The transcripts are lose/lose for Hillary

[whatchamacallit]

I'd love for her to demonstrate that transparency she boasts about, but that's never going to happen because we're talkin Hillary. Either way she takes a hit tho.

If she releases them we get a look at the depth of her conflicts of interest, which IMO are already clearly evident without the speeches.

If she continues to withhold them it only reinforces the notion that she's hiding something, further eroding her abysmal trust and character rating.

[upaloopa]

1. Nobody gives a shit about those speeches so there is no one but

Bernie supporters making an issue of them.

Seems you have your minds made up she is guilty of something so what difference does it make.

You are fighting yesterday's war but you think the rest of the world is with you. They are not. Nobody cares.

We have pivoted to fighting Trump.

[TCJ70]

5. You don't think he'll bring them up?

Once he does what will she say? She won't be able to fall back on the idiotic "double standard" excuse because Trump will just put whatever he has, if anything, out there.

[anotherproletariat]

15. If Trump was willing to put out transcripts of all his paid talks, I bet she would as well.

Even if I pretend to agree with the Bernie folks that there is something horrible in her transcripts, she won't have to release all of them, because there is no way Trump would release all of this (he has been giving paid speeches for decades). They would each show a representative few, it would be boring, and we would all move on. Honestly, it isn't an issue unless you are running against someone who has never given a paid speech. (And lets not pretend it wasn't because he is more moral, it's because 1 - is wasn't well known at all until recently and 2 - he was in a political office, so it would have been a conflict of interest.)

[Lizzie Poppet]

18. I suspect he'd have no problem with that.

I'd be very surprised if they weren't basically the same shit he spews "in the clear." There's no risk to him.

And it's not like whatever either offer are going to be anything close to accurate. Plenty of time to have scrubbed anything they intend to release...

[TCJ70]

19. Let's focus on your last point for a second...

...you say it would have been a conflict of interest if he had done it while in office, but you aren't concerned about it being a conflict of interest now that she's running for office? That's absurd.

As for the rest, I'm willing to bet that even if Trump released all of his in the GE she still wouldn't. There's no reason that she didn't release them when they first came up if there's nothing there.

[whatchamacallit]

22. Haha fantasyland

[upaloopa]

20. I don't see any motive for Trump to bring up Hillary's speeches.

Who but Bernie and his supporters feel there is any thing to gain by having the transcripts?

Bernie is trying to say Hillary is in the tank for Wall Street and he has nothing to back it up. He hoped the speeches will support his claim.

He has nothing but Hillary's record and innuendo. Her record is clear she has always supported regulations.

Bernie has nothing and he knows it. His attacks have not helped him one bit. Hillary is winning the debate.

[TCJ70]

25. We'll see...

...I don't think there's anything Trump wouldn't bring up. He's "Mr. Business" anyway so the speech talking point won't hurt him. If he does bring it up and she still holds onto them, though, it raises enough red flags that Trump could hurt her in the GE.

[Bluenorthwest]

39. You actually think Trump needs some rational reason to bring up things that dent his rivals? I don't

Also, I am sure he would push for them for the same reasons Hillary does not wish to release them. Even if the content is not all that interesting, the form and tone of address and framing of the content will be audience specific and it will not sound exactly like her public self. It will have that friendly tone toward people voters do not see as friends.

It does not have to be explosive to be damaging and if it was fully harmless material she's share it widely.

[kristopher]

73. Because attacking "bought and paid for politicians" is central to his campaign.

Remember how he summoned (as he presented it) her to his wedding.

[whatchamacallit]

6. Says someone who doesn't care what she does as long as she wins

I've pivoted to fighting all right-leaning plutocrats.

[Gregorian]

8. Do you really think Trump, or any R, is going to drop this?

I'm more concerned about what happens after the convention than whether or not she releases any transcripts.

Trump will flog her to death with those speeches.

[sufrommich]

9. It's the Sanders supporters version of

"where's the birth certificate?"

