The Question About Her Transcripts Has Hillary Unhinged So Soon

[berni_mccoy]

Claiming All GOP candidates need to release them she's already on the defense about her millions I speaking fees at the SC Town Hall.

[TCJ70]

1. It's honestly the most ridiculous...

...transparent excuse she could give. Ya know what would clear it up? Releasing them!

[Kittycat]

11. She's a bad actor on this issue

Isn't that one of her favorite phrases, "the bad actors".

[kristopher]

18. So if she releases them and there is nothing at all but pablum where do you go then?

Do you stop talking about the $21,000,000 in speaking fees she took from 2013-2015?

She'll completely ignore any discussion and her surrogates will indignantly stress that she has already proven, by the standards you are now setting that she didn't do anything wrong. She broke no laws and she made no promises so, they will say, "just STFU".

[JackRiddler]

20. True enough, but if it's only pablum...

why didn't she release it ages ago?

[kristopher]

23. Because she is smart enough to know the money is a huge issue and...

...to know that she MUST deal with that vulnerability. Not should, but MUST.

I just watched the question from CNN "are you going to release the transcripts they have become an issue.!.

I'll transcribe the answer:

Sure, if everybody does it; and that includes the Republicans because we know they have made a lot of speeches, but look...
What is this about?
It's about whether I have the best plan to go after Wall Street.
Whether I have a record that already demonstrates my willingness to take on Wall Street and financial interests; and there is no question about that.
I did it before the '08 crash, I have done it since in this campaign. I have been absolutely clear and a lot of people have said I have the most comprehensive... effective, comprehensive plan to make sure that Wall Street never wrecks Main Street again.

I've also said I'll use the tools that Pres. Obama achieved in the Dodd-Frank regulations...

As you can see, the issue that is the key to this entire scandal - her taking $21,000,000+ in the past 2 years while KNOWING she was running for president - has already been removed from the discussion.

Why isn't that staggering amount of money and the timing not now included in the question?

Do you think that is going to change when she releases innocuous boring speeches designed to cover the transfer of these legal bribes?

Do you really, really think she is so stupid that she said something incriminating?

[Babel_17]

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

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

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.”

It looks like they might be very bad for her. I guess you have to gauge how reliable these reports are. If they're fairly accurate then it all makes sense. It comes down to never expecting a primary opponent like Sanders.

[tularetom]

55. They didn't pay her millions of dollars to recite nursery rhymes to them

But even if they did, why did they do it. They knew she was contemplating a run for president and they knew she was on their side and wanted to help her.

The money is the scandal, the content of the speeches is merely confirmation that she is a liar. The damage is done regardless of whether or not she releases the transcripts.

[TCJ70]

21. I want to put them in the context of her record...

...that she likes to reference so much. It's actually a missing part of her record that for some reason she won't put out there. Business and Wall Street is interested in one thing: Return on Investment. I'd really like to know what they got for theirs.

If there isn't anything in them, I'd be much more comfortable with her as a candidate despite my inner self thinking "What an asshole for not just releasing them sooner".

[kristopher]

24. We already know what they got - the future president will take their calls.

If and when they need a regulation tweaked or killed,or anything else she can get away with, then they will get it.

[DirkGently]

25. She's claiming to be the best Wall Street reformer.

Last edited Wed Feb 24, 2016, 01:19 AM - Edit history (1)

That is a silly thing that is not true. She is tepid at best about any kind of reform. She almost certainly said nothing that is not clear already, but it will be pretty uncomfortable for her to keep claiming she will make them "cut it out" in the face of speeches that almost certainly went something like this:

“Now these economic problems are certainly not all Wall Street’s fault – not by a long shot,” Clinton said early in the speech.

Clinton’s NASDAQ address amounted to essentially asking the financiers assembled to take voluntary action or else she would “consider legislation” to stop banks from kicking families out of their homes. But early on in the speech, Clinton placed equal blame for the subprime mortgage crisis on low-income homeowners alongside Wall Street.

