If clinton doesn't release the transcripts, Trump surely will.

[lagomorph777]

Remember, he's openly pals with all the banksters. He has probably already gotten copies of everything, and has his oppo people combing through them now. Hell, Trump may have attended some of those speeches.

[brooklynite]

1. Trump isn't good at keeping secrets,,,

He'd have revealed it if he'd been at any of them.

Still, good conspiracy theory.

[lagomorph777]

2. Trump doesn't want to damage her yet - then he'd have to face Bernie!

Bernie would be a disaster for Trump, as the polls make clear.

[salinsky]

3. Yah, and conversely ...

... Trump would be really nice and gentle with the old man who has spent a lifetime calling himself a socialist.

[Skwmom]

4. Bernie has a lifetime record to stand on and a Democrat and Republican Congress.

I'll take that over all of Clinton's baggage any day of the week.

[lagomorph777]

5. Bernie is proudly socialist, and polls show that voters like that

This is not the McCarthy era.

[Admiral Loinpresser]

38. ^^THIS^^ n/t

[procon]

6. What about her rights?

Clinton is protected from any unauthorized use of her speeches as under intellectual property laws. Just like movie producers, book publishers or music distributers, she owns the right to her speeches and reserves the sole proprietorship to the income she derives from them. Speeches and lectures and are no different than any other creation of human intellect that the law protects from unauthorized use by others.

In your overweening zeal to strike HRC, keep in mind that your giddy fantasy of championing a fascist like Trump, one of the most s loathsome and disgusting Republicans we've ever seen in this country, involves illegal theft and stealing someone else's property. If this is the only way you can think of to eliminate the leading Democratic candidate, maybe this Party doesn't fit your needs.

[lagomorph777]

7. Hahaha! Yes, Trump will be so careful to protect her rights when he slips the

transcripts to his buddy at the National Inquirer or TMZ or Drudge. You don't think he'll put his name on the release, do you?

And what makes you think I like Trump? He's a pig. Which is exactly why I am warning of what's inevitable. He did it to Cruz already. Unfortunately for Trump, nobody could believe that women would sleep with Cruz.

[procon]

8. You're pushing for Trump to do something illegal in hope of tearing down the Democratic frontrunner.

You don't need to "like" Trump if you hate the leading Democrat enough to risk the White House just to hope she will lose. Great idea, yeah?

[lagomorph777]

9. Right, llike Trump reads DU

and is a big fan of mine.

You are embarassing yourself.

[procon]

27. Read the replies you're getting.

That word, 'embarrassing', you owned it when you came to DU to encourage a Republican to bring down the leading Democratic Presidential candidate, even if he has to do something criminal. Who thinks like that in a forum for Democrats!

Don't let your hatred of Hillary consume you to the point that you're considering a Trump victory as a viable option.

[lagomorph777]

28. Please recognize that it's pretty obvious when you twist my words.

There's a world of difference between being terrified about what is inevitable, and being happy about it.

Hillary (with your blind support) is opening the door to Trump, not me. Think for just one moment what will really happen.

You can't possibly think I thought of this before Trump did. If Hillary does indeed get the nomination, she'd better prepare for some real hardball. Part of that preparation is to pre-emptively spin the assuredly damaging content of her speeches.

[floppyboo]

39. ah, fageddabowdit - Cruz's wife has them too!

[840high]

51. lol - can you

imagine Trump here?

[lagomorph777]

52. It's getting easier actually

some of the posts here are so far to the right it totally creeps me out.

[PFunk1]

42. No. They're highlighting a tactic that trump will do if Clinton becmes the canadate

In fact the reason why he hasn't already done so is because it's probably cost Clinton the nod. And he wants to run against her and not Sanders.

[Sheepshank]

20. I think you are on the wrong Party discussion Board

You are trying awfully hard to help Trump along.

Admit it, you not even really a Bernie supporter, are you!!

[lagomorph777]

23. Now you're in lalaland

Just check my record.

Bernie is the first real Democrat to make it this far in decades, and I'm not going to willingly let my lifelong party slip farther over brink into a merger with the Republicans. I'm sick of the corrupt one-party system.

[Sheepshank]

24. nope....I've never considered him a Dme

He trashed the Dem party for years and now pillages it for votes and air time.

Totally unimpressed with his tactics.