[FreedomRain]

52. do you recall that the birth certifcate was released?

so not a good comparison at all

[casperthegm]

21. Hi. I'm a Democrat and I care

I'm curious why more Democrats are good with members of our party giving speeches for hundreds of thousands of dollars to Wall Street, especially if they are unwilling to disclose the transcripts. I feel that Democrats should demand better from candidates within our party. It's quite unfortunate that this is just seen as the norm and accepted as "everyone else does it." No, not everyone does it and even so, should this be ok?

Giving speeches for hundreds of thousands of dollars to Wall Street, accepting super pacs (while saying you opposed Citizens United), and not disclosing transcripts? What has happened to this party, where we now just accept the cozy relationship with Wall Street and corporate America? Isn't that one of the things we despised about the GOP?

[Orsino]

26. That is a sad truth.

It's as though people slept through the Great Recession, or otherwise have an interest in concealing her secret promises to the bad actors.

Perhaps people above a certain comfortable income have that luxury, and the MSM concur.

[polichick]

27. Jeez, ask yourself why the corporate media doesn't give a shit...

Those speeches are all about the crony capitalism that the Clintons represent so clearly, that the media depends on - and that the people have had enough of.

Speaking of Trump - he's the other side of the crony capitalist coin, buyer of the access the Clintons have sold for decades. Are they really adversaries?

[jillan]

40. Trump is already telling everyone how HE donated to HER when she was his senator to get favors

in return.

Get your head out of the sand! Things are going to be so much worse for her once the GE begins.

[EndElectoral]

62. Nobody? You think this is just going to hound her in the primary?

[whathehell]

80. Lol..Only know-nothings don't "give a shit about those speeches"

All that financial stuff is over their head, I guess.

[pdsimdars]

2. What I want to know -- where is wikileeks when you need them????

[Lizzie Poppet]

23. There would have to be records on accessible servers.

Hillary is obviously pretty inept at data security, but I suspect getting to any internal transcripts of those speeches would require some quality hacking and a lot of blind luck just identifying where they might be.

[pkdu]

55. In the wiki-soup?

Or wiki-quiche?

[DanTex]

3. Yet somehow she's 300+ delegates ahead. Hmm. Sounds like a win to me.

[whatchamacallit]

7. Might Makes Right!

[DanTex]

10. You're the one who called it "lose/lose". It's looking like a pretty solid win.

[whatchamacallit]

13. Not the election, the fallout is lose/lose

[DanTex]

14. If she wins the election, the "fallout" doesn't matter.

[whatchamacallit]

17. If she wins the election

the purpose of hiding the speeches will become clear through her deeds.

[Bluenorthwest]

42. Yes it does, governing is not expedited by scandal or surmise of such.....

But hey, your candidate openly promotes Republican monsters by falsely claiming they were AIDS heroes and you don't mind that either. So your standards and mine are not the same. I'm not a 'Reagan Democrat' and never will be.

[DanTex]

44. The Goldman speeches are not going to be a scandal. It's simply a card that Bernie decided to play

in order to try and gain political advantage.

As far as the random Hillary-bash you threw in, sure, she misspoke while trying to say something nice at Nancy Reagan's funeral. If you're interested in some of what the Clintons have done to help fight HIV worldwide, see here.
https://www.clintonfoundation.org/our-work/clinton-health-access-initiative/programs/hivaids

[Herman4747]

56. Keep voters in the dark about how messed up one is...

...you might roll to a big lead too!

[DanTex]

68. The voters aren't in the dark. If they cared half as much about the Goldman speeches as

the Hillary-bashers on the fringe left then she wouldn't have such a huge lead in delegates.

[Herman4747]

69. Your beloved candidate has something to hide

You approve of this.
Others do not.

[DanTex]

71. She's certainly not giving anything to the GOP for free. And like I said, not enough people

actually care about this or any of the other Hillary bashes to actually vote against her.

[Herman4747]

74. Sad, isn't it -- people don't give a damn about

how corrupt some politicians are.

[Punkingal]

4. I agree with you completely.

And make no mistake about it, there is something god-awful in those transcripts. Otherwise she would have released them already.

