Of course the key here is one the government will not ever release– because they are secret, so she can safely bleat all she wants, like a lonely goat. The other, well, THAT one is some trouble, but she controls them, so she’ll hedge and wait and stall until another headline comes along.
That plan may not work.
The media have been so focused on these two points — campaign contributions and hefty speaking fees — that they’ve mostly forgotten to ask a seemingly obvious question: What did Clinton say when she addressed those bankers, anyway?
That changed during Thursday’s debate in Durham, N.H., when MSNBC moderator Chuck Todd asked Clinton whether she would be willing to release transcripts of her remarks. Actually, Todd simply relayed a question that had been submitted by a voter. It wasn’t even a media professional who thought to ask.
The only time this question has come up before, as far as I can tell, was when a reporter for the Intercept raised it on the rope line after a Clinton campaign event in Manchester, N.H., last month. Video of the exchange shows Clinton laughing and ignoring the inquiry, but the issue didn’t attract much attention afterward, even in the conservative press.
(in our defense, we were focused on the CRIMINAL violations, so giving speech for money to fat cats so they can buy her off is a far more accepted form of corruption. )
It’s getting plenty of attention now, though — especially since Clinton offered another weak answer: “I will look into it. I don’t know the status, but I will certainly look into it.”
The ensuing coverage of the Goldman transcripts — suddenly everywhere — hasn’t been great for her.
Politico: Asked whether she would be willing to release the transcripts from her paid speeches to Goldman Sachs and other organizations, Hillary Clinton dodged.
CBS News: Hillary Clinton isn’t exactly promising to release the transcripts of her paid speeches to firms like Goldman Sachs, after taking heat on the issue from Democratic presidential rival Bernie Sanders.
Marketwatch: If you’re curious about what Hillary Clinton said to companies like Goldman Sachs in paid speeches, you may be about to find out. Emphasis on “may.” Asked at Thursday night’s Democratic debate if she would release those transcripts, the former secretary of state said, “I’ll look into it.”
CNBC: She stumbled again when asked if she would release transcripts of her speeches to Goldman and others, saying only that she would “look into it.” It’s hard to figure out how Clinton has not managed to come up with a better approach.
The transcript issue came up again at a Wall Street Journal breakfast event on Friday, according to a Bloomberg report. Clinton pollster Joel Benenson said — rather unconvincingly — “I don’t think voters are interested in the transcripts of her speeches.”
Ah, Joel, Joel, Joel, you mensch. Of COURSE we are interested, in every single one of them.
Buddy, pal, friend. We want to know. The nation wants to know. Why is Hillary hesitating? She says she is so smart every word is pure gold.
So shower us Hillary….with your wisdom.
Update: Zerohedge has one. (linked to Politico story)
But Clinton offered a message that the collected plutocrats found reassuring, according to accounts offered by several attendees, declaring that the banker-bashing so popular within both political parties was unproductive and indeed foolish. Striking a soothing note on the global financial crisis, she told the audience, in effect: We all got into this mess together, and we’re all going to have to work together to get out of it. What the bankers heard her to say was just what they would hope for from a prospective presidential candidate: Beating up the finance industry isn’t going to improve the economy—it needs to stop. And indeed Goldman’s Tim O’Neill, who heads the bank’s asset management business, introduced Clinton by saying how courageous she was for speaking at the bank. (Brave, perhaps, but also well-compensated: Clinton’s minimum fee for paid remarks is $200,000).
Certainly, Clinton offered the money men—and, yes, they are mostly men—at Goldman’s HQ a bit of a morale boost. “It was like, ‘Here’s someone who doesn’t want to vilify us but wants to get business back in the game,’” said an attendee. “Like, maybe here’s someone who can lead us out of the wilderness.”
Clinton’s remarks were hardly a sweeping absolution for the sins of Wall Street, whose leaders she courted assiduously for financial support over a decade, as a senator and a presidential candidate in 2008. But they did register as a repudiation of some of the angry anti-Wall Street rhetoric emanating from liberals rallying behind the likes of Sens. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) and Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio). And perhaps even more than that, Clinton’s presence offered a glimpse to a future in which Wall Street might repair its frayed political relationships.
Oh, that speech, with Bernie running up her rear, and Biden strapping on his Nike’s while texting Elizabeth Warren.
Nope, can’t find it. Nowhere.