February 6, 2016

"I will look into it," said Hillary Clinton at Thursday's debate, when asked if she'd release the transcripts of all her paid speeches.



What's to "look into"? Why not a straightforward "yes"? She said "I'll look into it," and the, opaquely, "I don't know the status, but I will certainly look into it." What "status"? Who even has an idea what that means? Does she not own the rights to her speeches? Perhaps some promise of privacy was made to other participants, but one could cover up their names or edit out their statements. To my ear, the line about "status" sounds like meaningless distancing from the question at hand as she cues up lines she's prepared about how her speeches had nothing to do with anything those who were paying might have wanted from her in exchange for the money.

The example she gives of the sort of thing she said to these big-money folks is "how stressful it was advising the President about going after bin Laden." Stressful! As if Hillary's internal emotional life is what these characters were interested in. Hillary has a way of retreating into the story of her feelings. I was reminded of her move in the 2008 campaign, after she'd lost the Iowa caucuses, assembling a group of women around her in a coffee shop and emoting: "It's hard to get up every day and get ready and get out of the house in the morning."

I'm willing to put up with a little emotional padding. It is hard to seek power and exercise it. It's nothing I want to do, and I appreciate that some not completely evil Americans step up to the work. But we've got to wonder what's their motivation. We've got to be able to look at the evidence, and in this case that means the transcripts of those speeches. What is the meaning of the money that supports her campaign and that — supposedly entirely aside from campaign finance — has made her and her husband very wealthy? She wants to say, they just offered the money, and all she did was show up and say some words, words of her choice, words, for example, about the experience of stress in saying we need to kill bin Laden.

Who can believe that? Without the transcripts, we should — for our own protection and because it's most likely — infer that what is in the transcripts would be harmful to the argument she's making to the great masses of Americans. We should infer that she told a different story to the elite insiders. It was the most reasonable interpretation even before she resisted releasing the transcripts. The inference is stronger now that she's resisted giving us the transcripts. She needs to release the transcripts to refute the interpretation that we are otherwise compelled to make.

Now, let me look at what's in The NYT and The Washington Post. The NYT has "Hillary Clinton’s Campaign Resists Releasing Transcripts From Goldman Speeches," by Katharine Q. Seelye, who says that though Hillary Clinton said she would “look into” releasing the transcripts, "by Friday morning, it did not appear that much looking was underway":
Joel Benenson, Mrs. Clinton’s pollster, gave little indication at a Wall Street Journal breakfast with reporters that the transcripts would be forthcoming. “I don’t think voters are interested in the transcripts of her speeches,” he said....

On Friday, Brian Fallon, Mrs. Clinton’s press secretary...  said that “Bernie Sanders, like Karl Rove before him, is trying to impugn Hillary Clinton’s integrity without any basis in fact.” He labeled this “character assassination by insinuation” and said Mr. Sanders should either show his evidence that the money has influenced her or drop the subject.
Insinuation? It's inference. The absence of evidence is a basis for inference. To withhold the evidence and then demand that we not make an inference is a tricky move, and — ironically — the trick is to impugn the integrity of anyone who makes the inference. Your integrity is impugned for impugning her integrity. Fallon played the Rove!!!! card.

The Washington Post has "Hillary Clinton’s Goldman Sachs speech transcripts are now a campaign issue. Why weren’t they before?" by Callum Borchers:
The only time this question has come up before, as far as I can tell, was when a reporter for the Intercept raised it on the rope line after a Clinton campaign event in Manchester, N.H., last month.
Video at the link. Hillary's response, in case you're wondering, was to guffaw in the man's face and turn to people to whom she could just keep saying "nice to see you."

Since the debate, however, the issue is "getting plenty of attention," Borchers writes, collecting coverage from various MSM outlets. And it's up to the media to push it, he says, because Sanders — who really is pulling his punches — will not pursue it. His advisor Tad Devine said "No, we’re not going to push on that." We'll see how far the media push it, but I note that Borchers doesn't mention the GOP candidates. Bernie may have decided, for whatever reason, that attacking Clinton is not the best approach for him, but the GOP candidates can use it, if not now, then later.

