A genuine question for Hillary supporters who don't care if she doesn't release speech transcripts

[Human101948]

And in my survey, I asked the following simple question: When should Hillary Clinton release her transcripts? While 37% answered ASAP, a total of 59% answered she shouldn’t have to.

Furthermore, the comments were along the lines of asking her to release the transcripts is a “witchhunt.” Or that what she said, behind closed doors, to a group of bankers was none of my, or anyone’s business (e.g., “She was a private individual doing business in a private capacity, it’s none of your business.”)

To some of this, I had said, essentially, that Hillary Clinton is running for president. It is most certainly our business to know what she said in these speeches. So, here is my sincere question, directed primarily to Hillary’s supporters (but anyone else can also take a shot at answering). What was your reaction when you learned about Mitt Romney’s scornful comments about the 47%? Were you — as I was — both outraged and unsurprised at Romney’s cluelessness while at the same time excited that this could be used as a campaign weapon against Romney as 1%-er? If, as I am assuming, you thought it was fair game to respond to Romney’s comments, once the videotape of him speaking was released, then wouldn’t consistency mean that Clinton’s speeches also fall under the umbrella of information that the public might have an valid and legitimate interest in knowing?https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2016/4/4/1510222/-A-genuine-question-for-Hillary-supporters-who-don-t-care-if-she-doesn-t-release-speech-transcripts

[Onlooker]

1. Let Bernie release his emails

Hillary has released, because she had no choice, all her emails. Let Bernie do the same to show that he has not abused his personal or public emails. Of course he won't! He won't even release his taxes!

Hillary isn't going to release her transcripts because they will be gone through with fine tooth and comb to find the occasional joke, statement, or idea that can be exploited by her opposition.

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

14. Bernie isn't being investigated by the FBI.

Only grade-school adolecents would make such a leap.

[Jitter65]

20. Yet. nt

[yourpaljoey]

33. Makes me say: Dude... wait-what!?

April just might be Hill's worst month.
If not, the FBI will help her achieve that in May.

[CorporatistNation]

46. Shear Idiocy Completely Absent of ANY Foundation In Fact!

Hilbots that take such a position are in COMPLETE DENIAL of who it is that they are supporting!

[2cannan]

22. She didn't release her personal emails

and she shouldn't have "had" to release any work emails because they should have been saved on a government server. She's the one who had an email server set up in her basement. Those work emails belong to us (or at least our government) as a record of the work we paid her to do. If a republican did this, we'd be outraged and rightly so!

This is what Hillary said on Sunday's MTP:

"I think that anybody who's actually looked at this has concluded that I have now put out all of my emails," she said. "Go and ask others for their emails. Ask everybody else who's in public office. I'm the one who's done it, and I did it because I thought it was the right thing to do."

Fact-checking Hillary Clinton on Meet the Press
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2016/apr/03/fact-checking-hillary-clinton-meet-press/

[Jackie Wilson Said]

2. I want the transcripts of what Ted Cruz and John Kasich say when the cameras are off.

I wanna know not if they both want to punish women for having abortions, they do, but which one wants to put women to death and which one just wants to jail them.

That is the transcript I want.

[MichiganVote]

9. Women are already being punished for wanting or having an abortion courtesy of the RNC

[Jackie Wilson Said]

12. Of course they are, and if the GOP appoints SC justices, women will either pay with their

lives or freedom on a regular basis.

[MichiganVote]

28. Women have been losing their lives and their freedoms in the US since forever.

[Jackie Wilson Said]

29. GOP likes what you are saying. GOP hopes people buy the nonsense that Hillary is

same as they are.

Isn't that your point?

[MichiganVote]

32. No actually it isn't. Last I looked, the GOP could give a rat's ass what anyone likes.

[Politicalboi]

3. The Queens supporters don't care

They're terrified of those transcripts. They know they tell the truth how the Queen feels about us peons. They somehow think the GOP won't get a hold of these and release them for the GE. Then it's too late for all of us. And all we Bernie supporters can say is "We told you so". No more Clinton's. I hope between the FBI investigation and now the Panama Papers she is toast.

[elehhhhna]

17. Gop has those speeches. They were THERE. They want to run over her.

They can take that woman down like on Animal Planet. And they will. But not until she's the officially annointed one.

If Bernie gets the nom the 1% is fucked.

The 2016 global shenanigans du jour is Tax dodging. Think President Bernie's AG would ignore that shit? Like Obama's? Like Hillary's? Lol.

