More Clinton stonewalling and whining: "Mrs. Clinton, Show Voters Those Transcripts"

From the NY Times (amazingly enough....)

Mrs. Clinton, Show Voters Those Transcripts
By THE EDITORIAL BOARD FEB. 25, 2016

“Everybody does it,” is an excuse expected from a mischievous child, not a presidential candidate. But that is Hillary Clinton’s latest defense for making closed-door, richly paid speeches to big banks, which many middle-class Americans still blame for their economic pain, and then refusing to release the transcripts.

A televised town hall on Tuesday was at least the fourth candidate forum in which Mrs. Clinton was asked about those speeches. Again, she gave a terrible answer, saying that she would release transcripts “if everybody does it, and that includes the Republicans.”

In November, she implied that her paid talks for the Wall Street firms were part of helping them rebuild after the 9/11 attacks, which “was good for the economy and it was a way to rebuke the terrorists.”

In a debate with Bernie Sanders on Feb. 4, Mrs. Clinton was asked if she would release transcripts, and she said she would “look into it.” Later in February, asked in a CNN town hall forum why she accepted $675,000 for speeches to Goldman Sachs, she got annoyed, shrugged, and said, “That’s what they offered,” adding that “every secretary of state that I know has done that.”

At another town hall, on Feb. 18, a man in the audience pleaded, “Please, just release those transcripts so that we know exactly where you stand.” Mrs. Clinton had told him, “I am happy to release anything I have when everybody else does the same, because every other candidate in this race has given speeches to private groups.”

On Tuesday, Mrs. Clinton further complained, “Why is there one standard for me, and not for everybody else?”

The only different standard here is the one Mrs. Clinton set for herself, by personally earning $11 million in 2014 and the first quarter of 2015 for 51 speeches to banks and other groups and industries.

Voters have every right to know what Mrs. Clinton told these groups. In July, her spokesman Nick Merrill said that though most speeches were private, the Clinton operation “always opened speeches when asked to.” Transcripts of speeches that have been leaked have been pretty innocuous. By refusing to release them all, especially the bank speeches, Mrs. Clinton fuels speculation about why she’s stonewalling.

Her conditioning her releases on what the Republicans might or might not do is mystifying. Republicans make no bones about their commitment to Wall Street deregulation and tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans. Mrs. Clinton is laboring to convince struggling Americans that she will rein in big banks, despite taking their money.

Besides, Mrs. Clinton is not running against a Republican in the Democratic primaries. She is running against Bernie Sanders, a decades-long critic of Wall Street excess who is hardly a hot ticket on the industry speaking circuit. The Sanders campaign, asked if Mr. Sanders also received fees for closed-door speeches, came up with two from two decades ago that were not transcribed: one to a hospital trade association, and one to a college, each for less than $1,000. Royalties from a book called “The Speech,” Mr. Sanders’s eight-hour Senate floor diatribe against President Obama’s continuation of Bush-era tax cuts for the wealthy, were donated to the nonprofit Addison County Parent/Child Center in Vermont.

The hazards of Mrs. Clinton, a presidential hopeful, earning more than $200,000 each for dozens of speeches to industry groups were clear from the start. Mrs. Clinton was making paid speeches when she hired consultants to vet her own background in preparation for a run. If they didn’t flag this, they weren’t doing their jobs.

Public interest in these speeches is legitimate, and it is the public — not the candidate — who decides how much disclosure is enough. By stonewalling on these transcripts Mrs. Clinton plays into the hands of those who say she’s not trustworthy and makes her own rules. Most important, she is damaging her credibility among Democrats who are begging her to show them that she’d run an accountable and transparent White House.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/26/opinion/mrs-clinton-show-voters-those-transcripts.html?action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&module=opinion-c-col-right-region®ion=opinion-c-col-right-region&WT.nav=opinion-c-col-right-region&_r=0

nochain wrote:

From the NY Times (amazingly enough....)

Mrs. Clinton, Show Voters Those Transcripts
By THE EDITORIAL BOARD FEB. 25, 2016

“Everybody does it,” is an excuse expected from a mischievous child, not a presidential candidate. But that is Hillary Clinton’s latest defense for making closed-door, richly paid speeches to big banks, which many middle-class Americans still blame for their economic pain, and then refusing to release the transcripts.