“Homebuyers who paid extra fees to avoid documenting their income should have known they were getting in over their heads,” Clinton said.

http://usuncut.com/politics/video-surfaces-of-hillary-clinton-blaming-homeowners-for-financial-crisis/

And now, with this transparently silly tap-dancing, she has ensured the laser-like focus of the public when we inevitably see Clinton comforting the architects of the worst financial disaster since the Great Depression with reassurances that foolish borrowers were actually to blame.

[kristopher]

31. I have no problem with wanting the transcripts if it is anchored in the amount of money

"Sec. Clinton after your super pac began operations for your 2016 presidential campaign you gave a series of speeches netting you $21 million in personal income." and then go into the transcripts, the issue of access to power for the rich and how can she deny the obligation incurred by accepting such a staggering amount of money.

The current dialog is entirely scripted to help her get over this issue.

[CorporatistNation]

37. MSNBC Mika Bryzinski "Spills Beans! Mika, "Print Journalist has Transcripts!"

[asuhornets]

34. I hope she doesn't release squat...

The Repugs aren't asking for them-then why r Democrats here at DU are?

[morningfog]

35. Republicans love Wall Street.

[bobbobbins01]

39. Because the general election hasn't started yet.

Of course they're going to mention it there. Especially if Trump is the nom. If she cared about the democratic party, she'd release them during the primary. If they exist and get leaked during the general, it will be devastating and we'll have Trump as president. Releasing them now allows the controversy to pass before the general, and if they are damning, allows us to replace her with a more suitable candidate.

[Matariki]

44. Well said Bobbobbins

[asuhornets]

48. Your words:

"allows us to replace her with a more suitable candidate." This is the real reason you want the transcripts release. She is too smart to say something stupid.

[Fearless]

45. Good luck with this strategy.

[Kall]

58. Congratulations.

Your candidate meets the Republican ethical bar. Not that the Republicans try to give the pretense that they intend to hold the financial sector to account, like Hillary pretends.

And she claims it's sexist. Good luck with that.

[riversedge]

2. Audiance gave her a lots of laud applause when she asked about the

double standard. Good on Hillary.

[TheSocialDem]

4. not a double standard

if Bernie releases them will you?? that was the question

[840high]

32. Another problem she won't face

and put to bed. Just like the emails.

[grasswire]

50. she was pulling that old victim card of hers

It must be tattered and torn by now.

[TheSocialDem]

3. no double standard!

if Bernie releases them will you?? that was the question

[riversedge]

5. As she has said before--Republicans need to be included.

[TheSocialDem]

6. no way

all of the democrats agree they are bought and since when do we need them to define our transparency standards?

[berni_mccoy]

7. Maybe Hillary doesn't realize the GOP candidates aren't running in the DEMOCRATIC primary

[krawhitham]

17. +99999999999999999999999999999

[PoliticAverse]

8. Good to see people are beginning to understand Clinton is just the same as Republicans

in this matter.

[shawn703]

10. She's a Democrat

Democrats hold their candidates to higher standards than Republicans do.

[John Poet]

12. BULLSHIT. We aren't voting for Republicans here....

(except maybe, Hillary)

[artislife]

13. They aren't voting for her

Besides, their party is transparent on liking the 1%. The Democratic Party used to rail against that.


But not now, I guess.

Lose a generation or two, no big whoop.

[krawhitham]

15. This is a DEMOCRATIC PRIMARY not the General Election

She is making it really hard to vote for her in a GE, I don't know if I can do it

This is a corrupt GOP slimy thing to do. Why should repigs release transcripts so we can know more in picking a Democratic Primary winner?

[DirkGently]

26. Which Republicans are saying they will reform Wall Street

... but took millions in speaking fees from them?

First, she's trying to equate ordinary campaign donations -- which are problematic in themselves -- with taking large, personal, direct payments from the organizations she is saying she is most qualified to reform. That is ridiculous. She may even imagine that she wants to pass reform, but the fact is that she and Bill have been in business with these firms for years and made a substantial part of their fortunes by pleasing them.

