48 hours later:Has Hillary Released the Goldman Sacs Transcripts Yet?

[Joe the Revelator]

We're waiting.

[Duckhunter935]

1. must be still looking

And hope the pundits forget. Must keep the pressure up.

[Avalux]

2. They're being edited, that takes a little time. n/t

[johnnyrocket]

3. She's "looking into it".

[oasis]

4. No. She's not falling into any anti Hillary trap.

Sorry, the fishing expedition is a non starter.

[catnhatnh]

6. Sorry-too late....

There are only 3 possible outcomes and none look good for her.

1 Don't release

2 Release and there is something damning

3 Release-they're innocuous-why are you being payed millions?

[Agschmid]

7. You forgot the second part of #3...

Anti-Hillary crowd doesn't find smoking gun they were looking for, automatically assume cover up conspiracy and demand independent audit of transcripts.

[catnhatnh]

13. No

She'll just be standing there all by her lonely holding what every sane person will know is a big ass bribe.

[Agschmid]

14. Nah... I think I nailed it the first time.

[Joe the Revelator]

12. Just to be clear, you're good with no transparency?

That makes you happy with your candidate?

[MADem]

18. So you want Senator Sanders to release details of his retreat conversations with Goldman Sachs, JP

Morgan, and other corporate interests, as well? Five or more years' worth? Ya?

http://edition.cnn.com/2016/02/05/politics/sanders-democratic-fundraisers/index.html

[Joe the Revelator]

22. You do see a difference between....

....speaking at a DSCC retreat, and speaking in front of Goldman to line your own pocketbook, right? I mean I think its pretty clear, but sure, Bernie can release his transcripts as well. But you know, as well as i do, that you're banking on a red herring.

[MADem]

37. One person is badgered to report what she said for money as a private citizen, while the public

servant is NOT badgered to report what HE said for massive amounts of cash donated to benefit both himself and others in his party.

Come off it--what you're saying stinks like a dead fish--but not for the reasons you're trying to assert!

Sixty grand to a ad buys in Vermont during a SINGLE campaign? That's a lot of scratch--to say nothing of the scratch he gets from a successful election effort.

smh!!!!

[Joe the Revelator]

39. So, you agree that Hillary should release her transcripts?

I assume? Goose, gander and all of that.

[MADem]

73. You might want to check the link at post 68....

I kinda doubt that there's a "transcript" for informal chats and Q and As, but if you want to hang your hat on that, go on and do that!!

I can completely understand a transcript for a speech at a university, or a medical center, or a major event where people file into an auditorium and take their seats, but these small venues with a hundred people? Those are cocktail parties, sometimes dinners--it ain't the same set-up.

[oasis]

90. I'm good with Hillary avoiding any manufactured bullshit.

Her detractors get no chance at putting their spin on anything they "misunderstood".

[Lorien]

31. If she has nothing to hide

then she'll "look into it" as promised and produce them.

[MADem]

38. How can she "produce" them .... if none were made?

Are you going to demand that Bernie "produce" his speeches and conversations at his luxury fundraising retreats, too?

Because, if you're not, you're applying a separate and unequal standard to one over the other.


After all...he has nothing to hide, either.

Or maybe he does...?

[JRLeft]

45. Did you know that Chuck Todd stated they have knowledge there are transcripts?

He said it when he questioned her about her receiving speaking fees.

[MADem]

49. Mmmm. Chuck TAWD--I don't put much stock in what he has to say but sure, whatever.

Cough 'em up. Let's see 'em!

We'll be waiting for Bernie's "transcripts" of Bernie Sanders' private talks to the Wall Street bigwigs, that he gave while he was hosting luxury retreats and raising millions of dollars over the past several years, too.



http://www.cnn.com/2016/02/05/politics/sanders-democratic-fundraisers/

[JRLeft]

56. Even Rachel acknowledged just that.

[MADem]

70. You sure about that? Or are you "interpreting" what you thought she said.

See post 68 for additional details and a link.

[aesop55]

102. If you don't put much stock in Chuck how about the Intercept?

Apparently this is what a Clinton Contract entails:

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


And maybe you think it doesn't matter about Hillary's paid speeches while she was on "hiatus" from public life, but it does matter to most voters. Most voters are tired of impropriety which smacks of unethical behavior. Hillary Clinton has the audacity to believe that she is above the fray while preaching in town hall after town hall that she will go after Wall Street for all of us. I don't believe her. And I do believe that these transcripts will be her 47% moment (remember Mitt Romney?). If Hillary chooses not to be transparent, believe me someone will and I am sure that it won't be flattering to HRC.

