if she releases a transcript of it she will have to write a new one?
I used to teach an after hours tech class and hated it when someone would take the class over and I would be using the same jokes.

Somehow, I've got my doubts.

it was a pretty lightweight thing, ha ha
I posted it as a funny, but unfortunately the class thing was true and drove me nuts. It was a free class (I got paid, by the company)but still to stay 3 hours after work for a free sandwich and a boring class with tests and pop quizzes?

But they weren't paying that much for the speeches, they were paying for influence.

Yeah, I know that goes into tinfoil territory, but still...

[hr][font color="blue"][center]Aspire to inspire.[/center][/font][hr]

When was that? I'm not saying she didn't, I just can't find any confirmation of that.

[hr][font color="blue"][center]Aspire to inspire.[/center][/font][hr]

Randome, starting to annoy.......

They are planning to run in a public office. It's pretty simple.

with what she was saying. They could not care less what she had to say, she had to "earn" the money so it couldn't be called what it really was, a bribe.

by someone in attendance.

It may be that there really was very little in prepared remarks.

That might leave an even worse appearance with people who already feel she was grossly over-paid

It's fairly standard practice.

http://zfacts.com/2016/02/clinton-speaking-fees/

Such speakers use an agency to find and negotiate their speaking engagements, although they obviously have the last word. Hillary used at least two agencies, tinePublic Inc in Canada and the Harry Walker Agency in the US.

Goldman Sachs paid her $225k in 2013, about $10k less than her average in the list above, and the lowest fee paid in 2013.

It would be foolish to try to bribe someone with a slightly low-ball payment for services. And of course there is a far simpler explanation: She was just earning money by giving speeches. Money for her expenses (sure she lives, but she also works incredibly hard), for the campaign and for her Foundation. End of theory. We’d all love to win the lottery, and she won a decent sized lottery—the speaking-fee lottery. So she cashed in her winning ticket. Wouldn’t we all?

with respect to people feelings about these performances.

I hope that you are cutting and pasting that reply because it would be a shame to waste so much time posting that over and over.

Her 'bribes' are fairly standard speaking fees. Some may not like that she's making money from this, or think it looks 'unseemly', but since it's fairly routine for many 'celebrities' like Clinton, it's useful to have more information about it.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]"The whole world is a circus if you know how to look at it."
Tony Randall, 7 Faces of Dr. Lao (1964)[/center][/font][hr]

And again that matters not an iota to people regarding their feelings. Not o.n.e. iota.

I have been trying to identify what other types of people make that sort of money in "speaking fees".

Now, I know of people who do make money to speak, but the numbers HRC gets are way above and beyond any of them.

So I must ask: who else gets that kind of money in speaking fees? Can you name any names?

[hr][font color="blue"][center]Aspire to inspire.[/center][/font][hr]

I was reviewing that list as you responded. I do appreciate having the information.

So in this list of $200k+ speakers, I saw about 5 people total who weren't world famous artists, and all of those 5 were world-famous businessmen.

What I did not see on the list is any other politician. Or any other person in any other field besides the biggest of stars in the creative arts and a tiny handful of the most successful titans of big business.

She's the only politician in that range. And we know she's not a terribly good public speaker, so it's not for her rhetorical talents.

Let's try another approach to get a good understanding of whether her fees are normal. What other politician - besides her husband - gets speaking fees like this, and who?

In terms of delivering paid speeches, she’s right: Condoleezza Rice, Colin Powell and Madeleine Albright — the three secretaries of state before Clinton — and James Baker, who served under George H. W. Bush, have given paid speeches according to the Washington Speakers Bureau, the Alexandria, Va., booking agency that represents them.

Rice, who served as secretary of state from 2005 to 2009 under President George W. Bush, currently gives keynote presentations on foreign affairs, education and women’s empowerment according to her booking page, which includes testimonials from Prudential Retirement and the Business Council of Alabama.

Powell, who also served as secretary under W., is available for panel discussions and keynote addresses covering diplomacy and leadership.

“The power and passion of Gen. Colin Powell’s leadership was apparent in his discussion,” Dow Chemical said in its testimonial, “and his presence was an inspiring highlight of our meeting!”

Albright, who served as secretary from 1997 to 2001, discusses “her life and career as a young refugee who rose to become for a time the world’s most powerful woman,” as she did in this 2011 TED Talk.

