Why won’t Clinton release the transcripts of those paid speeches

[Si modo]

I would imagine that, since she was paid by the corporations, the corporations own the right to the transcripts, not her.

You would imagine wrong. I officiate weddings as a professional service. Essentially, I am being paid to give a certain type of speech. My clients might hire me, but that doesn't mean that they own the rights to the material that made up their wedding ceremony.

I suggest you read what I wrote in the partial quote you have of me..








Dumbass

 

[Si modo]

I would imagine that, since she was paid by the corporations, the corporations own the right to the transcripts, not her.

Not that I have any respect for the old, decrepit, dishonest, criminal, senile, stroked-out, brain-damaged, piece of shit, hag. But, she may have no control over their release. Not that the criminal pieice of shit couldn't get control if she wanted, but she is likely off the hook on that.

I thought that as well, but according to McClatchy, she personally required the transcript be created, and demanded that she retain full ownership of their content and 100% control of their release.

MANCHESTER, N.H.


Hillary Clinton, who faces mounting pressure to release transcripts of her paid speeches, routinely demanded that a stenographer be present at her events so she could maintain a record of what she said.

At least four of Clinton’s contracts include a clause stating a transcript would be produced for Clinton and that the former secretary of state would own them and control their release, according to contracts obtained by McClatchy.


Read more here: It was Clinton who required transcripts of her speeches​

Well, there ya go!

 

[SwimExpert]

I suggest you read what I wrote in the partial quote you have of me..

I already did, dumbass.

 

[Political Junky]

Well, this gives the Right Media a project for the next 10 years.

 

[Si modo]

I suggest you read what I wrote in the partial quote you have of me..

I already did, dumbass.

Awesome!

But, apparently our agreement of who owns the rights to the transcripts is a moot issue.




Moron.

 

[SwimExpert]

I suggest you read what I wrote in the partial quote you have of me..

I already did, dumbass.

Awesome!

But, apparently our agreement of who owns the rights to the transcripts is a moot issue.




Moron.

As is the fact that Obama ate your dog.

Idiot.

 

[Si modo]

Oh, the burn.

 

[SwimExpert]

Oh, the burn.

Feel it.

 

[FA_Q2]

Nutbags never learn.

No they don't but I fail to understand why you had to jump in and declare such here. It just makes you look like one of those nutbags.

This is not a 'nutbag' issue. Sanders is clearly running on the idea that politicians are bought and the extreme hostility that the electorate has to politicians that have been. Hillary has been questioned on these speeches and it damages the outsider narrative that she is trying to build. Hillary is clearly not an outsider and that is a very difficult image for her to build. The massive donations that she (and her husband) have received in the past and continued engagement with the very industry that is so unpopular with the average voter is going to damage her campaign.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Nutbags never learn.

Yeah, that's what I said when the left spent months trying to prove that GW went AWOL in the service or that Mitt Romney played a high school prank on a fellow student.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

What do others think? Is there a good reason to hold them back?

Maybe they were on her server and she accidentally erased them.

 

[LoneLaugher]

Nutbags never learn.

No they don't but I fail to understand why you had to jump in and declare such here. It just makes you look like one of those nutbags.

This is not a 'nutbag' issue. Sanders is clearly running on the idea that politicians are bought and the extreme hostility that the electorate has to politicians that have been. Hillary has been questioned on these speeches and it damages the outsider narrative that she is trying to build. Hillary is clearly not an outsider and that is a very difficult image for her to build. The massive donations that she (and her husband) have received in the past and continued engagement with the very industry that is so unpopular with the average voter is going to damage her campaign.

Of course. My not wanting to waste a ton of time defending against another ridiculous accusation without merit is me being a nutbag.

Here is what will happen. Assholes will clamor for the release of these privately delivered remarks.....all the while making wild guesses about what criminal or otherwise horrible things Hillary Clinton said. It will become a major story as "news" agencies give the noise air time in the interest of ratings. News anchors will innocently remark that "it's a legitimate question"....blah.....blah.....blah.

Clinton will either ignore the calls and have to absorb yet another round of bullshit character assassination......or she will release them. If she does, there will be nothing in them that incriminates her. The nutbags won't ever accept that, though. And....there will be another seed of doubt sown.

Awesome.

 

[Geaux4it]

Yea, I want to see where she told Goldman that Wall St wasn't the problem in 08'. The Sanders front and democrats in general, don't like that at all.

-Geaux

 

[Seawytch]

Why is it that the Democratic candidates are asked to do things no other candidate is ever asked to do? No candidate before Barack Obama had "the people" clamboring for his birth certificate then demanding his college transcripts...despite no other candidate ever being asked for these things before. Now it's Hillary's speeches although plenty of candidates have made money giving speeches. Why is there a different standard?

 

[LoneLaugher]

I just read in this thread that Hillary Clinton required that transcripts of her speeches be created.

Why would she do that if she was trying to hide something?

Simple question.

 

[Geaux4it]

Why is it that the Democratic candidates are asked to do things no other candidate is ever asked to do? No candidate before Barack Obama had "the people" clamboring for his birth certificate then demanding his college transcripts...despite no other candidate ever being asked for these things before. Now it's Hillary's speeches although plenty of candidates have made money giving speeches. Why is there a different standard?

There is a different standard that America set when they elected such a radical. Well, they did in electing a Muslim terrorist for President. So the bar is set

We just want to see how Hillary blew the very people that her and Obama blamed for the financial crisis. You know, the 1% flying in shiny jets to Vegas and that.

