Why is Hillary saying she will release her transcripts if everyone else does?

[Jefferson23]

**It appears she might not be able to due to signed contracts. So why didn't she just say that?
Must be nice to have that kind of legal airbag.



Sorry Bernie, Hillary Clinton’s Wall Street Speeches Will Likely Stay Secret
2/11/2016

Bernie Sanders’ spokesperson and other supporters have made repeated calls for Hillary Clinton to release information about her paid speeches at big Wall Street banks. They want to see her contracts and her transcripts. Clinton critics claim the speeches are evidence the presidential hopeful is cozy with rich bankers on Wall Street.

Clinton reportedly received $225,000 for her appearances at a 2013 Goldman Sachs Summit in Arizona. In fact, disclosure documents show she was paid a total of $675,000 for just three speeches at the bank. When asked by CNN’s Anderson Cooper last week why she took the money, Clinton responded rather awkwardly: “Well, I don’t know. That’s what they offered.” Overall, the Clinton camp has remained relatively mum about the speeches. And, here’s the legal reality: Clinton may be barred from releasing much of anything.

In fact, we may never know what Clinton said, who exactly she spoke to, and what her speaking contracts entailed. That’s because industry insiders tell LawNewz.com that high profile speakers are often saddled with non-disclosure and confidentiality agreements when they talk to big corporations. Meaning, they can’t talk about what happened when they leave. We don’t know for sure if Clinton signed one, but experts tell us it’s pretty standard.

“I do know from our work that big banks have confidentiality/NDA agreements with all of their vendors (and employees) which prevent them from voluntarily revealing any details about their engagements,” Mike Delikat, a partner at Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe told LawNewz.com.

Darren Kavinoky, an attorney, who is also a keynote speaker told LawNewz.com that he’s also been asked to sign similar agreements.

“Bernie should know, or anyone in this world should know, that it wouldn’t be just up to Clinton to release information about the speeches. It wouldn’t be an option that she has. What we are seeing here is politics,” Kavinoky said. He explained that the agreements are meant to prevent speakers from revealing trade secrets or details about the corporation. Goldman Sachs and the Harry Walker Agency, which represented Clinton for speaking engagements, did not return our emails for this story.

“It is standard contractual language that significantly curtails the freedom of both sides (Hillary and Goldman) from just spreading what was discussed, and who heard it. Much of that is routinely held private, for a variety of reasons,” Kavinoky said.

Here are some examples of standard confidentiality agreements for corporate speeches:

CONFIDENTIALITY: The parties agree to hold in confidence and not possess, use or disclose any Proprietary Information as it relates to Speaker’s honorarium fee and/or specific deal points, of this agreement.

CONFIDENTIAL AND PROPRIETARY INFORMATION: Speaker and Speaker’s employees, agents, or representatives shall not, at any time or in any manner, either directly or indirectly, use for personal benefit, divulge, disclose, or communicate in any manner any information that is proprietary to or that should reasonably be considered to be confidential by producer of event and its employees, members or agents. Speaker and Speaker’s representatives will protect such information and treat it as strictly confidential. This provision shall survive any termination or expiration of this Agreement. Any intellectual property owned by Speaker belongs exclusively to Speaker.

in full: http://lawnewz.com/uncategorized/why-we-will-likely-never-know-much-about-hillary-clintons-paid-wall-street-speeches/

[Chasstev365]

1. It Boggles the Mind

That there are so many enthusiastic Hillary supporters.She's a complete fraud!

[anotherproletariat]

15. Perhaps they're just realists...

Hillary is definitely an old school politician, who knows how to use the resources allowed in the current political world. All the experience shows that these resources must be used in order to win. I totally respect Bernie for trying to mount a campaign by going down a different path, but I don't think that anyone really though it would work. I truly love the idealism of Bernie and his supporters, and would love to live in a world where campaigning was all about the issues. It's sad, but in order to win, politicians have to play the game. Personally, I chose a candidate based on wide variety of things...but just as when I supported Obama, I expected him to use all of the available funds to secure a victory. Since that is the only way to win, I never faulted him for saying one thing and doing another:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/11/04/obama-super-pac_n_4214466.html

Sometimes the ends justify the means.