[hobbit709]

93. Do you really believe that speech was extemporaneous, that she didn't even have crib notes?

What is in the air that you breathe on Planet Clintonia?

[MADem]

100. Have you ever seen her at a town hall? Apparently not.

I think I'm not the one on a planet, here. But how telling that your FIRST INSTINCT was to get snarky, dismissive and insulting towards me.

What are you afraid of?

Why don't you watch her at a town hall, and tell me how many times she refers to these "crib notes" that you claim she has?


Then get back to me.

If she has crib notes, she's also managed to create a cloak of invisibility around them...


She doesn't NEED notes.

She knows her material.

smh!

[NanceGreggs]

76. "You have nothing to fear ...

... if you have nothing to hide."

Has a familiar ring - just trying to place where I've heard that before.

[Thinkingabout]

5. There has been one released, guess you missed it.

It was talking about businesses owned by women and Goldman Sachs had a program to assist them to help grow their businesses.

[RiverLover]

8. That was a Clinton Foundation speech - not one that paid her directly $250K

We're still waiting for the private speech transcripts, to see what could possibly be worth all the money into her personal acct.

[Thinkingabout]

15. Must have been worth it, she gave more than one, I doubt they

Would have given her a second invitation and paid for the other speech if they did not value her speeches. BTW, what all the concern?

[frylock]

29. I'm sure it will be worth it if she's elected.

[virtualobserver]

9. that was a public speech........it was not her private speech to Goldman Sachs

she did not allow any type of recording of her paid speeches

[Thinkingabout]

10. Then maybe we could get Sanders fund raisers with Goldman Sachs.

[virtualobserver]

19. why do you think that Goldman Sachs just handing cash to Hillary for her personal use.....

is the same as Bernie being one of the hosts for fundraising for Senate Democrats?

Hillary was stuffing her pockets.....Bernie was trying to help other Democratic Senate Campaigns....party building.

[Thinkingabout]

23. Maybe I want to know what he said in a fund raiser verses what

He wants others to know. Oh, can Sanders legally take the money directly while he is a member of Congress. At the time Hillary made the speeches she was not elected to any office.

[virtualobserver]

32. Bernie was fundraising for the DSCC, not for himself.

He certainly wasn't taking cash for speeches from Goldman Sachs.

He took $1200 for speeches to non-profits and donated the money to charity.

He wrote a book and donated the money to charity.

Hillary took cash for herself....hand over fist.

[libdem4life]

36. Crickets.......

[Thinkingabout]

43. She has also donated to charities, so glad to know Sanders has donated money to charities,

guess this makes both of them establishment. You know, there are different ways of "taking the money" other than in his hands.

[virtualobserver]

44. bernie never cashes in, and hillary cashes in like no one I've ever seen

[Thinkingabout]

46. Establishment, going to Goldman Sachs to get funds, isn't this what Sanders said made establishment?

Looks like he has described himself. Wonder why he hasn't told he has been fund raising with Goldman Sachs? Seems strange to me he talks about them and fund raises with the same company.

[virtualobserver]

48. you have no idea who Bernie talked to at these fundraisers

[MADem]

52. Yes, we do. He gave "speeches" at those fundraisers.

There were people from Wall Street there--the guest list is known to CNN, who reported the story.

And one of the Big Money Donors said he didn't say anything that was disturbing to the banking set.

So....whatever...!!

http://www.cnn.com/2016/02/05/politics/sanders-democratic-fundraisers/

he Vermont senator and presidential candidate is a prolific fundraiser himself and has regularly benefited from the Democratic Party apparatus.

In recent years, Sanders has been billed as one of the hosts for the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee's retreats for the "Majority Trust" -- an elite group of top donors who give more than $30,000 per year -- at Martha's Vineyard in the summer and Palm Beach, Florida, in the winter. CNN has obtained invitations that listed Sanders as a host for at least one Majority Trust event in each year since 2011.

The retreats are typically attended by 100 or more donors who have either contributed the annual legal maximum of $33,400 to the DSCC, raised more than $100,000 for the party or both.

Sanders has based his presidential campaign on a fire-and-brimstone critique of a broken campaign finance system -- and of Hillary Clinton for her reliance on big-dollar Wall Street donors. But Sanders is part of that system, and has helped Democrats court many of the same donors.