She's a hedge for the 1%. That's all.


This is for the whole pot, guys. And there's only one person in the entire race that GIF about you.

[Trust Buster]

4. Money makes the world go round. Some of us like capitalism.

[Human101948]

13. That's a lame reply...the problem is the financialization of our economy

The short answer is that Wall Street, for the last thirty years or so, has been skimming prodigiously from the top. The graph above shows how the total economic cost of financial intermediation grew from under 2 percent in 1870 to nearly 6 percent before the stock market collapsed in 1929. It grew slowly throughout the postwar expansion, reaching 5 percent in 1980. Then, beginning during the deregulatory years of the Reagan administration, the money flowing to financial intermediaries skyrocketed, rising to almost 9 percent of GDP in 2010....

...All together, Phillipon calculates the excess income consumed by the finance sector totals 2 percent of GDP, “an annual misallocation of resources of about $280 billions for the U.S. alone.” If accurate, that figure suggests an extraordinary redistribution of the national wealth—from the pockets of the debtors and middle class investors who need it most, straight into the bank accounts of America’s financial elite.

https://tcf.org/content/commentary/graph-how-the-financial-sector-consumed-americas-economic-growth/

If that's the type of capitalism you like, I sure hope you are one of the ultra wealthy elite. Otherwise, you are one of the screwed.

[treestar]

5. What do you really think you are going to find in them?

Probably the usual politician platitudes.

If Hillary is the crook you think she is, she'd be smart enough not to save transcripts of criminal dealings.

This whole thing is a bunch of smoke. Why not find people who heard the speeches and ask them if you are so sure there is something nefarious?

[whatchamacallit]

26. Strawtastic!

Obviously there are no 'criminal dealings' in her speeches. People want to see them, and you know this, because they likely illuminate her real positions, attitudes, and coziness with the banking industry. Most understand the reason they won't be released is because some of the statements therein undercut her reformer rhetoric and credibility.

[1StrongBlackMan]

35. The only people that give a damn about the transcripts are Bernie supporters ...

the rest of the universe doesn't care.

And I suspect the reason they keep on about them is because it feeds the C/T beast that many seem, particularly, susceptible to.

[whatchamacallit]

37. And here you are doing what you do

telling us, without any actual evidence, what everyone feels. If it can be said that Bernie supporters only care because they're looking for something to hang around her neck, it could also be said Hillary supporters don't care because they have little interest in truth and transparency.

[treestar]

36. Then find people who heard them

There are a lot, and someone surely wants to spill by now.

I think your suppositions are unlikely. They only reflect your existing bias. And there is no reason to release them - the whole thing is like Obama's college transcripts. Just a demand to use and to release them would do nothing but result in demands for more.

[whatchamacallit]

42. Well, if the audience were not under NDAs, and some in attendance are not supportive of Hillary's

candidacy, then yes, you'd think someone would spill the beans. Thing is, that doesn't explain why her supporters in attendance haven't come forward to absolve her.

[CalvinballPro]

6. The problem with your little analogy is that someone attending Romney's meeting did the recording

and the subsequent leaking of the video. Not Romney. That made it news.

You're basically demanding that Clinton make you a video and then deliver it so you can use it against her, which is your open and obvious intention.

[elehhhhna]

19. Omg what on earth did she say?

[smiley]

23. No just the transcripts...

a video isn't necessary. But I'm sure you're spot on with what the author of the OP would like to use it for. I don't think they make any qualms about that. And I agree with them. I wouldn't be surprised if a whole lot of other people who aren't on DU would also like to see and use this against her. As they should in a heavily contested political campaign.

But I have faith she won't release them. I've grown to accept Hillary for who she is.

[treestar]

38. brought up a good point

It would be there for Republicans to use - so why be so eager to damage a Democratic candidate, the one likely to win the nomination?

That being said, I doubt there is anything in them. Probably the usual platitudes. Why would there be anything else?

[Hoyt]

7. Well, we can be sure she didn't say anything controversial because Democrats were attending, along

with folks with cameras and recorders who would have run to YouTube, etc., if there were anything there.

Fact is, if she released her speeches -- mostly friendly hellos, a few jokes, stories about being SoS, prediction on the world, etc. -- her detractors would just take a sentence or two out of context, and start asking questions like: Did she go off script? What did she say during breaks and afterwards? How do we know that is the real transcript? Was she winking at the big money folks as she talked?