[whatchamacallit]

11. Yes, they've taken the less damaging path.

[LonePirate]

12. You seem convinced there is a conflict of interest in the speeches which is anything but guaranteed.

You may think there is a conflict of interest but does not mean there is one. I personally have no idea if there is or is not one. I am willing to adopt the innocent until proven guilty approach, though, unlike others who have already convicted her without any evidence.

[whatchamacallit]

24. There's an easy, democracy affirming way to settle it

I won't hold my breath.

[LonePirate]

34. So if the current trend continues with Hillary winning a majority of primary votes ...

Does that mean she has been absolved in your eyes?

[whatchamacallit]

35. Of course not

Why would it?

[LonePirate]

36. You just said there is an easy, democracy affirming way of settling it. So you lied?

[whatchamacallit]

38. Oh brother

Releasing the transcripts would be the easiest way of settling the question of a conflict of interest. Capiche?

[LonePirate]

45. Democracy affirming occurs via voting. If she wins a majority of Dem votes, the people have spoken.

If you don't want the public to weigh in on the issue via their votes, then perhaps you shouldn't use terms like democracy affirming, capiche?

[whatchamacallit]

47. Obviously not a pro

You're not even trying to conceal your true allegiance. Bookmarking.

[LonePirate]

54. My true allegiance? I voted for Bernie earlier this month. I just despise irrational hatemongering.

And there are truckloads of it surrounding these transcripts. Not every Bernie supporter gives a damn about these transcripts.

[whatchamacallit]

65. Cool story bro

[Orsino]

29. The speeches are being concealed for real reasons.

"Innocent until proven guilty" is nonsensical. The transcripts are secret because Clinton fears the damage they might do...or because she's under NDA and isn't allowed to release them. Either way, damaging.

Innocence isn't an option, but unless criminal activity is involved, neither is "guilty."

[TCJ70]

30. If there were any other valid reason, like an NDA...

...she should have used that from the beginning. Not the "Look Into It", "Double Standard", and "When Everyone Else Does" crap. She is the one perpetuating this by her own actions.

[Orsino]

75. No, I doubt she would want to admit to a prior oath to Wall Street.

I only float the option, which seems unlikely to me, because Clinton appears otherwise to be slow-walking the matter.

[arcane1]

37. Her contracts mandated that she is the only person to receive copies of the transcripts.

I fully expect them to have been shredded.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

16. She needs more, or better, CYA writers.

[salinsky]

28. "which IMO are already clearly evident without the speeches." ....

.... says it all.

The ONLY people who want to see the transcripts are people who are already convinced she's guilty of ...

... something.

There's nothing to gain for her in releasing them.

[whatchamacallit]

33. I see... probity is conditional, based on the attitudes of those seeking the truth

Yup, sounds like a Hillary supporter alright.

Since when is "Some may not appreciate my candor, so why be candid?" a valid position?

[veronique25]

31. reining in wall street is not enough! wall street must be taxed -- not main street (nt)

[Vote2016]

32. transcripts are a lost and end the bleeding or lost and continue bleeding

[KittyWampus]

41. It's certainly been a huge loss for Sanders.

[whatchamacallit]

43. Ha, how so?

[MineralMan]

46. Pretty much the only people who care are already opposing her

already. So, it's a wash, whether she releases them or not.

If she releases them, people who oppose her will find things they don't like in them, no matter what they say. If she doesn't they'll continue to oppose her without seeing them. They will oppose her in either case.

I can see no reason why she would release them, frankly. She loses with her detractors, either way. Her supporters and people who don't yet have an opinion don't care about those transcripts. Only opponents care about them.

[whatchamacallit]

48. And you know this how, Oz?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/12511543716#post33

[MineralMan]

50. Because the only people asking for them are her detractors, Dorothy.

That's how.

[whatchamacallit]

59. And you know that how, Tin Man?

Took a nation wide survey, did ya?

[Herman4747]

57. So, her supporters don't care if she's corrupt or not??

What precisely does she have to hide?

