Those transcripts must be pretty damning.

[Cobalt Violet]

If it were otherwise we would've seen them already.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

1. Not necessarily.

Paranoid people are secretive by nature. They think everyone is persecuting them, that there are vast conspiracies to attack them for everything they do, so they hide as much as they can, even the most innocuous things.

I honestly don't think there are going to be any great revelations if they are released. They'll just show her as being as chummy with the financial industry as we all already know she is.

[stillwaiting]

5. A lot of her supporters are in denial of her being chummy with Wall Street.

That's what she risks by releasing them.

[Yallow]

34. Chummy Is Putting It Lightly

Reeeeeel lightly.

[daleanime]

83. Chumming is perfect...

It's what you do to draw sharks isn't?

[Cal33]

54. Some of Clinton's supporters are probably backing her because their values are similar

to hers. They would have done the same thing if they had been in her shoes. You know,
"birds of a feather flock together." Others, of course, have been fooled and would leave
her if they should learn the truth.

[Chico Man]

66. I don't think she is chummy with Wall St

I think she uses Wall St more than Wall St uses her - by a wide margin.

[AlbertCat]

80. I think she uses Wall St more than Wall St uses her

Interesting.

For her OWN ends, not for the American People maybe.


You'll have to show us why you think she's "using" them.... for something other than money and power.

[CorporatistNation]

113. MSNBC Mika Brysinski, "Print Reporters Have Transcripts... "

[bvar22]

111. Don't forget...

...protecting the "precious bodily fluids".

MUST. HIDE. TRANSCRIPTS from the American people.
They have NO right to know!!!!

[HereSince1628]

2. IMO, not nearly as damning as where the money was deposited.

And perhaps the most damnable thing is it was deposited in the place most commonly used by political celebrity speakers.

Their own bank accounts.


This wouldn't mean a whole lot of anything, but since HRC has been running for the presidency at least since the time she was pushing Hillarycare it does sometimes look like it violates the spirit of the $2700 max direct contribution to the candidate.

Which is to say like many things Clinton, although it smells funny, it can be defined as cheese which is perfectly legal.

[Cobalt Violet]

20. I'm sick of holding my nose while voting.

[Sunlei]

45. you held your nose voting for obama?

[Cobalt Violet]

48. Yes, and with Bill Clinton. They're both way to far to right for me.

I don't like centrists. I don't like triangulation. I don't like trade deals and safety net cuts in any form.

[elljay]

95. Agreed!

The Democratic Party has moved so far to the right and the traditional far-left become so diminished that people really think that Obama and HRC are liberals! I'm with you, always on the left fringe being marginalized. Well, looks like we were always right and people are finally starting to notice.

[bvar22]

114. There is NO "Far-Left" in the Democratic Party.

---bvar22
a mainstream-center FDR/LBJ Democrat,
now labeled as "Far Left" by the Clinton Centrists, propaganda mongers, and former Republicans.

[elljay]

123. Not in those running the Party

But there are still a few of us voters who have held our noses and voted Democratic, not because we agreed with their positions, but because we've made the determination that we have a better chance of moving the Democrats to the left than in getting the country to support a third party. Maybe we've been wrong, but the support Bernie is getting gives me hope.

[LovingA2andMI]

73. Proudly Voted For Obama....

Who Won Over Clinton In 2008. Also, future voting is for the PRIVACY of the voting booth. #FYI....

[MadCrow]

76. Does the $2700 rule apply to the candidates themselves?

Seems like she could take all that money and use it in her own campaign just like Donald Trump is doing. Does she have to account for all her own money?

[HereSince1628]

118. IIRC she self-funded with millions in '08

It's all cheese

[UglyGreed]

3. Of course

they are. Hillary would be handing out copies left and right if they were to boost her standing.

[Cobalt Violet]

18. That's what I'm going to assume until proven wrong.

I"m going to assume the worse.

[Red Knight]

4. It's an issue that won't go away

If she wins the nomination Trump will bring it up again and again.

[ejbr]

28. ... and again and again n/t

[Bubzer]

93. ... and again and again and again and again...

and just when you think he's moved on... he'll trot it out again

[libtodeath]

6. Everyone knows she was cozying up to them,wonder what promises were made.

[Cobalt Violet]

17. probably what is left of our safety net on a silver platter.

