It is fascinating to watch the growing controversy over the Clinton speeches and the decision of the campaign to stick with its refusal to release the transcripts in its possession. Hillary Clinton last week appeared to finish “looking into” releasing the transcripts of her speeches Wall Street and other groups. Voters and reporters have been asking to read what Clinton has said to these groups. After all, Clinton has said that she has only given Wall Street straight talk and that these firms stopped given her money. The latter statement has been called “demonstrably untrue” by the Washington Post. Clinton has thus far refused to release the transcripts and instead that she would only consider the release if everyone releases every speech ever given to any group. It had a certain Macbethian feel of guaranteeing that the final reckoning will never come “Till Birnam forest come to Dunsinane.” The problem is that Birnam forest did come to Dunsinane. The demand has now produced the world’s worse comparison for Clinton. It turns out that Bernie Sanders has disclosed his speeches and has only given two paid speeches for $1,867.42. That is now being compared to the estimate that Bill and Hillary Clinton have made $153 million for speeches from 2001 to her announcement for the presidency. While this is just a one year period, Sanders has a lot of room to make up to reach $153 million. That is not to say that the campaign cannot argue that Sanders in the pocket of these two groups but it is clearly a very, very small pocket.
It is also being reported that Clinton was the one who insisted that the transcripts be made by her hosts and handed over to her total control. What I honestly do not understand is why the Clinton campaign continues to fit disclosures despite the failure of that strategy in prior scandals like the email scandal. Various sites have started petitions with thousands of signatures to get Clinton to release the transcripts. It would seem inevitable that she will have to release the speeches but will now be viewed as fighting any review by the public. I am interested in whether people believe that this position will be sustainable in light of the worsening environment for Clinton in the primary.
After promising to “look into” the release of the transcripts, Clinton refused to release them or to explain why shouldn’t the public be able to read what she told such private groups. After all, polling shows this to be a major concern of voters and Clinton has characterized what she has told the groups. Clinton responded by setting this standard as the precondition to even “look into it further”:
“Let everybody who has ever given a speech to any private group under any circumstances release them and we will all release them at the same time. I don’t mind being the subject in Republican debates, the subject in the Democratic primary. It goes with the territory. At somepoint, you know, these rules need to apply to everybody. And there are a bunch of folks, including my opponent who has given, you know has given speech, speeches to groups and people on the other side who have given speeches to groups. If this is a new standard, it should apply to everybody. Then I’ll be happy to look into it further.”
It is hard to even fathom the satisfaction of a precondition of “everybody who has ever given a speech to any private group under any circumstances.” The fact is no other candidate has amassed such a fortune for such speeches in this race (with over $21 million from Wall Street alone) — most particularly her actual opponent in the Democratic race.
Sanders netted of $1,867.42 for two paid speeches and a television appearance last year. His highest paying gig? A spot on comedian Bill Maher’s HBO show “Real Time with Bill Maher” in November worth $850. That leaves his highest hourly rate as $850 versus $200,000 . . . and it was public. In 2014, Sanders had a minimum net worth of $169,025 with at least $25,002 in credit card debt.
What is interesting is that I would be surprised if Clinton said anything truly horrific in such speeches given her highly controlled and careful statements. Clinton has been criticized for being incredibly scripted in her comments and it would seem highly out of character to have a Romney moment like the videotape released in the last presidential election from a private speech. Most Democrats thought it was a good thing that Romney’s 47 percent comment was captured and released as reflective of his views. The same view would seem to argue for disclosure in this case. What is interesting is that, given Clinton’s statement that her straight-talk led to Wall Street not giving her money, it would be highly damaging just to see Clinton being chummy with these groups. The campaign seems to be preparing for that disclosure through surrogates in the media saying that such speeches often involve acknowledgments of “friends” as a courtesy. The campaign may correctly view the public as less willing to dismiss such friendly exchanges from a candidate who has made a fortune from speeches with banks and firms. However, reports are trickling out that suggest that Clinton was more than chummy, including one that said that Clinton “sounded more like a Goldman Sachs managing director.”
In the end, I believe that it would be good for all candidates for the presidency to release any transcripts to business groups and private groups as a rule. When you are campaigning for votes from the American people, there is a reasonable expectation of transparency, particularly to groups with financial interests in government policy. The question however is whether Clinton should be able to wait for all candidates to release all speeches, even those who are not running for the Democratic nomination.
Do you believe that Clinton should release the transcripts or do you agree that it is only fair that every candidate — including the Republicans — release their speeches as a precondition?
“FBI Confirms Its Investigation of Hillary’s Emails”
The FBI has confirmed that it is investigating Hillary Clinton’s use of a private email server while she was secretary of state.
In a letter obtained by several news agencies, FBI General Counsel James A. Baker said that “the Bureau has acknowledged generally that it is working on matters related to former Secretary of State Clinton’s use of a private e-mail [sic] server.”
The letter, addressed to Mary McCleod, the State Department’s principal deputy legal adviser.
Meanwhile, Attorney General Loretta Lynch on Monday also reaffirmed that the FBI’s probe into Hillary Clinton’s use of a private email server while secretary of state is free of outside political influence.
She told The Associated Press on Monday that the FBI investigation is independent and is being conducted by career lawyers looking at the facts and evidence.
Republicans have been critical of the Democratic presidential candidate’s use of personal email when she led State.
Baker’s letter says the FBI has not “publicly acknowledged the specific focus, scope or potential targets of any such proceedings.”
Hilary will prevail. She has the money, support and power to get what she wants. She will buy the White House and continue to be Wall Street’s toy.
