2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumHillary!!! I don't give a shit what the GOP said to Wall Street! I want to know what YOU SAID!
So now Hillary wants the GOP Candidates to release their speech transcripts before she does. LOL!
Hillary, you want to be President and are a LIBERAL. Why would I need to know what the GOP candidates said to Wall Street. I know they are owned by Wall Street. What we all want to know is if you are also!
Just release them!! It is that simple!
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Cassiopeia
(2,603 posts)we would have another excuse offered by the evening news.
Those transcripts aren't coming out, at least not from her.
Joe the Revelator
(14,915 posts)
cannabis_flower
(3,764 posts)they would come out before next week.
CorporatistNation
(2,546 posts)
InAbLuEsTaTe
(24,122 posts)Bernie & Elizabeth 2016!!!
Logical
(22,457 posts)reformist2
(9,841 posts)Hillary is going to look so foolish for not getting out in front of this and releasing them herself!
mimi85
(1,805 posts)it makes her look like she has something to hide. Which i'm sure she does.
Enthusiast
(50,983 posts)
NanceGreggs
(27,815 posts)Joe the Revelator
(14,915 posts)The fact that Hillary says she will release them if the republicans do proves that they are available. Someone will have them between now and the GE
NanceGreggs
(27,815 posts)As per her standard speaking contract, there is only one transcript made and it belongs to her. There probably never even was a hard copy - the court reporter probably gave her a disk, which is the usual practice these days. There would be no need for Hillary to keep piles of paper copies of her speeches; she can access them on her computer, should she want to.
So where are these transcripts going to come from exactly, given that there is only one copy of each speech, and it's in HRC's sole possession?
Joe the Revelator
(14,915 posts)transcript and is working on a story. I'd wager that if a reporter has a transcript, then there are a number on transcripts out there, contract or not.
What are you worried about?
NanceGreggs
(27,815 posts)... but thanks for asking.
I've been a court reporter for almost 31 years, and I have produced "one copy only" transcripts for closed hearings, corporate meetings, and private speeches. I have to sign confidentiality agreements beforehand, and an acknowledgment that after the transcript is delivered to the ONE person who is to receive it, my "working copy", my notes, and any audio will be destroyed.
I sincerely doubt that the court reporters who produced the transcripts of Hillary's speeches are willing to set themselves up to have their asses sued, along with their careers being ruined.
So that leaves the question of where these alleged transcripts could have originated. I'm game - explain it to me.
DUbeornot2be
(367 posts)...be making a valid case if all we had were pencils and pens...
Everyone has a smartphone... I'll take the audio or video over transcripts any day...
bvar22
(39,909 posts)Hillary's speeches to her friends on Wall Street will sink her already sinking ship.
LovingA2andMI
(7,006 posts)Never thought ANYONE had a video tape of his 47% moment either... Tick...Tick...Tick....Tock....
NanceGreggs
(27,815 posts)... that was surreptitiously recorded? THAT'S what you're down to hoping for?
LovingA2andMI
(7,006 posts)But you won't be laughing one but if one appears in a October Surprise 
....
Chew on that....
NanceGreggs
(27,815 posts)As I said - keep hopin'. A major scandal that knocks HRC out of the race is Bernie's only shot at winning the nomination.
Too bad he can't win it any other way.
LovingA2andMI
(7,006 posts)Is Fair Game. Waiting on the video
NanceGreggs
(27,815 posts)Keep hoping.
It's all the BSer have left to pin their hopes on - so I understand.
A Simple Game
(9,214 posts)NanceGreggs
(27,815 posts)But you already knew that.
I don't know what people think they're accomplishing by pointing out who posters supported eight years ago. It's rather silly, dontcha think?
A Simple Game
(9,214 posts)Then we will be able to judge what's silly.
NanceGreggs
(27,815 posts)This is just getting sillier.
I supported Obama in 2008, because I thought he was the right person for the job of POTUS.
I support HRC now, because I think she's the right person for the job of POTUS.
I'm certainly not alone in that thinking. I don't know why BSers find that to be such a difficult concept to understand.
SkyIsGrey
(378 posts)From Clinton.
NanceGreggs
(27,815 posts)Otherwise, they won't be coming from anywhere else.