[MineralMan]

60. Frankly, I could probably paraphrase one of those speeches

without ever reading it. She talked about the importance of banking to the economy and cautioned against going too far along the path of unnecessary risks. She probably pointed out a number of errors from the past and told them that the public is suspicious of their motives. And she did it all very politely, greeting prominent bankers by name, told a few jokes to get a laugh, and spoke in very general terms. She didn't threaten. She didn't scold. She discussed issues and probably gave some advice that they will doubtlessly ignore.

As a former speaker who has addressed many people in another industry, that's the typical pattern of such speeches. It doesn't matter what industry. That's how those speeches go.

[Herman4747]

63. So, Hillary is being highly illogical in hiding a benign speech...

Or,
Maybe she does have something to hide after all, in which case she's corrupt.

Uh, illogical or corrupt -- what is it?

[whatchamacallit]

51. Is that any way to treat your liberator?!?

Man, talk about ungrateful...

[MaggieD]

53. Socialism is not "liberation" - it is enslavement

And we ain't buying the bull. Sorry.

[whatchamacallit]

67. Your liberator to spread mayhem on DU

David Allen. You called him ball-less.

[seabeyond]

58. Transcripts argument is a petulant outcry that is embarrassing towards those making the demand.

[EndElectoral]

61. It is a win situation for her if she releases them and it illustrates there was nothing to hide

Kind of like the Benghazi emails.

[whatchamacallit]

70. Exactly, so every reason to do it

unless...

[Doctor_J]

64. Her supporters are fine with the corruption so I don't think releasing them would do much harm

They have pretty much ignored the long list of crimes, missteps, flip flops, and republican policies to this point, so finding out that she has promised to protect the banks from the little people and the law will do little damage

[Tarc]

66. Seeing how Sanders has only a technically possible but non-viable route to the nomination

Clinton has no incentive to release the transcripts now. That ship sailed on Super Tuesday,

[whatchamacallit]

72. Right, "I'm winning, so why be transparent?"

Just what we need in a president.

[tazkcmo]

77. You are soooo right.

Because in the GE the majority of 30% of the voting population will carry the day!


The Democratic Primary is the only place Sec Clinton has majority support. Independents don't support her by a huge margin and then there's those Republicans she's deemed Enemy Number One you seem to think will voter for her, too. Her negatives are sky high outside of the Democratic Party bubble. So high, President Trump or President Cruz is a real possibility with or without the transcripts. I know I don't need to see them to confirm my distrust for her but then I stopped believing her after she dodged that sniper fire with her 11 year old daughter.

[Tarc]

81. It'd be the same for Bernie

If Sanders was the nominee, the right-wingers would play the Communist (yes, WE know socialism and communism are two different beasts, but they pretend not to) card night and day. Both he and Hillary will have to fight nonsense, on that angle, the advantage though is that Hillary has been doing it for 30+ years, Sanders hasn't had to face much dog-whistle opposition in his time as a Rep and a Senator.

The "independent voter" thing is a myth; you're either for or against a racist blowhard, there is no middle ground in America at the moment. Trump is the best recruiting tool in minority communities, who will come out in droves to oppose him, regardless of who the other candidate is.

[Renew Deal]

76. I enjoy watching her opponents twist themselves into knots over them

It's as entertaining as cat videos. I hope she releases them the day after the election.

[Betty Karlson]

78. Apparently, the "abysmal trust and character rating" are what her advisers think of as

the lesser evil. And Clinton, like all of third way, is prone to running on the lesser evil.

[Onlooker]

79. She should release them in exchange for Trump's tax returns

I really doubt she said anything that controversial in those speeches, since after all she delivered those speeches in venues that included a lot of high powered, media-connected liberal, moderate, and conservative investors. The speeches were probably pretty dull for the most part, and the reason she isn't releasing them is because her opponents will dissect them in ways that serve their political interests and frame Hillary in a bad light, just as what is happening with her email. Of tens of thousands of emails, every one that suggests anything bad is enlarged many fold, distorting the truth.