[virtualobserver]

59. "one of the Big Money Donors said he didn't say anything that was disturbing to the banking set."

so you've told me what he "didn't say".....based on a vague non-quote from this sloppy,totally un-sourced article.

His crime was delivering a progressive speech that didn't attack the donors present at the fundraiser.



stop embarrassing yourself.

[MADem]

63. His "crime" (that's your embarrassing word, not mine) was telling his supporters that he doesn't

take Wall Street cash, when he's been raking it in for YEARS.



Way to miss the point, though!

[virtualobserver]

66. DSCC donations are from many sources,did they specifically direct the dirty wall st money to Bernie?

You appear to believe that the Democratic Party itself is exclusively funded by wall st.

[MADem]

50. Gee, sixty grand of that Wall Street money went to one of his Senate campaigns....

It was laundered through the DSCC, but it came from Wall Street. I'd say that's "cashing in."

Source: http://www.cnn.com/2016/02/05/politics/sanders-democratic-fundraisers/

[virtualobserver]

60. please stop embarrassing yourself

your argument has devolved to the point that you are saying that taking money from the Democratic party is evidence of corruption.

[MADem]

65. Why don't you take your own advice, there, sport? How many times are you going to repeat

that sad refrain?

Sanders told his supporters he doesn't take Wall Street money. Turns out, that's not quite correct. Not only does he TAKE it, he RAISES it! And he hosts retreats to rake it in!!!!



Your "argument" seems to be that Hillary Clinton taking money to give a speech, and declaring that on her tax returns, is some kind of crime. Gee, Jimmy Carter does that, too--is he a criminal?

"Stop embarrassing yourself!"

[virtualobserver]

67. so the Democratic donors are exclusively wall streeters?

Wall St. owns the democratic party.

[MADem]

69. No, of course not. They are Big Pharma moguls, like Dena Minning, and MIC types from

Lockheed Martin (the guys who make the F-35) and other defense industries, and Big Oil, and Big You-Name-The-Corporation.

Wall Street donates to Republicans, too.

Lots and lots of people from east to west coast work for corporations that are listed on the Stock Exchange. And those corporations are using that Citizens United decision to pee on the political tree.

Sanders, like Clinton, is PART OF THE ESTABLISHMENT on that score. I don't fault him at all for dancing with the ones what brung him, but what I do fault him for is the way that he misrepresented himself, and played like he's a humble outsider, when he's not just TAKING this cash, he's hosting the luxury parties where the pumps are primed.

I think he comes off as a bit hypocritical. That's not the worst sin in a politician, but it sure takes some of the self-righteous wind out of his sails.

[virtualobserver]

72. so you are saying that the Democratic Party is funded exclusively by Big Business.

thst explains a lot.

[MADem]

74. Are you going to continue with the "So you are blah blah" line of questioning?

Because you're getting it wrong every time you try that routine!

Not sure why you're doing that. Are you playing to a wider audience with that kind of approach? Do you think it makes you sound cool?

I got news for you--it creates the opposite impression of you.

You might want to revise your method of conversation, and lighten up on the sad attempts at interrogation.

FWIW, in response to this latest "So you are saying" the answer is as follows:
"No--that's not what I'm saying."

[virtualobserver]

77. it is what you are saying....I am trying to force you to accept the implications of your assertion

you are creating a false equivalence between the millions in cash that Hillary got....not as donations....but as spending cash directly from Big Pharma, Big Banks,investment banks not to mention direct and SuperPAC

donations and your are comparing that to a $60,000 donation from an arm of the Democratic party which receives money from individuals of all types which leaves him beholden to no one but the party.

Your assertion is nothing more than a weak attempt to smear Bernie.

[MADem]

81. No, I'm not. I am creating a very real comparison between someone who gives a speech

AS A PRIVATE CITIZEN and the transaction is recorded, and noted on tax returns, and someone who is AN ELECTED OFFICIAL who decries Wall Street money, gets his supporters all riled up about it, boasts about his twenty seven dollar contributions from those "little people," yet hosts luxury high roller shindigs, gives speeches at them, chats up all the Wall Street donors, then TAKES THE WALL STREET MONEY after it has been laundered by the DSCC.