Until she releases them I'm going to assume the worse. I'm open to being proven wrong.

[NurseJackie]

7. If at first you don't succeed, try-try again. :-)

[UglyGreed]

9. Is that Hillary's new

campaign logo????

[metroins]

19. You don't like recycling?

It's one of the most liberal things you can do in daily life.

I wouldn't mind at all if it were her logo.

[UglyGreed]

23. I recycle everything

I also started recycled newspapers and cleaned up beaches in the 70s when I was a kid........ I was referring to triangulation and the Third way of doing things, but of course you knew that already

[Cobalt Violet]

14. I will, until I feel I know who I am expected to support.

Can't do it blindly like some. I wouldn't make a very good lemming.

[NurseJackie]

22. Lemming? Why insult Hillary supporters? :-/

It's not really clear to me what purpose it serves. But, if it's important for you so to do, then be my guest, I won't alert.

Go, Hillary! We love you!

[Cobalt Violet]

24. I would feel like a lemming if I supported someone who is hiding something from me.

I'm not calling anyone anything.

[NurseJackie]

31. Heh-heh-heh ...

Can't do it blindly like some. I wouldn't make a very good lemming.

"Like some" ... it's passive, but your meaning is clear. I'm no fool. But don't worry, I won't alert. I can take it. Water off a duck's back, and all that.





Go, Hillary! We love you!

[Loudestlib]

38. Let me ask you a serious question.

Hillary made enough money off her political reputation from bankers to put her in the top .01% of income brackets. Are her supporters okay with this?

If this was the general election and she was a republican it's that the biggest thing any of us would be talking about? It was with Romney.

[Sunlei]

46. romney claimed his speaking fees as personal income.

[BeanMusical]

90. "But don't worry, I won't alert."

Your silly alert would fail anyway.

[BillZBubb]

35. You Hillary loyalists are so very sensitive. I suspect there is a reason for that.

He said "lemmings" and you immediately felt it was to describe you and your fellow Hillarians. That's your subconscious telling you something. Listen to it.

[bvar22]

112. Touchy?

The above post said NOTHING about Hillary Supporters.
It was a self-statement about not being a good lemming.
I'm not either.

That shoe must have fit you well if you assumed it was All About You.

[timmymoff]

30. Or as wth Hillary's new motto

If you can't fool them first, evolve!

[Logical]

103. Lol, keep saying that! Ask romney about his tax returns! Nt

[GoneFishin]

8. Of course.

[Calista241]

10. Someone has them on video

10 years ago, my old company hired Steve Young to come and give a speech. At least 2 of my coworkers at the time still have the video of that speech taken from their phone.

The fact none of this has come out yet is worrisome, and it's only a matter of time.

[Cobalt Violet]

11. yes, I think it will leak at some point.

I hope during the primaries and not the general.

[Kelvin Mace]

12. Waiting for the right time

They figure that once HRC defeats Bernie, they can release them and cripple her. She doeesn't care because she thoroughly believes in her campaign tactic of "Well, who else are you going to vote for?" will save the day.

[tex-wyo-dem]

37. Yep, wouldn't that be peachy...

Hillary wins the nomination and October surprise surprise these get released and then she gets indicted for the email thingy...lovely thought, eh?

[redstateblues]

43. Every Bernie supporter's hope

especially now that morale is sinking in Bernieworld

[yourpaljoey]

59. Either we will read them now... or Trump will read them TO us

These transcripts WILL be outed.
And it ain't gonna be pretty.

Perhaps Trump will carry a copy to every Hillary debate
to remind us she represents the Establishment people do not trust.

[Plucketeer]

60. Where does this sinking morale shit come from???

Bernie's not a sports hero who's chances of pulling out a win - on his own - is dwindling with each passing inning! Bernie's just the visible TIP of an iceberg - an iceberg that's comprised of YOU - ME - and MILLIONS of others. HE'S US - WE'RE HIM! So let's stop perpetuating the baloney about sagging morale (unless, of course, you're a desperate Hillarite).

[arcane1]

107. It's made-up bullshit from Camp Clinton, hoping to scare voters away.

Another failed lie.

