Lefty pressure building on Hillary to release transcripts of talks to Goldman Sachs

Hillary Clinton’s pose as a critic of Wall Street is running into the awkward fact that she received millions of dollars in speaking fees from financial industry sources, as well as $675,000 from Goldman Sachs for just three speeches.  She and her campaign are seriously bungling their handling of the issue, making it appear as though she has something to hide.  John Merline of Investor’s Business Daily chronicles the development of the issue.

In a video posted on the leftist news site The Intercept in late January, one of Intercept’s reporters asked Clinton if she would release the transcripts of the speeches. Her dismissive response, in which she merely laughed and turn away, has spread across the Internet.

That laugh is even worse than her usual dismissive laugh because she ran away.

Bernie Sanders also brought it up in a debate weeks ago, but matters have gotten even worse since then.

… on Thursday, at an otherwise friendly MSNBC-hosted debate, Chuck Todd read a submitted question to Clinton about the Goldman Sachs speeches: “Don’t you think the voting public has a right to know what was said?” Todd pressed further, asking Clinton: “Are you willing to release the transcripts of all your paid speeches? We do know through reporting that there were transcription services for all of those paid speeches. In full disclosure, would you release all of them?

Her answer: “I will look into it. I don’t know the status, but I will certainly look into it.”

But the very next day, Clinton pollster Joel Benenson indicated that Clinton has no real intention of “looking into it,” dismissing the issue entirely by saying that “I don’t think voters are interested in the transcripts of her speeches.”

There are few things more suspicious than a broken promise to look into things.  Sanders supporters, already convinced that the economy is rigged and that Bernie is the only one who will do something about it, are naturally curious as to what was said.

I doubt very much that Clinton said anything so blatant as “Don’t worry: I am just faking it on the outrage, and you’ll be safe with me.”  But she may well have said things almost equally incriminating:

Politico reported shortly after one of her Goldman Sachs speeches that “What the bankers heard her to say was just what they would hope for from a prospective presidential candidate: Beating up the finance industry isn’t going to improve the economy—it needs to stop.”

As Merline notes, it has already been reported that transcription services were used on her paid speeches at Goldman, so the refusal to release them is just going to fester and lead to more demands.

Unless the transcripts are full of fire-and-brimstone denunciations and demands that Goldman change its ways (and they aren’t), Hillary is going to look bad once they are released.  And if they aren’t, after promising to look into them, the paranoia of the left will only grow.

A petition launched Friday on  RootsAction.org — a left-wing activist site — asks every journalist who talks to Clinton to press her about releasing the Goldman Sachs transcripts. By Monday morning, the group had gathered more than 12,000 signatures.

In addition, the leftist Daily Kos ran a story after the debate saying “Hillary Clinton’s Goldman Sachs speech transcripts just became a MAJOR campaign issue.” Other liberal sites have been pushing the story out to their readers as well.

The obvious solution is for Clinton to claim that Goldman, which paid for the speeches, refuses to release the transcripts.  But then that casts her in the role of bought and paid for secret agent.

Hey, there’s no reason why being a hypocritical phony lefty should be easy.

Hillary Clinton’s pose as a critic of Wall Street is running into the awkward fact that she received millions of dollars in speaking fees from financial industry sources, as well as $675,000 from Goldman Sachs for just three speeches.  She and her campaign are seriously bungling their handling of the issue, making it appear as though she has something to hide.  John Merline of Investor’s Business Daily chronicles the development of the issue.

In a video posted on the leftist news site The Intercept in late January, one of Intercept’s reporters asked Clinton if she would release the transcripts of the speeches. Her dismissive response, in which she merely laughed and turn away, has spread across the Internet.

That laugh is even worse than her usual dismissive laugh because she ran away.

Bernie Sanders also brought it up in a debate weeks ago, but matters have gotten even worse since then.

… on Thursday, at an otherwise friendly MSNBC-hosted debate, Chuck Todd read a submitted question to Clinton about the Goldman Sachs speeches: “Don’t you think the voting public has a right to know what was said?” Todd pressed further, asking Clinton: “Are you willing to release the transcripts of all your paid speeches? We do know through reporting that there were transcription services for all of those paid speeches. In full disclosure, would you release all of them?

Her answer: “I will look into it. I don’t know the status, but I will certainly look into it.”

But the very next day, Clinton pollster Joel Benenson indicated that Clinton has no real intention of “looking into it,” dismissing the issue entirely by saying that “I don’t think voters are interested in the transcripts of her speeches.”

There are few things more suspicious than a broken promise to look into things.  Sanders supporters, already convinced that the economy is rigged and that Bernie is the only one who will do something about it, are naturally curious as to what was said.

I doubt very much that Clinton said anything so blatant as “Don’t worry: I am just faking it on the outrage, and you’ll be safe with me.”  But she may well have said things almost equally incriminating:

Politico reported shortly after one of her Goldman Sachs speeches that “What the bankers heard her to say was just what they would hope for from a prospective presidential candidate: Beating up the finance industry isn’t going to improve the economy—it needs to stop.”

As Merline notes, it has already been reported that transcription services were used on her paid speeches at Goldman, so the refusal to release them is just going to fester and lead to more demands.

Unless the transcripts are full of fire-and-brimstone denunciations and demands that Goldman change its ways (and they aren’t), Hillary is going to look bad once they are released.  And if they aren’t, after promising to look into them, the paranoia of the left will only grow.

A petition launched Friday on  RootsAction.org — a left-wing activist site — asks every journalist who talks to Clinton to press her about releasing the Goldman Sachs transcripts. By Monday morning, the group had gathered more than 12,000 signatures.

In addition, the leftist Daily Kos ran a story after the debate saying “Hillary Clinton’s Goldman Sachs speech transcripts just became a MAJOR campaign issue.” Other liberal sites have been pushing the story out to their readers as well.

The obvious solution is for Clinton to claim that Goldman, which paid for the speeches, refuses to release the transcripts.  But then that casts her in the role of bought and paid for secret agent.

Hey, there’s no reason why being a hypocritical phony lefty should be easy.