New York Times: Mrs. Clinton release those transcripts

[nichomachus]

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/26/opinion/mrs-clinton-show-voters-those-transcripts.html?_r=0

Public interest in these speeches is legitimate, and it is the public — not the candidate — who decides how much disclosure is enough. By stonewalling on these transcripts Mrs. Clinton plays into the hands of those who say she’s not trustworthy and makes her own rules. Most important, she is damaging her credibility among Democrats who are begging her to show them that she’d run an accountable and transparent White House.

[Politicalboi]

1. NY Times "Cut It Out"

You're going to ruin her chance by asking to see the words she used while addressing billionaires.

[RufusTFirefly]

2. K & R! n/t

[merrily]

3. Did the NYT finally buy some journalism chops?

Hey, she's said she'll release them as soon as all the Republican candidates do--if she has them.

Leave Hillary allllooooonnnne! She's rested. She's vetted. She's ready

for Hillary. It's her turn.

[JudyM]

8. She's breaking down all the barriers... except to her speeches and emails.

[merrily]

32. And any issue she'd rather not discuss!

[CoffeeCat]

9. I don't believe that The New York Times

had an epiphany. Because I don't trust Hillary and because The Times has been in the tank for Hillary--I hope this isn't collusion.

I can see Hillary coming forward with a few cherry-picked speeches and then the media declaring that this issue is now closed. They'll spin that Sanders and his supporters made a big deal out of nothing and isn't Hillary wonderful?

I'm sure some of those speeches are fairly benign. There were a few speeches that focused on women in business and female entrepreneurs.

I can see it happening.

[RufusTFirefly]

14. I share your concerns, CoffeeCat

After all, look how some "forged documents" completely undermined the very strong case highlighting Dubya's mysterious absence from the Texas Air National Guard. If Hillary used her speeches at Goldman Sachs to recite nursery rhymes, that doesn't diminish the fact that a presidential candidate accepted huge amounts of money from a Wall Street firm whose business practices have been questionable to say the least.

[Nyan]

17. Yep. That would be the way to play it. nt

[Lordquinton]

19. Like when photogate blew up in her face

And we got all the Clinton followers here saying Sanders supporters were making a big deal out of a non-issue?

[ultragreen]

24. I wouldn't trust anything

that the Hillary campaign releases. There's little point in demanding the transcripts, which can be tampered with or faked, just like e-mails. A leaked audio-video recording of one of her speeches to Goldman-Sachs, similar to Romney's 47% speech, could be very revealing, however.

[Depaysement]

27. Believe it or not

The NYT Editorial Board is not a monolith.

And here's a shocker: neither is Wall Street.

Bernie Sanders has admirers in both places.

Really.

[CoffeeCat]

38. I see your point...

I imagine that there are people on the NYT Editorial Board who are Bernie supporters.

However, I have completely lost faith in the notion that lies and corruption will be called out and that the good guys will win as the truth is exposed.

Editorial boards can draw attention to corruption and make big statements. However, at the end of the day, it's the media outlet and its follow-up reporting that cracks the case.

Case in point. Our Des Moines Register Editorial Board wrote, "Something Smells in the Democratic Party" after corruption and collusion were apparent in the Iowa Caucuses. Their editorial certainly made an impact. However, in the end, it wasn't enough to enact change or to force a deeper investigation. Each of those reporters (some on the Board) went back to business as usual, as the Iowa Democratic Party principals continued to obfuscate.

Bigger questions arose, but the reporters never pressed. And believe me, there was plenty to discuss. Errors were found in the Iowa Democratic Party reporting results. These errors were found by Iowans. After the Editorial Board wrote their piece, the errors were corrected. However, those errors were found only because the Iowa Democratic Party had a PDF on the front page of its website that listed all official precinct results. Iowans compared their knowledge of what happened in their own precincts--to that PDF. Five days after the caucuses, that PDF was removed from the IDP website. No longer could Iowans spot those errors because the official results are not there. Are we supposed to believe that a few errors caught earlier were the only errors?

The Des Moines Register should have reported that the PDF was removed. They should have pushed for an independent audit. This is important, considering that the IDP chair used her home to hold Clinton fundraisers; and that she has a vanity license plate that reads "HRC2016".

I applaud the NYT Editorial Board for their stance. I'm sure it was genuine. However, I have no faith that the most important steps--the follow up--will lead to any sort of fair resolution or demands on Clinton. The Board's editorial may catalyze some kind of kabuki theater response, similar to what happened in Iowa.

Clinton may release something, but it will be a yawner, and reporters from The NYT (and other outlets) will laud the transcripts as much ado about nothing and close the case.

[Depaysement]

39. My point is that it is a fight

I agree. NYT and DMR editorials are not enough and primarily each state capitalist institution will protect the interests of its owners. But even those obviously corrupt institutions have individuals and groups within who support progressive policies and oppose corruption. This is true in every institution you can name and is central to understanding why we have a chance to prevail someday.

Other than the electoral advantage they might provide, the transcripts are really meaningless. Everyone knows Hillary has tight ties to Goldman, Chase, Blackrock, Morgan Stanley and the most important hedge and PE funds. It's no secret. It's just a fact.