[lagomorph777]

29. You're probably not old enough to remember when Dems were to the left of Repubs.

But it was during that era when the middle class was created and prospered. There is no reason on earth we can't do it again. It wasn't the people who moved away from the Dems; the Dems swerved to the right and away from their base. That's why huge numbers have abandoned the major parties and become independents.

[OilemFirchen]

15. The disregard for the legal process evidenced by some Berniacs is disgusting.

Each day reveals a new authoritarian streak with its basis either total ignorance or contempt for the government and its citizenry.

[lagomorph777]

26. You seem to have no clue what we're up against. Trump has no respect for the law or decency...

...or me, a socialist, for that matter. It's got nothing to do with what I want. It has to do with what is inevitable.

You do know we can see you twisting our words, right? We're not meek little sheep in the Bernie camp.

[OilemFirchen]

35. I have a LOT of clues.

FTR, I woudn't accuse you of being a meek sheep. You're quite brazen.

[lagomorph777]

36. Well, thank you!

I appreciate that very much.

[OilemFirchen]

37. No prob.

Baaaa.

[BreakfastClub]

10. I think you're going to be disappointed about what's in those speeches. Many people

have come forward who were at those events and have said that Hillary said nothing controversial. Republicans have been attacking Hillary for years, nothing new. But she knows how to handle those attacks, and one way she does it is by letting her attackers dig a YUUUGE hole for themselves with their accusations. Then she comes out and shows that all their attacks were unfounded. e.g. the email "scandal." There's no "there" there. And there's no "there" here either. Sorry.

[lagomorph777]

11. She is not helping your case. It's pretty obvious she considers them extremely damaging.

Otherwise we'd have seen them already.

[dana_b]

14. then she would do herself a LOT of good by releasing them

people could see for themselves that she wasn't saying anything nefarious against US - the American people - and FOR the banks/WS. People would have more trust/faith in her and it would gain her many votes. So what would be the downside to that?

[MoonRiver]

12. "Speechgate" is even more pathetic and laughable than "emailgate."

[lagomorph777]

13. Your smily makes a clear and cogent argument.

I appreciate the depth of thought and careful analysis that went into your reply.

[OilemFirchen]

16. Dear Mahatma:

Last edited Fri Apr 22, 2016, 04:16 PM - Edit history (1)

Not always.

Sometimes it's sufficient to keep laughing.

I'm sure you experienced this many times in your life.

[MoonRiver]

17. Not much thought needed to address a silly fantasy.

[lagomorph777]

19. Serious warning, not silly fantasy.

She will lose any opportunity to preemptively spin this if Trump beats her to the punch.

I won't waste any more effort trying to engage you though; clearly your shell of denial is unbreakable.

[Sheepshank]

21. this is a good way to bump up that post count...respond to every single post n/t

[lagomorph777]

30. That's what you've got? Now it's too much trouble to even type a smily?

That's just pathetic.

When you can't win on the merits, just resort to emptiness. Can't even call it 'ad hominem"; it's more like 'ad nauseum.'

[MoonRiver]

40. Because it is all YOU'VE got.

As you can see, nobody here is buying what you're selling.

[Admiral Loinpresser]

41. If the transcripts get out, Annnie Oakley is hosed. n/t

[Sheepshank]

18. yeah...just like he got all that damning birth cert info on Obama

all hot air and bravado, and never produced jack shit.

[lagomorph777]

22. Except that we know the transcripts exist, and we already know a little of the content.

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.

“I remember feeling like she worked for us,” said one former Goldman Sachs employee who was at the event in Arizona in October of 2013. “Now she’s telling people what they want to hear so she can get elected. But back then it sounded to us like she was our employee.”

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

What Clinton said in her paid speeches
Recalled one attendee: 'She sounded more like a Goldman Sachs managing director.'

Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2016/02/clinton-speeches-218969#ixzz46aGNeGYT
Follow us: @politico on Twitter | Politico on Facebook

[procon]

43. Now wait a sec, let's unpack your angst...

You're upset because of what you saw on a satirical website, and in another instance you're all steamed up by an anecdotal hearsay story from an unnamed source that cannot be validated. Really, that's what you're carrying on about?

[lagomorph777]

45. Chief source of worry is the candidate's behavior

If SHE wasn't worried, we'd all be laughing about how silly the transcript thing was.

But she hasn't released them despite the damage caused by not releasing them. Clearly, in her estimation, the damage due to releasing them would be even worse. If there is something really bad in there, better to have some time for the party to recover now, instead of being stuck with a Dem version of Trump in November.

