HuffPo:Release of Clinton’s Wall Street Speeches Could End Her Candidacy for President
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/seth-abramson/release-of-clintons-wall-street-speeches_b_9698632.html
The reason you and I will never see the transcripts of Hillary Clinton’s speeches to Wall Street fat-cats — and the reason she’s established a nonsensical condition for their release, that being an agreement by members of another party, involved in a separate primary, to do the same — is that if she were ever to release those transcripts, it could end her candidacy for president.
Please don’t take my word for it, though.
Nor even that of the many neutral observers in the media who are deeply troubled by Clinton’s lack of transparency as to these well-compensated closed-door events — a lack of transparency that has actually been a hallmark of her career in politics.
Nor do we even need to take Clinton’s word for it — as we could certainly argue that her insistence that none of these transcripts ever be seen by the public is itself a confession that her words would cause significant trauma to her presidential bid.
In fact, it appears they’d cause enough trauma that Clinton would rather publicly stonewall — to the point of being conspicuously, uncomfortably evasive — in public debate after public debate, to endure damning editorial after damning editorial, and to leave thousands and thousands of voters further doubting her honesty and integrity, all to ensure that no one outside Goldman Sachs, and certainly no voter who wasn’t privy to those closed-door speeches, ever hears a word of what she said in them.
= new reply since forum marked as read
if you would not go there. 
And she won't be releasing them--it will come from the other side...
Simply indefensible.
... of these speeches is even an issue. When the President names a Supreme Court nominee, aren't the candidate's papers and speeches poured over by Senate staffers in preparation for the hearing and the vote? Why is HRC any different? Why does she get special treatment? If the title of the HuffPo article is true, then should she even be a nominee? If one hides something from the American People, should he/she even be considered as a nominee?
I say no. If you are hiding something, then you can't be trusted to be the President of the United States of America or any other position as a public servant of this land. It's a form of dishonesty right off the bat.
I'm afraid what we would see in these transcripts is the fact that she is much more in the pocket of Wall Street, Big Pharma, Big Insurance, Big Business than she should be. Perhaps she speaks about the TPP, about Energy, etc, which she won't or "can't" divulge to the American people. WhoTF knows.
I almost think this election should come to a stop until some of these questions are answered. The e-mail controversy, the withheld speeches, what else is up in the air with HRC? How is it alright for us to continue with an election, when one of the two candidates is being investigated and is deliberately hiding information from the public? 