If I were Clinton, I wouldn't rest easy if the media drop the matter. It will be there to be used this fall, assuming she gets the nomination. Release the transcripts! There's so much reason to do that now... unless what's in the transcripts is much worse than the negative, albeit vague, inference we must make from the withholding.

158 comments:

tim in vermont said...

Althouse guts Hillary like a deer and leaves the body hanging from a swing set in her back yard!

AReasonableMan said...

The speeches themselves were public in the sense that anyone could of recorded them and released them to the press, so it is unlikely that there is any smoking gun here.

Tank said...

Do we really need to see the transcripts to know this -- Hillary! is not so insightful or wonderful as a speaker that anyone would pay her $250,000/hour just to hear her thoughts. Really? Who the F believes that? These were all monies paid to gain access and influence while she was SOS and in anticipation of possible higher office and for the strings she and Bill could pull in any event.

What is possible is that the actual transcripts were worse, concretely showing her corruption or explicit or implicit promises ... wink, wink. Prediction: we will never see any transcripts.

tim in vermont said...

I wonder if Democrats would rather spend the next four years defending Hillary non stop after one tone deaf, sleazy looking move after another, or defending Bernie Sanders' ideas?

Hagar said...

It is unlikely that there is anything at all there; she could have read from the telephone book for all they cared about content. That is not what they were paying for.

CarlF said...

Her reference to determining status is probably the process of selectively destroying transcripts that need to be destroyed prior to any promise of production. They are deleting transcripts involving personal matters like her yoga classes or planning for the 2010 wedding of their daughter, Chelsea, or the 2011 funeral of her mother, Dorothy Rodham. These apparently were a common topic of her speeches and there is no reason for the review of these personal matters.

rhhardin said...

Inference is carried in, but implication is folded in.

The latter is Clintonian.

AReasonableMan said...

I am wondering what happened to all the 'money as free speech' purists who used to post here.

Ann Althouse said...

Like this recording: "There are 47 percent of the people who will vote for the president no matter what. All right, there are 47 percent who are with him, who are dependent upon government, who believe that they are victims, who believe the government has a responsibility to care for them, who believe that they are entitled to health care, to food, to housing, to you-name-it -- that that's an entitlement. And the government should give it to them."

No smoking gun there. It was fine in its context. But it killed him.

BDNYC said...

Hillary has a habit of loudly laughing at questions she doesn't like. That is her defense mechanism, even when laughing is a completely inappropriate response. Eventually it's going to make an effective campaign attack ad.

rhhardin said...

Althouse is exercising her right as a women to notice in Hillary what guys noticed in the 90s, but with no rights in the matter.

In national matters, always go with the guys. In neighborhood matters, go with the women.

AReasonableMan said...

Ann Althouse said..
No smoking gun there. It was fine in it's context. But it killed him.


A. Because he was an idiot.
B. Clinton's speech's, if they contained something equally idiotic, would already be in the public record. It is not like these audiences were uniformly pro-Democrat.

Humperdink said...

"I will look into it" Vintage Clinton.

When they talk of Hillary's experience, this is it. Evasiveness as an art form. I did not send or receive ......

Michael K said...

"I am wondering what happened to all the 'money as free speech' purists who used to post here."

They know that you are trying to muddy the water with non sequitur comments. "Money as free speech" is money spent on advertising a point of view, not buying access. Or bribery.

BDNYC said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Michael K said...

"Because he was an idiot."

No, because he was a Republican.

Why don't you try going back to bed and getting up on the reasonable side ? You did it yesterday, as I recall ?

Obama said "Clinging to guns and religion" and got elected twice.

BDNYC said...


"I am wondering what happened to all the 'money as free speech' purists who used to post here."

Directly paying 675k to an all but certain presidential candidate to give a speech? I am not saying there's a smoking gun there, but it sure makes Hillary look like a hypocrite. Would it somehow be worse if GS paid that money to a pro-Hillary PAC? If so, why?

AReasonableMan said...

Michael K said...
"Money as free speech" is money spent on advertising a point of view, not buying access. Or bribery.


What is the functional (not legal) difference between larding up someone's PAC and giving them a bribe?

traditionalguy said...

