... was elected, and not a single candidate for the presidency has ever been asked to produce speech transcripts - until now.

Why is that?

Seriously, is this really your line of defense?

And your "obvious shill" rhetoric is just that - rhetoric.

No other presidential candidate has ever been asked to produce transcripts of speeches given while a private citizen. Why should HRC be treated any differently - other than your personal opinion that she should be?

There is no precedent for this kind of demand. There is, however, a precedent for candidates to produce multiple years of full and complete tax returns - and yet Bernie hasn't done so.

Why is Bernie exempt from following precedent, while Hillary is expected to do the unprecedented?

What it comes down to is obvious: Bernie is not going to be the nominee, and hoping that some "gotcha" remark can be found in HRC's transcripts that will change that fact is just pathetic straw-grasping.

What other nominee has made millions from consulting the elite bankers who destroyed our economy?

... a "conflict of interest" for any candidate to make speeches as a private citizen?

If you don't know what was in those speeches (which you clearly don't), you have no way of knowing if any "conflicts of interest" existed.

Look, your guy is losing - big time. And no transcript is going to change that. Time to accept reality and move on.

He accuses her of bribery all the time, yet when asked about how she was bribed by Goldman-Sachs, he could not answer the question.