Logical
(22,457 posts)Dont seem to get it.
cannabis_flower
(3,764 posts)on Morning Joe that a reporter has at least one of them.
freebrew
(1,917 posts)a flyby surprise...?
ChairmanAgnostic
(28,017 posts)Because.
(Gag me with spoon)
cprise
(8,445 posts)As always.
ChairmanAgnostic
(28,017 posts)
procon
(15,805 posts)I don't mean just dirt to fling at Clinton, but is there something specific or illegal that you think would be important to the average voter?
Logical
(22,457 posts)procon
(15,805 posts)Maybe some of the diehard partisans would find that as their meat and potatoes and are willing to invest the time and energy, but it the voters just aren't biting, then what is the payoff?
zentrum
(9,865 posts)…today in DU and quickly taken down by jury.
Her words praised Bankers as being brave and on the front lines against a world of financial competitors. The basic tone was nobody understands how hard it was for them, but she did.
I don't know if this comment to will be be blocked.
Logical
(22,457 posts)Why indeed?
Actually, I think she sounded pretty duplicitous in it—in the sense that the way she talked to Goldman is not at all a way she would ever talk to us about them. She really did cast them as unappreciated warriors for the economy, who are being treated unfairly.
I've actually heard Lloyd Blankfein say the same thing—that nobody knows how hard it is to be unappreciated.
I can see why she wouldn't want anything like this released. She came across as very sympathetic to them.
Not your FDR progressive speech of "welcoming their hatred" at all.
I got a screen shot of it.
one_voice
(20,043 posts)Logical
(22,457 posts)Rilgin
(787 posts)If it was a false transcript it should have been hidden and should be condemned. Hillary's actual words are pretty bad. Inventing false attacks should be condemned against Hillary as well as Bernie.
I really hope that it was posted satyr rather than an attempt to mislead and would hope the person posting it would apologize if not clear.
Hillary people please be consistent as well. If it was bad to hide this made up transcript it should have been equally as reprehensible to defend Jonathon Capehart for continuing to assert that Bernie was using a dishonest photo in his campaign literature after the Photographer showed him contact sheets that 100% proved it was in fact Bernie.
cascadiance
(19,537 posts)... when it appeared someone had engineered manipulating the Univ. of Chicago archives to attribute a photo incorrectly before this "story" came out that was subsequently disproved by the photographer.
Therefore, even "proof" that some of these claims might be wrong might not be in some cases really proof either. Some care needs to be taken before totally dismissing things. Now if real proof disproving other proof is not available, then it should probably be hidden with some sort of note that we don't know that it is true, but that some story needs greater research to completely get the facts.
Yes, we don't want to have open season where people are constantly making up lies about the other candidate and allowed to do so without consequence that totally confuses voters, etc. on what the real story is, and who they should ultimately choose.
But we shouldn't look past the fact that when you have a large surrounding corporate influenced establishment trying to hide certain factoids that they don't want the public to hear about, that at times there are different entities working in concert with each other under their control to give the illusion of "truth" that at times might not exist.
PonyUp
(1,680 posts)
TheSocialDem
(191 posts)we want to know if she says the same thing to the banks paying her speaking fees as does to the people she wants to vote for her
global1
(25,253 posts)she's asking for my vote. I need to know if she deserves it. If I'm asked to trust her it's kind of hard to do that when it looks like she is trying to hide something. Is she telling me one thing and saying something completely different to Goldman Sachs and the other Banksters?
LonePirate
(13,424 posts)global1
(25,253 posts)would you still vote for her if she was saying one thing to you to get your vote and she was saying something completely different to the Banksters to assure them that she was on their side?
LonePirate
(13,424 posts)I just think it is a huge logical leap for people to think she would tell Wall Street that she preferred them over Main Street as so many of my fellow Bernie supporters seem to think she did. She is not stupid or inexperienced. She has known for years she would run again in 2016 and she would never intentionally pull a Romney during one of these speeches. Did she likely say something the bankers would want to hear? Possibly, maybe even probably. Did she say something akin to siding with Wall Street in their war against Main Street? No chance at all of that happening.
rpannier
(24,329 posts)I read in a few places that she wanted Sanders to release his and then she'd release hers.
He did.
