We already know what we need to know about Hillary's speech transcripts

[thesquanderer]

If the contents of the transcripts were politically innocuous, obviously, she would have simply released them, rather than deal with all the negative PR.

She is making a political calculation, that the damage from not releasing them is less than the damage from releasing them.

So, I think it's safe to just assume that they say things that would reflect badly on her candidacy. There's certainly no way their text helps her candidacy, so the only unknown is exactly how much it would hurt it.

At that point, I think the details don't really matter. Sanders supporters aren't going to vote for her, whether she releases them or not. Clinton supporters likewise would be unlikely to be affected. They are used to spinning and excusing things, this would just be one more.

The worst thing is: What if she's right, and the damage from not releasing them would be less than the damage from releasing them? Do you really want them to be used against her in the general?

[artyteacher]

1. Yeah we know all we need to know...

That they are irrelevant to anything.

[Buzz Clik]

2. +1

[virtualobserver]

5. what she secretly said to the people who shot money at her with a fire hose is irrelevant

[artyteacher]

8. They paid her to talk...

Lots of groups pay a lot of people to talk. Why is she being singles out. We all know why.

[Herman4747]

11. But were promises made? Promises can lead to problems:

[virtualobserver]

12. We do know why....because she was handed millions by corporate America....

making her rich and they are also funding her campaign and her SuperPACS.

[Buzz Clik]

3. Was this whole issue was started by the Clinton campaign as a distraction for the simple minded?

If so, it was genius.

[Warren Stupidity]

10. FYI.

AUTOMATED MESSAGE: Results of your Jury Service
On Fri Feb 26, 2016, 01:33 PM an alert was sent on the following post:

Was this whole issue was started by the Clinton campaign as a distraction for the simple minded?
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=1345694

REASON FOR ALERT

This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.

ALERTER'S COMMENTS

The simple minded? Really?

You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Fri Feb 26, 2016, 01:39 PM, and the Jury voted 1-6 to LEAVE IT.

Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Simple minded alert.
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Snide? Maybe. Hurtful? Over-the-top? No.
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Why exactly was this alerted on? Insult wasn't to anyone specific, just a generalization. Give y'alls click fingers a rest people.
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: silly but not OTT
Juror #7 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given

Thank you very much for participating in our Jury system, and we hope you will be able to participate again in the future.

[Buzz Clik]

18. I'd like to say I'm surprised.

[malthaussen]

19. But a distraction from what?

I agree, it is a non-issue as far as I'm concerned. And it certainly has caused a new round of pearl-clutching. But from what really serious problem is this intended to deflect?

-- Mal

[Buzz Clik]

20. No one cares about the transcripts but HRC's Democratic opponents. No one.

Keeping them talking about those transcripts instead of Bill's imaginary rapes or Benghazi or Vince Foster or a ton of other GOP red meat issues is a good thing.

[jeff47]

4. I don't know....her shitty judgement in the past has stopped her

from releasing other relatively innocuous things. Like the Rose Law Firm billing records. Nothing interesting in them, but she stonewalled on them for so long that Starr found Lewinsky.

She could be making the same shitty judgement call here. Stonewall on something innocuous, creating a far larger problem.

[malthaussen]

15. Offended dignity, I think.

Speculation, of course. But Mrs Clinton strikes me as one who does not believe she has to explain or justify herself to anyone. Even if she is lowering herself to ask them to vote for her. I think her poor judgement comes from that sense of outrage.

-- Mal

[thesquanderer]

22. That's an interesting point

It's not impossible that the contents aren't so terrible, and her not releasing them is actually poor judgment... If that's the case, and they eventually do come out, that will actually reflect more poorly on her than if she had released them right away. There are memes about excessive secrecy, control freak, etc., that would be unfortunately reinforced.

[oasis]

6. Hmmm, release private transcripts into the hands of political hacks?

Wouldn't be prudent, not gonna do it.

[lumberjack_jeff]

7. Truth has a way of finding the light.

The reason no one has volunteered to tell us is that they would prefer to do so after our convention.

Those speeches WILL be made public, but not timed to guarantee a Bernie win.

That is what we need to know.

It is interesting that Clinton isn't releasing them. It is damning that no one from Goldman Sachs is.

[thesquanderer]

9. *Supposedly* Goldman Sachs doesn't have them.

The contract info posted elsewhere says that she insists that there be only one transcript, and that it belongs to no one but her.

That said, I would not be surprised if some surreptitious iphone video surfaced, as it did for Romney's "47% speech" -- whoever may have such a thing could be holding it until they think it can do the most damage.

[malthaussen]

13. Whom would they want to damage, though?

Mrs Clinton is Goldman's girl.

-- Mal

[thesquanderer]

14. Two possible scenarios...

1. someone may want to keep Clinton safer against a Sanders challenge, but weaken her against a Republican challenger (depending perhaps on who the Republican nominee is)

2. someone in the room with an iPhone may not be a fan of the top 1%. IIRC, that Romney video was taken by part of the work staff, not someone invited to the speech.

[malthaussen]

17. Scenario 2 seems more likely to me.

I am of the opinion that Mrs Clinton has always been the candidate of preference for the ruling class, even more so than Mr Bush.

But in the event of scenario 2, why wouldn't the hypothetical "someone" want to release the video now, and injure Mrs Clinton against Mr Sanders?

-- Mal

[thesquanderer]

21. True. If the scenario of a worker with a video were true...

...if they wanted to release it at all, they would probably be more likely to release it sooner than later. Unless maybe they are trying to figure out when some sleazy "news" source will pay them the most money for it...?

[90-percent]

16. Where are the bartenders secretly recording her speeches at?

That one waitstaff employee at one of Rmoney's wealthy donor private speeches may have been the solitary factor in costing Mitttt the 2012 election?

-90% Jimmy