2016 Postmortem

Truprogressive85

(900 posts)

63. Question

Fri Feb 5, 2016, 02:24 AM

Feb 2016

What if someone recorded one her many speeches to these banks ,and say the person decided to put it out there

one that person get a trouble doing so ?

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