-Geaux

 

[Seawytch]

Why is it that the Democratic candidates are asked to do things no other candidate is ever asked to do? No candidate before Barack Obama had "the people" clamboring for his birth certificate then demanding his college transcripts...despite no other candidate ever being asked for these things before. Now it's Hillary's speeches although plenty of candidates have made money giving speeches. Why is there a different standard?

There is a different standard that America set when they elected such a radical. Well, they did in electing a Muslim terrorist for President. So the bar is set

We just want to see how Hillary blew the very people that her and Obama blamed for the financial crisis. You know, the 1% flying in shiny jets to Vegas and that.

-Geaux

ODS and CDS. Already knew that, thanks.

 

[FA_Q2]

Nutbags never learn.

No they don't but I fail to understand why you had to jump in and declare such here. It just makes you look like one of those nutbags.

This is not a 'nutbag' issue. Sanders is clearly running on the idea that politicians are bought and the extreme hostility that the electorate has to politicians that have been. Hillary has been questioned on these speeches and it damages the outsider narrative that she is trying to build. Hillary is clearly not an outsider and that is a very difficult image for her to build. The massive donations that she (and her husband) have received in the past and continued engagement with the very industry that is so unpopular with the average voter is going to damage her campaign.

Of course. My not wanting to waste a ton of time defending against another ridiculous accusation without merit is me being a nutbag.

Here is what will happen. Assholes will clamor for the release of these privately delivered remarks.....all the while making wild guesses about what criminal or otherwise horrible things Hillary Clinton said. It will become a major story as "news" agencies give the noise air time in the interest of ratings. News anchors will innocently remark that "it's a legitimate question"....blah.....blah.....blah.

Clinton will either ignore the calls and have to absorb yet another round of bullshit character assassination......or she will release them. If she does, there will be nothing in them that incriminates her. The nutbags won't ever accept that, though. And....there will be another seed of doubt sown.

Awesome.

What makes you one of those nutbags is the absolute need to dismiss anything that is asked of Clinton even when it is blatantly obvious why such questions are being asked or what they mean in the current political landscape. This really is not an issue for the right tbh, they don't like Clinton no matter what. This IS an issue for the left however where Sanders is really taking Clinton to task as a bought politician.

Clinton wants to be seen as an outsider - someone that is not from the political class or controlled by wall street. Sanders not only fits that bill but the people in general believe it. Clinton does not fit that bill but has been trying to paint herself in that manner and something like this is damaging to that image.

Do I think that the transcripts matter? No, I really do not. Do I think that it will be dropped when they surface? Depends on what is actually in them but I doubt that there is much 'red meat' for the media to continue on this road once they are. What is effective though is speculating and using it to attach her as an insider in wall street's pocket. I think that simply releasing them from the get go would run this out of steam very fast. I have no idea why politicians have a tendency to conceal things like this that have no impact on those that are not going to vote for them yet cast doubts on those that are.

Do you really think that she is able to win over people voting for or leaning towards Sanders with secrecy?

 

[Rexx Taylor]

look, let Clinton go thru the footage, clean up all of the shitty parts of her speeches "With A Cloth" and then we can all watch her boring speeches on you tube

 

[LoneLaugher]

Nutbags never learn.

No they don't but I fail to understand why you had to jump in and declare such here. It just makes you look like one of those nutbags.

This is not a 'nutbag' issue. Sanders is clearly running on the idea that politicians are bought and the extreme hostility that the electorate has to politicians that have been. Hillary has been questioned on these speeches and it damages the outsider narrative that she is trying to build. Hillary is clearly not an outsider and that is a very difficult image for her to build. The massive donations that she (and her husband) have received in the past and continued engagement with the very industry that is so unpopular with the average voter is going to damage her campaign.

Of course. My not wanting to waste a ton of time defending against another ridiculous accusation without merit is me being a nutbag.

Here is what will happen. Assholes will clamor for the release of these privately delivered remarks.....all the while making wild guesses about what criminal or otherwise horrible things Hillary Clinton said. It will become a major story as "news" agencies give the noise air time in the interest of ratings. News anchors will innocently remark that "it's a legitimate question"....blah.....blah.....blah.

Clinton will either ignore the calls and have to absorb yet another round of bullshit character assassination......or she will release them. If she does, there will be nothing in them that incriminates her. The nutbags won't ever accept that, though. And....there will be another seed of doubt sown.

Awesome.

What makes you one of those nutbags is the absolute need to dismiss anything that is asked of Clinton even when it is blatantly obvious why such questions are being asked or what they mean in the current political landscape. This really is not an issue for the right tbh, they don't like Clinton no matter what. This IS an issue for the left however where Sanders is really taking Clinton to task as a bought politician.

Clinton wants to be seen as an outsider - someone that is not from the political class or controlled by wall street. Sanders not only fits that bill but the people in general believe it. Clinton does not fit that bill but has been trying to paint herself in that manner and something like this is damaging to that image.

Do I think that the transcripts matter? No, I really do not. Do I think that it will be dropped when they surface? Depends on what is actually in them but I doubt that there is much 'red meat' for the media to continue on this road once they are. What is effective though is speculating and using it to attach her as an insider in wall street's pocket. I think that simply releasing them from the get go would run this out of steam very fast. I have no idea why politicians have a tendency to conceal things like this that have no impact on those that are not going to vote for them yet cast doubts on those that are.

Do you really think that she is able to win over people voting for or leaning towards Sanders with secrecy?

I am for Sanders. You lose.

I don't blame her one bit for the secrecy. She's been under constant attack for two and a half decades.