A televised town hall on Tuesday was at least the fourth candidate forum in which Mrs. Clinton was asked about those speeches. Again, she gave a terrible answer, saying that she would release transcripts “if everybody does it, and that includes the Republicans.”

In November, she implied that her paid talks for the Wall Street firms were part of helping them rebuild after the 9/11 attacks, which “was good for the economy and it was a way to rebuke the terrorists.”

In a debate with Bernie Sanders on Feb. 4, Mrs. Clinton was asked if she would release transcripts, and she said she would “look into it.” Later in February, asked in a CNN town hall forum why she accepted $675,000 for speeches to Goldman Sachs, she got annoyed, shrugged, and said, “That’s what they offered,” adding that “every secretary of state that I know has done that.”

At another town hall, on Feb. 18, a man in the audience pleaded, “Please, just release those transcripts so that we know exactly where you stand.” Mrs. Clinton had told him, “I am happy to release anything I have when everybody else does the same, because every other candidate in this race has given speeches to private groups.”

On Tuesday, Mrs. Clinton further complained, “Why is there one standard for me, and not for everybody else?”

The only different standard here is the one Mrs. Clinton set for herself, by personally earning $11 million in 2014 and the first quarter of 2015 for 51 speeches to banks and other groups and industries.

Voters have every right to know what Mrs. Clinton told these groups. In July, her spokesman Nick Merrill said that though most speeches were private, the Clinton operation “always opened speeches when asked to.” Transcripts of speeches that have been leaked have been pretty innocuous. By refusing to release them all, especially the bank speeches, Mrs. Clinton fuels speculation about why she’s stonewalling.

Her conditioning her releases on what the Republicans might or might not do is mystifying. Republicans make no bones about their commitment to Wall Street deregulation and tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans. Mrs. Clinton is laboring to convince struggling Americans that she will rein in big banks, despite taking their money.

Besides, Mrs. Clinton is not running against a Republican in the Democratic primaries. She is running against Bernie Sanders, a decades-long critic of Wall Street excess who is hardly a hot ticket on the industry speaking circuit. The Sanders campaign, asked if Mr. Sanders also received fees for closed-door speeches, came up with two from two decades ago that were not transcribed: one to a hospital trade association, and one to a college, each for less than $1,000. Royalties from a book called “The Speech,” Mr. Sanders’s eight-hour Senate floor diatribe against President Obama’s continuation of Bush-era tax cuts for the wealthy, were donated to the nonprofit Addison County Parent/Child Center in Vermont.

The hazards of Mrs. Clinton, a presidential hopeful, earning more than $200,000 each for dozens of speeches to industry groups were clear from the start. Mrs. Clinton was making paid speeches when she hired consultants to vet her own background in preparation for a run. If they didn’t flag this, they weren’t doing their jobs.

Public interest in these speeches is legitimate, and it is the public — not the candidate — who decides how much disclosure is enough. By stonewalling on these transcripts Mrs. Clinton plays into the hands of those who say she’s not trustworthy and makes her own rules. Most important, she is damaging her credibility among Democrats who are begging her to show them that she’d run an accountable and transparent White House.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/26/opinion/mrs-clinton-show-voters-those-transcripts.html?action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&module=opinion-c-col-right-region®ion=opinion-c-col-right-region&WT.nav=opinion-c-col-right-region&_r=0

Some democrats/hrc supporters must get really nervous the more she talks.....There's a reason she hasn't taken a question from her traveling press pool in almost three months and they continue to control audience questions....

Sounds like the ones paying her are buying her influence with bribes.. Of course they will look for her and pay her lots of money as long as it helps them in the end.. Have any of the other candidates given speeches to the same companies and how much did they get paid??

Sounds to me like you are making rules for her that don't apply to every other candidate running for office. She said that when every Republican and every Democrat running for POTUS shows the transcript of all the speeches they made, she'll then show people her own.

That's only fair.
There are not different rules for the Clintons than there are for everybody else, are there?

I keep hearing people claim there are, that the Clintons get by with more things. But the truth is you're holding her to a higher standard than everyone else running which is absolutely unfair.