The guy is fronting. It's not a smear if it is true--and this is ALL true. It's exactly what he did--"Do as I say, not as I do." And it's not "just" a sixty grand media buy. That was just ONE campaign. He's been around for a long, long time now--a quarter century. And it's pretty obvious that he's a machine guy--just like a lot of other politicians.

Here, read: http://www.cnn.com/2016/02/05/politics/sanders-democratic-fundraisers/

Now, I've always said that until the system is changed, our team has to compete. The GOP isn't going to hold off on raising zillions out of any sense of "fair play."


This point is important: I don't have a problem with him TAKING the money.

What I have a problem with is him acting like he's BETTER than others who ALSO "take the money." His actions are hypocritical. He's got a lot of nerve putting down his fellow Democratic caucus members, present and former, for doing the same thing he has been doing all along. He hasn't been straightforward with his supporters, he hasn't been fair to his opponent, and anyone reading that link with an unbiased POV has to realize that.

[virtualobserver]

85. "wall st money" "laundered by the DSCC" that is the smear and not even an artful one

it is only true if the DSCC is funded exclusively by wall st

if not, he didn't "take wall streets money"

[MADem]

87. Stow the drama--please.

When that money appears on his line-item, it doesn't say "DSCC money that came from Wall Street" -- it says DSCC and nothing else.

Now, if that's not the classic definition of "laundered" I don't know what is.

He can say "I don't take money from Wall Street" all he wants.

But we know that he jollies up those Wall Street types, and gets them to bundle a hundred grand here, and donate thirty some odd grand there, and gets them to give the money to the DSCC...who then gives a big chunk of it to HIM.

He's not just 'part of the system.' He's an INSIDER.

One more time--I don't 'blame' him for playing the game. I do think he's fronting when he pretends he's not playing it, though. Most of his supporters have the idea that he doesn't "take" Wall Street money...but he DOES. Only it's been laundered, see?

If I give ten bucks to your buddy to give to you, are you going to try to claim that I didn't give you ten bucks? Come on--no one buys that.

[virtualobserver]

95. Actually, nobody buys any of this, unless they have an H with an arrow burned into their brain cells

all that you are saying is invented out of thin air.

[MADem]

98. You keep calling me a liar. That's incredibly uncivil conduct.

I've invented nothing. Maybe you need to do some calibrating.

[virtualobserver]

99. I have no idea if you believe what you are saying or not.

I only know that what you are saying is not reflected in reality.

[MADem]

21. IOKIYABS, apparently. He doesn't have to reveal what HE said, while collecting a government

paycheck, to big money donors! http://edition.cnn.com/2016/02/05/politics/sanders-democratic-fundraisers/index.html

Yet Clinton, as a private citizen, is badgered to reveal her conversations to private groups!

smh!!

[Thinkingabout]

24. Probably is not the same line he is peddling now, huh.

[MADem]

55. I've seen pics of him w/Dena Minning.

Who is she, you might ask?

She is

a) a Big pharma lobbyist, rich as can be.

b) a deep-pocketed donor to the Democratic Party...

c) Alan Grayson's girlfriend (the reason he dumped his wife)

d) (It gets BETTER....!!!) Running for Alan Grayson's current HOUSE seat....

She's been photographed with everyone who attends these things--Pelosi, e.g. even Obama. It's no accident that Obama vacations on the Vineyard at the same time they hold these little "retreats."

[Thinkingabout]

91. Interesting the times he is in the company of lobbyists and

His big corporation events. Follow the money would be interesting. He has not been vetted by the GOP, it will be vigorous. Thanks for this info. Big pharma is really good in getting friends in congress and using them.

[Duckhunter935]

35. Too bad that is not one of the three

that she was paid 675K for.

[840high]

61. Lame try.

[Aerows]

11. I expect to see the transcripts

around the time that we see Mitt Romney's tax returns.

[OilemFirchen]

16. Hey ma! Look!

Shiny!

[MADem]

17. I'll bet there aren't any, unless the people who issued the invitation either recorded the speech or

hired a transcriber. There might be snippets if guests did any recording, but at those Bigwig events, no one wants to appear unsophisticated, so there might not be many video clips out there that help clarify matters.

Here's what I suspect is the case. This is just speculation, so take it as that and nothing more:

She had (had, because once she declared, she stopped doing those speeches) a "stump speech" that she used as a template at those things. It probably has marginal utility in terms of knowing what was actually said at these events. She likely added/subtracted elements of that speech based on news events, and --most significantly--she probably took a load of questions at these things and THAT made up the bulk of her "speech"--because that is a common feature of them, that people want a two-way conversation. That's the "value" of these things.