Then, they'd go, look she said "the banks weren't the only ones responsible for the recession," which is true because others were to blame like government regulators, Congress, real estate appraisers, furniture manufacturers, building supply industry, real estate agents, interior designers, people who wanted a house but really couldn't afford one, speculators, people who figured as long as they could make payments for a year they could always sell out at a hefty profit, etc. So, yeah, the banks weren't the only ones. But we'd never hear the end of it from Sanders rabid supporters.

Her speeches were the typical boring keynote speeches designed to attract attendees. She didn't scheme to carve up what is left of the poors' wealth, or anything like that. So why release them. Keep Sanders supporters happy, give em something to grouse about like it matters.

[treestar]

39. +1

Somebody who heard it would have said something by now.

[MichiganVote]

8. Speech transcripts versus Romney's fundraising comments

First, your question. When Romney, running presumably as a candidate for the presidency of the "United States", made derisive comments during a fundraiser about those Americans "who will vote for the president no matter what.". Answer: I was amused that he was actually caught. He was not asked to give up any transcript. It happened that he was videotaped.

Second, the implication you make, sincerely, I suppose, that somehow the private speaking engagements that HC has had include similar disparaging comments is not proven. Answer: Facts not in evidence and unless or until you can support your request for every single candidate who has or is still running for prez, your sincere requests seems pretty, well, insincere.

Third: In what world do you live in where politicians are Saints? None of them have been shown to be the economic messiahs that perhaps, the 47% or the 99%, of Americans want them to be. Not one. Ever. And before you raise the ghost of Franklin Roosevelt, read more history. He gave away plenty of goodies to that day's 1% too.

[BernieforPres2016]

11. "Every single candidate who has or is still running for prez"

Wow, even extending it to Republican candidates who have dropped out? Are there no lengths Hillary's apologists won't go to?

[MichiganVote]

15. Why not? Why should your request be restricted to one candidate?

But now that you can sincerely claim that one of the respondents to your post is an apologist, I am sincerely hope you feel better.

[cosmicone]

10. Some things are private.

I manage a biotech company I founded. If I were to run for President, I shouldn't have to release the formulation, process parameters, vendor list, results of FDA audits etc. because they are private information of my business.

Clinton's business was giving speeches. That information is private.

Would Sanders reveal the source material and interviews about multiple orgasms curing cervical cancer or the rape fantasies of women?

[Human101948]

16. Her business is being a politican... and as such should be answerable to the voters...

Are you suggesting that her views on how she will deal with Wall Street are proprietary and should be secret?

Kind of like you knowing that your product is toxic but you keep that secret while telling consumers that it's not?

[cosmicone]

18. No. I stand by my post. n/t

[Jefferson23]

21. She took the money and was not forced to do so. If you ignore those facts she appears more

palatable..so they rationalize away the significance of enormous amounts of money.

When a Republican does it, they're concerned to outraged. lol

[MichiganVote]

25. Oh come on, enormous amounts of money. Let's think about that.

CNN reported that the Clinton's, combined, earned $153 million for 700+ in paid speeches from 2001 until the launch of her presidential campaign. On average, about $210,000 per speech. Much money? Sure to you and I.

But did you know that CEO David Zaslov with Discovery communications made $156,077,912 in one year, 2014?

Mario Gabelli with GameCo. made over $88,000,000 during the same year.

John Stumpf with Wells Fargo-over $25,000,000-guess he has some work to do. Lloyd Blankenfein with Goldman Saks, over $22,000,000

So how do you know whether Clinton supporters are rationalizing when Sanders supporters may just as easily be rationalizing by ignoring the fox in favor of the hen?

[Jefferson23]

27. This is satire, right? n/t

[MichiganVote]

31. If only.

Don't all people choose whomever they feel is more palatable?

[Jefferson23]

34. People can rationalize anything.

The money is given for a reason, she took it. As you can see in this thread the responses
are interesting. If a Republican did the same they would not be so generous with their
assessments.

[MichiganVote]

43. People can rationalize anything, true.

A fee is paid for a speaking engagement. In the case of HC I suspect that even if she had not collected a fee or had not given speeches in the venues people seem to object to there would just be another reason, or rationalization as you put it, for why people trust or mistrust her.

Its probable that for some voters, these speaking engagements, or the fees that she was paid, are not central to their choice of a candidate to support. You may wish it were, but that is not something that can be forced on people.