This is a very silly dodge that no one believes. She visibly squirms when she's asked about it, has nothing but meandering nonsense for answers, and has effectively guaranteed the inevitable transcripts will be scrutinized for every scrap of comfort and rationalization she doubtlessly handed out to her very good friends at Goldman Sachs, Deutsche Bank, et al.

She ought to just say what she thinks -- that everything is fine and we should all just rely on the wisdom of the people who broke the world the last time not to break it the next time.

[840high]

33. I don't think they're being

paid for Wall St. speeches.

[grasswire]

52. a sitting official cannot give speeches for money

therefore, Cruz, Rubio, and Kasich are not getting paid for speaking.

That leaves Trump and Carson.

[840high]

59. Yes.

[AgingAmerican]

41. Republicans aren't running in the Democratic primary

Duh!

[Fearless]

46. We're not choosing to vote for Democrat or Republican

We are choosing between Democrats. She said only if everyone does. Bernie is the only other person in the primary. He has released his. Ergo, she must release them. Now.

[krawhitham]

9. are you fucking kiding me, she wants All GOP candidates to release transcripts?

We already know they are in the pockets of big banks they do not try to hide that fact.

Does she think EVERYONE is dumb or stupid? All will see through this BS tactic, this just makes the issue worse. Either be a leader and release the transcripts or have the strength to state now you will never be releasing them

[Kittycat]

14. She just admitted she was just as bad as the Rs to me.

If she won't clear her name, she's covering it up.

[MissDeeds]

22. She keeps moving the goal posts

Hey, Hill, if you have nothing to hide, release the damn transcripts.

[kstewart33]

36. Why not?

Hillary - release the transcripts of your speeches, you corrupt slithering snake!

All the other guys - ah, not so much.

Double standard, no?

[krawhitham]

38. This is a DEMOCRATIC PRIMARY not the General Election

Bernie has released his

[kstewart33]

49. What has Bernie released?

Please help me out here - I don't know.

[grasswire]

53. he has not given any speeches to Wall Street.

Any other speeches that he was paid for, he gave the money to charity. $500, I think he said.

No one owns him.

[jeff47]

56. He has released all his speeches to Wall Street.

Here, I'll quote them:

Now it's Clinton's turn.

[TTUBatfan2008]

16. Dodging

And lying is not a good way to build trust.

[Kokonoe]

19. The reason for not releasing them is that

She said it's foolish to regulate or prosecute Wall Street crimes.

There are many people who know what she said.

[Babel_17]

27. And now a question about today's court ruling, the drip - drip - drip

I think it's a burden to her, during the next question about Social Security she went into bobble head mode. It looked like she just went into automatic pilot so she could visit her happy place for a minute.

[arcane1]

28. A terrible candidate and a terrible liar. What a combo n/t

[Arizona Roadrunner]

30. What legal action can be taken to force her to release transcripts

What legal action can be taken to force her to release said transcripts? Sorry, but I believe in the life lesson to "follow the money". Who can take said action?

Also, I want to know, can organizations such as Goldman-Sachs take these payments as a tax deduction which in effect if they can, you and I have to pay more taxes because of their deductions or we get fewer services because the money wasn't there for paying bills.

[jeff47]

57. None.

No private citizen has any legal obligation to release the content of their private speech.

Now, someone who is running for president should probably want to avoid a lengthy distraction and do more than what is required by law.

[bobbobbins01]

40. If she doesn't release them in the primary, she's fucking over the Democratic party.

Because Trump is going to hammer her on it constantly, and if they do leak during the general(which is very likely) she'll be taking us all down with the ship. Now is the time to get out in front of it.

[dana_b]

43. she doesn't care about that

she just wants to win!!

[Betty Karlson]

47. GE liability!

If only for the good of the down-ticket candidates, we need to nominate Sanders. Clinton is just too flawed a candidate.

[valerief]

51. I love how Bernie states the obvious. Why are they giving her so much money?

Are they stupid? Do they like throwing their money around?

It's so rare you hear the obvious being stated from pols.

[zappaman]

54. LOL!!!!!