Why I now don't want Hillary to release her speech transcripts.

[cali]

This election will be tough enough. It's just too late. And yeah, obviously some of that stuff is bad or she would have released them.

And if they are bad and the rethugs get hold of them and release them, her campaign will just have to deal, but why hand drumf and company ammunition?

She should have just released them and moved on, but she didn't. Let's hope that wasn't another poor decision from Hillary.

[NewImproved Deal]

1. We'll just have to speculate...

Or wait for Anonymous to release them.

[link:|

[LiberalFighter]

2. How would anonymous release them?

If they had them wouldn't they have already done so?

[arcane1]

4. Her contracts gave her sole ownership of them.

Unless she was careless with them, anonymous won't get shit.

[jmg257]

10. Ha - careless? maybe they were on her email server! nt

[dchill]

52. OMG!

I suppose that might be the case, but I'm not betting on it.

[hamsterjill]

15. Are you sure of this?

I'm not trying to be snarky here. Legitimate question.

Are the speeches her sole ownership, or are they the property of the person/company who paid for her to speak?

[arcane1]

20. I'll see if I can find the article i read here.

It was a contract rider that mandated a stenographer and gave Clinton ownership of the transcripts. I'll post it here if I can find it.

[arcane1]

22. "Here’s What Hillary Clinton’s Paid Speaking Contract Looks Like"

Relevant portion:

"The contract also makes clear that the speech itself is the intellectual property of Clinton:"



"Recording Clinton’s speech is prohibited, but the sponsor must agree to pay $1,250 to a stenographer, who will transcribe the speech for Clinton’s records"


https://theintercept.com/2016/02/05/heres-what-clintons-paid-speaking-contract-looks-like/

[hamsterjill]

24. Thank you.

Appreciate that.

[lagomorph777]

41. Whew - good thing sneaky people with cellphones always honor contracts

Oh, wait....

[AgingAmerican]

16. How do you know what her contracts say?

[arcane1]

23. See post 22 n/t

[LiberalFighter]

17. I know. That is why I am confused by the other poster.

[arcane1]

25. Some people have too much faith in Anonymous, I think.

[puffy socks]

35. Sole ownership does not mean she doesn't also have to abide by a nondisclosure agreement.

I don't know. Honestly, I really don't care. The Bernie folks will still concoct a conspiracy regardless of what's actually said and post it over and over again while continuing to ignore the huge splinters in their own candidate's eye.

They've lost. It's just a matter of time before they are forced to accept it screaming about cheating , coin flip rigging etc. all the way to the inevitable bitter end of his campaign. New issues will eventually drown them out just like they did the Tea Party. people tire of constant whining.

Uncompromising stances kill a movement quickly.

[arcane1]

37. Does anyone in the mid-April club ever have anything original to say?

You all sound like parrots repeating each other and pretending you thought of it yourself.

It's embarrassingly obvious.

[puffy socks]

43. What,

are we supposed to change the facts because you don't like them?

[arcane1]

47. So no, then. Play that role.

But at least try to play it well, if possible.

[puffy socks]

49. If facts are

playing a "role" ..fine. Call it what you want.

Enjoy the rest of your day!

[bvar22]

56. We WILL just have to speculate,

and that is usually much worse than the plain truth. I have a great imagination, and Hillary has made it clear that we will just have to guess what she promised to the people handing her MILLIONS of Dollars.

[joshcryer]

3. I don't think there's anything there. She can release them.

However, that wholly depends on whether Trump releases his tax returns. She should rightly hold the transcripts to her chest.

As far as Trump is concerned, he doesn't have a shot in hell at the White House. I sleep blissfully at night knowing he's the nominee.

[cali]

6. If there wasn't anything there, she would have released them

[Nye Bevan]

9. Can I apply the same logic to Bernie's tax returns for 2012 and 2013?

He hasn't released them, so there must be "something there"?