[bvar22]

115. My enthusiasm for Bernie grows every day.

The PEOPLE are speaking,.
and my voice is only one among millions.
Never, in my wildest imagination, did I believe he would make it this far,
and now he is tied with the Queen Bee.

[Kelvin Mace]

63. I don't know that she would be indicted

but the email scandal will continue to drip out over the Summer. Springing transcripts, or worse actual recordings, in October would piss off a chunk of people who are not happy with her now.

Again, all she has is the mantra "You HAVE to vote for me", and abusive supporters who tell us how naive, stupid, unrealistic, sexist and racist we are for supporting Bernie.

Not a winning strategy. But, never fear, when she loses it will be all our fault.

[NoMoreRepugs]

42. I certainly hope u aren't correct but even if it's

anything close to your scenario we are doomed to see a Repuke as POTUS

[elljay]

96. Worse than that

Trump isn't a Republican. He's Mussolini running on the Republican ticket. We have absolutely no idea what a President Trump would do, and neither does the Republican Party. This is the scariest thing IMHO. He actually has some good positions, like opposition to TPP, but how can we trust that he would follow anything he says now? The fact that a sizable chunk of the American population supports him sends chills down my spine.

[Buns_of_Fire]

13. Actually, maybe not.

The Secret Service would have done a sweep of the venue, and I'm sure attendants and event staff underwent everything short of a body cavity search.

But it only takes one enterprising soul...

[PonyUp]

25. Like the couple that crashed the White House party. n/t

[Buns_of_Fire]

117. The Luck of the Stupid was surely with them that day.

Or maybe chutzpah on steroids really DOES protect one like a Shield of Steel (apologies to Batfink).

[leftofcool]

15. Yea, we heard Joe Dean Intern has some....................LMAO!

[JonLeibowitz]

51. I see you don't care what was said at the speeches. Interesting. n/t

[Lizzie Poppet]

57. They're frantically writing new speech copy...

...and trying to make sure they've got any potential leaks plugged.

[Jitter65]

16. So, they are now looking for something like the 47% tape we had on Romney? nt

[Orsino]

21. I suspect so, more and more with each passing day.

Originally, I figured they might just be a little rah-rah as reported, and very light on the cut it out.

The stonewalling for no apparent other reason, however, has me thinking "damning." Eventually, I'll just start assuming it if I can't learn otherwise.

[Cobalt Violet]

27. Exactly where I'm at.

Waiting to be proven wrong that there is something she knows will do her in if released.

[kristopher]

47. Exactly how much more damning can they be than taking $21M when running for Pres?

When she releases the tapes and it has nothing on it, do you think THAT might be the right time to get pissed off about taking $21,000,000 in LEGAL BRIBES?

Or maybe we could just skip the bullshit about the tapes and start bringing up the fucking $21,000,000 in LEGAL BRIBES RIGHT NOW!!!!!!!

[Orsino]

53. I guess if the transcripts are clean...

...we might just have to wonder what Clinton says in even more private meetings.

But Clinton can make us suspicious folk look silly any time she likes, assuming she doesn't need G-S permission.

[kristopher]

56. I don' understand? You mean the $21,000,000 she took while running for president isn't ...

important enough to talk about on its own?

People keep bringing up the Goldman Sachs money; what about the rest of the $21,000,000 she took from 2013 to 2015 after she activated her super pac?

Speak up, don't be shy. Tell us what you think about a presidential candidate taking $21,000,000 while running for president

[Orsino]

81. Campaign financing is of critical importance...

...but is not quite the same issue as the disappeared transcripts. Except for the money that came from G-S, we suspect.

[kristopher]

89. This isn't "campaign finance reform", this is engaging in legalized bribery.

It is part of the larger issue of campaign finance reform, but it's a stand alone problem for Dems about Hillary's judgement and integrity going into the election process.

Not leaving Hillary's behavior behind, but to your point about campaign finance:
https://theintercept.com/2015/07/30/jimmy-carter-u-s-oligarchy-unlimited-political-bribery/

[Orsino]

91. I think ending legalized bribery is the heart of campaign finance reform.

It might enable us to cut the uber-wealthy out of elections.

[kristopher]

92. What are we going to do about Hillary taking $21,000,000 in legal bribes?

[George II]

26. Has anyone ever been asked to provide transcripts of speeches in the past? Or speeches made...

...by a person not in government at the time?

