2016 Postmortem

Old Crow

(2,212 posts)

45. It would be a SERIOUS nail in the coffin of her campaign if those speeches go public.

Fri Feb 5, 2016, 01:44 AM

Feb 2016

This is, after all, the Hillary Clinton who adopts a southern drawl when addressing southern audiences. She panders more shamelessly than any politician I know. You can be sure that she was kissing the feet of those Goldman Sachs executives, marvelling at their business savvy and confiding that she thinks it's a pity that they don't get more recognition in the current political climate for what wonderful people they are.

The transcripts of those Goldman Sachs speeches would quickly expose the lie of her recent anti-Wall Street dog and pony show.

She'll "look into" releasing the transcripts--ha! I won't be holding my breath.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

97 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Can we all agree that Hillary should release the transcripts of her Goldman speech? [View all] LittleBlue Feb 2016 OP

I'll get back to you on that... Flying Phoenix Feb 2016 #1

What she said 99th_Monkey Feb 2016 #67

I want to hear the excuse she's going to come up with for not releasing them. Purveyor Feb 2016 #2

Goldman will say that they payed for the speech so it was a work for hire and therefore awake Feb 2016 #8

That's my initial take on it, as well . . . Journeyman Feb 2016 #19

Well, if she uses THAT excuse, that her speech is Goldman-Sachs proprietary info.... Peace Patriot Feb 2016 #46

They may have the legal right - TBF Feb 2016 #82

That only makes sense if there is two-way communication. thesquanderer Feb 2016 #86

Well then I guess production of the speakers agreement would be necessary then Purveyor Feb 2016 #34

What, like the secret Koch Bros meetings? tex-wyo-dem Feb 2016 #43

It IS Up To CORPORATE PRESS To Push The Release... Not Bernie! THIS Was A YES or NO Question! CorporatistNation Feb 2016 #23

I"m pretty sure this baby was born or conceived right here on DU Voice for Peace Feb 2016 #48

..+1 840high Feb 2016 #57

We should just stipulate to that yes. Paulie Feb 2016 #3

I can give you one potential good reason not to release. thesquanderer Feb 2016 #88

So leave a ticking time bomb waiting for a recording to show up in November? Paulie Feb 2016 #89

Hillary ahas asked us to look at her record, so lets see the whole record awake Feb 2016 #4

I find it EXTREMELY hard to believe there were transcripts. And it is more than Goldman Sachs. n/t Skwmom Feb 2016 #5

I would be very surprised if there were not videos awake Feb 2016 #12

Apparently, NBC news has confirmed that all her talks were transcribed.That implies audio recordings hedda_foil Feb 2016 #16

Hope someone gets them. 840high Feb 2016 #58

Did Obama release his? Was it demanded of him? boston bean Feb 2016 #6

The fact that it wasn't is evidence our system is broken. Answer the question LittleBlue Feb 2016 #10

I don't give a shite about the transcripts. Really I don't. boston bean Feb 2016 #22

wow roguevalley Feb 2016 #49

Lol, of course you dont. Nt Logical Feb 2016 #72

$10 says Boston bean has seen one such speech in person JonLeibowitz Feb 2016 #80

Absolutely Not. She should go ahead a release the transcripts... CincyDem Feb 2016 #81

Why must you deflect? Bonobo Feb 2016 #28

His paid speeches - from when? karynnj Feb 2016 #30

He spoke to them while running for president and lets not forget boston bean Feb 2016 #32

And Obama's college transcripts redstateblues Feb 2016 #7

Yeah totally the same LittleBlue Feb 2016 #13

The best way to handle it was to say UglyGreed Feb 2016 #9

"looking into" = find out how I don't have to cyberswede Feb 2016 #85

Of course UglyGreed Feb 2016 #94

Maybe she said one thing behind closed doors at Goldman and another to the public. pa28 Feb 2016 #11

A highly likely scenario. nt Live and Learn Feb 2016 #60

God.. I hate defending Clinton BUT.... basselope Feb 2016 #14

She could ask them. Luminous Animal Feb 2016 #20

Absolutely, but they could say no. basselope Feb 2016 #33

Actually, her contracts required Goldman Sachs and others to pay for a transcriptor to askew Feb 2016 #21

Interesting. SusanCalvin Feb 2016 #25

Oh that is huge so its totally up to her to release them or not cool. Purveyor Feb 2016 #36

