The best question of the debate was Hillary Clinton being asked if she would release transcripts of her for-personal-profit speeches? Clinton replied she'll think about it. The money paid to Clinton was not campaign contributions, but money that went into her personal pocket. Should she release the transcripts?
If there is nothing in the speeches that would be incriminating what's the problem? Someone knows that whatever she said won't play well with progressives, which why Sanders' team is pushing for release. Clearly she's a Wall Street Whore, which makes it strange she's playing "I'm more progressive than you" with a a socialist...
This will chase her. Some Republican should do a Harry Reid "Romney didn't pay taxes" on her and state as fact that she bragged of illegal favors she did for Goldman Sach in appreciate for all the money they are giving her.
yes she should because she made Wall Street reform part of her campaign and voters have the right to know if what she is promising isn't a lie by knowing what she has told Wall Street the very people she has collect millions from in speaking fees what she has told them behind closed doors
I think she is between a rock and a hard place: -release the speeches, and the public becomes aware that some people get paid lots of money to deliver platitudes, and that gets one to thinking "what exactly is hse being paid for?" -don't release the speech, and everyone (ie opponents) will assume the worst. Reagan started this trend, but it now is completely out of control (iirc reagan was paid 50 000 dollars at the time to speak in japan. And I remember being outraged back then) edit: Ouch. reagan took in 2 miilion dollars dor two speeches in japan
We have found that ten idiots are born for every smart person today. And I somehow think these ten idiots become so infested with their crazy ideas, that it stinks to high heaven. We also know what Wall Street has done for this country. If there wasn't Wall Street, this country would be at the bottom on wealth per individual. I have personally made over a million dollars by having Wall Street, although, my wife has spent part of it on the grandkids. Ask any millionaire what he thinks of Wall Street, but, talk to Donald Trump first and get his remarks. I'm fell bad how our youg generation is so low uneducated.
Shrug. Why? When you give speeches for money, you generally tailor the speech to your audience. And because they're paying you big bucks, you tell them things they want to hear. Such speeches are not political statements or policy pronouncements; they are a product being sold to a buyer. They have no relevance to a person's later political campaigns. This isn't a Hillary thing. I am uninterested in the content of the private, paid speeches given by ANY of the candidates. The reason Republicans want the speeches released is because they're hoping to find quotes that they can use out of context against her. There's no good reason for Hillary -- or any candidate -- to agree to a fishing expedition.
would it be relevant though if your policies were linked to your ability to sell future product ? what if bernie were also to release his speeches?
Not sure what you mean. Can you give an example? No. I don't care about his paid speeches, either. To clarify, I think it's legitimate to look at WHO they gave speeches to. Giving paid speeches to the KKK should probably raise some eyebrows. And acting as a SPOKESMAN for a particular cause or organization is a different thing, too. If you're advocating for a cause or group, then your words are fair game. But the specific content of paid speeches is unimportant to me.
I think this is one of those things along the liens of "if she doesn't release them she is hiding something and hence she is at fault". Presumably, through I do not knwo why, the rooms were filled with people who apparent were so not outraged over her speeches that they did not say anything about them.
Hillary's speaking engagements are a business relationship between a company and a private party so they have the right to keep them confidential. I can't imagine why anyone in their right mind would want to read the transcript of a boring business event speech. They're bad enough to listen to in person.
I'm sure the drones that support her would love to hear Clinton's speeches about how awesome the big banks are.
I think it is very naïve or deceptive to say that what she tells them has no relevance to a later political campaign. They are not handing her a quarter mil for financial advice, they want to know how she plans to govern that will have a bearing on their business. Should she make the transcripts public? Probably not but the public has a right to be curious and even suspicious.
*Shrug.* She wasn't a candidate them. And much of the time they're paying just to have the celebrity in the room -- which is why a lot of non-politicians are highly-paid speakers, too. Indeed, there are lots of non-policy speeches she could give -- war stories from when she was SecState, what it was like to be First Lady ... all things people would find interesting. The point is, she was delivering a paid product at a time when she was a private citizen. It has no real relevance to what she would do as president -- certainly less relevance than what she says/does while running for president, and less relevance than what she said/did in previous public office.
You can see the 10 highest paid speakers here. If this was more recent Hillary would be on it but not at the top. Even the highest rated speakers on this list wouldn't be worth reading in transcript form. If they ever want to get a terrorist to talk just read him a Trump speech; waterboarding would be instantly obsolete.
So you agree that Trumps private business dealings and business history also is irrelevant, correct? Don't you think it is time to repeal the laws requiring presidential candidates to divulge their financial resources and business connects as it is private and no one's business?
I guess it depends. I don't see any basis to have access to the actual contracts and other stuff. To the extent that many of his dealings are public record, they're fair game. But there would need to be some rationale for claiming that a business deal from, say, 1985 is relevant to his presidential run in 2016. No. You want to know where their conflicts of interest are. You shouldn't be able to buy a politician in secret.