[Beowulf]

33. Has anyone else been paid

$600,000 for speaking to a group that has business in front of the federal government?

[kristopher]

50. $21,000,000 not $600,000

She took $21,000,000 in speaking fees from 2013-2015.

Twenty one million dollars.

Personal income.

While running for President.

[George II]

78. Not even close, and she was never paid a penny "while running for President".

[kristopher]

85. Please don't deny what's so well documented; we really need to deal with this.

The Republicans are not going to ignore it.

If you want I'll get the link, but she took more than $21,000,000 in speaking fees as personal income between 2013-2015.

She had already activated her SuperPac - so she was running for president, which we all know anyway just from the flow of history we've observed.

This is a matter that won't be judged in a court, but in an election; either the primary or the general. You aren't going to get away from it by trying to parse the obvious facts with legalisms like "You can't prove it influenced any votes".

[George II]

98. Again, it's not true - when did she get $600,000 for a speech, and where did this $21M come from?

[kristopher]

101. She took in $675K for 3 speeches to Goldman Sachs

And the $21M for Hillary alone between 2013 and 2015 is from Hillary's financial disclosure as compiled and posted online by CNN.

Access is everything; paid access like this is legal corruption.

(CNN)Hillary Clinton and her husband, former President Bill Clinton, combined to earn more than $153 million in paid speeches from 2001 until Hillary Clinton launched her presidential campaign last spring, a CNN analysis shows.

In total, the two gave 729 speeches from February 2001 until May, receiving an average payday of $210,795 for each address. The two also reported at least $7.7 million for at least 39 speeches to big banks, including Goldman Sachs and UBS, with Hillary Clinton, the Democratic 2016 front-runner, collecting at least $1.8 million for at least eight speeches to big banks...

http://www.cnn.com/2016/02/05/politics/hillary-clinton-bill-clinton-paid-speeches/

Total Bill and Hillary Clinton speech income, Feb. 2001 thru May 2015:
TOTAL: AVERAGE: SPEECHES:
$153,669,691.00 $210,795.19 729
Total Bill Clinton speech income, Feb. 2001 thru May 2015:
TOTAL: AVERAGE: SPEECHES:
$132,021,691.00 $207,255.40 637
Total Hillary Clinton speech income, April 2013 thru March 2015:
TOTAL: AVERAGE: SPEECHES:
$21,648,000.00 $235,304.35 92

Further details at link above

[George II]

104. $675,00 for three speeches is a far cry from $600,000 for one speech. Do you have a breakdown....

...of where that "$21,000,000" actually went?

[kristopher]

105. $675K isn't $21M either, is it?

Virtually all of that is personal income. She donated a couple of speaking fees from universities to the Clinton Foundation after there were complaints from students at one university, but other than that it was all personal income.

What do you think Self Funded Candidate Trump will do with this?

[kristopher]

106. Details about the $10.2M for 2014

Half of Hillary Clinton’s Speaking Fees Came From Groups Also Lobbying Congress
Philip Elliott

Groups with giant lobbying budgets gave Clinton big speaking fees ahead of 2016 presidential campaign

Almost half of the money from Hillary Clinton’s speaking engagements came from corporations and advocacy groups that were lobbying Congress at the same time.

The Democratic presidential candidate earned $10.2 million in 2014, her first full calendar year after leaving the State Department. Of that, $4.6 million came from groups that also spent on lobbying Congress that year, according to data compiled by the nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics....

...Asked Tuesday if there were conflicts of interest in speaking to these groups, Clinton was curt with reporters in Cedar Falls, Iowa. “No,” she said.

“Obviously, Bill and I have been blessed and we’re very grateful for the opportunities that we had...

http://time.com/3889577/hillary-clinton-paid-speeches-lobbyists-influence/

Great chart at article

[Beowulf]

110. I wrote "for speaking" not for a speech.

Don't change my words. And if you total up all the paid speeches given to groups with business in front of the US government, it's much, much more. She claims the money doesn't corrupt her, but she won't tell what she says to her donors. She has so many negative issues that she could put to rest by releasing the transcripts, unless, of course, they don't put things to rest.

[Loudestlib]

36. Romney

When the 47% thing first came out there were calls for him to release more speeches. It's really weird for me to see people defend Hillary over the same thing that was used against Romney.

