Hillary "TRY" not to lie about the transcripts of your speech. No intention of looking into it.

[Rilgin]

We all know you have no intention of releasing a transcript of your speeches to wall street. Bits and pieces of your fawning over the bankers have leaked out and you have no intention of releasing them or looking into releasing them. It is a lie of yours. This is the problem, you lie about almost everything either directly or by misleading.

You lied about being "the first" person to go to wall street to tell them they were acting in a risky manner (I didn't bother looking up the exact quote but this is close). Well the speeches were when you were talking to bankers. The problem is what you claim for yourself and your fighting spirit is all lies and the sad thing is you and the supporters may even believe it despite videos of your past works and actions that clearly show the lie in what you say now.

So do not "try not to lie". Just do not lie especially about yourself. Run as who you are and know if you lose its losing based on the truth and not trying to lie and smear to victory.

[BainsBane]

1. Yes, well obviously her detractors have no such reticence

about trying.

My understanding is that she did look into it. Her pollster surveyed voters on the issue and literally no one gives a shit. Even people on DU who claim to care about those speeches don't actually, since I have posted videos of one Goldman speech multiple times and they can't be bothered to watch it. Think about that. Even the people who continuously demanded "the transcripts" can't be bothered to watch the speeches that are available in the public domain. Whereas voters who are actually concerned about issues and what sort of POLICY a president might implement to improve their lives don't care in the least.

So how about not pretending to care about the speeches when in fact the entire point is to have another empty talking point that substitutes for any discussion of policy or issues facing the nation? How about not pretending it matters one bit if she does or doesn't releases transcripts because the only people who mention are looking for yet another pretext to smear her and avoid any discussion of issues or policy?

And if we're going to worry about transparency, why not put Bernie under oath to ask what and when he knew about the data breach? Or the campaign contributions from mega 1 percenter Bill Mahrer far in excess of the legal limits? http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/trackers/2016-02-12/sanders-should-refund-bill-maher-donation-public-integrity Or the other campaign contributions that exceeded the legal amount? http://www.democraticunderground.com/12511219624 Or about his campaign workers who impersonated union officials? Or about using logos and claiming endorsements by newspapers that in fact did not endorse him? How many ads and mailers is it that he has had to pull now?

Violations of campaign finance law, no problem. Why worry about that? But speeches made in her capacity as a private citizen, now that's unacceptable.

Oh, here's a Goldman Sachs speech for your viewing pleasure. Since you care so deeply about the issue, you can transcribe it yourself. I await your thoughtful analysis. Perhaps you can "try" to pretend you actually care what she said?

[Fumesucker]

2. No one cares now, it'll be different in the general election

She will get hammed by Trump or any other Republican but particularly Trump.

"Yeah, I know Hillary's for sale, I paid her off myself."

[Rilgin]

6. People care a great deal about her honesty. Hilary supporters just ignore them when they say noone.

Hillary's favorable are in the 30s because she is dishonest. They can ignore this but people care a great deal about honesty and authenticity which are sadly lacking in such an intelligent woman as Hillary. They ignore that her dishonesty and her general unfavorable make it virtually impossible for her to get elected. When they talk about attacks on Bernie, the republicans would cheer and yell if they could make Bernie as being perceived with the unfavorable that Hillary has now and this is before they attack her in General Election and god help the democratic party if she gets indicted.

She is a position based politician trying to surf the waves rather than running as she is and even if she won, she could not govern because her support will be inch deep when she turns her back on positions she ran on.

It reminds me of something Mario Cuomo said about telling the truth. A reporter asked him about telling the truth about some issue that was unpopular. He said something like the following "Telling the Truth might end up making him unelectable but if he got in through lying he would not be able to govern ".

[Rilgin]

3. I realize you do not care if she lies.

She is for fracking and for the TPP. We all know that but its unpopular with Democratic Voters so she outright lies and dissembles about her support. There is no chance those sentiments will continue into a Hillary Clinton presidency. She is a believer in a corporate world and corporate government partnerships rather than government as a check on corporate power.

This is over and over. I do not want the TPP. I am also not willing to allow someone to lie to me about their support and just nod my head. You obviously are either for the TPP or you do not care that she is lying now. The front page of DU now has details of her term of Secretary of State pushing for trade agreements that earlier she said she was against. She is for trade agreements and lies about being against them.

This is over and over. No matter what position she takes, you can not believe it. And not always in the worst way. She gave speech after speech about and against marriage sounding like the worst republican. I did not really believe those speeches fully either but thought she was politically lying as she always does.

She will say anything her supporters or her audience want to hear. She has tried out republican themes on immigration even in this campaign about building a wall and urge deportation of central American children. At the town hall, you would find the greatest champion who ever lived for the dreamers.

It must be difficult to live with such cognitive dissonance about your candidate.