Keeping your secrecy secret is the lawyer's main job when their client is a crook. No information can be released that can be used against the case. In other words, you NEVER give the other side a shred of evidence they can use. Then you say over and over they have failed to meet the burden of proof.

Hillary always brings this up. You have no evidence to prove anything!

Lawyers like to call call that maneuver "protecting a Lawyer's work product."

We will know it's over the day Hillary pleads the Fifth Amendment.

Ann Althouse said...

That's garbled. Those who oppose the freedom of speech implicated in the spending of one's own money misstate it as the idea that money is speech.

The free speech idea as expressed by those who agree with it and who have at least a basic understanding of the law is that a person (including a corporate entity) has a right to spend money to amplify and spread his own speech. That's not giving it to someone else for them to use to propagate that other person's speech, where there is a concern about quid pro quo corruption. In Citizens United, the corporation, Citizens United, had made a movie (about Hillary Clinton) and they wanted to stream their own movie and put up ads for the movie. The movie and the ads for it were the corporation's own speech -- just like the NYT is the NYT corporation's speech -- and they were held to be free to use their money to get their own speech out there -- just like the NYT is free to dump corporate money into running its website and printing paper newspapers and transporting them all over the place.

traditionalguy said...

The Donald calls the political Donations he once routinely made to all of the corrupt politicians, "making friends."

BDNYC said...

Remember when Hillary was speaking at universities in 2014 and charging like 300k per speech? Whatever happened to the student outrage about that? I seem to recall that being a story.

Mick said...

Uh... because she is a criminal Oligarch?

Did I win?

Michael McClain said...

The Clinton team of grifters fears disclosure just as a vampire fears sunlight. They'll lie and obfuscate even when they don't have to. But then again, maybe they do have to.

Sebastian said...

"Who can believe that?" Welcome to the party, but of course some people have said that about her for a coule of decades now. Save yourself time and trouble, and make this the all-purpose response to her future excretions.

Ann Althouse said...

"What is the functional (not legal) difference between larding up someone's PAC and giving them a bribe?"

Freedom of speech is a right, and you need a very strong reason to justify limiting it. People joining together in a group to speak about politics have free speech rights, and the presumption goes strongly toward freedom. Giving a bribe is considered a strong enough reason to restrict speech. You give strict scrutiny to all these restrictions.

If you think there's no "functional" difference and it's the equivalent of a bribe, you are free to make that argument in the political arena. You're just not free to make laws treating the 2 things the same. It's at least different in the sense that the money doesn't go into the candidate's pocket, like a real bribe. Many people would say that there should be freedom to make unlimited campaign contributions and that those are not enough like what should be considered a bribe (a quid pro quo deal). You are paying for speech. You're agreeing with the political opinions and getting out ideas that you want to be propagated.

Jeff Teal said...

I'm sorry HRC doesn't release anything-they'll be mysteriously found in the residence two years after everyone forgets about them.

Hagar said...

Hillary! has a right to be annoyed; Clinton Inc. has been in business peddling influence for 40 years, and nobody but Republicans complained before, but now her own party come and want to pretend they think it is some kind of a big deal?

tim in vermont said...

I am wondering what happened to all the 'money as free speech' purists who used to post here

I am wondering what happened to all the "get money, especially Wall Street and banker's money out of politics" purists who used to post here.

No I'm not, they have fled Clinton for Sanders, who apparently can't raise enough money for a decent suit or a voice coach.

Ann Althouse said...

"Keeping your secrecy secret is the lawyer's main job when their client is a crook. No information can be released that can be used against the case. In other words, you NEVER give the other side a shred of evidence they can use. Then you say over and over they have failed to meet the burden of proof. Hillary always brings this up. You have no evidence to prove anything! Lawyers like to call call that maneuver "protecting a Lawyer's work product." We will know it's over the day Hillary pleads the Fifth Amendment."

Resemblance to a crook isn't very effective for a politician.

Sandra said...

Until Hillary releases the transcripts, this issue will hound her. It is a simple and relevant request, and it will have resonance because her reasons to evade are obvious. Romney got crushed with his infamous 47% comment, but Obama got hit pretty hard by his bitter gun clingers comment. With Hillary, there is an assumption that she is hiding something because, well, she usually is.

