No one cares about Hillary Clinton's transcripts of Goldman Sachs speeches. This is just another tactic politicians use to derail her campaign. It's this kind of dirty trick, benign and useless campaigning that has the American people fed up and racing over to Donald Trump. What they are trying to do is plant the seed of deceit in the minds of the people so they question whether she is a trustworthy candidate. If you are suggestible it might work but for everyone else it is simply annoying and unnecessary. There are so many other pressing things that we need to be talking about.
People have been trying to embroil Hilary Clinton in scandal after scandal after scandal for over 30 years. Can she get a break? Being paid to deliver speeches is not a bad way to make money in my opinion. The suggestion that she would give some type of break if elected President to Goldman Sachs is preposterous.
If you are running for any public position, especially The President of the United States, you are opening yourself up to criticism and allowing information to be distributed about you openly. It is part of the territory of an election. In this case, she is being criticized for taking money from large, financial donors, such as Goldman Sachs; meanwhile, her primary opponent, Bernie Sanders has not collected a penny from any major corporation. The argument is that since she has taken money from them, how can she not have skewed interests to protect the people/ companies that contributed to her campaign. Furthermore, if she's given speeches to them directly, why wouldn't she publicize the words spoken. What does she have to hide?
Hillary wasn't doing anything anyone else hasn't done. NO one else in this race has been required to show their transcripts. Chuck Todd is a water carrier for the GOP and he just threw this out to make HRC look bad. I don't care what she said in her speeches.
One video was available on the web. Hillary got paid to persuade those with resources (e.G., Goldman Sachs) to leverage them (to create a new potential source of revenue) while enabling a cherished goal (enabling funds for empowering women entrepreneurs). Too many see things as simply a "zero sum game"-- they underestimate how truly clever and resourceful she is. Releasing other "under the wire" appeals however may undermine their effectiveness.
Democratic front-runner Hillary Clinton has given 12 speeches to big banks like Goldman Sachs, and America wants to know what she said. By giving these speeches, the presidential hopeful earned almost $3 million dollars, so shouldn't the public be privy to what she shared? That's what Senator Sanders believes. Senator Sanders touts that the campaign trail should exist without the help of Wall Street billionaires. With the majority of America's wealth sitting in the hands of the elite 1%, the needs of the people are not being represented. Therefore Sanders runs his campaign solely on the donations of the common man, the working class, with the average donation amount being a measly $27.
When Hillary was asked to release the transcripts to her big bank speeches, she retorted that Senator Sanders should do the same. But Senator Sanders doesn't have any big bank speeches, and has gladly agreed to release the transcripts of any and all of his speeches. With her quick retort backfiring, Hillary had no choice but to suggest that the Republicans should release their speeches as well. I do not disagree. The Republican presidential candidates should be held to no greater or lesser standard than the Democrats. If Clinton is expected to release her transcripts, so too should Trump, Cruz, Carson, Rubio and the rest.