Boy, it's nice to have hard information to work with instead of having to guess at everything!

Clinton's "speaking fees" appear to be far above and beyond anyone else in the political class. Do we know of any other single instance where a politician gained over $100k (personal gains, not for charity) for a single speaking engagement? Or is HRC the only politician to ever accomplish this feat even once?

But GS isn't the only place she speaks at, either.

http://www.politifact.com/texas/article/2016/jan/19/goldman-sachs-ted-cruz-hillary-clinton/

Those speeches were among 41 that Clinton delivered in the year, ultimately fielding $9.7 mil­lion in speaking fees, the National Journal reported at the time. Clinton’s "stand­ard rate ap­peared to be $225,000 for most speeches; her most ex­pens­ive ones were an ap­pear­ance for the Jew­ish United Fund/Jew­ish Fed­er­a­tion of Met­ro­pol­it­an Chica­go, for which she made $400,000, and one to Beau­mont Health Sys­tem in Troy, Mich., for $305,000," its story said.

The Jewish United Fund is associated with some fairly large scale international charity work - the kind in which the State Department has interest and, most importantly, provides funding and other support for. Some of these organizations may also be pass-throughs for associated interests.

If she wasn't giving the same speech to the same people.

she was spewing a lot of red meat criticism directed at Obama's economic and foreign policies in those speeches. Back in 2014, Hillary was singing a rather different tune when it came to Obama.....all one needs to do is check the news headers around that time....Hillary would have had great cause to worry if any of her speech criticisms lobbed at Obama were made public. If so, the AA community would have dropped her like a rock and she could have kissed her 'firewall' goodbye.......Here are a few headers from around 2014..........Do you think she would be generating the same amount of support with the CBC and the AA community if these headers were today's news stories?.......... JMO

Here are a few from 2014......its funny, we DON'T see Hillary generating such headers today. I wonder why?...

the opposite of praise is her history.

When it had more to do with "keeping your enemy closer" if the truth be told.

someone that treated me the way Hillary treated President Obama during the '08 primary election. But I do understand why he would do so.

I would have told her to take an early trip to the place she will eventually end up going. I don't really believe in hell but if there is one I have no doubts Hillary is headed there.

If she had run against him in the '12 primary she would probably be nothing more than a mention in history now.

one of them!...if you aren't already...

Of course speculation will still continue, since Clinton is "transparent".

but I think there must be some nearly-bad blood there. Her numbers in the South would have tanked, even if Pres. Clinton had done her campaigning there.

No wonder Obama seems mostly silent.

K&R

You may be right. Either way she clearly doesn't feel the transcripts will help her, so whatever she said likely doesn't match up with the "progressive" campaign she is running.

all on it's own!

The speeches unto themselves is not the point, the whole process is just a form of legal bribery. As for the content, I'm with Segami on this. Just the fact she was paid at all just means she is in their pocket.

If you don't prove that you're innocent, then you must be guilty by default. McCarthy destroyed many a career using that tactic.

presence in the economy...and you might be in a position to 'help them out'...it can be just a matter of your speeches are of great interest/import OR there may be some form of quid pro quo...

it isn't about anyone being guilty or innocent of anything...it is about the transparency of the situation...

in Clintonspeak...OPAQUE IS THE NEW TRANSPARENCY

You talk about McCarthy, how about Hillary's attacks on Bernie's foreign policy history? That's classic, red baiting McCarthyism. You are projecting like a republican.

As for the speeches, unlike trying to prove you are not a Communist, which would be impossible, all Hillary has to do is release her speech transcripts. If there is nothing to hide in them it shouldn't be a problem for her and would kill this issue in an instant.

She's hiding something very damaging to her candidacy and you know it. You won't admit it, but you know it.

And that her fees are fairly standard for someone of her position. Sure, you know.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Aspire to inspire.[/center][/font][hr]

Yeah, no, I'm not swayed.

She was cashing in before entering the Oval Office, a move which everyone saw as inevitable so businesses were eager to grease her palms.

Now take a quick look at a Talk at Golmand Sachs (GS), or at civil-rights-leader John Lewis talking with the CEO of GS, or the CEO of the NAACP or LGBT Professionals speaking at GS. Obviously GS hopes for good publicity and the speakers hope to influence GS. If you’re looking for conspiracies, this is a very silly place to look for them.