[cali]

29. He should release them. Period

[puffy socks]

40. Right but he hasn't and is instead stalling.

So there must be something in them that's fraudulent or shows them raking in bucks from a corporate source, or government source after Bernard voted for a bill? right?
Why aren't you throwing the same fit over that?
He's being investigated by the FEC ? Why doesn't that bother you?

Or are you going for the "establishment is all in it for Hillary" and then turn right around and point to the FBI investigation as her possible down fall.

[kaleckim]

31. What nonsense

Why do you call what you just said "logic"? What would his tax returns have to do with policies he might enact and what have you seen to this point that leads to you think he has anything to hide? Nothing. Not the case with her speeches and, need I remind you, those banks are her largest donors, have given her and her family tens of millions of dollars and could bring the entire economy down. So much so that the Minneapolis Fed is now even calling for them to be broken up and for banking to essentially be run like a public utility. They also have massively benefited from policies she and her husband have supported. How that compares to his tax returns is beyond me, maybe you could flesh the "logic" out, cause it doesn't seem to make an ounce of sense. You have nothing to go on at this point and his tax returns would have no wider significance as far as government policy, or the impact the policy would have.

[puffy socks]

42. "What would his tax returns have to do with policies he might enact

and what have you seen to this point that leads to you think he has anything to hide? Nothing."

Nothing?
His entire campaign is based on:
people paying their fair share, about people the corrupt established government handing out tax payer dollars and giving them votes to enrich the corporate elite.


And yet here the Sanders are doing just that.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2016/4/16/1516075/-Sanders-are-still-profiting-from-Sierra-Blanca-nuclear-waste-dump-per-their-2014-tax-return.


He talks about corrupt campaign financing and yet is under investigation by the FEC for illegal contributions.

[kaleckim]

53. "Nothing?"

Yep, nothing. You are comparing her being corrupt and in the pocket of Wall Street, which has massive repercussions, to his taxes, and there is nothing in the taxes what so ever you fools can use. Clinton and her corrupt husband have been given 3 billion dollars since entering politics by corporate interests (including the Kochs and the Waltons, in addition to Wall Street and horrible companies like Monsanto), and she has gotten more money from Wall Street than all the other candidates combined this election cycle, which is peanuts compared to what you've got there. The FEC thing is nonsense too, you are a serial liar. The FEC filing was initiated by the immoral rat David Brock back in March. You want to compare these small potatoes to the FBI investigation looking into your corrupt candidate? Are you one of her paid internet hacks?

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/onpolitics/2016/03/30/hillary-clinton-ally-hits-bernie-sanders-fec-complaints/82426790/

"Hillary Clinton ally hits Bernie Sanders with FEC complaints"

The American Democracy Legal Fund, established by David Brock, charges that Sanders and his campaign repeatedly accepted contributions in excess of the $2,700 legal limit for individuals per election.

http://www.commondreams.org/views/2016/04/01/leader-clintons-dark-money-alliance-files-ethics-complaints-against-sanders

A group known to be a “dark money ally” of Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton has filed ethics complaints with the Federal Election Commission (FEC) against her opponent, Bernie Sanders.

Clinton’s ally specifically alleges Sanders failed to disclose who paid for a “sponsored” advertisement, which appeared on Facebook after the New Hampshire Democratic primary. It filed a complaint against Sanders campaign treasurer, Susan Jackson, for allegedly accepting “excessive contributions” from individuals. Most strikingly, a complaint against National Nurses United and “People for Bernie” was filed as well.

The complaints were made by the American Democracy Legal Fund (ADLF), which was founded by David Brock, whose fingerprints have been on many of the dishonest attacks against Sanders during the 2016 election.

...Paul Ryan, a lawyer at the Campaign Legal Center, who considered filing complaints with the FEC and Justice Department challenging the group’s “novel legal theories,” told Time.com, “[Correct the Record] is creating new ways to undermine campaign regulation.”

As of February 1, Brock was drawing a paycheck from the American Bridge super PAC while he was coordinating with the Clinton campaign through Correct the Record, something which he should be legally prohibited from doing.