Why Sanders is not pursuing these issues is a mystery. Hillary had an "access for sale" sign on the lawn of the State Department. She does not have a good answer for any of it other than "I'll take you all down with me."

PB said...

Look into it? The correct follow-up questions from a responsible journalist would have been:

1. Do you have to ask anyone for permission?
2. As president you'd have to make critical decisions on short notice. Why can't you decide this simple matter of openness with the public right now?

MadisonMan said...

It baffles me that anyone can support Clinton.

I suppose her support is a mile wide and an inch deep in the Democratic Party and they're just temporizing 'til someone better comes along, but really, Democrats will are going to end up with a candidate with many many fatal flaws.

Imagine the leading Republican refusing to give out the transcripts for a speech made to a bunch of Bankers for an exorbitant fee. How much outrage would there be in the Post or the Times?

AprilApple said...

Hillary Clinton Denounces Corporate Crime While Accepting Cash From Blackstone, Firm Sanctioned By SEC

Hillary Clinton's enemies give her a lot of cash.

Humperdink said...

"Why Sanders is not pursuing these issues is a mystery."

No mystery. Bernie had ample opportunity to go for the juggler in the last debate and refused to do so. He continues to tip-toe around the edges of the Clinton Crime Family Inc. but refuses to go all in. He is afraid of the reaction from the Hillary's!! supporters. Attacking the the little woman is a no-no.

Speaking of mysteries, it appears the former Commander-in-Heat has gone subsurface.

Original Mike said...

"Bernie may have decided, for whatever reason, that attacking Clinton is not the best approach for him, "

I think the reason may be found in Fort Marcy Park. Not that I mean to imply anything,

Freder Frederson said...

It was fine in its context.

It was not fine in its context. It revealed Mitt Romney as a plutocrat who despised almost half the population of the country who he considered freeloaders. It also displayed that he lacked any empathy and didn't have a clue about the very real struggles that the less fortunate in this country face.

AReasonableMan said...

Ann Althouse said...
Freedom of speech is a right, and you need a very strong reason to justify limiting it. People joining together in a group to speak about politics have free speech rights, and the presumption goes strongly toward freedom. Giving a bribe is considered a strong enough reason to restrict speech. You give strict scrutiny to all these restrictions.

Many people would say that there should be freedom to make unlimited campaign contributions and that those are not enough like what should be considered a bribe (a quid pro quo deal). You are paying for speech. You're agreeing with the political opinions and getting out ideas that you want to be propagated.


It is this kind of BS that underpins the degradation of the US from the ideals of a British and northern European society, with low levels of corruption, into the corrupt oligarchy that we live in today, with open borders and one-sided free trade deals.

Wasn't it a Republican who said 'the constitution is not a suicide pact'?

Dust Bunny Queen said...

"I'll look" into is the equivalent of the woman saying "We'll see" when asked a question that she really wants to say NO....and HELL NO to without actually saying no. It is a delaying tactic. That way she doesn't have to be the bad guy, or explain herself and can work around to getting her way in a sneaky passive aggressive manner.

It is a weaselly womanly tactic to avoid conflict and a passive aggressive method of getting control. Hillary claims to be a feminist and equal to a man, yet she uses all those passive aggressive techniques and constantly falls back into the poor me the men are picking on me routine.

Husband: How about we have a bunch of friends over for Super Bowl and make nachos for everyone.
Wife: We'll see (I'll or we will look into it) delay and eventually the whole issue will go away. Conflict avoided.

Husband: You know what would be really great? If we turned part of the garage into a woodworking shop
Wife: We'll see. delay

If the situation were reversed

Wife: How about we have a bunch of friends over for a marathon Downton Abby session and make English desserts for everyone
Husband: No thanks. I'm not interested in hanging out and watching that program with a bunch of your twittering friends. (Instant answer and conflict ensues)


THIS is why women usually are not suited to governing. Margaret Thatcher excepted.

Michael K said...

"Wasn't it a Republican who said 'the constitution is not a suicide pact'?"

I believe it was a Supreme Court justice.