I believe it will be fair for Hillary to release her speech transcripts when JT releases his mathematical calculations. I want to see how he went from Bill and Hillary jointly earning $153 million “from 2001 to her announcement for the presidency” [paragraph1], to Hillary being the only candidate to make “$153 million for speeches in this race” [paragraph 5]. It seems ol’ JT gets so riled over anything Hillary that he can no longer count on his fingers, let alone keep the numbers straight in his head. (Please note that I am politely assuming that JT failed his common core arithmetic, and is not being deliberately misleading.)
Tin – the fact that Hillary got 250k for a single speech would be enough to see that speech alone.
Tin – they reveal influence and access.
Organizations like these don’t just throw around money at engaging, dynamic, inspiring speakers… they give it to people they want something in exchange from, influence and access.
Wow, what a sleazy, misleading headline. Bernie Sanders made $1,867 for TWO speeches, last year, in 2015. The Clintons, both Hillary and Bill, a former president, made $153 million since 2001, in other words, in the past 15 years. In any event, what do these figures reveal? Either Bernie doesn’t like giving speeches, or nobody wants to listen to him, or nobody thinks whatever he has to say is worth much money. As far as the Clintons, the old saying goes, “You can’t argue with success.”
Tin – buying influence is worth 250k/speech. Bernie doesn’t have that much influence to peddle.
Karen
You have it exactly right. The one and only reason I would ever vote for Hillary is to keep any of the totally batsh*I crazy Republican candidates from being elected.
Even if 80% of the stories about her are birthed by the vast right wing conspiracy, the remaining 20% is enough to make her seem like a total sellout.
#feeltheBern
Bernie vows to break up the big banks … they are now bigger than ever …. he is proactive ….
Hillary says she will keep an eye on them and take action if they misbehave … again …
a reactive position.
Bernie is a caring person who truly is looking out for in the lower 95%. Thanks, Bernie!
Another way of looking at this is that people will pay big bucks to hear Hillary speak, while Bernie can’t give away his socialist drivel. As with most professional speakers, Hillary probably gives essentially the same speech at all of her private functions. This speech is her private intellectual property, which apparently has great value. She may eventually decide to give it away, but all of the other candidates that give paid private speeches should do the same. Of course, nobody cares to pay to hear Bernie.
Reblogged this on L'horreur islamique à l'âge des ténèbres ن.
I’m surprised one of the attendees at one of her speeches has not released a copy of her speaking. If that happened it would be amusing to hear her slither with an explanation. I say this once again she will skate free of any wrong doing. The laws we live by are only for you and I. Our political process has been corrupted and all the criminals are in DC.
Olly:
Hillary is very consistent. Many years ago, she gave an interview in which she laughed as she described how she volunteered to defend a pedophile. He even tricked a lie detector test, which made her assert that she would never trust them again.
From then on, she viciously attacked the character of women she knew full well her husband had had affairs, and in some cases, allegedly sexually harassed.
So, as far as character and decisions, she’s consistent. She also consistently changes her mind on policy wherever the voter winds blow. She’ll say anything to get elected. People change their mind when they get more information, but Hillary has flip flopped on a large number of issues.
I just roll my eyes when I see interviews in which she claims the entire email scandal was simply her forwarding a NYT article. So apparently she believes Americans are morons.
I say Bernie drop his speech and call her bluff.
She should release the texts of all of her speeches when Mitt releases all of his tax returns and Cruz releases the texts of all the public prayers he has uttered and Christie releases the texts all of his emails to third parties about his Bridge problems.
All of this information is useful to the voters, but we’ve never REQUIRED truth in advertising or disclosure of all utterances to third parties for presidential candidates. They can disclose (or not) what they want, and we can judge them by the choices they make.
I truly enjoy the public comparison of the speaking fees of Hillary and Bernie. Hillary’s speaking fees are obscene.
When seeking political office, politicians say what people want to hear. That’s how they get votes. Once in office they do whatever their most generous supporters ask them to do. The speeches themselves are really unnecessary. Considering that she received that amount of money, it’s quite clear whose interests she would support if elected.
At this point who needs to read her speeches to determine the content of her character? She is a hideous representation of American politics and as Madeleine Albright stated, “There’s a special place in hell for women who don’t help each other.” How in the world Clinton could laugh at that statement, given her track record of NOT helping the women her husband “allegedly” victimized, only further demonstrates she should have no seat of power that gives her a pen, a phone or control of our now weaponized, administrative state.
If people question a particular speech or speeches to a group of people for other parties, then they can ask for them, too.
Demanding everyone release every speech they ever made for every single candidate is an impossible condition. Many would not be transcribed, and it would take an enormous amount of time to get transcripts for every single one ever made.
Hillary Clinton is part of the government ruling class – lawless, unaccountable, and rich off of taxpayers while trying to lead the party of class warfare and income inequality.
She is consistent, though, especially in her efforts to control the narrative. I wonder if her demand for sole control over the transcripts of her speeches was “for convenience.”
People are not questioning every speech she ever made. They are questioning her excessive payment, and what she said to Wall Street, an industry her party platform opposes as The Devil.
She is betting that no matter what she does, people will vote for her because they don’t want anyone else to win. So they will willfully ignore the lies, lack of transparency, criminal acts (anyone else who took SAP HUMINT and put it on a private server and then subsequently wiped it clean would be sitting in a jail cell by now), and just stay the course, while simultaneously criticizing the lawlessness and special interests in politics.
I disagree w/ JT a bit about if there would be anything hurtful in the transcripts. There’s a good chance there are damaging pieces of her speech in a Dem primary election. I doubt they would be hurtful if she made it to the general election.
Well, if she emailed the speech transcripts on her private server we could get the transcripts from Putin. He knows more about her electronic communication than anyone in the US.
Either they all should release them or none should release them. I can’t stand HRC but there’s no point in singling her out. Mitt Romney gave us an inadvertent glimpse of what really goes on behind closed doors! I vote for releasing them all.