What is remarkable is Correct the Record defends its coordination with the Clinton campaign by arguing “the online-only nature of its work—as opposed to broadcast communications or other paid media—allows it to legally coordinate with the campaign.” And yet, Brock’s group is going after the “online-only” activities of “People for Bernie.”

Jeff Weaver, a campaign manager for Sanders, told MSNBC on March 30, “Just one day after the Clinton campaign said we needed to change our tone, the leaders of their coordinated super PAC, which is funded by millions from Wall Street, filed baseless and frivolous complaints with the FEC. Tells you all you need to know.”

Currently, the complaints have received minimal media attention, which is probably what the Clinton campaign hopes. If the press allows the FEC to quietly go after the Sanders campaign based on Brock’s complaints without talking about it too much, the Clinton campaign will not have to worry about being pulled into a debate about the ethics of their fundraising through Brock and a network of “dark money allies.”

Hey, at least this post was somewhat coherent, did you get sleep or just calm down? At least to condensed your manipulation of reality a bit.

[PufPuf23]

48. There is something ludicrous about your argument about about Sander's finances.

I am all for full disclosure of taxes and other financial dealings of pols (and attorneys in general) including Sanders and Clinton.

The Clintons have somewhere between 100X and 200X the personal wealth and income; and control, have expenses paid, and pay allies salaries from the mega-endowment of The Clinton Foundation.

Sanders yet started in public service about the same time as the Clintons and did not become a rich man nor is there any evidence that Sanders has that sort of tendency in action or social environment.

Any financial info released by Sanders will be spun for any drop of negative that can be impugned by Clinton and supporters of Clinton.

Yet the great wealth of the Clintons relative to Sanders is ignored.

Regarding the Clintons, I have always thought and still think Whitewater was stupid. The only validities to the investigation were the reflex response by the Clintons and, perhaps, some of the company they kept. Not much has changed in those regards.

[joshcryer]

13. Why? It's a perfect distraction.

[kaleckim]

27. "However, that wholly depends on whether Trump releases his tax returns."

There's always some reason why she just can't release the damn speeches.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

5. She'll have to hone her CYA skills if the Repugs get hold of them.

Will, "I mad a mistake", "I misspoke", "I've evolved" be enough?

[Nye Bevan]

7. Trump won't even release one single tax return. Not one.

Whereas the Clintons have released theirs going back many years. As the first presidential candidate in modern times not to release any tax returns at all, Trump will not be able to make an issue of this.

[Doctor_J]

18. Not As Bad As Trump, and He Does It Too are unlikely to rally voters

[JackRiddler]

8. Transcripts will be leaked from the corporations she spoke to.

At least piecemeal. It's practically guaranteed, dozens of transcripts, dozens of people who would have had access to one or more. No doubt recordings as well.

[Nye Bevan]

11. Why has not one person in the audience at any of these speeches gone online,

and said, "yes.... I was there and she said we were all wonderful and she wanted to give us all a new special tax break" (or something equally damning). Normally it's hard to keep a secret when so many people know it. Either there's nothing there or these people are incredibly disciplined about secrecy.

[Armstead]

21. People like to keep their jobs

And if they were innocuous, why haven't people come out and said that?

"I was there. She just talked about women's rights" or something like that?

[kaleckim]

33. Already happened, do you bother to research this stuff?

http://www.commondreams.org/views/2016/04/15/release-clintons-wall-street-speeches-could-end-her-candidacy-president

1. Former Nebraska Governor and Senator Bob Kerrey (Clinton surrogate)

“Making the transcripts of the Goldman speeches public would have been devastating....[and] when the GOP gets done telling the Clinton Global Initiative fund-raising and expense story, Bernie supporters will wonder why he didn’t do the same....[As for] the email story, it’s not about emails. It is about [Hillary] wanting to avoid the reach of citizens using the Freedom of Information Act to find out what their government is doing, and then not telling the truth about why she did.”

[link]

2. Goldman Sachs Employee #1 (present at one of the speeches)

“[The speech] was pretty glowing about [Goldman Sachs]. 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.”