As for Republicans-the trickle down economics they so ardently believe in, that was spoonfed to them, that they lapped up. swallowed whole, has deserted them. Bush I was going to be their messiah, he failed. Bush II, totally decimated the economy, their jobs, their dreams, their retirements, then Romney, now Trump.

The very wealthy have the means and the organizational muscle to get what they want with or without HC or Bernie or Trump. The American people, however, are fractured in their beliefs, their opinions and in whether they intend to put their money where their mouth is and demand a democracy from a do nothing Congress. When, and I do mean, when, the adults in the US get their act together, times will change. Hopefully before the plant implodes.

[Jefferson23]

45. People ignore many things, some knowingly..as exemplified in this case with Hillary and money.

Republicans are in chaos as their base has felt betrayed, polling at 60% distrust.

Americans are not fractured on corruption in politics, it's been a shared common
denominator this election cycle. How people vote is up to them, ignoring
what is right in front of you doesn't help.

I'm encouraged by what I see so far, how it ends...hopefully better than before.

[Trust Buster]

24. She was a private citizen. No need to answer to any of you or Sanders.

[Kip Humphrey]

30. Fortress Hillary seems to think there were no republicons in the audience who will gladly spill the

beans on what she said and spill them during the GE unless she releases the transcripts during the nominating campaign.

[WhaTHellsgoingonhere]

40. She released them an less than an hour ago

[beaglelover]

41. She has a legislative record to look at.

[NanceGreggs]

44. I’m quite sure that Hillary Clinton ...

... is not the first potential presidential candidate to have given speeches. So right off the top, the question is: Why is she being asked to release speech transcripts, when no other candidate has been asked to do so in the past?

Her speeches were made as a private citizen, not in any official capacity as a representative of the government, nor as a politician running for office.

What I find amusing is people who are convinced she “made promises” to Goldman-Sachs – or to anyone – or “cut a deal”. If Hillary was of a mind to do so, why would she do so in front of a roomful of strangers? Why set herself up for possible political blackmail by anyone in the audience who heard something untoward or nefarious?

If Hillary wanted to “make promises” or “cut a deal” with G-S or anyone else, she could easily do so in a behind-closed-doors meeting with upper management – thereby ensuring that whatever was discussed in said meeting could be denied after-the-fact, there being no record of what was said.

HRC’s speaking contract specifies that there be a court stenographer present to take notes and prepare a transcript. This is at her direction, not the direction of the group she is speaking to. If she were going to say anything that was untoward, why would she be the one to insist that a record be made? Why would she risk it, when she could just as easily insist that NO record be made by anyone?

The only people interested in those transcripts are Bernie supporters, hoping to find a “gotcha!” statement that can be used against her. We’ve seen, right here on DU and other sites, how statements can be taken out of context and made to look like something never meant nor intended. Just last month, we saw Bill Clinton’s statement about the obstructionism of the last eight years proffered as him saying that Obama’s tenure in office has been “the awful legacy of the past eight years”.

Those who insisted that this was what Bill was actually saying – as with all such out-of-context bullshit – were obviously too stupid to know that neither Bill nor Hillary would say anything of the sort. So these are the “types” who would happily take something HRC said out of context from a speech transcript – not too bright, and as lacking in scruples as they are common sense.

What really underlies all of this is one obvious fact: No one – other than BS supporters hoping-against-hope for a “gotcha” remark that can be twisted and exploited – is interested in those transcripts.

The truth is that these transcripts weren’t even a blip on the Bernie supporters’ radar until early February, when Chuck Todd mentioned them. If this issue is so all-important, why did no one even think about transcripts for the first ten months of Hillary’s campaign? Todd threw them a ball, and they picked it up and ran with it – with no explanation whatsoever as to why it wasn’t an issue for almost a year.

Bernie’s chances of winning the nomination are now somewhere between zero and never-gonna-happen. Therefore, there are two hopes that his supporters are clinging to: HRC being indicted and/or finding a statement in those speech transcripts that can be turned into something that would destroy Hill’s campaign.

That’s all they’ve got – so I can understand their obsessive clutching at straws. But it’s been a lost cause from the start.

Bernie has yet to release his tax returns, which IS expected of presidential hopefuls. Why should HRC release speech transcripts, when such a request/demand has never been made of any other contender?

It's straw-clutching at is finest - but nonetheless pointless.