Without a video, or an audio recording, or someone sitting there actively transcribing, there's probably not any "transcripts" in existence.

I'll bet there aren't any transcripts of any of the conversations Bernie Sanders had at those retreats attended by people from Goldman Sachs, JP Morgan, and other banking and corporate interests, either. These little gatherings--just like the ones Clinton attended-- are private events.

At the time Clinton was giving those speeches, she was a private citizen. She's under no obligation to cough that material up, so some of those who are salivating for it might get a bit dry-mouthed in time.

In fact, if people wanted to be shirty, it would quite probably be more "fair" to demand to know who Sanders talked to and what they talked about at all those Big Donor Fundraisers he has attended (so quietly, too) down the years! Palm Beach...the Vineyard! These weren't pot luck suppers with $27 donors! After all, he was--and still is--receiving a government paycheck, and ostensibly answers to We, The People.

But hey, if we're not going to demand that sitting Senators from our party "cough up" transcripts of their conversations with Big Money donors from the banking industry and the military industrial complex at fancy fundraising "retreats" in exclusive enclaves, it seems a bit disingenuous to demand that a PRIVATE CITIZEN, not currently in the employ of the United States of America, do likewise.

I mean, if we're going to be FAIR, and all....

[Joe the Revelator]

20. If we are going to be fair, its important to know how a person running for president line their....

.....wallets. I think its MORE important to know what she said as a private citizen.

You do see the difference of speaking at a DSCC event, and speaking on your own accord for money going directly into your bank account, right?

[Thinkingabout]

26. No, at the time Sanders was doing this he was an elected official,

Hillary wasn't. What about Sanders fund raising from the same company he complains about now that he is running for president, do you think he is pandering to his base who likes to hate Wall Street.

[MADem]

28. Wow, that's a twister!!

You think it's more important to "know" what a private citizen said than what a public servant, in a similar venue, trolling for donations, said?

Come on! One is a PRIVATE citizen, the other is a SERVANT of the people! Paid by "We, The People!"

And you put the greater burden on the PRIVATE citizen?

I'm sorry--that's just laugh-worthy to the point that this guy needs to be dragged out:

You're seriously asserting that? Or is it just because it's HILLARY that you take issue?

You do realize that Sanders benefited ENORMOUSLY--indeed, CRITICALLY-- from the expenditure of DSCC funds? On more than one occasion, too.

Basically, by raising money this way, he can hide the fact that his elections are funded to no small extent by the Big Money donors that he purports to decry. In short, the DSCC acts as a money launderer for Goldman Sachs and other "bankster" and MIC money spent to elect or re-elect Bernie.

smh!! I sure DO "see the difference!" The difference is, IOKIYABS!

Hillary isn't allowed to hide her speeches, but Bernie can!

[Joe the Revelator]

30. I have no idea what your overly long acronym says....

But lets not act like Hillary Clinton was some Joe Schmoe on the street. Thats the laughable argument.

Also, read your own article. This was a DSCC retreat for people who had already maxed out their donations to the DSCC, not a candidate in general. That is a bit different than a fundraiser. Its more of a pep rally.

But sure, again, Bernie should release those transcripts, but the onus is on Hillary. That was money in HER pocket.

[MADem]

33. Sure you do.

It's OK If You Are Bernie Sanders.

Let's not act like Senator Sanders, being listed on invitations as a HOST of these retreats at luxury locales, was some Joe Schmoe on the street either. For at least five years he's been HOSTING these things, and separating marks...errr...I mean bankers and industrialists and corporate big wigs...from their money...to the tune of thirty grand or more a pop.

I will read my own link--and I'll quote it, too--to help you out:

Bernie Sanders complained on the campaign trail Friday that dialing for dollars "affects your entire being."
What he didn't mention: The Vermont senator and presidential candidate is a prolific fundraiser himself and has regularly benefited from the Democratic Party apparatus.

What was that? A prolific FUNDRAISER. A PROLIFIC fundraiser. He wasn't holding a pep rally. He was PRIMING THE PUMP and SEPARATING THE MARKS....errr, donors...FROM THEIR CASH. Let's not play the naif on that score!

A Democratic lobbyist and donor who has attended the retreats told CNN that about 25% of the attendees there represent the financial sector -- and that Sanders and his wife, Jane, are always present.