You are still having trouble understanding why free speech includes the right to promote your ideas, even if that involves supporting a candidate. What Hillary does, is to promise, with a wink, to do favors for people who give her large sums of money. Bill did the same thing with the Marc Rich pardon so there is precedent.

Then, there is Barack Obama who turned off the security checks on credit card donations in 2008. That way "Mickey Mouse" could donate thousands. I didn't notice you criticizing that.

tim in vermont said...

My favorite instance of this tactic was when the IRS destroyed all of those hard drives, including those of two of the principle targets of the investigation, when those hard drives just happened to be the only record of IMs between them, and after Lois Lerner had mistakenly believed, as she said in her email, that IM was the best way to avoid oversight because IMs were not saved on the server. They aren't saved on the server because they are stored on the end device, a.k.a the hard drive, just like the history of texts on your phone isn't stored on any server but in the phones memory.


Then, after destroying all of these records that were under subpoena from Congress, they had the gall to claim that nothing had been proven.

Oh yeah, and notice that all of a sudden, Citizens' United is on the back burner...

tim in vermont said...

Liberals liked it better when their cocoon allowed them to believe that all Republican and only Republican politicians were corrupt. Now they are having the corruption of their own party rubbed in their faces and their response is "They are all corrupt!" I don't see corruption from either Cruz or Rubio and all we see about Trump is white hot noise.

AReasonableMan said...

Michael K said...
Then, there is Barack Obama who turned off the security checks on credit card donations in 2008. That way "Mickey Mouse" could donate thousands. I didn't notice you criticizing that.


When the choice is between McCain and a sentient human being, one chooses one's battles wisely.

Humperdink said...

ARM asked: "Wasn't it a Republican who said 'the constitution is not a suicide pact'?"

Nope, a supreme justice, Robert H. Jackson in is his dissent. "This Court has gone far toward accepting the doctrine that civil liberty means the removal of all restraints from these crowds and that all local attempts to maintain order are impairments of the liberty of the citizen. The choice is not between order and liberty. It is between liberty with order and anarchy without either. There is danger that, if the Court does not temper its doctrinaire logic with a little practical wisdom, it will convert the constitutional Bill of Rights into a suicide pact." (Terminiello v. City of Chicago)

It has been paraphrased later.

Bob Boyd said...

I don't understand why these private events are a problem for Democrat voters (or the private server either, for that matter.) Democrats proudly proclaim they are Progressives now.
Progressive-ism is, by definition, elites meeting privately to decide what is best for the rest of us. Part of deciding what is best is deciding what the public needs to know and what it doesn't need to know.
If the people are going to demand transparency for these meetings, pretty soon they are going to want to have a say in who attends these meetings. Before you know it you're back to an open debate forum with elected representatives accountable to the people. Where's the Progress in that?

Levi Starks said...

The reticence to release speech contents stems I would imagine not from what was in them, rather from what was not in them. Which is to say anything of value.
Left to our imagination we can only guess as to the worthlessness of the speeches content.
If we are actually allowed to read the words the it removes all doubt that it was nothing more than a vehicle by which money was poured into the Clintons pockets.
Of secondary importance is her utter disrespect for little people whom she hopes to rule. How dare they demand to make her of all people answer questions? Her attitude regarding this issue is merely setting the stage for how we, and the media can expectake to be treated during her presidency.

Hagar said...

No, Freddie. What Romney said was that 47% of the population are going to vote Democrat regardless of the merits of any arguments for them to do otherwise. And that's the bare nekkid truth and pertinent to his speech to the crowd he was talking to.

AprilApple said...

ARM digs corruption - because - D.

Original Mike said...

"When the choice is between McCain and a sentient human being, one chooses one's battles wisely."

You're usually not so open about your unscrupulousness.

AprilApple said...

DBQ - excellent. Hillary often relies on passive aggressive "the boys are being mean to me" manipulations.

If any GOP had her problems, her lies, her corruption, her life, her secrets, her BS, they would have been laughed off the stage eons ago. and prosecuted.

Michael K said...

"chooses one's battles wisely."