It makes her look dishonest and like she is hiding something
LonePirate
(13,424 posts)I'm not expecting there to be any bomb shells in those speeches and I certainly don't expect any backtracking from the masses of people who essentially think she committed economic treason with those speeches.
rpannier
(24,329 posts)If there's nothing there (a probability) there will be the chorus (from some) that they aren't all there or they've been redacted somehow or whatever
But, the problem here, and it's a double-edged sword is, 'When a sizable number of the public find you ethically challenged anything that looks suspicious is automatically suspect.' It feeds the narrative that the individual cannot be trusted and can pull some fence sitters into the 'he/she is hiding something' camp.
However, when you are forthcoming, even when there is nothing there, people (read: usually your opposition) still find something shady or suspect in what is released.
As I noted, something is missing or has been altered. Not just that, but it depends on how you 'interpret' the sentence or phrase.
A totally innocuous thing becomes 'proof' of something notorious.
LonePirate
(13,424 posts)She is damned if she does and damned if she doesn't.
rpannier
(24,329 posts)A totally innocuous thing becomes 'proof' of something notorious.
bvar22
(39,909 posts)It IS the stonewalling & cover up.
passiveporcupine
(8,175 posts)That probably would not happen. Suspicion builds up the longer she keeps them secret...then of course, when she finally does, it's given her time (in the minds of conspiracy theorists) to doctor them...to make them safe.
She would have been far better off just releasing them right away.
tex-wyo-dem
(3,190 posts)The whole email issue could have been easily avoided, but for some reason she wanted and demanded control of the server and database. Of course it got exposed and, at the very least, has the appearance of nefarious activity. We'll have to wait and see where that all ends up.
Stupid, stupid move and terrible judgement on her part. But it comes down to she thought she could get away with it.
With this type of behavior in mind, I wouldn't be so quick to assume that she wouldn't have completely sold out main street in her infamous Wall Street speeches. I mean, she will just be able to get away with it; right?
LonePirate
(13,424 posts)cascadiance
(19,537 posts)In my book, she likely didn't have anything to cover up on Bengazi too, which is what the Republicans were trying to make look like what was happening. But the reasons for her moving email to a private server outside of the scrutiny of Americans in terms of her communications as SOS, is still a big concern. I wonder if some of these Goldman Sachs transcripts were in one of those emails?
Americans have seen a pattern of actions that don't lend themselves to trust with her. And this could get worse in the GE, if there are some things they are waiting to spring until after the nomination to sink her, but not "enable" Bernie in the process.
TheSocialDem
(191 posts)i will vote for the candidate with a D next to their name.
that being said, i hope bernie is our nominee
procon
(15,805 posts)Voter interests are different than bankers, so I would expect politicians to speak with bankers differently than they do the voters. On the other hand, like Bernie, Clinton has plans to address some of the financial issues that do concern voters. It's a start, can they really do anything? I'm more interested to hear how either of them will get any such legislation passed in a Republican controlled congress.
procon
(15,805 posts)and we always tailored the presentation to the demographics of the group that paid for infotainment, and if requested we added the little key points they wanted to stress. Regardless of the topic or the group, that's just how it's done. If our company failed to deliver a good show, or we didn't do enough sucking up and ego stroking to satisfy the VIPs, it could reflect badly on our brand and that would negatively impact everyone's paycheck. The company had a reputation for delivering everything the client expected at their very, very expensive dinner galas, and I would expect that the Clinton's business branding obligated her to do the same thing.
TheSocialDem
(191 posts)and thats the point!
Bernie is somebody who says what they believe all the time and gets the funding for saying exactly that (4 million individual campaign contributors)! this is the difference this issue is meant to draw.
bernie has no super pacs and has not gotten rich selling out to the banskters and special interest.
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)them "brothers and sisters". the 1% was mentioned last. it was a little awkward.
TheSocialDem
(191 posts)putting his points in a different order is not what we are talking about here.
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)TheSocialDem
(191 posts)and we are left to make our own judgments... the same cannot be said about hillary
840high
(17,196 posts)procon
(15,805 posts)As a private citizen, Clinton is under no such limitation and can take advantage of her celebrity status and her popularity to earn high fees as a speaker for as long as she can hang onto the spotlight.
TheSocialDem
(191 posts)
Fumesucker
(45,851 posts)I wish I was kidding, maddi.
procon
(15,805 posts)When he's speaking to college kids, or POC, for example, like any good speaker he does address their specific concerns.