Many seem to think the highest possible legitimate speaking fee couldn’t be over $10,000, and anything higher must be a bribe. But looking at the list below, it’s obvious no one is bribing Charlie Rose, Lady Gaga or Larry the Cable Guy, or any of the other 120 people who get paid $200,000 or more per speech.

$50,000 Charlie Rose TV talk show host
$80,000 Malcolm Gladwell Author: Blink, and Outliers
$100,000+ Bill Maher Left commentator MSNBC
$150,000 Condilezza Rice Sect. of State, W. Bush
$200,000+ Jerry Seinfeld Comedian, actor, writer
$200,000+ Hillary Clinton Sect. of State, Obama
$200,000+ Lady Gaga Singer & empowerment speaker
$200,000+ Larry The Cable Guy Radio personality, comedian
$400,000 Ben Bernake Ex-Fed chairman, Bush, Obama

Few would have issues if Hillary had retired from from public life and got that kind of money.

But, sure, I agree it doesn't seem right to 'cash in' like this if you're expected to stay in the public spotlight. OTOH, much of her fees went into the Clinton Foundation, which is, of course, another source of contention for some but I think it's safe to assume it has done some good in the world.

Personally, I wish she had retired from public life. I'm as tired of the 'old guard' as anyone but I just want to set the record straight on her fees, which are, as I've said, fairly standard for GS.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Aspire to inspire.[/center][/font][hr]

and paid for representatives of "we the people". That is all.

Now, you get to go sit in the corner for a time out.

GS has these kind of speeches going on all the time. Sure, she was a former First Lady at the time but so what? There is no evidence that she's taking 'bribes'. If she were, why would anyone in their right mind go about it in such a public manner? All it takes is a meeting at a private coffee shop and the deal is done!

What about Jerry Seinfeld and Lady Gaga, who received the same amounts as Clinton? Were they being bribed? Again, it's common practice for GS.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]"The whole world is a circus if you know how to look at it."
Tony Randall, 7 Faces of Dr. Lao (1964)[/center][/font][hr]

ROFLMAO!

How old are you?

Tell me. Which offices are they running for?

If you want to assume the worst about someone, no one can stop you. But unless there is some sort of corroboration to the idea, it doesn't make sense to me to build up some theory about Clinton being publicly bribed to do something nefarious at some unspecified date for whatever reason.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]"The whole world is a circus if you know how to look at it."
Tony Randall, 7 Faces of Dr. Lao (1964)[/center][/font][hr]

This is a continuing approach of hers to many things. I used to think quite highly of her, but the more I see/hear her, I've changed my mind.

@HillaryClinton @cenkuygur If @BernieSanders campaign gave you your $300,000 speaking fee would you then let us see the transcripts?

Hillary is obviously very self conscious about the quality of her speeches now that Bernie has very publicly pumped up the quality of their content and raised expectations to unattainable levels.

1. the more likely scenario, imo, is that the speeches were substantive but damming. remarks very favorable to the finance sector, promises, critical analyses of her own administration ala segami's remarks above, etc. if this got out the multiple ramifications would be obvious.

2. less likely, imo, is that the speeches were not at all substantive, just basic platitutes and typical motivational speech fare. this would also be damming and embarassing because it would make clear that the speeches were most certainly not worth the price of admission and were only done as a cover for the money transfer and inherent prid pro quo to come.

neither option is a good one.

if a third option existed, i.e, the speeches were high quality, thorough, and non damming, we would seen at least one by now as the op indicated.

They were bribes, investments in Golden Sack's future.

[hr][font color="blue"][center]Aspire to inspire.[/center][/font][hr]

But unless you can tell us, I think it's safe to assume that the fees are fairly standard.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Aspire to inspire.[/center][/font][hr]

Did she deviate from transcript?
Was she winking while talking before 100s of investors, including Democrats?
Did she talk with key people behind closed doors?
What note was put in the check envelop?
How do we know those are true transcripts?
Clinton is lying?
And similar BS.

Same reason Obama took so long to release his birth certificate.

Fact is, Clinton's keynote speeches before hundreds of folks -- most who don't support her in any way and some with cameras and recorders -- were not about carving up the 99%ers' assets and giving it to 1%ers. But Sanders' rabid fans will never believe it, with transcripts, sworn testimony, videos, etc.