Do you know that for sure?? That she owns the IP? basselope Feb 2016 #42

Thanks. 840high Feb 2016 #59

She Is Running For President! Sue The Fuckers! CorporatistNation Feb 2016 #26

If they were privately hosted there's no good reason to release them ucrdem Feb 2016 #15

Well maybe if she had given a better answer it wouldn't be such a nag. n/t PonyUp Feb 2016 #47

I don't think she should... because it will make her look bad!!! reformist2 Feb 2016 #17

Maybe she'll do it, but i imagine most of it will be redacted. EndElectoral Feb 2016 #18

Honestly silenttigersong Feb 2016 #24

I actually don't care. I don't think there'll be a "47%" remark in them. nt valerief Feb 2016 #27

She is busy now making sure none exist 2pooped2pop Feb 2016 #29

She has a special transcript wiping cloth. n/t PonyUp Feb 2016 #50

Neither Hillary nor Podesta are stupid and aren't going to get trapped before they have the facts Empowerer Feb 2016 #31

I think she should Duckhunter935 Feb 2016 #35

Just because paid speeches have become the norm TheSocialDem Feb 2016 #37

I've seen a lot of these speeches - there will be nothing of interest in the transcripts. CincyDem Feb 2016 #38

You are probably correct Red Oak Feb 2016 #44

BINGO! "She got paid $675K for that pablum?" bullwinkle428 Feb 2016 #78

That's not what she got paid for. n/t beac Feb 2016 #97

i wouldn't call those speeches benign. nt retrowire Feb 2016 #51

Hayden's point makes a lot of sense (nt) Recursion Feb 2016 #73

Ari Rabin-Havt TOTALLY agreed with your assessment this morning! For those bullwinkle428 Feb 2016 #77

She was up here speaking across Canada and getting paid mostly by the two big banks polly7 Feb 2016 #79

Any good reason we shouldn't audit the Iowa results? mhatrw Feb 2016 #39

And reveal her diabolical Illuminati world domination plot and secret Rosicrucian handshake? betsuni Feb 2016 #40

I agree! in_cog_ni_to Feb 2016 #41

It would be a SERIOUS nail in the coffin of her campaign if those speeches go public. Old Crow Feb 2016 #45

Trust me, they will.... daleanime Feb 2016 #52

I'd like to know what $675,000 worth of words looks like. Spitfire of ATJ Feb 2016 #53

Here is my guess of what she said Geronimoe Feb 2016 #54

Pandora's Box has been opened. She southerncrone Feb 2016 #55

Good idea. I will do it. 840high Feb 2016 #61

I honestly can't bring myself to care which vapid bromides she said to them Recursion Feb 2016 #56

What do you think she said. steal from the peasants? Chicago1980 Feb 2016 #62

Question Truprogressive85 Feb 2016 #63

All of her speeches. Not just that one. JDPriestly Feb 2016 #64

The transcripts are not hers to release. NanceGreggs Feb 2016 #65

Finally, some common sense. Yes, the transcripts are owned by G.S. n/t pnwmom Feb 2016 #68

If she gives the identical speech to 10 companies, who owns it? thesquanderer Feb 2016 #87

In any case, it is the intellectual property of someone -- not the Internet. n/t pnwmom Feb 2016 #90

If it is HRC's IP, then she could choose to make it available. (n/t) thesquanderer Feb 2016 #93

It's a fishing expedition in hopes of finding a "47% moment". (They're getting desperate.) NurseJackie Feb 2016 #75

see post 87, please (nt) thesquanderer Feb 2016 #95

Very unusual, in my experience. NanceGreggs Feb 2016 #96

So after reading all the replies to this question, the answer is "NO, we cannot agree" Binkie The Clown Feb 2016 #66

She was asked directly about transcripts xloadiex Feb 2016 #69

'inauthentic' should have a picture of Hillary by it in the dictionary tomm2thumbs Feb 2016 #70

Thank you! xloadiex Feb 2016 #71

I'm wondering why they couldn't just rewrite the speech and release it as the transcript. stillwaiting Feb 2016 #74

Words words words words words words. betsuni Feb 2016 #76

Yes, definitely. H2O Man Feb 2016 #83

Begin to "imagine" a NO. oasis Feb 2016 #84

I want the Monsanto speech! 'Yummmm, GMO's are good!" said Hillary. ViseGrip Feb 2016 #91

And she's hired Monsanto's big gun to work on her campaign. Go figure. ViseGrip Feb 2016 #92