So those paid speech transcripts....?

[Fearless]

[Duckhunter935]

1. she is working hard

Looking into it

[casperthegm]

28. Glad we are not letting this drop

The Clinton camp would love to let this die. Which is why we can't ease off. The more we keep up the pressure and combat their smear campaign, while focusing on the issues (where Bernie dominates head to head) the better off we'll be.

[forest444]

30. Redacting all references to "plutonomy" and "perception control," no doubt.

She must have needed a small army of gofers.

[Cassiopeia]

33. That will leave nothing pages full of conjunctions and little else.

[forest444]

36. Zing!

Sounds like Nixon's transcripts, which his people justified on the grounds that they contained expletives and foul language.

Nixon's chief counsel, Leonard Garment, opposed such heavy redactions, noting that "people will think the President does nothing but curse!"

[PatrickforO]

2. We're never gonna see those.

The excuse will be that they are 'owned' by Goldman Sachs and the like.

[john978]

42. Per the speech contract posted here in DU -- speech completely owned by Hillary

[PatrickforO]

66. Oh oh.

Well, in that case, "Secretary Clinton, WHEN will you be releasing those speech transcripts?"

[jberryhill]

3. Maybe she didn't give speeches

Maybe they just paid her and called it a "speaking fee".

Who knows?

There is no evidence she actually gave those speeches, other than the payments. So, maybe there aren't any "transcripts".

[Fearless]

6. Umm actually we know they exist.

[jberryhill]

7. okay, how?

Because a contract said there would be a transcript?

That would show the existence of a contract. It would not demonstrate that she said anything beyond "Howdy!"

[Fearless]

8. Watch the question at the debate again.

The moderator explains explicitly they exist and she does not tell him he is wrong.

[jberryhill]

9. That's not evidence they exist

The moderator alleges they exist, and her refusal to address that is not like failing to respond to a claim in civil litigation.

Someone said they exist, and she didn't say they don't, doesn't make them exist.

First, I'd like to know if she actually gave speeches.

Maybe they were just flat-out payments made as "speaking fees".

What are the dates of these speeches?

[Fearless]

10. You're joking!?

If someone makes something up that paints you negatively, you correct the record. She still hasn't. Because it is true. And the content is damning.

[jeff47]

12. Problem with your thesis:

Getting paid for nothing is worse than getting paid for a speech full of gushing praise.

[Fearless]

14. Nonsense. And you're changing the subject.

The speeches clearly paint her in a bad (read lying) situation with what she says publicly or she would have released them.

[jeff47]

61. You're missing the point.

If she was paid for a gushing speech, she was actually paid for something. Even if that something now requires spin like "I told them what they wanted to hear so they'd hire me again".

If she was just given the money, that is known as a bribe. Accepting a bribe would be significantly worse.

[Fearless]

62. I am missing the point? I made the point you're refuting poorly.

[jeff47]

64. Considering you keep insisting a speech is worse than a bribe

Yes, you are missing the point.

A speech gives the fig leaf of the exchange is done. She gave a speech, they gave her money.

A bribe means you only have the "quid". No "pro quo" yet.

[Fearless]

65. They both happened! I have not said either is worse than the other.

BOTH are terrible.

[jberryhill]

15. Yeah, you put it more succinctly than I did

Thus far, there is no evidence of her having given a speech.

[bvar22]

18. "no evidence of her having given a speech"

Wow...that is a thousand times worse.
If she never gave a speech, and they just handed her hundreds of thousands of dollars.....
then is is nothing by pure bribery by Wall Street, and outright lying on Hillary's part.

[jberryhill]

19. Is there a picture giving one of these so-called "speeches"?

Or is it really David Rappaport!

[bvar22]

20. No.

But there is evidence (video record and self admission) that Hillary claimed to have given "speeches" for that money,
and there is a financial record of Hillary receiving hundreds of thousands of dollars from Wall Street for "speeches".

Are you calling Hillary a LIAR now?

Watch the debates.


BTW: You have Jumped the Shark in this thread

[jberryhill]

21. No, I'm not calling anyone a liar

I am simply saying there is no objective evidence I have seen that she actually gave any sort of speech.

Yes, she says she gave speeches, and yes, she got payments. Neither of those things demonstrate a speech was given.

[UnBlinkingEye]

22. "then is is nothing by pure bribery by Wall Street"

At least it's pure.

[jberryhill]

13. No I'm not joking

I do know the difference between evidence and allegation.

If he was told there were transcripts, and if there are none, that doesn't mean he was "making something up". It means he was misinformed.

Now if she simply got paid and they called it "speaking fees", she's not going to quibble over whether there are transcripts for non-existent speeches. The existence of transcripts is not the thing that "paints her negatively". What paints her negatively is getting paid by Goldman Sachs to speak to them in the first place.

But if there were no speeches, she looks a lot better refusing to release the non-existent "transcripts", than by it getting out that there were no speeches.

[Fearless]

16. Good luck with this strategy.

Doesn't change the fact she gave speeches that will hurt her publicly and was paid obscenely to do so.

[jberryhill]

17. Strategy?

I am observing the fact that there is no evidence she gave speeches.

Prove to me - by something other than something "somebody said" that speeches were given.

[bvar22]

23. Self admission IS "evidence"

Financial Records detailing a "payment" of Hundreds of Thousands of dollars to Hillary for a Speaking Engagement IS "evidence".

Testimony by those attending said speeches IS "evidence".

What Clinton said in her paid speeches

Recalled one attendee: 'She sounded more like a Goldman Sachs managing director.'

By Ben White

02/09/16 05:15 AM EST

"NEW YORK — When Hillary Clinton spoke to Goldman Sachs executives and technology titans at a summit in Arizona in October of 2013, she spoke glowingly of the work the bank was doing raising capital and helping create jobs, according to people who saw her remarks.

