I'm STILL waiting for the transcripts so that I can see what Hillary said to those corporate

[DisgustipatedinCA]

...persons.

[Silver_Witch]

1. Me too ...

Waiting......waiting....waiting!

[kristopher]

2. I think she said "I'm running for President because I want to make you stronger..."

Which would make those contributions (aka speaking fees) illegal.

[Punkingal]

3. We will never know what she said.

[kaleckim]

8. I don't know...

you think the Republicans may have a few friends on Wall Street that may have access to those speeches? Think of the dirt they are waiting on regarding her, her foundation and all her corporate ties. They are horrible and corrupt too, but in all likelihood, when it is all said and done, the public will continue to not like either candidate in the two major parties.

[TheCowsCameHome]

4. What? These?

[Autumn]

5. Me too. I want to know what they were promised.

[Kip Humphrey]

6. I can only conclude that Hillary cannot release her transcripts because of reassurances she has made

to Golden Sacks that anything she might say on the campaign trail regarding Wall Street can be dismissed as campaign rhetoric, and she will always have Golden Sacks' back and best interests at heart.

Otherwise, she would surely release her transcripts to avoid the political fallout it is causing.

[RoccoR5955]

7. Don't hold your breath

Because you probably will never see them. Unless Wikileaks gets a hold of them.

[Jefferson23]

9. When was the last time the press said to her, you're going to release them when the Republicans

do..but it was a US citizen at a town hall meeting about the PRIMARY who asked the question.

Her supporters should be demanding them as well.

[Fumesucker]

10. Does the term "October Surprise" have meaning for you?

No way that stuff gets released until the general is well under way and it's too late to change course, Clinton goes down like ninepins and the Republican skates to victory.

[DisgustipatedinCA]

11. An October Surprise with George HW Bush flying in an SR-71 to Paris to delay the release of

hostages?

Never heard of it.

[seabeyond]

12. Not your business.

[DisgustipatedinCA]

14. YOU are completely unqualified to tell me what my business is.

I don't possess the extreme self-loathing required to tell myself it's not my business.

[seabeyond]

15. Nope. I am perfectly qualified to state that her personal transcripts for speech are no more your

business than demanding to read her diary.

[DisgustipatedinCA]

16. You're both unqualified AND powerless to tell me what my business is.

Keep on trying though--see how that works for you.

[seabeyond]

19. I am totally in the power of telling you.... Not your business.

[SocialLibFiscalCon]

17. That is ridiculous

Everyone knew she would be running for president again so while she may have been a private citizen when the speeches were made, the words should not remain private. Nobody pays anyone $225k for a speech unless they expect something in return for that investment. Especially an investment bank for gods sake!!

[seabeyond]

18. Her speeches are totally separate of running for office. Not your business.

[SocialLibFiscalCon]

20. Are you a digital media specialist?

fit the mold

[seabeyond]

21. Not your business.

[SocialLibFiscalCon]

22. Thank you for confirming

[seabeyond]

23. Thank you for confirming... That it is not your business. Sure. YW.

[SocialLibFiscalCon]

24. My you are so witty

Completely lacking in any substance but I bet you crack yourself up.

[seabeyond]

25. "My you are so witty" Sigh. I know. Droll witticism from what I am told. Thank you.

[katsy]

26. Mitten's 47% speech to his big donors

was everybody's fucking business and HRC's speeches are our damn business if we say it is. She's a public figure. She's made it our business.

The gop will make it their business in due time.

[seabeyond]

27. Nope. Nt

[SocialLibFiscalCon]

13. Bernie needs to turn up the heat tonight on this

"Stop telling the American people you'll release them when the Republicans do, you are still running for the Democratic nomination! I have released mine , now it is time for you to release yours and show the voters that you are not telling them one thing while simultaneously telling Goldman Sachs something else!" " it is a matter of integrity and the American people have the right to know what was so special about these speeches that you were paid $225k per speech"

[anotherproletariat]

28. Why would anyone who gets paid to speak to private groups release the speech to just anyone?

Since she was a private citizen at that time (who had not even decided to make another presidential run), it seems like an IP matter to me.

[Arizona Roadrunner]

29. Yes, a taxpayer may be able to Sue for release of speech transcripts!

Can a tax payer sue Clinton for release of those speeches to Goldman-Sachs? If Goldman-Sachs tax deducted those speeches as an "expense", then it would be interesting to find out if a regular taxpayer has "standing" to sue. This would be based on the "regular" taxpayer paying more in taxes or getting less in services because of the lost revenue to the government due to the $675,000 tax deduction.

This situation is why she stands at between 57% and 59% disapproval rate. Her lack of perceived "honesty" makes her a VERY flawed candidate. Frankly, if she were to get elected, if Republicans retain control of the Senate and House, they will file impeachment charges on day one, and there will a transaction by transaction investigations of her and Bill's speeches, their "foundation" and ties to decisions made while she was Secretary of State such as the Swiss bank UBS situation.

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/07/hillary-helps-a-bankand-then-it-pays-bill-15-million-in-speaking-fees/400067/

The bottom line is there are too many risks for her getting elected let alone being allowed to govern due in large part to the and Bill's actions. Is it true they registered corporations in Delaware? If they did, the only reason one does that unless they live in Delaware is to evade and/or avoid something.