"At each of the events all the senators speak. And I don't recall him ever giving a speech attacking us," the donor said. "While progressive, his remarks were always in the mainstream of what you hear from senators."

These events are all about keeping these rich people DONATING. He's soliciting them. And that money is going towards HIS campaigns.

He got a hand from the party in 1996, when Rob Engel, then the political director for the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, pushed a Democratic contender out of the race for the House seat Sanders held as an independent.
In 2006, when Sanders ran for the Senate, the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee pumped $37,300 into his race and included him in fundraising efforts for the party's Senate candidates.

The party also spent $60,000 on ads for Sanders, and contributed $100,000 to the Vermont Democratic Party -- which was behind Sanders even as he ran as an independent.
Among the DSCC's top contributors that year: Goldman Sachs at $685,000, Citigroup at $326,000, Morgan Stanley at $260,000 and JPMorgan Chase & Co. at $207,000.

So....you were saying?

[Joe the Revelator]

34. Lets cut to the chase, do you think both Bernie and Hillary should release whatever transcripts are

out there? Simple question.

[MADem]

42. Simple answer--I don't think there ARE any "transcripts" -- as I told you upthread.

You can't release what is not there. But if she did release these nonexistent things, I would most certainly want to hear every single word that Sanders said to those banking guys, those MIC guys, and those corporate tools he was fleecing, errr, encouraging to donate, over the past five or more years. In fact, since he's on the public dole, he really should release his first.

Hillary does the "Town Hall" format. She has a few set speeches, and these change and morph over time, gradually. They are very similar to Bill Clinton's stumpers, or Bernie Sanders'. Same shit, different day.

Where Hillary (and Bill) differ is that she TAKES QUESTIONS. Unless someone is recording the event, or transcribing every question, and every answer, as she speaks, there's no record of what she has said.

The meat of her discussions aren't in any canned speeches--it's in the Q and A.

Just like the meat of anything Sanders has to say at a fundraiser populated by rich corporatists and bankers isn't in a speech (which was inoffensive, apparently, per the donor who commented in the article) --it's in the grip and grin, chit-and-chat that happens while people are circulating with a drink in their hand.

But hey, I guess it makes for a good game of what really looks like fake or forced GOTCHA to try to rile up the masses in what is clearly a partisan and unfair fashion, because that just seems to be the template, these days.

It's probably not a good idea to get TOO riled, though--I would say that there's far, FAR greater likelihood of stray footage of Sanders turning up at a DSCC fundraiser than there is video of HRC at a private speaking engagement.

[Iggy Knorr]

41. Another gotcha moment for the Non compos mentis HRC supporters!!

Hurr durr

[chervilant]

79. Just FYI

On Sat Feb 6, 2016, 11:15 PM an alert was sent on the following post:

Another gotcha moment for the Non compos mentis HRC supporters!!
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=1162908

REASON FOR ALERT

This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.

ALERTER'S COMMENTS

"NON COMPOS MENTIS" is a term that means "not in one's right mind" or "insane." This is a personal insult from a person who hasn't been here very long and seems to not quite grasp the essentials of the TOS. Calling people mentally ill--no matter what candidate they support--is never cool. Admins, please do an IP check on this poster. Jury, please hide.

You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Sat Feb 6, 2016, 11:25 PM, and the Jury voted 0-7 to LEAVE IT.

Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Nope, leaving it because an almost exact post I alerted on yesterday that called Sanders supporters the same thing survived a jury 6-1. I was told to grow a thicker skin, so I hope YOU, dear alerter, grow huge callouses...
Juror #7 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given

Thank you very much for participating in our Jury system, and we hope you will be able to participate again in the future.

(I am so grateful for my IL. AND, welcome to DU.)

[MADem]

62. But we already know. She gave speeches, for which she was paid. Like Jimmy Carter gets paid.

Like Colin Powell gets paid. Like dozens and dozens of government officials have done, and do. There's no SECRET there. It's on her income tax forms, for goodness sake!

Sanders gave speeches, too, at parties he HOSTED... and the money he received was bundled and essentially laundered through a DSCC fund so it wouldn't be apparent on his balance sheets that the money came from Wall Street.

You see what the issue is, here? It's a "Do as I say, not as I do" thing.

Not sure why you're trying to insinuate that there's a crime, here. She got paid for talking.