And I suppose you are pleased with the empty suit you voted for. I was not a McCain enthusiast in 2008, although I supported him over Bush in 2000, but he had been around long enough to know what makes the world go round. Obama has been determined to make it go round in the opposite direction. He has a political black thumb. Everything he touches, dies.

Eric said...

Althouse is on fire. I like it.

Original Mike said...

Speaking of Fort Marcy Park, if I were F Chuck Todd I'd hire a bodyguard.

AReasonableMan said...

AprilApple said...
ARM digs


Now that the X-Files has restarted I am surprised that you have any time to post here any more. The truth is out there.

Hagar said...

That is, Romney was making a pitch to a gathering of the Republican "donor class" for contributions to his campaign and explaining what he was planning to do with their money if given. Part of this was that it is useless to waste money and effort on convincing the 47% that is going to vote Democrat come hell or high water, and that he was going to be careful with their money and just try to bring some of the small fraction that is the truly "independents," and possibly persuadable, over to vote Republican.

Sandra said...

@Humperdink

Yes, it is a mystery. There is no risk since Hillary will play the girl card anyway. At the last debate, Sanders accused her of being establishment (thank you Captain Obvious), and she gave a comical response that she cannot be establishment because she's a woman running to be the woman President. Left unanswered was who will be the man President if she is the woman President. That exchange showed that she will play the girl card on every single issue where she feels threatened regardless of its relevance, so there is no point in avoiding her weaknesses as a candidate.

Levi Starks said...

And actually calling them speeches is probably generous. As though they were prepared remarks. Isn't it much more likely that on a given date and time she showed up at a given place, opened her mouth and and some words spilled out?
She kinds of reminds me of a boss I had once who talked a lot, but never said anything. The meaning of his conversationa with his employees was never in what he said, but in what he didn't say. Meaning was always between the lines, everything was by inference.
When Hilary has staff meetings to discuss the days activities, the discussion does not center around what she should say, but rather what she must be very very careful to avoid saying.

Original Mike said...

Levi Starks said...."Left to our imagination we can only guess as to the worthlessness of the speeches content. If we are actually allowed to read the words the it removes all doubt that it was nothing more than a vehicle by which money was poured into the Clintons pockets."

That makes a lot of sense, Levi, but can't be right. Consider what Hillary told us: "What I want people to know is, I went to Wall Street before the crash. I was the one saying you're going to wreck the economy because of these shenanigans with mortgages."

Shouting Thomas said...

Romney was correct.

I'd put the percentage of leeches higher than 47%.

Closer probably to 60%.

The leeches can continue to suck blood from the host for a while. How long is anybody's guess.

The leeches believe that the patrimony left to us is inexhaustible. They are wrong. But, it might be a good bet that it will last out their lifetimes. Which is the way they're betting.

AprilApple said...

The truth, ARM? you haven't been interested in that for years....

Ann Althouse said...

AReasonableMan said... Ann Althouse said.. 'No smoking gun there. It was fine in it's context. But it killed him.' A. Because he was an idiot. B. Clinton's speech's, if they contained something equally idiotic, would already be in the public record. It is not like these audiences were uniformly pro-Democrat."

You know very well that Mitt Romney isn't an idiot. He just phrased something for a particular audience and it was usable in a very negative way to other audiences (including most Americans). I would imagine that Hillary's speeches, especially if you could comb through them all, would contain similar phrasings for the elite audience. If not, why didn't she just say yes and release the transcripts?

You're saying there's an inference that someone in the audience would have told on her already, would have made a recording and stuck his neck out. But there are many reasons why that might not have happened: 1. You have to start making the recording to have it when the thing is said, and 2. Elite insiders like that are always hedging, getting in good with whoever might end up holding the power. #2 is something Trump often talks about. These people are in it for themselves, not for one party or the other. They try to win whichever party gets the power. Are the Republican-voting members of a crowd like that even really Republicans, in the sense that they look at the game from the party perspective? I think they try to rig it so that everything works for them. As such, why would they rat out Hillary? They pulled her in for a reason!

exhelodrvr1 said...

"Bernie had ample opportunity to go for the juggler in the last debate and refused to do so"

Yeah, but he did beat the crap out of the clown.

