Why won’t Clinton release the transcripts of those paid speeches?
Hillary Clinton had a chance to put to rest swirling questions about her paid speeches to groups such as Goldman Sachs during last week’s final debate before Tuesday’s primary in New Hampshire. She pointedly refused to take it.
There’s the possibility — though I think it’s very remote — that Clinton simply wasn’t expecting the question and didn’t want to commit to anything in the moment. I say I think that’s unlikely because Clinton is (a) always very, very well prepared for debates and (b) Bernie Sanders has been hitting Clinton on her paid speech to Goldman Sachs for much of the past two weeks.
I generally take Clinton at her word when she describes what her speeches were about: Recounting high-profile events and her role in them. “I probably described more times than I can remember how stressful it was advising the president about going after bin Laden,” she told Todd on Thursday night.
Why not release them, then? Wouldn’t they reaffirm Clinton’s argument during the nomination race that she has been there and done that at the highest level of national and international diplomacy?
My guess is that in the speeches, Clinton acknowledges her various friends and acquaintances at Goldman Sachs (and other Wall Street firms) and praises them for the work they are doing. “You guys get a bad rap but ...”
“I was the one saying you’re going to wreck the economy because of these shenanigans with mortgages,” Clinton said in Thursday’s debate. “I called to end the carried-interest loophole that hedge fund managers enjoy. I proposed changes in CEO compensation.”
Anything that suggests she didn’t do that — or didn’tonlydo that — presents a major issue for her.
So, no speech transcripts. Not today, and my guess is not ever.
Why won’t Clinton release the transcripts of those paid speeches?
In other words, she'll lie again. But, it hasn't stopped her from lying about incidental things to major whoppers that actually define who she is. So, who knows...she hasn't been selective in her lies in the past, why not now?
Hillary Clinton had a chance to put to rest swirling questions about her paid speeches to groups such as Goldman Sachs during last week’s final debate before Tuesday’s primary in New Hampshire. She pointedly refused to take it.
There’s the possibility — though I think it’s very remote — that Clinton simply wasn’t expecting the question and didn’t want to commit to anything in the moment. I say I think that’s unlikely because Clinton is (a) always very, very well prepared for debates and (b) Bernie Sanders has been hitting Clinton on her paid speech to Goldman Sachs for much of the past two weeks.
I generally take Clinton at her word when she describes what her speeches were about: Recounting high-profile events and her role in them. “I probably described more times than I can remember how stressful it was advising the president about going after bin Laden,” she told Todd on Thursday night.
Why not release them, then? Wouldn’t they reaffirm Clinton’s argument during the nomination race that she has been there and done that at the highest level of national and international diplomacy?
My guess is that in the speeches, Clinton acknowledges her various friends and acquaintances at Goldman Sachs (and other Wall Street firms) and praises them for the work they are doing. “You guys get a bad rap but ...”
“I was the one saying you’re going to wreck the economy because of these shenanigans with mortgages,” Clinton said in Thursday’s debate. “I called to end the carried-interest loophole that hedge fund managers enjoy. I proposed changes in CEO compensation.”
Anything that suggests she didn’t do that — or didn’tonlydo that — presents a major issue for her.
So, no speech transcripts. Not today, and my guess is not ever.
Why won’t Clinton release the transcripts of those paid speeches?
In other words, she'll lie again. But, it hasn't stopped her from lying about incidental things to major whoppers that actually define who she is. So, who knows...she hasn't been selective in her lies in the past, why not now?