Sanders got paid for talking, too--and that money went to his campaign, which kept him in office, and kept him earning his very generous Senate salary. But here we were, thinking it was all these "other" Democrats giving him their stinky, evil money. Instead, we learn that Sanders is HOSTING these Wall Street BANKSTERS at luxury resorts in the Vineyard and Palm Springs, giving speeches at them, and engaging in retreat conversations with the members of Wealthy, Corporate America.

A line item entry on his balance sheet says "DSCC contribution." What it doesn't say is "Big Pharma, Wall Street, MIC/Corporate Cash." But that IS where the dough came from. And this is a BIG surprise to most of us, who never knew that Sanders was doing this kind of fundraising. Seems odd that he'd rail, for very public consumption, against the very thing that he's been doing privately for many years now. There's a word for that.

And, given that he's been a bit (let me be kind) DISINGENUOUS about his fund-raising sources and activities as a sitting US senator, you want me to be "upset" that Private Citizen Clinton made some money off her fame and cachet as a former First Lady and Secretary of State?

I'm sorry, I just can't muster even a slight pout, never mind any rage, over that.

[Dragonfli]

54. It was in her contract that there be transcripts and that she would alone take possession of them

You must have also missed the part where Chuck Todd said they knew that such records existed.

You appear to be far too ill informed to comment. Another possibility is you know what everyone else knows about these facts and are shall we politely say "telling small fibs"

[MADem]

57. So what? Because Chuck Tawd says this, it "must be true?" nt

[Dragonfli]

58. Her contract said it also, and more the transcript fee of $1,250 must be paid by the event /nt

[MADem]

68. I think you're going to have to cough up the specific contract before I believe you or the shoddy

reporting of the Intercept! And, since you failed to provide that source, let me help you out here with that link--after all their suspicion and "what if-ing" this is their Big Finish:

The UNLV contract is not necessarily the same one Clinton uses for all of her speaking arrangements. But, of course, Clinton could release those contracts, too, if she chose to.

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

You do know that the "proof" that the Intercept used to make this halfassed claim about "transcripts" (and I KNOW that is the root source of this story) was a single contract from the U. of Nevada?

All her contracts aren't "out there," so no one really knows what each one said. Does she have different contracts for public v. private events? Does Jimmy Carter? Who knows? Not you! Not Chuck TAWD, either!!!

I think a formal speech is a very different thing than a private Q and A. So, did someone follow her around, taking short hand as she answered questions in a small venue?

I kind of think speaking to a private group having dinner or hors d'ouvres is a very different gig than speaking to a large crowd of people sitting neatly in their chairs in an auditorium at a major university.

Say....Did anyone make a transcript for Bernie at the retreats he hosted, when he gave friendly speeches to Wall Street deep pocket donors? Hmmm?

[Dragonfli]

71. No problem it is a boierplate one that she uses with specific conditions to be met

Apparently Clinton Has Her Own Speech Transcripts.... (link)

http://www.reviewjournal.com/news/las-vegas/high-fashion-expense-hillary-travel

"According to her standard speaking contract, Clinton will remain at the event no longer than 90 minutes; will pose for no more than 50 photos with no more than 100 people; and won’t allow any press coverage or video- or audio-taping of her speech.

The only record allowed will be made by a stenographer whose transcription will be given only to Clinton

You work really hard at covering the truth, is this a symptom of some sort of cognitive dissonance? Or are your "defenses" scripted by a campaign with lots and lots of people working for them and and tons of dark money to burn.


spin, spin, spin.

I wouldn't believe a word you typed if you said it was dark at night.
If it helps, I do not think you are a staffer or volunteer, but rather something physiological is at play.

[MADem]

78. Unnnnh, no, that's not "proof." There's no evidence that she uses the same contract at every venue

where she appears.


And you might want to consider retracting this incredibly ugly and false accusation, unless you enjoy establishing a reputation here as someone who lies about people, because this is an outright lie:

You work really hard at covering the truth, is this a symptom of some sort of cognitive dissonance? Or are your "defenses" scripted by a campaign with lots and lots of people working for them and and tons of dark money to burn.

I am not "covering the truth." I am not working off any scripts. I have a brain and I happen to use mine. You are making huge claims and not proving them. And if I were getting some sort of salary of "dark money to burn" I'd surely be put to better use than arguing with people like YOU (LOL) on the internet who can't even prosecute an argument without immediately resorting to incredibly churlish and childish insult!