[link]

3. Goldman Sachs Employee #2 (present at one of the speeches)

“In this environment, [what she said to us at Goldman Sachs] could be made to look really bad.”

[link]

4. Goldman Sachs Executive or Client #1 (present at one of the speeches)

“Mrs. Clinton didn’t single out bankers or any other group for causing the 2008 financial crisis. Instead, she effectively said, ‘We’re all in this together, we’ve got to find our way out of it together.’”

[link]

5. Paraphrase of Several Attendees’ Accounts From The Wall Street Journal

“She didn’t often talk about the financial crisis, but when she did, she almost always struck an amicable tone. In some cases, she thanked the audience for what they had done for the country. One attendee said the warmth with which Mrs. Clinton greeted guests bordered on ‘gushy.’ She spoke sympathetically about the financial industry.”

[link]

6. Goldman Sachs Employee #3 (present at one of the speeches)

“It was like, ‘Here’s someone who doesn’t want to vilify us but wants to get business back in the game. Like, maybe here’s someone who can lead us out of the wilderness.’”

[link]

7. Paraphrase of Several Attendees’ Accounts From Politico

“Clinton offered a message that the collected plutocrats found reassuring, declaring that the banker-bashing so popular within both political parties was unproductive and indeed foolish. Striking a soothing note on the global financial crisis, she told the audience, ‘We all got into this mess together, and we’re all going to have to work together to get out of it.’”

[joshcryer]

36. Someone did a social media analysis during the time she did them.

Not a peep. It was probably quite boring. If she said anything controversial it would've been impossible to contain.

[JackRiddler]

60. It is pretty obvious why the transcripts aren't released yet.

Most of the audience members presumably liked what they heard, don't want to violate non-disclosure rules, don't necessarily care, support her (I bet a majority of these crowds do), or wouldn't think of bothering.

And they don't think it's a "secret." Puh-lease, what's secret after three decades of corporate kowtowing by the Clinton machine? (If she said she wants to give them tax breaks, they like that, no?)

The transcripts are bad because they'll be embarrassing and damage Clinton among those who were not present and trying hard to convince themselves she is progressive, i.e. not a demographic predominant at Goldman Sachs and Co.!

The transcripts will not reveal anything the non-self-deluded don't already know, but their release would create a shitstorm for the campaign.

The executives of course are happy to finance her - they paid high bribe money already for the speeches, legally of course. Wall Street is raining down millions to finance her campaign - they hardly need to mention they have the speeches in reserve. She's a reliable servant.

But those are right who say MANY PEOPLE heard the speeches, and dozens no doubt can get their hands on the transcripts or have recordings. Some among them will be partisans who want to harm the Clinton campaign.

Those motivated to do so (or who want to elect the Republican) would not leak anything until she is the nominee. Why would they endanger her nomination? You think the audiences at Goldman Sachs and Co. invited to these shindigs had a lot of Sanders supporters in their ranks? Ha!

[Jarqui]

14. I think so as well

Many in the audience at some of these corporations would be Republicans.

Sit on it, let her get the nomination and then whack her.

I think she's the candidate they preferred to face because they've collected volumes of to hit her with after she starts out with quite a low ceiling (not very popular or trusted).

[Lizzie Poppet]

12. I don't, either...but for a very different reason.

There's been plenty of time for Camp Weathervane to scrub whatever it released of anything too horrible...they'd be about as reliable as her campaign promises.

[B Calm]

19. I wouldn't be surprised if Trump doesn't already have them. October surprise?

[tonyt53]

26. How about those silly tax returns for Bernie? He could have, should have, but nope.

[cali]

30. He should release them. Period. Now do stop playing the childish game:

but so and so is worse, mommy.

[beaglelover]

28. I believe most Americans don't give a shit about her speech transcripts.

There are much more important issues to us hard working individuals. Thanks for your concern though.