She will be the nominee, I can guarantee you that. She won Nevada like I predicted and she won big in SC. She may lock up the nomination by Tuesday and there won't be a thing all the haters can do about it.

She can will all of the nominations of the Democrat idiots that she wants to but will not win the election and will NOT be the President..  Perhaps if you had ever served in the military you would know the ethics about having classified information and keeping it classified..  I know, I know, the General gave some classified info to his girlfriend and Jeffrey Snowden gave it to the Russians, but the general got punished and Snowden ran away to hide like the coward he is, but Hillary is still idolized by the people with the same ethics she has.. Would you give her the passwords of user ID needed for your credit cards or debit card for the bank??

She will win the nomination and I predict she will be president.  I wouldn't give anyone my user ID, not Hillary, not the Donald, Not anyone outside my immediate family. I'm not an idiot. That doesn't mean I think she would misuse it if she did have it. She doesn't need my money, that's for sure.
Polls show she might get beat by anybody but Trump, but Trump is going to be the Republican nominee.

Blame Republican primary voters when Hillary walks into the White House next January. They're voting in droves for a man who has had 3 trophy wives, who calls foreigners rapists and murderers, who has the support of the KKK, and who they can't trust on the issue of abortion. He cusses like a sailor when it's convenient and owns half the casinos in America and the so called Christians are fall ing all over to vote for him. I used to think Republicans were all about abortion but I know better now.I think this election is proving they just hate anyone who is different from them. That's Trump's whole message and Republicans are crazy for him. He's going to rip that party in two before it's over.

Oh, and he says he loves the poorly educated.
You betcha he does.

Tell me and PROVE 1 casino he owns in Biloxi, New Orleans, Vegas, or Reno....... Typical Democrat fantasies..
Go ahead and trust Hillary with the lives of your children or grandchildren if they have the ability to pass the IQ test and don't have records that would disqualify them from the military.. Only 15% of the 18-29 yr olds are eligible due to criminal records, recent use of alcohol/tobacco, or medical problems as simple as high cholesterol.. Ask a recruiter and they will tell you...

Jake92 wrote:

Tell me and PROVE 1 casino he owns in Biloxi, New Orleans, Vegas, or Reno.......  Typical Democrat fantasies..  
Go ahead and trust Hillary with the lives of your children or grandchildren if they have the ability to pass the IQ test and don't have records that would disqualify them from the military..  Only 15% of the 18-29 yr olds are eligible due to criminal records, recent use of alcohol/tobacco, or medical problems as simple as high cholesterol..  Ask a recruiter and they will tell you...

He disavowed support from _________[refuse to use his name] at a press conference when questioned....1/2 the casinos in America?....WOW!....There is just no way to even attempt to discuss/debate such lack of logic/truth comments...A party with a candidate that's under investigation for harming the national security of the US is judging another candidate's credibility....again WOW!

Jake92 wrote:

She can will all of the nominations of the Democrat idiots that she wants to but will not win the election and will NOT be the President..  Perhaps if you had ever served in the military you would know the ethics about having classified information and keeping it classified..  I know, I know, the General gave some classified info to his girlfriend and Jeffrey Snowden gave it to the Russians, but the general got punished and Snowden ran away to hide like the coward he is, but Hillary is still idolized by the people with the same ethics she has..  Would you give her the passwords of user ID needed for your credit cards or debit card for the bank??

You know there was a time when there were just some things that would never be acceptable...Petraeus did what he did was wrong and he was punished for his actions which were criminal....There were democrats at the time that were calling for him to do jail time for these actions...There is no justification or defending what hrc did with her personal server and 'jake92' you are correct about the standards that those in the military have to follow when dealing with such sensitive information...Ethics, responsibility, and certainly accountability are now missing when it comes to hrc's actions....Had she been in the military and somehow allowed to remain after this she would certainly not hold any security clearances and yet some feel she should be the commander-in-chief?....But honestly...if her name wasn't Clinton she would have already faced consequences for her actions...These are examples of why a candidate like Donald Trump is succeeding...people are fed up with politicians and especially politicians like hrc that have a pattern of this type behavior over decades of time...It's a disgrace that she is allowed to not be held to standards that those in the chain-of-command would have been punished...She started out working to remove a corrupt president from office and now her actions make Nixon's actions justifiable by today's standards.....