[MoonRiver]

47. What damage? She won a landslide in NY and is poised to do so again next Tuesday.

Hillary has stated that when EVERYBODY on both sides is required to release transcripts of speeches she will. How is it fair for her to be singled out and nobody else?

[lagomorph777]

48. It's about the independents. Left-leaners will stay home.

Indies couldn't vote in NY, but they very much factor into the GE.

[procon]

55. Don't assume that being an Independent voter is synonymous with supporting Bernie.

Like me, people often check that box because of the Party voting restrictions in their states. I'm a Independent voter, or aligned as California calls them, and while I was once totally open to either candidate, now I'm leaning toward Clinton in large part due to the hostile messaging and prevailing antagonistic attitudes of the Bernie Team. I still like Bernie himself, and even some of his ideas, but overall he just isn't a practical candidate given the current political atmosphere of Washington DC.

[lagomorph777]

56. I was referring to left-leaning indies, not centrist or right-leaning.

And "practical" is what got the country into this class-stratified mess.

[procon]

53. Most people are chuckling, or completely indifferent.

The media isn't worried, the Republicans aren't worried, the voters aren't worried, the Democratic Party isn't worried about transcripts. The exception is Bernie and his fans who are under the impression that if they can just get someone to find a copy of those dang transcripts and publicise them, then Hillary will be out of contention and without any other competition, then Bernie will become the Democratic nominee by default.

That's the winning plan, yeah? But by advocating to release these speeches, it calls into question the sincerity of your true concern over the fate of the election.

[lagomorph777]

54. Dem voters in closed elections...

...(i.e. those who have stayed in the party and tolerated the rightward swing) are a whole bunch easier to persuade than left-leaning indies, who will be absolutely required for Dem victory.

The media is pro-Hillary; they can play denial just as well as you can.

And you're right, Repubs aren't worried. They are thrilled. She's playing into their hands.

[jalan48]

25. I think these transcripts would make her more popular with Republican voters.

Republican's love Wall Street and big business.

[speaktruthtopower]

31. The transcripts won't be a big deal after Bernie is dispatched..

they hurt her on the left flank more than against Trump.

[lagomorph777]

33. Excuse me, but the right flank is Trump territory anyway; no need to fight for it.

Ignoring the left is not a winning strategy.

[Gothmog]

32. NO republican is calling for the release of these transcripts

Trump does not care about the transcripts and if for some reason Clinton was nice to the attendees, that would be a positive in the minds of Trump and the GOP candidates. The only one calling for the release of these transcripts are Sanders supporters

[lagomorph777]

34. They don't want to damage her before the GE. She's the easier target and must be protected for now.

Believe me, they have every intention of hurting her in the GE. No, repub voters aren't bothered by such things, hence the popularity of Trump himself. But releasing the transcripts (or carefully edited excerpts) will definitely encourage many Dems and left-leaning independents to sit this one out.

[Amaril]

44. Because Trump isn't trying to woo independents

He doesn't need them.

Come the GE, he won't care if they vote for him either............he just needs them to stay home and NOT vote for Hillary.

Given that scenario, when would be the best time for him to start harping on her Wall Street connections?

[nichomachus]

46. The transcripts are a total red herring

Everybody is talking about the Transcripts. You'd have to be pretty dim if you didn't know that they were full of praise for the fraudsters and offering total support for them and their criminal activities. They're not going to sit through anyone telling them how bad they are -- not at those prices.

The real story, however, which everyone is ignoring is that these were not speeches for hire. She's not entertaining. She's not that great a speaker. She has nothing to offer them.

Basically, the speeches were a money laundering scheme. If you have a bunch of money and want to give a big chunk to someone, you can't just give it to them. The IRS takes a dim view of that and taxes the bejeezus out of it. So, you "hire" them for some bullshit task and you "pay" them. Then, it's taxed as regular income. All the better if that person has a phony "foundation." They don't have to declare the money as income and you can take a tax deduction for it -- win-win.

[lagomorph777]

49. Yeah, but Citizen's United legalized bribery, so there's probably not a legal issue here.

However, it most certainly is a political issue that will influence left-leaning indies.

[pdsimdars]

50. And if she ever gets to the GE and he releases it, that would be her Romney 47% moment

It would sink her.
One of the many scenarios.

[Hoyt]

57. What would Trump gain from releasing the speeches, even if they contained a 47% moment, which they

don't?