[George II]

79. I don't recall that at all.

[Orsino]

41. I think secret speeches are a special case.

If there had been any detailed reporting on Clinton's G-S addresses, we wouldn't be demanding transcripts.

Clinton, however, took special care to hide the content from our scrutiny...and I now wonder whether she was also NDAed by Goldman-Sachs.

Since the transcripts may be the only record, and by design, they are worth a look. What was the big deal?

[casperthegm]

29. Is the media giving up on this?

All I've seen on CNN is them essentially saying that Hillary had a decisive victory in Nevada (not true) and that she is in the driver's seat (again not true). I haven't heard any more discussion about the transcripts and very little about the email scandal/investigation.

[BillZBubb]

32. We know that she knows they won't help her in primary campaign. That is for certain.

If she had been tough on the banksters, she would be hitting Sanders over the head with the proof in her transcripts. That would destroy a major part of his strategy against her and would almost certainly seal her victory in the primaries.

You can rightfully suspect that those speeches are damning and Hillary can't release them until after the voting is done.

[humbled_opinion]

39. Agreed, the problem is her trust

deficit is enormous, but when she is the nominee, and they get released by Trumpet, the DNC will call upon all of us to defend her... How sick is that...

[Hoyt]

40. Obama didn't release his birth certificate until he could stuff it down the opposition's throat.

What do you think was in those speeches, often given before hundreds of investment clients -- many of whom are good Democrats -- and people with phones and tape recorders.

At best from your critical perspective, you'll find her saying that she appreciates being invited, and things bankers were not the only ones who helped set off the recession. Then she'll talk about foreign affairs, future regulatory environment, tell some jokes, shake some hands, and then get out of there.

But, I'm sure you guys can pull a few lines out of context and make it sound like she's carving up the world without concern for us little guys.

Just more BSBS criticism.

[redstateblues]

44. This is all BSS have to cling to at this point

[Gary 50]

62. Yeah, that's the problem here. Sanders supporters clinging to Hillary's stonewalling.

We are so out of line wanting to know what she said. It's clearly none of our business. Just like Romney's tax returns.

[treestar]

70. If you weren't there, why is it your business?

This is like the demands for Obama's college transcripts. We know you want it only to attempt to find something to use against her and to be threatening, as if you have the power to boss your opponents around.

[Gary 50]

109. It's my business because it defines who she is. If there was nothing to hide

it wouldn't be an issue. You are trying to defend the indefensible. Good luck with that. You'll need it.
By the way, your logic that if I wasn't there it's not my business is truly ridiculous. If she wins the nomination do you think the republicans will think it's their business? It will all come out and Hillary will look like the shill she is. Better for everyone if she releases the clearly damning transcripts and loses the nomination than having the Republicans release them and losing the election.

[TTUBatfan2008]

49. If they will help, then she should release them now.

The GOP is 100% owned by corporations. I doubt they would go after her on this topic in a general election. But she has bad poll numbers in the trust department, even within the Democratic Party. Releasing a bunch of harmless transcripts could actually help her a lot in building that trust, especially with Democrats. Going to need all the help we can get to beat the Republicans in November.

[Herman4747]

52. "And then get out of there"

With her $675,000.

If she has NOTHING TO HIDE, then release the transcripts.

Your candidate (that is, the one with little integrity) doesn't have anything to hide now, does she?
YES OR NO?
Or, like Hillary, are you going to refuse to answer?

[hootinholler]

61. I don't remember Hillary being a birther demanding Obama's birth certificate

But hey if you want to run with that, fine with me.

If indeed they are as benign as you assert, she would have released them. You don't know, nor do I. I want to hear what she was telling Wall St.

An aside, do you titter like a teenage girl when you write BS?

[treestar]

69. +1

They just want to find some line somewhere to mis-interpret on purpose.

There's no way those speeches are anything but innocuous. Dull, too.

[BeanMusical]

99. Sigh...

[Enthusiast]

55. Kicked and recommended!

Very damning.