I wouldn't be bullied.

Therein lies your general election problem. But if there is nothing damning in them you would think she would want those 33% in her camp, or at least the ones she could convince to vote for her.

intends to do anything other than look for something to fluff up as a bad thing to say.

we don't care if you are on wall street's side and not the people, we just want you to win and screw us later. Weaksauce

It is not Wall Street vs. the People either. There is common ground. People don't want Wall Street doing badly - it means they will do badly.

wall st. is one of those groups denying that is ridiculous. They do not care if we do well, they still get theirs. Just less of it if we aren't doing well. They are hoarders, we are consumers. They do not even want us to make the goods we consume. Going by past history, with help from the third way dems, you seen manufacturing decrease. It is us against the 1% and the main problem is one candidate isn't trustworthy enough in her dealings with the 1%. If you disagree tell me why.

I think the most important issue is that she was paid millions of dollars by Goldman--and they are one of the big banks that tanked the economy, engaged in fraud when they bundled junk mortgages into AAA securitites and sold them on the secondary market.

These shitheads played a big Ponzi scheme with mortgages, and the American people were ripped off and then forced to reimburse them for their crimes.

Yep. These are the criminals that are paying Hillary Clinton millions of dollars.

The speeches seem like a formality to justify bribing her.

That's what is important here. She's been purchased by some of the most notorious, powerful special interests on this planet.

[hr][font color="blue"][center]Aspire to inspire.[/center][/font][hr]

Are they running for President? If what she claims is true (that she told the banks to cut it out in 2007 or so), then a transcript would benefit her big time on this issue. I think she should release it if she has the proof of those statements.

I think the question caught her off-guard and she didn't respond well. That being said, I personally think it's a non-issue. We're not electing one person to the office. She will bring an army of aides and support back into the White House and issues will still take on a more Progressive bent than they would with a Republican in office.

There will be progress but perhaps not the rapid progress many of us see as necessary. Still, you work with what you got and right now Clinton has the votes and delegate counts so we need to push her further to the Left where possible.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Aspire to inspire.[/center][/font][hr]

They know she's hiding something damaging. That doesn't bother them since they are true believers.

So, they throw as many rationalizations up as they can imagine to try to deflect the issue.

But they know she is hiding something. They'll never admit it, but they know.

A few points to mention:

- Speeches/talks tend to be pre-written following the same paragraphs and all. There would be subtle differences from one venue to another, but the Q&A section would be where there will be the most changes.
- She has given quite a few of them that there will always be sentences/phrases and all others that would be taken out of context. This will potentially damage her. It does not matter if her speech was completely innocuous, many will take things from there and misrepresent them.
- Given the choice between being castigated for something she has said, or castigated for not showing what she said, I tend to think that her best bet is not to show these transcripts. There really is not much reason for her to show them, unless she gets something in return that she would think is of equal value.

There are many other reasons to go after Hillary. Going after these transcripts, other than for badgering her and making her look bad feels unnecessary to me.

I know many won't think that way, but to me this is minor.

One of the many things that she has recently mentioned that made me not want to support her for the primaries would be her Education plan, particularly college which from her words sounds pretty much exactly how the current system is now. This, along with the many of the attacks she has made during the debates are misrepresentations of Bernie's positions that it makes me question her grasp of the issues, facts and history. She can't just echo Sanders' view and try to make herself sound tougher.

In comparison, Bernie's message resonates with me in regards to building up our infrastructure and concentrating on that. He is also much easier to defend, and I think he won't tire me as much when it comes to damage control. I mean there are many complaints about Bernie's campaign, but that generally is on his supporters and not the candidate himself.

I still rather stick with items that can be discussed such as policy rather than this type of innuendo. Granted, again, the innuendo attacks like this tends to come from the supporters rather than Bernie himself, while Hillary has directly gone after Bernie in reference to Castro and a Wall Street executive... where unfortunately when taken in to context makes Senator Sanders' point of view at least in my view the correct one.

I want both of them looking as strong as possible after primary season. I feel like this matter is counter productive, but I understand that people will look at this, and it is important to some. So, I think I'll stop with this and concentrate on other things. I really just don't think there is any point for her to release these transcripts unless she gets something of equal value in return...