[Hoyt]

32. Smart not to release them. Sanders' supporters will take them out of context,

say transcripts were modified, ask if she went off script, was she winking as she spoke, what did she say before or after speech, flat out lie about contents, and worse.

Fact is, if there were anything bad, Democrats in audience, detractors in audience, spies working there, etc., would have leaked something.

Fact is, she's a typical keynote speaker, paid to draw people to meeting, tell a few jokes, drop some names, provide a little insight on what's happening in world, make the organization look connected, etc. With Clinton, they got more than their money's worth. She owes them nothing.

[kaleckim]

34. More nonsense

"Smart not to release them. Sanders' supporters will take them out of context,"

No, the speeches would be the freaking context. We could analyze specific quotes in the context they were given and make up our own minds. Sorry, but if there was nothing in the speeches she'd have released them, and you know it.

This is all beside the point anyway. We all know she's been bought off by Wall Street. They're her largest donors, have made her incredibly rich, she and her husband have supported tons of policies that have benefited them, and she is now reaching out to them and letting them know that she "shares their values". The damning thing would be for the public to see what she really thinks about them, cause we could compare her words behind closed doors to them to what she's said and claimed this election cycle. Her being in their pocket wouldn't surprise people, the biggest damage would be to get people to trust her even less, and she knows what that would do to her, since she's already on thin ice.

[Hoyt]

51. Well, unions, environmental groups, civil rights groups, etc. have given to her

campaign. She'll consider them more than banksters. Just because you couldn't turn down the money for favors, she doesn't need it or have any history of doing so.

[felix_numinous]

38. Someone who wants the public trust would handle this situation differently

I think HRC simply does not care what the public thinks, unless we have the cash.

[Vinca]

39. Trump just hired a Goldman guy so he probably has a transcript and we'll probably get to read it.

[peace13]

45. Or better yet, watch the video!

[PufPuf23]

44. Hillary Clinton has placed herself in a lose-lose regards the transcripts.

The transcripts long ago became a non-issue to me because of the conclusion that they would never be released and, as far as content, the transcripts would be released if the content benefited Clinton's image.

Enough to know that Hillary Clinton collected millions of dollars and from who.

Self evident.

Appalling and sad for the Democratic party.

Good to see you back at DU.

[Ferd Berfel]

46. CoffeCat offered a very interesting Thesis

that, to me, makes it imperative that we get to the bottom of this.


Is it possible that HRC won't release the transcripts because there are no transcripts-
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=1937517

No speeches, just 'paying it forward' bribes?

[Attorney in Texas]

50. She should release them before they are leaked. No one on Sanders' side of Clinton vs. Sanders has

access to the Wall Street transcripts in order to leak them (for obvious reasons).

Plenty of people on Trump's side of Clinton vs. Trump have access to the Wall Street transcripts (for equally obvious reasons).

They will be leaked, and the timing of the leak will be devastating.

She needs to release them now and take her hit now while it is not too late to attempt rehabilitation rather than allowing Trump to choose the timing of the leak to his best advantage.

[Ferd Berfel]

55. Exactly !

The Republicans will release them (if they can) and it will happen after it's too late for the 'party' to do anything other than crap their pants and lie about them

[brewens]

54. Seems like the message would be attractive to so-called conservatives. Like Robmy's

47% comment, class warfare, wealth envy. Hillary probably promised she would have their backs. That might be something tRUMP's people want to leave alone.

[immoderate]

57. A pep talk to the ruling class. What could be wrong with that?

--imm

[silvershadow]

58. She wouldn't be able to even if she wanted to. They probably went

up in flames at the Great Chappaqua Fire of 2016 (in her fire pit, while drinking a bourbon)

[Merryland]

59. I'd bet there weren't any "speeches"

as someone - Cali? - suggested yesterday. Just a nice fat check, kind of a - what do you call it - bribe? Down-payment?

[philosslayer]

61. You're obviously slowly moving from the Bernie Bus to the Clinton Train

Welcome aboard!

[Logical]

62. I still want to see them It will determine if I donate money to her. nt