And again were still waiting for the former Secretary to 'look into it' ... maybe someday, yeah sure. You betcha.
….
Hillary Ducks Reporters’ Questions About Goldman Speech Transcripts by Attacking Sanders
by Josh Feldman, mediaite.com -- February 5, 2016
link one, link two.
Partial Transcript: Time Mark 1:23
Andrea Mitchell: Well his argument about Wall Street ties seem to be penetrating, it's stuck. How do you counteract that? Are you willing to release the Transcripts -- that are under your control -- they were part of your contracts, you own them. Are you willing to release all your speeches?
--
Hillary Clinton: I said I would look look into that -- But I want to get to what's really behind this. What's behind this is ... I made speeches when I left, as many people do. Officials, other former militar-
Andrea Mitchell: Are you sorry now, you did it?
Hillary Clinton: No! I'm not ... because I thought it was a good way to communicate what I was seeing in the world; to answer questions about that -- my term as Secretary of State. I think it was also a useful exercise for me, because it also enabled me to think through, kind of where I was ... in the assessment of what I would do next.
SO No. But here's what really going on: this is an effort by the Sanders Campaign to basically say, Anybody who's ever taken a donation from -- not just from Wall Street, if you take it to the natural conclusion -- from anybody, has been bought and paid for. That is absolutely untrue.
And know that the American People have the right to ask those questions -- and I have every right answer them. [...]
Ah, yeah right, that’s “exactly” what the Sanders Campaign is saying — umm No! It’s the Wall Street pay-to-say connections that concern them.
Not being one to sit on my hands and patiently wait, for this exercise in Candidate Transparency to be fulfilled (or forgotten), I decided to "look into it" myself.
And among other things, one of the most startling factoids I discovered about the Topic the subject of all the current denial and deflection, is that when those Wall Street speeches were going on, the public, the press, and any non-invited guests, were specifically denied access to those 'useful exercises in communication'
...
Clintons' speeches are cozy for Wall Streeters but closed to journalists
by Richard Pollock, washingtonexaminer.com -- 9/15/14
[...]
But journalists won’t be in the room as long as Hillary Clinton relies on the speaking contract used by her agent, the Harry Walker Agency, a copy of which the Washington Examiner obtained from the sponsor of one of the events she addressed.
[...]
The contract also ruled out press conferences or statements and bans recordings by anyone, saying, “It is understood and agreed that recording the speaker’s remarks for any purpose, including the sponsor is not permitted.” [...]
John Hollon, editor-in-chief of TNLT.com, a human resources trade publication, said he was astonished when he learned reporters were barred from the human resources meeting. “Something like this pops up and makes you wonder, ‘What could they be thinking?’ ” [...]
There are many reasons you might keep such events "closed doors" -- but none of them are helpful for a 'progressive candidate' committed to the concept of getting "the influence of money out of politics" … if for the sake of “appearances” of it all, if nothing else.
What does this say about a progressive Candidate’s judgment? What does it say about their back-room, undisclosed loyalties?
Something tells me all those “secrecy clauses” were there for a reason — no looking into it required. Just watch all ‘the pivoting’ on display in that very direct video.
Hillary Clinton can easily disprove all this crass speculation — by just releasing the Transcripts, which according to Andrea Mitchell, she has the full ownership rights to do.
SO, what’s the problem?