[oasis]

5. Damn the irony. This thread was on it's way down the drain

and you saved it by authoring the "DU GD-P Post of the Week".

[daleanime]

9. Wow.....

you really do hear only what you want to.

[Rilgin]

7. LOL. Yeah your understanding is they polled on it.

She had and has no intention of releasing her speeches to Goldman Sacks. Please proceed in explaining this poll that someone told you about. You do know she can just act to release the transcripts of the real speeches. She does not need a poll to release them and if its unimportant to voters why is there an issue. The issue is transparency on her claim that she talks tough to Wall Street. But you know this.

You also slightly mislead on this speech. Her September 23, 2014 speech was not a Goldman Speech it was at the Clinton Global Initiative surrounded by newspaper people not a private speech to Goldman. It may have been sponsored by Goldman but it was not the speeches that allowed Bill and Hillary to get rich personally and build a huge foundation. But you know that. I am sure that if you have posted this before, someone told you that.

If there are no problems with her speeches to Wall Street for money, then releasing them will help her. We know roughly what they say because there were reports although not verbatim transcripts and they were not the tough talk which is being presented to the voting public. Again this is the problem you ignore and dissemble around. She does not tell the truth nor does she does not need polls of voters to decide on releasing the transcripts. She has no intention of doing so because it will just give another example of Hillary's inability to tell the truth while running for office.

[Old Crow]

10. D'OH! Hillary was TOTALLY ready to release the transcripts...

... when those meddling pollsters on her staff suddenly told her she simply could not because... because an insufficient number of people care about them, which means the effort to release them to the general public will be disproportionate to the... to the... interest of the public... which keeps asking for them and... which hurts her favorability or... well... oh this is getting too complicated.

Her staff stopped her from disclosing the transcripts, dammit! There are lots of good reasons, I tell you!

[JDPriestly]

11. If what you say is true, then she should just release the transcripts of her speeches.

What does she have to lose? She can silence the growing number of people who want her to release all of them and since no one is really interested, she can relax knowing the transcripts won't be read.

Either way, her best bet is to release ALL of the transcripts and get this pesky little, unimportant issue out of the way.

If she doesn't, the voices that demand that she release them will just get louder and louder. She knows that.

If she has nothing to hide, if the transcripts do not make her look bad, she will release them, and proudly.

She needs to do it soon because with the e-mails being released, she needs to release her speeches to distract from the e-mails.

Anyway, Bernie has released all his Wall Street speeches.

This is the year in which this matters. But it's Hillary's decision. Maybe she really doesn't want to win this enough to face the embarrassment of releasing the texts or videos of her Wall Street speeches.

She should release them and get the pain of it over.

[Katashi_itto]

12. Yeah, you would be the type to support her.

[AtomicKitten]

4. "Do. Or do not. There is no try." Yoda

The anecdotal evidence is damning and explains why the transcripts will never see the light of day.

NEW YORK — When Hillary Clinton spoke to Goldman Sachs executives and technology titans at a summit in Arizona in October of 2013, she spoke glowingly of the work the bank was doing raising capital and helping create jobs, according to people who saw her remarks. Clinton, who received $225,000 for her appearance, praised the diversity of Goldman’s workforce and the prominent roles played by women at the blue-chip investment bank and the tech firms present at the event. She spent no time criticizing Goldman or Wall Street more broadly for its role in the 2008 financial crisis.

“It was pretty glowing about us,” one person who watched the event said. “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.”

At another speech to Goldman and its big asset management clients in New York in 2013, Clinton spoke about how it wasn’t just the banks that caused the financial crisis and that it was worth looking at the landmark 2010 Dodd-Frank financial reform law to see what was working and what wasn’t.

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/02/clinton-speeches-218969

Clinton speaking contracts that have been made public stipulate that a stenographer is hired to make a record of her speeches and that she owns the transcripts. As the demand for her to release the transcripts has increased, Clinton’s team has reportedly began reviewing the documents to assess the political risk of making them public.

Records show Bill and Hillary Clinton made over $125 million from giving paid speeches since 2001. In particular, critics question why Hillary Clinton received over $675,000 from Goldman Sachs, an investment bank notorious for using its ties to public officials to influence policy, over the course of three speeches in 2013.

And while Clinton likened her paid speeches to similar speeches given by Bernie Sanders, financial records show Sanders made $1,876 for two paid speeches and a television appearance last year. Sanders donated the speech fees to a local charity in Vermont that serves low-income families.

An attendee of one of Clinton’s Goldman Sachs speeches said she gave such a flattering speech that she “sounded more like a Goldman Sachs managing director.” According the Wall Street Journal, Clinton used one of her speeches to the bank to thank the audience members for what they had done for the country.

https://theintercept.com/2016/02/19/hillary-clinton-goldman-sachs-transcripts/

[jfern]

8. She earned her 67% not honest and trustworthy rating in that Qunnipiac poll