Not all politicians like giving speeches, but certainly many do have a regular business as paid speakers. You realize, of course that this is a perfectly legitimate, one that Sanders, too, may well consider in the future... or is it really about the money? Whether he gets rich or not from earning an income, is a legal activity.
Perhaps more thought needs to be directed to broader political reforms rather simply kibitzing about one particular politician.
TheSocialDem
(191 posts)and we can make judgements about what he says.
whos side is hillary on? i would have a better understanding of this if i was sure she wasnt pandering to wallstreet behind closed doors and muted microphones.
Sunlei
(22,651 posts)would be a much more effective D-President. Unfortunately, neither of them is as great as Obama but even Obama recognized & embraced Mrs. Clinton's awesome diplomatic skills.
global1
(25,253 posts)She is telling us one thing that we want to hear and she is telling the Banksters something else - which is what they want to hear.
So what story is the real story?
Logical
(22,457 posts)
JudyM
(29,251 posts)play as a senator, as SOS and now as a candidate for POTUS. She claims as her main defense that she is objective and not at all affected by all these donations to her campaign and to the Clinton fund, and in fact that she is in favor of reining in wall st. Attendees at these events say that her speeches were quite the opposite, that they were about making them feel secure about not being reined in, and that she was speaking as if one of them, I.e., "we"! They are her We, in other words.
And IMO there is probably worse content than that, by the way she's running from it, because if it was just about calming them down she could explain that.
global1
(25,253 posts)and when she talks to the Banksters she says 'We'.
JudyM
(29,251 posts)
Avalux
(35,015 posts)I may be faced with voting for Hillary in the GE, and I want to be able to do it in good conscience (if it comes to that).
Hillary gave paid speeches to banks and corps for 4 years and made millions. Recently, she has claimed on several occasions that she went to Wall Street and told them to "cut it out" (during the same time she blamed home owners for the crash), and has vowed to go after them as president. It just doesn't add up.
We all have a right to know what she said in those paid speeches. Her evasive tactics seem like she's mocking those of us asking.
If Hillary wants my vote, she'll need to release them so I can make an informed decision.
Orsino
(37,428 posts)Her contract banned reordings, and gave her the only transcripts. Why?
She's offered no reason for the secrecy, and clearly is trying to run out the clock. Each day of delay makes the matter more suspicious.
What did she say when she knew we couldn't hear?
Orange Butterfly
(205 posts)It makes no difference.
We do not need to know what she said in a private speech.
She is a private citizen.
I think it is good enough to know that it happened. And people can make up their own minds from that.
Logical
(22,457 posts)LonePirate
(13,424 posts)fierywoman
(7,685 posts)At first I read your title as: she knew since she was 13 that she'd be running for prez ...
BernieforPres2016
(3,017 posts)And that's why it was OK to give those paid speeches.
Not that anybody believes either 1) she didn't know she would run or 2) it would make the speeches OK if she didn't.
Hiraeth
(4,805 posts)
SammyWinstonJack
(44,130 posts)
JudyM
(29,251 posts)one of the main institutions that brought this country into a recession and destroyed hard earned life savings and futures for ordinary people while the banks were bailed out and their leaders walked off with huge bonuses.
The banks are still too big and too unregulated. This is obviously a huge issue for the US.
pacalo
(24,721 posts)Joe the Revelator
(14,915 posts)Of course we have a right to know what she said in those speeches.
bigwillq
(72,790 posts)Welcome to DU! 
global1
(25,253 posts)She has been in the public eye for decades. Now all of a sudden - she's a private citizen?
She is asking us to vote for her. I would feel pretty stupid if I voted for her and finding out after the fact that she conned me for my vote.
I just can't understand how her supporters can just blindly accept that she didn't tell them one thing and tell the Banksters something completely different.
Politicalboi
(15,189 posts)Leave Hillary ALONE!!!!!!!!!
jillan
(39,451 posts)
Logical
(22,457 posts)840high
(17,196 posts)
kgnu_fan
(3,021 posts)Logical
(22,457 posts)Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)We are better than them
Lil Missy
(17,865 posts)witch hunt and who'd never vote for her under ANY circumstances ANYWAY. If I were her advisor, I'd tell those trying to make a big deal over a private speech to go piss up a rope.