[LibDemAlways]

58. Those speeches weren't delivered exclusively to

Hillary supporting Democrats. There were Republicans who probably don't like her very much in the room, too. If she's the nominee, I fully expect to see some media outlet find 6 or 7 of those people and sit them all down for an interview about what was said. If what they relate is damning but untrue, she'll almost certainly release the transcripts to prove them wrong. Best case scenario. However, if any of what they say reflects negatively but is true, she'll likely call them liars with an agenda and continue to stonewall. It wouldn't be wise for her to release redacted transcripts. Those who were there could argue that wasn't what they heard. Her best bet is probably to just go ahead and release them and let the voters weigh their importance. This is an issue that won't be going away, and even though it would be totally hypocritical of the R's to harp on it....well, when were the R's not hypocrites?

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

64. She's using Nixon as a model when it comes to transparency.

[Betty Karlson]

65. It's her last shred of credibility on the line.

She has said over and over that she can't be bought, doesn't suck up to Wall Street etc.

Imagine what would happen if the transcript showed her to have been bought, sucking up to Goldman Sachs?

[Chico Man]

67. About as damning as Obama's birth certificate

BENGHAZI transcript gate!!!!!

[Cobalt Violet]

71. were you there in the audience?

How do you know?

[rbrnmw]

121. exactly

[treestar]

68. Oversimplified and ridiculous

Medieval thinking.

[Cobalt Violet]

72. You're welcome to prove me wrong.

I won't take insults as proof though.

[treestar]

108. that's medieval too

you think all you have to do is make the accusation and the accused has to prove you are wrong. Innocent until proven guilty.

[TxGrandpa]

74. Her reluctance to release the transcripts leaves the suspicion...

......that there is something to hide.

Would this be a trait if she was elected to the Presidency?

[Tarc]

75. Or, no one actually cares about them other than Camp Sanders

The ones that care about them are already against her, and the ones that are for Clinton see it as a non-issue.

[TIME TO PANIC]

77. She should release the transcripts,

but the fact that she was paid by those bastards to speak, should be damning enough. I guess people don't care that CRIMINALS like giving her money.

[DrDan]

82. why

[TIME TO PANIC]

86. Why don't people care that criminals give her money to speak?

Beats the fuck out of me. The way I see it, that's our money she's being paid with. We bailed those fuckers out.

[DrDan]

97. oh - for the speeches - I thought you meant college transcripts - like the Obama outrage

[TIME TO PANIC]

102. My point is that we should already be outraged, even without the transcripts.

I'm sure there's a lot of brown-nosing in the transcripts, but we already know she's in the pocket of Wall Street.

[elana i am]

84. i wonder if it would really matter if she released them or not?

she did the speeches and got the money. that's really all we need to know to determine her trustworthiness and integrity.

it's beyond the pale that she, a "supposed progressive" even went there in the first place.

greed outweighed any other concern.

ugh.

[melman]

88. Agreed

The actual words said don't matter.

[bill]

87. in the banksters back pocket

Posted onto the file sharing site PasteBin, most of the speeches texts were innocuous. Clinton spoke glowingly about Goldman Sachs, how much money they make and what a great friend they are to her SuperPAC. However, one quote from Hillary has drawn particular fire from observers:

“And so I say to you Goldman Sachs, I am on your side. Do not pay attention to the noise of the political season, I will always remember your support and put your priorities first, above all else. Thank you.’

Clinton received $675,000 for three speeches she made to Goldman Sachs in 2013.


http://thegoodlordabove.com/articles/details/202

[rocktivity]

94. Hope it doesn't turn into an re-enactment of Romney's not showing all his tax returns.

Last edited Wed Feb 24, 2016, 11:49 PM - Edit history (3)

We've already had an re-enactment of Romney's asking Obama to stop talking about them.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/12511321846

UPDATE: Too late...


rocktivity

[BeanMusical]

100. Kick and R

[rbrnmw]

116. ...

[AmBlue]

119. I keep hoping....

... For someone who was working at one of these speaking engagements to pop up with a secret recording or video. Like they did to Romney. Surely there's someone out there.

[rosesaylavee]

120. Yes. And every day she waits to release them puts the GE in jeopardy.

Especially as rumor has it a journalist already has them.

Only puts it in jeopardy if she's our nominee.

[great white snark]

122. I'm sorry, as BS supporters, that this is all you have left.

Speculation and dreams of Hillary stumbling. Far cry from a revolution. My condolences.