....they write them up.

She just read the Manhattan White Pages telephone directory to them.
And they ate it up!

Seriously, they've had plenty of time to put an intern in a cubicle and either sanitize or Simonize the actual script/transcript/PPT-notes, or make it up out of whole cloth.

....is what I meant &quot

After all, Sanders never gave her date that she had to release them by, did he?

It's like the rule of "parlay" in the Pirates Code (ref: Pirates of the Caribbean: The Curse of the Black Pearl). That which isn't specified is open to interpretation.

Works for me!

I'm confused... Some people are still sticking to their her private property so she shouldn't have to release them angle. Or the angle that no other candidate for president has had to release their transcripts.

But in all seriousness, there could be a corporate hurdle involved when it comes to who actually owns those speeches and those transcripts. I would imagine that any company willing to pay YUGE fees for a speech by a Hillary type retains all the rights to that speech by contract. They are paying for what they hope will be good PR and access to some level of proprietary info that they can make redound to their benefit. It makes them look good in the circles in which they run to be able to attract and pay for speakers at Hillary's level. They may want to own what was said so they can pull quotes out and use them in company mailings and business solicitations.

It's like my job, where I spend a good deal of my time writing marketing and fund-raising pieces. Even though I wrote them, they are the property of the company for which I work. Were someone outside the company to ask me to see my drafts, I would need to clear that with the company first, because those drafts aren't my property - I was paid a salary to write them, after all.

Hillary could be in a similar situation with all of those corporate speeches.

On the other hand, if she does own the speeches, then it is a matter of private property, at which point it's up to Hillary to do the political calculation about whether releasing them helps or hurts her, letting the chips fall where they may.

Part of her contracts required a stenographer present who would give transcripts only to clinton.

or Free Repubic? Please provide a link to this startling new info that, apparently no one but you seem to have read.

Here is just one link..

https://www.scribd.com/doc/236937625/UNLV-Clinton-Contract

You can scroll down to near the bottom under TRANSCRIPTION.

I'm an attorney and I'm familiar with intellectual property ownership issues and confidentiality clauses. If it is true that she doesn't own the rights, or also needs the approval of the various companies, or has a confidentiality clause, all she has to do is say so. She is perfectly capable of telling us that Goldman Sachs owns the rights and refuses to make it public or that they need to jointly consent with her and won't. A confidentiality clause can be revised in just a few minutes, or she can inform us that the other party refuses to amend the agreement. In these cases, we can then pressure GS to release the transcripts. Instead of taking these very simple actions, Hillary is certainly giving the appearance, whether or not it is actually true, that she is hiding something that she thinks will cost her votes.

Better she do that behind the scenes and announce it when it's done. Saying "I'm working on it" will be portrayed by her enemies as a "new dodge," so why possibly spoil a deal that's in the works?

In the meanwhile, Hillary will just sluff off the attacks like she has over the past 30 years. This one is pretty minor, considering what she's been through, like 11 hours of Benghazi hearings with a very hostile crowd. While Joe Public may think it's a big deal, it isn't to her. She is one person who's cognizant of the inner workings of this, what she said and what she didn't say. Obviously, she's not worried that there's anything in there that's compromising.

As far as her saying it's up to GS - why would she say something like that and lose control of the issue? As you say, people would go after GS then. That's not in her or their best interest. These are not "simple actions." You as an attorney should know that what looks simple from the outside is rarely simple on the legal inside.

This is hardly a minor attack because it is not clearly untrue like Vince Foster or Benghazi or the bodies buried under the White House lawn. She has a major credibility problem not just with Republicans, but with lifelong Democrats like me who have seen her shifting views constantly, denying she has done so, and occasionally provably lying in public (the Bosnia incident comes to mind) over the years. I would love to believe that she is honest but she has given me very little reason to do so and I am not at all influenced by the BS coming from the Republican side. She has PR people working for her and is doing a terrible job of managing this issue. There really is no justification for the way she is handling this - it looks bad and it feeds into the negative perceptions she already has.

Wish I could write so clearly.

Every time Hilary says that she will release them when everyone else does, this is what Bernie should say: "Look, Secretary Clinton, we are in the primaries, not the general election. You can't expect that the Republicans will honor your request during the primaries. You can, however, ask that every Democratic candidate should also release their transcripts. And, guess what - since I am the only other Democratic candidate, I am here to tell you again right now that I am happy to release mine!"

every Democratic elected official release their transcripts, not just the one he is running against?

I wonder how may endorsements he will get after that stunt...

then pulls the "I didn't give any speeches" card.

The fact is that this is a non-issue that is only an issue because Sanders has decided to fabricate it as an issue. It's the oldest political ruse in the book: find something "wrong" about your opponent that you have no connection to, pump it up as an "issue," then act like you're the morally superior person for not having engaged in the bad behavior. In the past, it might be like Nelson Rockefeller, who had been divorced and remarried. That cost him the R nomination back in 1964. By 1980, the Rs were just fine with an actor who was divorced and remarried as their nominee. But it was easy for the anti-Rockefeller Rs in 1964 to harp on what was wrong with him and to steer the nomination to Goldwater, who had no such marital issues.

It's funny: when Citizens United went through, the concern was the the Ds would never find a way to secure the kind of corporate money that came easily to the Rs, and that we would never again be fighting on a level playing field. So,the Ds made the strategic effort to go after that corporate $ so they could at least stay in the game. We've now come full circle, where the millions in corporate $ didn't help Jeb Bush.

Bernie's burning desire is to change the playing field so none of that would be needed.

And it won't happen as long as the Rs control Congress.

If Sanders really wanted to change things he'd be raising $ for the down-ticket D candidates in hopes that they would unseat Rs and turn the Congress blue. But he isn't doing that, is he?

Hope is one thing. It's a pretty cheap commodity. Getting things done? That takes real effort.

He does not focus on people's faults the way most of us do; personal criticism doesn't come naturally to him -- and I know this as someone who listened to him talking to callers on the Thom Hartmann show once a week for about a decade. His mind is primarily occupied with his life work, not with judgment of his colleagues. Remember his "the American people are tired of hearing about your damn emails, Hillary?" Many thought he let her off too easily, but that's the way he really is.

Other people were talking about the GS speeches long before Bernie. I think he's been advised to meet her attacks with some of his own.

NY coming they figured he needed to go on the attack to see if that would pump up his chances.

and she began a particularly nasty line of attack. Remember, she has David Brock, a very Rovian character, working to destroy her opposition. And, as we remember from 2008, she has her own below-the-belt tendencies.

campaining because somebody thought they heard that she was going to 'disqualify' Bernie. His lack of keeping his word is actually her fault. Got it.

you don't have any room to criticize Bernie for defending himself against gutter level politics.

You see, we, his supporters, want him to be viable and we know what he is up against.

Fight on, Bernie -- for all of us.

It's clear that's what he does- just look at his Senate record. I just didn't know you were so into naming Post Offices.

Bernie's long senatorial career, all the accomplishments, all the legislation he a) proposed and b) passed. I'll be anxiously awaiting the information.

of the .01% anyway.. Nothing in their speeches would surprise or edify

If she did it would be the end of her campaign. Hillary Clinton releasing the transcripts of her Wall Street speeches is a pipedream. It will never happen.