[PotatoChip]

31. My first thought too. (nt)

[merrily]

36. The NYT has definitely supported Hillary (and undermined Bernie) from Day One.

I don't know if this is collusion or not, but bias has definitely existed.

[DUbeornot2be]

28. So...

...what else is she going to to because it's what the republicans do?

At least she's finally being honest about who she is acting like.

[jhart3333]

4. Yeah baby. This things got legs!

[RufusTFirefly]

5. "Accountable"? "Transparent"? Sorry. Please check back later.

Our focus groups aren't quite finished yet.

"I'll look in to it."

[merrily]

33. Wipe my private server? Like with a cloth?

Hey. I knew enough to set up a private server and to have it wiped. Why don't you believe my "cloth" schtick?

[SoLeftIAmRight]

6. Sanders supporters - do not hold your breath until she does

we need you

[pa28]

7. They'll paint a picture of saying one thing in public and another in private.

Damaging but if she really believes she is going to be the nominee she might as well release them now.

[RufusTFirefly]

11. What's amazing is that she's been aiming for the White House for years!

What could've possibly led her to accept gigs with such blatant appearances of conflict of interest?

I'm inclined to conclude "hubris," but I'm willing to give her the benefit of the doubt.

However, regardless of what her underlying motives may have been, her decision appears to be indicative of extremely poor judgment.

[elljay]

18. I don't mind

So much that she accepted the gigs or took the money. I mind that she has intended for 8 years to run again for President yet didn't anticipate that this would be an issue. She could have insisted that the speeches be made public to diffuse any concerns about her positions (assuming that her speeches were, in fact, benign, which remains to be seen). She could have donated large sums from each speech to organizations helping those hurt by Wall Street's misbehavior. She and Bill certainly have the resources to make sure their finances, and those of he Clinton Foundation, are squeaky clean. Why didn't her political consultants notice this? What does all of this say about her? It tells me that she really has no understanding of what is going on in the real world, where regular hard-working people who did everything they were supposed to do are watching their hopes and dreams being crushed by our corporate- owned government. That is what bothers me.

[merrily]

34. I believe she has intended to run for President since at least her husban's first Presidential

campaign, if not earlier. That's why they promoted his Presidency as a "twofer," why her face was all over the campaign buttons and she had her own campaign buttons, as though she had to run for First Lady, why he had her presenting Billarycare, etc.

[elljay]

40. Good Points

I should add that it has been perfectly obvious since Bill first ran that the Republicans would gun for her. Why has she not done the most basic things to minimize damage? The home server business is a no-brained. I remember what Obama had to go through to get the Secret Service to permit him to use a cell phone. If she is so capable, why has she missed so many obvious things?

[merrily]

41. As First Lady, she said she wanted a zone of privacy. Well, there is no zone of privacy

for elected officials in the performance of the job they were elected to perform and she learned that as First Lady, if not before.

[ultragreen]

25. There's no way

that she is going to release accurate transcripts of her speeches to the Important People. Anything that her campaign releases will be propaganda.

[merrily]

37. Yep. Took two years to respond to a subpoena and then two years to respond to an FOIA request.

[Uncle Joe]

10. If a Secretary of State or for that matter any other cabinet head creates

their own private server out from out from under direct supervision of the President, I don't believe transparency to be high on the agenda.


Thanks for the thread, nichomachus.

[merrily]

35. Good call. Not only set up a private server, but have it wiped,

like with a cloth.

[greymouse]

12. shouldn't that be Secretary Clinton?

what does the style book say about that?

Yeah, astonishing that the Times has some chops, at least once.

[nichomachus]

16. That's the Times' style

They refer to 50 Cent as Mr. Cent.

[rpannier]

13. Not holding my breath

[Nyan]

15. "...plays into the hands of those who say she’s not trustworthy and makes her own rules..."

Hate to burst your establishment bubble, NYT. But that happens to be a huge chunk of people. Not just on the right, but many on the left as well.

[azmom]

20. Kick

[Arizona Roadrunner]

21. We have standing if Goldman-Sachs can tax deduct amt paid for Hillary's "speeches".

Can Goldman-Sachs Tax deduct the $650.000 Paid Hillary Clinton for her "speeches"? If so, then it means we are subsidizing said "speeches" by having to pay more taxes to offset the taxes lost by said deduction. We could also lose services because they don't have the revenues due to said loss of revenue. Therefore, we have standing in asking for her to release the speeches so we can see what was generated for said tax deduction.

[99th_Monkey]

22. Suddenly the MSM is reporting news, telling truth, asking the right questions.?

Just yesterday jake Tapper of CNN called out Clinton on one of her lies.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=1336968

What next? a revolution?

[Skwmom]

23. The NY Times. Now I'm convinced the transcripts are part of a planned whitewash.

[youceyec]

26. Mrs Clinton:

No.

The end.

[Waiting For Everyman]

29. They will leak, the question is when.

Will it be before the primary or after it. I guess that depends on the party of the person who has them.

It's too easy to record today, and she gave a lot of speeches. Somebody has something, that's the odds.

So how is it going to look when they leak after she stonewalls about it? And what if it's AFTER she's chosen as the nominee? What then?

[RufusTFirefly]

30. Kick! n/t