[jwirr]

21. Old style from as far back as 1992.

[NowSam]

2. It underscores she is "under contract" with big business

and beholden to them.

[Jefferson23]

3. ding ding. thank you! n/t

[rosesaylavee]

16. Of course she is.

[Politicalboi]

4. Say it together PATHOLOGICAL LIAR.

Not naming names.

It's a sickness. Someone needs help.

[Jefferson23]

5. I think Bernie should bring this up. Would love to hear her answer. lol

[Politicalboi]

9. Yes he should

It's not going negative as long as it's the truth. The GOP will eat her alive over issues like this. I wish things were different. I want to see a woman president some day, but not this one. Too much baggage will sink us all.

[AzDar]

6. Mika (Morning Joe) said she knows a journalist who has copies...

[Jefferson23]

7. Really, well that's interesting. Thanks. n/t

[KoKo]

8. She can always Ask to be "Released from Her Contract" due to new circumstances...

And, if they refuse she can use that as an excuse as to why she can't release the transcripts.

WHY didn't she start there? It's not that she doesn't have a huge legal team "on call 24-7" who could have told her that she signed a contract and couldn't release without their permission. Yet....she has dragged it out.

Why does she do these things? Was she pulling Bernie into a trap to get him to "attack" her...so, she could then say that she can't legally reveal the transcripts? Since Bernie doesn't give speeches to Wall Street where he has to sign an "Agreement Not to Disclose"...he probably isn't aware of how that works.

She has a habit of pulling these kind of last minute stunts.

[Jefferson23]

10. I don't know anything about contract law that would be helpful, so I can't say.

I do hope Bernie questions her, is there a contract that prevents you, Hillary?
If so, how were you going to release them? How would those other candidates
release theirs?

[elljay]

13. I Do

She could have her attorney talk to theirs and write up an amendment modifying the terms of the contract. This would, obviously, require both parties to actually want to release the transcripts. The actual negotiations and drafting would take only a few minutes.

[Jefferson23]

18. That is interesting, thanks very much. Neither of them have anything to gain. I just thought

it odd how she did not want to talk about the contracts. I really want to see
Bernie push her on the contracts question, and get this silly excuse about
everyone else doing it out in the open.

[elljay]

23. Confidentiality Clauses

This is a standard clause found in many contracts. I use them when we settle a case and don't want the terms to become public. Very simple to draft an amendment to remove the clause IF BOTH PARTIES AGREE. I can't emphasize that part enough. It is very obvious that Wall Street, Hillary or both DO NOT want to disclose the transcripts.

[Jefferson23]

24. Again, thank you for your insights and experience. I don't see how either party benefits

from disclosure. I look at it this way, if they're benign in content, which I expect them to
be..it leaves the obvious question. Why would anyone pay her that kind of money of
milk toast info? These are wink wink transactions, imo..but if there is damaging info
well, all the better, voters have a right to know.

I do hope Bernie asks her about the contract/clauses.

[KoKo]

14. That would be very good for him to bring that out!

She shouldn't have said that knowing that she was covered by a "Non-disclosure" agreement. Corporations don't ask people to give speeches to them thinking that what they said would be leaked to the NYT's the next day.

I hope Bernie does that. Call her on it!

[Buns_of_Fire]

11. Delay, obfuscate, stonewall...

Anything to avoid giving a damned straight answer. I guess it still depends on what the meaning of "is" is.

[Lizzie Poppet]

12. It lets her stall...

...until her staff can concoct speeches that won't sink her candidacy. Any resemblance they have to what she actually said will be completely coincidental.

[DefenseLawyer]

17. "I want to tell you exactly what I said, but the banker that pays me won't let me."

That makes "I'll look into it" sound like "Ich bin ein Berliner"

[azurnoir]

19. It's worth repeating I'm under a non-disclosure contract sounds really bad

just what is it they don't want disclosed

[Jefferson23]

20. Yes, I want to hear her say to millions of people she is under contract. n/t

[Barack_America]

22. I deal with non-disclosures frequently...

...Hillary telling Goldman Sachs (for example) they would be welcome in her White House is in no way whatsoever "proprietary".

Proprietary would be, "hey Hillary, we plan on making a particular business move, would you support this as President?"