Here's what I don't understand about Hillary's transcripts

[nichomachus]

Why do they exist at all?

She was giving speeches at $200,000+ a pop. Hopefully for that kind of money, she just wasn't going in and babbling on off the top of her head. And anyway, we all know that Mrs. Clinton does not speak extemporaneously. Every word is carefully crafted, scripted, and approved by a gaggle of focus groups. If anyone asks her anything that's not on her script, she "will look into that."

Now, I've given a few speeches. I research the topic, write out the speech, and deliver it. I my wander off the path, but not very far.

So assuming that Hillary has prepared a speech, it's unlikely that what she said is far different than what's on her written script. And on the off chance that she wanders off the path, one of her underlings could certainly make a not of that for future reference.

What in the world would require the hosts to pay another $1,200 so she would have a copy of a speech she already has a copy of? Vanity? Hubris? Whatever?

It's this sort of self-aggrandizement that got Nixon into trouble with his tapes. At least he was hoping they would enhance his legacy. What did Mrs. Clinton hope to gain from having a transcript of a speech -- for her eyes only -- that she already had the script for?

Very strange.

[Faux pas]

1. Kickin'

[EdwardBernays]

2. Part of her contract

In at least some cases, was that the host had to pay for a stenographer.

So I'd wager that exact transcripts exist.

[winter is coming]

15. It's kinda weird, though, that you'd charge someone else to transcribe a speech that only

you got to keep a copy of.

[EdwardBernays]

16. Indeed

I would assume it's so they can control the official transcript.

[arcane1]

3. The contracts gave her EXCLUSIVE ownership of the transcripts.

I suspect for this very reason: to control who gets to see them, and who doesn't.

[NWCorona]

5. Exactly! It's about control

[JaneyVee]

4. Who said they exist?

[NWCorona]

6. Only every contact that's out in the open.

[morningfog]

9. The contracts.

[BernieforPres2016]

7. The so called speeches are nothing more than legal bribery

[Gregorian]

8. Hillary Clinton is an opportunist.

She's in it for herself. Imagine the Clintons or Bushes spending time with Jimmy Carter, building homes for the poor.

[SoLeftIAmRight]

10. When she pivots to the right for the general election...

They will be gold - the October surprise - see! - I am a republican

[BlueMTexpat]

11. Just as with Whitewater, Benghazi,

email-gate and all the other manufactured B***S*** that ONLY becomes a crisis when Hillary is involved in even the most remote fashion, this is yet another one with no "there" there that is gleefully pushed by those who are attempting to divide Democrats at ANY cost.

Hillary is a major public figure and has been since 1992, when she was FLOTUS. Whatever her reasons for keeping transcripts, they are HER business. There is no real reason for her to release them except that they do make for yet another manufactured crisis. Because she is already criticized literally for everything she says and does, she knows full well that whatever she said (or was transcribed, which may not actually even be what she said) will be taken out of context to create even more "crises."

I find it extremely interesting that the ONLY time the issue of public figures giving speeches when they are private citizens has EVER been raised to my recollection is when Hillary Clinton is running for office. ALL major public figures give speeches when they are private citizens and get paid very well for them.

I remember when a close friend was organizing a conference in 2005 for several English-speaking international schools, her board requested that she try to book Al Gore as the headliner. When they heard the fee he was requesting (>$200,000) which his spokespersons insisted could not be lowered of waived, they decided to go with someone less expensive. I'll bet Al keeps transcripts of his speeches too. Of course, Al isn't running for President now. But if he were, it is unlikely that his speeches would ever have become an issue, no matter which groups he spoke to.

Double standard indeed! One impossible standard for Hillary. Yet another for ALL the "boys."

Yes, very strange indeed.

[jeff47]

12. Except she's asking us to believe she would oppose the people who paid for her speech.

Showing us what she said while she was there would help with that....assuming she's truthful about her opposition.

[msongs]

13. more fuel for those sanders revolutionists with impeach hillary fantasies nt

[RufusTFirefly]

14. (Slightly maniacal sounding cackle)

I believe that's the prescribed response when some asks an inconveniently uncomfortable question.

https://m.