You're really something, ya know--and that is not a compliment.

[Dragonfli]

82. What is she looking into if nothing exists and can you prove the producers of the debate

lied about knowing there were transcripts?

You always cut your own throat with Occam's razor on these fabrications of yours

[MADem]

84. "You always cut your own throat with Occam's razor on these fabrications of yours"

I think you've cornered the market, there! Look who's "fabricating!"



You can't converse without resorting to immature snark and insult, can you?

Just because ONE contract (at a university foundation with over 2000 people attending) specified a transcript, doesn't mean ALL contracts did. A speech (or "appearance fee&quot at a gathering of, say, a hundred people in a dinner/cocktail setting is a very different thing than a massive venue with a huge stage.

I've said this, but you seem to have a hard time understanding it.

[Dragonfli]

75. You think he would lie about that during a televised debate where he could easily be caught

Or that he didn't have that info fed to him by those that staged the event, all with layers of lawyers that would want to not incure the rath of Enemy list Hillary?

[ViseGrip]

25. I don't care what's in the 'transcripts' she now may provide. I just count the money paid to her.

Those are the words.

[frylock]

27. tick-tock

[Live and Learn]

40. Looking is hard. Maybe too hard. She probably 'Can't Do' it. nt

[Dragonfli]

47. No, there is even a clock website to see how long it takes to look into it

http://iwilllookintoit.com/

[840high]

64. Oh my - love it!

[jillan]

86. That is Hillarious!

[hobbit709]

94. Bookmarked. LOL.

[Fearless]

51. Nope. Not yet. Still waiting.

[HooptieWagon]

53. Probably on the dining room side table, next to the Rose Law Firm billing records. Nt

[NanceGreggs]

80. Yes, the whole world is waiting.

Well, in actual fact, a few BS supporters are waiting.

Me, I'm still waiting for Bernie to explain what he knew and when he knew it about his staffers stealing HRC's computer data.

Will he be releasing his phone records, emails, and texts from that period any time soon?

[jillan]

88. And I am waiting, as are others, of how the Hillary campaign got our information (names, emails)

when the firewall was down.

Funny thing. When all that was going on in the news, I started getting emails from Hillary welcoming me to her campaign.
I get one every day now - usually asking for $1 lol.

How did her campaign get my name - which is not my email name - and my email address when I never signed up?
I am not alone. Many others have reported the same thing.



Bernie fired people over this... Hillary acts like she is above it all.

[NanceGreggs]

89. Why is it ...

... that Bernie's people got caught red-handed - and were fired as a result - but somehow Bernie is the victim here?

Funny thing. I have been receiving emails from Bernie and O'Malley from day one - and never supported or contributed to either. How is this possible?

"Bernie fired people over this... Hillary acts like she is above it all."

Bernie fired people over this because he knew they were guilty, and he literally had no choice. Hillary acts like she's "above it all" because she is. It wasn't her staff that was stealing Bernie's data, was it?

Saying HRC acts like "she's above it all" in this instance is like saying anyone who has ever been robbed and doesn't admit they are equally to blame for being a victim of theft is acting like they're above it all.

[Logical]

101. Lol, you get sillier by the week. Nt

[NanceGreggs]

103. And so it goes here at BU ...

It's "silly" to talk about the illegal/unethical goings-on in Bernie's campaign.

But pretending that the average voter is up in arms over Hillary's paid speeches, THAT'S serious business.

[warrprayer]

83. Nope. n/t

[2pooped2pop]

92. They will be srubbed if they appear.

The only hope is that someone did record them.

[UglyGreed]

96. Let me check if

they may be in the spare closet.......

[Buns_of_Fire]

97. I think, if they ever see the light of day, they'll be boring as hell.

No politician in their right mind is going to stand in front of a bunch of people and say "Look, help me get elected and I'll guarantee you'll never be bothered by those pesky government regulations never ever again." Who knows who out these is taking notes or recording snippets? (Romney sure didn't.)

No wisdom of the ages, divulged only to The Worthy. No secrets of the Rosicrucians. No location of the Ark of the Covenant. No "47%" comments. No "We came, we saw, we cashed in" comments. No smoking guns.

Anything like that would be said backstage, away from any recorders, cell phones, or pencils and paper.

It was never about the talk, anyway. It was a way for good buddy Lloyd to funnel a couple wheelbarrows of cash to his bestest friend forever.