Clinton, who received $225,000 for her appearance, praised the diversity of Goldman’s workforce and the prominent roles played by women at the blue-chip investment bank and the tech firms present at the event. She spent no time criticizing Goldman or Wall Street more broadly for its role in the 2008 financial crisis.

“It was pretty glowing about us,” one person who watched the event said. “It’s so far from what she sounds like as a candidate now. It was like a rah-rah speech. She sounded more like a Goldman Sachs managing director.”

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/02/clinton-speeches-218969

[jberryhill]

60. I did not say there were no payments

Quite obviously, she was paid.

What did she say? "Hello"?

[jberryhill]

63. Admissions against interest are evidence

I'm not sure you understand how admissions work.

If the allegation is "She did not give any speeches in exchange for the money" then a statement of "I gave speeches for the money" is not an "admission" that constitutes evidence. It is simply a denial of the allegation.

[Fearless]

48. Scientists tell me that global warming is real. Do you believe in it?

[jberryhill]

59. They do so on the basis of published evidence

Science is not a matter of "believing the pronouncements of smart people", it is the testing of hypotheses against reproducible evidence.

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

11. Did she use her hands instead?

[fbc]

39. Who has two thumbs and is owned by corporate America?

[Punkingal]

4. She will never find them.

Wish someone could get to the transcriptionist, but then she would never get work again.

[DefenseLawyer]

5. I only hope that the press keeps asking about it

It's obvious she's never going to release them, but she needs to explain why.

[Jefferson23]

24. At the last debate I am sure everyone noticed this issue was not brought up again. n/t

[liberal_at_heart]

25. She's looking into it, she just needs more time.

[Jarqui]

26. The speech was to Wall Streeters who typically belong to the GOP

Maybe a little audio will pop up in the fall. ...

[Cassiopeia]

35. Unlikely.

I'm sure Wall Street will be happier with a Clinton than the crazies on the right. They still get their bread buttered with Clinton.

[Jarqui]

47. Wishful thinking ..

http://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/258599-clinton-lags-behind-republicans-in-wall-street-donations

[Ino]

27. She's not going to release them...

unless everyone else who has ever given a speech at any time release theirs

[frylock]

29. tick-tock

[UglyGreed]

31. What??? Huh???

[SoapBox]

32. *crickets*

She and her Bankster Cronies have no intention of ever letting us know what exactly was said.

Even if there was something released...I'll bet parts would be "redacted"!

[EndElectoral]

34. It's a holiday...Wait till tomorrow.

[fbc]

37. The transcripts sleep with the fishes.

won't see them no more.

[Dustlawyer]

38. +1!!! I know, right? If Hillary really wanted to help on her "trust" issues she should release

these transcripts showing where she told them to "cut that out!" I am sure she told them that she was going to reform them to clean up their practices and prosecute any wrongdoing with jail time!

Pragmatically, we all know that she can never release them because it will prove that they OWN HER!!!!!

The CEO of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, Tom Donahue, spoke the other day to calm big business when he said that Hillary would sign off on the TPP once elected, but that she couldn't say that right now!

Yes Hillary, we believe that unlike every other politician that took these kind of legal bribes, you would take their money and then spit in their face! All of the 100's of millions in campaign bribes and Clinton Global Initiative money were from the goodness of the corporations and Plutocrats tiny little hearts. They expected nothing from you when they gave you all of that money so there was no reason to turn it down. It would have been different if they had said "We don't want to be prosecuted, we want our people over Treasury and all regulatory agencies, and for you to sign every bill that we pay Congress to write." You would have told them to keep their money and give it to another politician. I cannot imagine why Americans have issues with your honesty?

[Enthusiast]

40. Kicked and recommended!

I want to read them.

[DiehardLiberal]

41. She's looking...& looking...& looking into it.

[sadoldgirl]

43. Perhaps they will be found after her death

in 30 years or so, unless her daughter wants
to keep them in a safe place.

[chknltl]

44. Why aren't conservative voters requesting those speeches too?

Attn fans of Alex Jones, Michael Savage and similarly informed 'constitutional scholars': How else will you know if she didn't say something about Benghazi or her E-mails in one of those speeches?

[Marie Marie]

45. Picture Dana Carvey doing his best George HW Bush impersonation:

"Not gonna happen."

[RufusTFirefly]

49. Be patient. They just need a little wiping

You mean, like, with a cloth?

[99th_Monkey]

50. Word on the street is, Big Dawg ate them. nt

[840high]

54. haha lol

[shark]

51. Change Topic

Why was Scalia invited to the texas ranch?
Meet with Koch Bros!

[upaloopa]

52. I wouldn't let Bernie folks go on a fishing expedition if I were Hillary.

Because she was a private citizen I think her speeches are none of your damn business.

So whine all you want you aren't going to have your fun.

Now go support your candidate.

[Duckhunter935]

55. They are as she is running for President

just like tax records, medical records. It all goes to her judgement that is sorely lacking in this case.

[Fearless]

56. Hahahaha! Best joke I've heard all night!

[amborin]

53. she disses the public by refusing to release these transcripts

[Live and Learn]

57. Shouldn't be too hard to find:

[Babel_17]

58. Real soon!

Lord John Whorfin: Where are we going?

The Red Lectroids: Planet Ten!

Lord John Whorfin: When?

The Red Lectroids: Real soon!

Because saying " I will look into it. I don't know the status, but I will certainly look into it." like she did is right up there with BB for self parody.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2016/02/04/hillary_clinton_on_releasing_transcripts_of_goldman_sachs_speeches_i_will_look_into_it.html

[Cheese Sandwich]

67. She still hasn't released them. No wonder she scores so low on trust.