Logical
(22,457 posts)
Babel_17
(5,400 posts)Logical
(22,457 posts)Politicalboi
(15,189 posts)I'm tired of witch hunts and Hillary. She creates these "witch hunts". She can't come clean if her life depended on it. What's going to happen if she gets indicted? Is she going to tell them to piss up a rope. She's flawed.
TheSocialDem
(191 posts)but among democrats, with bought and paid for politicians being the consensus reason (and racism) for the obstructionism we are seeing in congress, it is a valid discussion to have when vetting our democratic nomination for president.
Feeling the Bern
(3,839 posts)job if that's your political acumen.
"Piss up a rope?" Not the kind of bring them together language Clinton is looking for.
"private speech" You're running for president. Nothing is private.
BernieforPres2016
(3,017 posts)They're above having to explain themselves and always have been.
Herman4747
(1,825 posts)Do tell.
Go on, I dare you.
fierywoman
(7,685 posts)Wikileaks: we need you now more than ever!!!
asuhornets
(2,405 posts)
SoapBox
(18,791 posts)asuhornets
(2,405 posts)Politicalboi
(15,189 posts)Enthusiast
(50,983 posts)
cascadiance
(19,537 posts)...assuming that it wasn't that bad, with perhaps a few things to be explained, OR...
WE can define what was being said by speculation by linking her many actions that would correlate to her working for them rather than for us, and note that since she feels they need to remain secret, that we can pose the question if Americans want to vote for a "secret" president that doesn't tell us half of the things we SHOULD know in a REAL *democracy* (which the party named for it is SUPPOSEDLY standing for). Obama has given us some of that "secret" legislation CRAP with his work pushing along with the "obstructionist" Republicans to pass Fast Track and the TPP in ways that the public "shouldn't know about it".
Americans of all political stripes want that to STOP!
Logical
(22,457 posts)NorthCarolina
(11,197 posts)You're not even the least bit curious what she said?
asuhornets
(2,405 posts)She is too too smart to say anything to jeopardize her political career.
Babel_17
(5,400 posts)Remember Romney's tax forms? We wanted them, and we wouldn't have taken "When every Democrat releases theirs for the last ten years" had Romney been silly enough to try.
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2015/01/what-we-still-dont-know-about-mitt-romneys-tax-returns
If Mitt Romney runs for president in 2016, he may have to confront a ghost that haunted him in 2012: his tax returns. Romney was hounded with requests to release detailed tax filings that would disclose the details of his fortune—which is at least in the hundreds of millions. Ultimately, he only revealed two years of information, and was roundly criticized for his lack of transparency. Jeb Bush reportedly plans to avoid a "Romney problem" by releasing 10 years of tax returns. If he runs, Romney will be under heavy pressure to do the same.
Why do we laugh at Romney, has every Democrat released a decade's worth of returns? "But they aren't running for Pres...., oh."
Exactly. We hold our candidates to at least the standards we'd use with Republicans.
There is no legal requirement for presidential candidates to release any income tax returns, although the Federal Election Commission requires them to file personal financial disclosures.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/decision2012/romney-earned-nearly-14-million-in-2011-paid-141-percent-tax-rate-campaign-says/2012/09/21/e62e5096-0417-11e2-91e7-2962c74e7738_story.html
We didn't care then, so let's not invent new standards now.
Gregorian
(23,867 posts)SoapBox
(18,791 posts)Pathetic.
TIME TO PANIC
(1,894 posts)Hillary Clinton thinks Goldman Sachs is more important than you.
daleanime
(17,796 posts)anything will be released. Or trust the honesty if they did.
Uncle Joe
(58,365 posts)Thanks for the thread, Logical.
cantbeserious
(13,039 posts)eom
Jitter65
(3,089 posts)lobodons
(1,290 posts)Policies not speeches. I care about Hillary's policies, plans and votes not so much what she says in speeches.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2015/12/07/elizabeth-warren-praises-hillary-clintons-wall-street-plan/
Plucketeer
(12,882 posts)Shrinking from sharing the admonisments she's showered on Wall St. How was that clever cartoon worded? - "I did NOT have relations with that bank!"
