If she said she wants to give them sweet new tax loopholes, they'd like that, no?)

There is little doubt that the transcripts will be embarrassing and damage Clinton in the world of those who were not present, among people who may be trying hard to convince themselves she is progressive. (This is of course not a demographic predominant at Goldman Sachs and Co.!) The transcripts are unlikely to reveal anything the non-self-deluded don't already know, but their release would create problem stories for the campaign in the media and give ammo to interests who want to bring her down.

Now. It is a sure bet that at least a few among those who can access transcripts or recordings will be partisans who want to harm the Clinton campaign or help elect the Republican, and who are motivated to act.

Anyone thinking that way would be smart not to leak anything until she is the nominee. Why would they endanger her nomination? You think the people at Goldman Sachs and Co. who are invited to these shindigs have a lot of Sanders supporters in their ranks? Ha!

In short, I am arguing one or more and probably many transcripts will be leaked, after the nomination is secured.

[global1]

1. Too Little - Too Late.....nt

[JackRiddler]

6. Not for Trump however.

Not for those who might make use of these after the election, when Clinton (probably) wins and is president.

You play in the mud, you get dirty.

[Desert805]

2. 47%

[Sheepshank]

3. As we know?

As we know, for years the Wall Street banksters, military contractors and many other transnational corporations paid big money to legally bribe the Clintons to deliver closed-door speeches.

Being paid for speeches and when that money is donated doesn't sound nearly as nefarious as your try so very hard to do.

your dribble is dribbling lies, pathetic innuendos, and made up shit.

[JackRiddler]

4. Yeah yeah.

That is exactly what they are doing, and it is exactly how the system of legalized corruption generally works. Politicians show themselves to be reliable to corporate interests in exchange for campaign finance, and if they do well, the big payoff comes when they reenter the "private sector" at 5 to 100 times their income as "public servants." These corporations would not so consistently pay that kind of money for speeches from either Clinton (or anyone else), and the Clintons wouldn't be able to charge such fees, without the expectation that this advantages both parties politically. You think businesses do this for charity? The Clinton Foundation?! Hilarious! Everyone understands this and those of you who are playing naive about it are partisan to your particular cause, nothing more. You persuade no one with the handwringing. Call things by their proper names!

[Yurovsky]

5. They sure as hell don't pay that kind of money for any special insights...

at least not when you are paying a former - and in this case very likely future - elected official. Anyone who thinks otherwise probably just fell off the turnip truck.

[JackRiddler]

8. Yup. However, anyone who thinks otherwise...

wants to think otherwise. There is no room for genuine naivete on this matter.

[Sheepshank]

7. hey buddy, step away from the tin foil.....you are losing it.

[JackRiddler]

9. And maybe you should put down the crack pipe.

(Jury: read the full exchange before judging. Thank you.)

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

10. It was a conversation between her and the investors who invest in her product.

Kinda like a meeting of Mafia bosses discussing 'business".