PatrynXX
(5,668 posts)so I'll just say good you'll lose early on super tuesday and we'll dodge a big bullet
Cayenneman
(10 posts)Then release the transcripts!
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)We all should.
leftofcool
(19,460 posts)think
(11,641 posts)At the most there might be some slightly embarrassing quips like we shouldn't bash bankers etc, etc.
Hillary is a very intelligent lawyer. She'll follow the letter of the law without fail.
Everyone knows their part and no one needs to say anything or do of substance in these settings except play out their parts. The mold was set years ago and each party knows what to expect out the other.
The bankers wouldn't pay her and Bill millions for some speeches if they thought they were going to get a raw deal. Bankers didn't get where they are by making foolish mistakes based on judging a person's character. It's not like Hillary is the first politician to sellout to them. Sadly it's very routine.
I would prefer paying politicians like we do rock stars, pro athletes, and CEOs.
Pay them very well but outlaw paid speeches, company board positions, book tours with companies and lobbyist & interest groups buying all the books for any corporation, group or association that actively lobbies our government to affect policy.
Pay them well to work hard for he American people's team. Because it's all too obvious that when we don't the mega corporations and wealthy individuals will...
humbled_opinion
(4,423 posts)In the middle of the GE, what could she possibly say then? but I am sure the establishment will order us to defend her....Isn't this just sickening.
NanceGreggs
(27,815 posts)... will get the transcripts exactly how?
humbled_opinion
(4,423 posts)the print reporter that has them..... Mika is a long time friend of the Donald... Trump has a huge number of friends in the media already to spin his insanity to the masses... Haven't you figured that out yet?
840high
(17,196 posts)
GoneOffShore
(17,340 posts)Neo liberal, third way "liberal", corporatist "Liberal". But "Liberal"?
I don't think so.
HRC gave up on that when she campaigned for Goldwater. It's obvious that a puma doesn't change its spots.
YOHABLO
(7,358 posts)she wins (if) the nomination. You know Trump is going to use this against her. He's good at pointing fingers at hypocrisy. She could very easily address this in a way that would make her shine, why she's not doing it I haven't a clue.
humbled_opinion
(4,423 posts)when you are yucking it up with the very people that caused massive home loss in this country.... Millions were left in the lurch because of the bad practices of these banks, real people lost everything, jobs, homes, and to this day many have not recovered.... She won't release them because she knows that it will cause an unstoppable truth, she doesn't represent the interests of the Democratic party.... The Tsunami of support would go to Bernie and she would lose the nomination..... but don't worry when Trump releases them in the GE after she is already the nominee she is counting on you good foot soldiers to defend her against what she said.... It is a nightmare, one that I won't be participating in no matter what threats the DNC proclaims.
Arizona Roadrunner
(168 posts)Can Goldman-Sachs deduct cost of Clinton speeches ($650,000) from their tax obligation? If they can, that means we have to pay more to offset the lost income and/or we get less in services etc.
Dustlawyer
(10,495 posts)Hillary, just release the transcripts. Yes, Hillary, release the transcripts!
My little Breackfast Club, Hillary version!
humbled_opinion
(4,423 posts)"Transcripts, you can't handle the Truth"
LOL
Dustlawyer
(10,495 posts)retrowire
(10,345 posts)You're our business during the primaries, not them.
Again with the deflection Hillary, you're terrible!
SDJay
(1,089 posts)in those transcripts, then not releasing them when it came up is yet another example of HRC bringing drama on herself. I think we all know that these speeches were basically "you're awesome, GS" types of cheerleading. So what? If she had gotten them out there this would've been a dead issue weeks ago. Instead, she stonewalls and makes a mountain out of a molehill.
Sanders isn't even digging into this. You can be sure the repukes won't do the same. It's stupid, IMHO and it's too late now to minimize their importance. This has taken on a life of its own and it's all on the HRC campaign.
humbled_opinion
(4,423 posts)of these transcripts will be revealed..... after she is the nominee of course.... and then you will be told to defend her or you are a bad Democrat....
jfern
(5,204 posts)I can understand that some hold out hope that she's not owned by Wall Street.
Logical
(22,457 posts)Betty Karlson
(7,231 posts)Clinton cannot be trusted.
Fearless
(18,421 posts)Bernblu
(441 posts)It's that simple. I'm not voting for the Republicans so I don't care what they said.
aspirant
(3,533 posts)A "Champion" isn't scared of her own shadow or words, she would proudly let all know what she truthfully shared with others.
If she is ashamed of her Wall Street actions, now is the time to ask forgiveness from the 99% if she wants our votes
Real "Champions" don't run away and hide, they have the courage to face any mistakes they may have made in the past.
Where courage is lacking, trust fades away.
humbled_opinion
(4,423 posts)What makes you think she ever tells the truth, about anything? It does give me renewed appreciation of why Bill did what he did.....
Vinca
(50,278 posts)That's why we don't want them to win. Her reluctance to release the damn transcripts makes you conclude she said the same things as any Republican candidate might say. If there's something bad in them, she needs to get it out of the way ASAP because eventually someone will leak something and that will be the ball game.
sarge43
(28,941 posts)
Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)Now she wants to be no better than the Republicans, but we are better
CanonRay
(14,104 posts)a slow motion train wreck.
humbled_opinion
(4,423 posts)first woman president dontcha know....
libdem4life
(13,877 posts)We know who and what she is and just follow the money. Pay to Play is the name of the game and her record says everything we need to know.
I don't believe we'll get a "smoking gun" here. Until perhaps the GE...that's when, if Mika is correct, the transcripts in the hands of a reporter are likely to leak.
I hope I'm wrong.
riversedge
(70,242 posts)
Waiting For Everyman
(9,385 posts)She claims she said certain harsh things to her bankster friends, as rebuttal to the idea that her being paid 6 figures for a speech had less to do with what an exceptional speech it was, and more to do with buying acces..
So we want to see for ourselves... 1) did she tell them off as she claims? 2) was it such an amazing speech that it was worth 6 figures simply as a speech?
Color me doubtful on both counts. But SHE made the assertion of her own free will unasked for by anybody, and now having done so, it's up to her to show the proof to back it up.
But beyond that is this question:
Whose judgement would be bad enough to make those speeches and take those fees in the first place knowing that more elections were in her future? It's so similar to the email server in that way... just how dumb and/or incompetent is she?
Lorien
(31,935 posts)by dragging your heels on this and making excuses you've proven that whatever it is that you are hiding is really, REALLY bad!
RoccoR5955
(12,471 posts)otherwise she would release them.
That said, she will probably NEVER release them, until she once again joins the RepubliCON Party, where she started her career.
yourpaljoey
(2,166 posts)We really need to see those transcripts.
Chicago1980
(1,968 posts)The CCC
(463 posts)I'm no fan of Hilary, but yours is a Double Standard.
Logical
(22,457 posts)
Tommy2Tone
(1,307 posts)No candidate has ever released transcripts so we decide the first woman has to prove she isn't corrupt?
cascadiance
(19,537 posts)Given the precedent that this country's been so corrupted with things like court decisions based on "corporate personhood" enabled decisions like Citizen's United, McCutcheon, etc. where the fraction of 1% rules us, it is NOT a red herring for those who want to try and still get elected in what little is left in any democratic process we have left in our government to be expected to document that they are't beholden to these powers that have basically almost destroyed our democratic system of government. Americans expect those who represent us to level with them and we're going to demand that it happen and not stop demanding these SO-CALLED "red herrings" that the corporate class seems to want us to believe demands for accountability are.
rnk6670
(29 posts)In a corrupt republican light 3rd way Democrat corporatist for Pres. Just had 2 terms of that.
NurseJackie
(42,862 posts)... trying to make up your mind.
This is so silly, and it's never going to happen. Nobody cares. (Except hardcore Bernie fans.)
passiveporcupine
(8,175 posts)every day she resists, and every excuse she puts out there.
She claims she wants transparency and wants to be 'vetted'. Well here is her chance.
Logical
(22,457 posts)jalan48
(13,870 posts)amborin
(16,631 posts)
Oilwellian
(12,647 posts).@HillaryClinton believes Republicans should set the standard for disclosure of her Wall Street speeches. Aren’t we better than that?
https://twitter.com/BernieSanders/status/702315767639863297
wolfie001
(2,251 posts)........right-O, sure........
Elmer S. E. Dump
(5,751 posts) 
lastlib
(23,244 posts)eom