Rhythm and Balls said...

If I were Clinton, I...

Rest assured, Hillary will do everything she can to make herself look worse, and worse, and worse. Remember, only sexist pigs judge on appearance or reputation!

Bob Boyd said...

This is what Progressive-ism looks like.

Xmas said...

ARM,
There may be no gaffes in the Clinton speeches to various banks, but it would be nice to know what they paid $675K for. I've seen plenty of keynote speakers over the years, the best so far was the late Joan Rivers. She went for 45 minutes with a profanity laced inspirational story of a woman who leaped headlong into any challenge, making herself a self made business woman 3 times over. She was a $200K per speech speaker.

So yes, I would really like to see what level of insight, understanding, and even entertainment our potential President can deliver for the heady sum of $675K.

jaydub said...

"Resemblance to a crook isn't very effective for a politician."

True, but it doesn't necessarily hurt if the MSM media refuses to make an issue of it, as has almost always been the case for the Clintons. Hillary not being able to count on an automatic pass from the media is a new development, but not one that an experienced liar can't handle.

Mrs Whatsit said...

Supreme Court Justice Robert H. Jackson was a Democrat, appointed to the Court by FDR.

And that wasn't the only way ARM made a fool of himself in that comment. Confronted with Althouse's crisp, cogent explanation of what Citizens United actually says -- as opposed to the fevered imaginings of what low-information progressives have been led to believe that it says -- all he can do in response is sputter about BS and corrupt oligarchies. Trouble is that the corrupt oligarchy argument kinda cuts against the Democrats when it comes to the truckloads of money that Hillary took from the banks.

AReasonableMan said...

Original Mike said...
You're usually not so open about your unscrupulousness.


With 'more war' McCain our transition to a parody of the bankrupt and declining Roman Empire would have been complete. Pretty sure it was a Republican who said, 'moderation in the protection of liberty is no virtue; extremism in the defense of freedom is no vice."

tim in vermont said...

"We came, we saw, he died" - Hillary "More War" Clinton

AprilApple said...

Powerline chimes in...

"Hillary Clinton stepped out to make a statement claiming victory in the Iowa caucuses on Monday night. It wasn’t clear that she had won and it still isn’t, but appearances had to be maintained.

Clinton gave a six-minute speech (video below) that almost captures her full awfulness. She lies with pathological abandon. She is a gold-plated phony. She has achieved plutocratic wealth through public service while holding herself out as a champion of the common man. She struggles to impersonate an authentic human being."

Original Mike said...

"With 'more war' McCain our transition to a parody of the bankrupt and declining Roman Empire would have been complete. Pretty sure it was a Republican who said, 'moderation in the protection of liberty is no virtue; extremism in the defense of freedom is no vice."

Squirrel!

mccullough said...

Did Hillary bring a stenographer to her closed-door speeches? I don't understand how there would ever be transcripts. I would think her speaking contract would ban any audio/visual recordings by the groups she's talking to. Romney's 47% and Obama's bitter clinger remarks to donors were surreptitiously recorded.

AReasonableMan said...

Ann Althouse said...
If not, why didn't she just say yes and release the transcripts?


Because no competent politician would do this. They would stall and let the conspiracy obsessives make a bigger and bigger issue out of this failure to release the document so that they look like even bigger fools when the document is ultimately released and proves to be harmless. Obama played this perfectly with his birth certificate. The petulant noise and fury of her opponents obfuscates the real problems with the candidate and draws her supporters to her side in opposition to the apparently crazy forces opposed to her.

Hagar said...

The 47% is not all poor, in fact, these days far from it. Freddie and ARM are among them. Or say Chris Wallace; the only "Republican" he will ever vote for will be of the Michael Bloomberg variety. And that is just how people are.

AprilApple said...

Tim - Here it is. Classic.

unilateral assassination is lolz.

pm317 said...

Fuck, release them all, start with releasing Obama's transcripts.

Humperdink said...

With the Sanders momentum, I think the media is starting to Feel the Bern (or maybe it's an STD). Look for the questions to Hildebeast to get tougher. She will not know how to react.

Rhythm and Balls said...

She struggles to impersonate an authentic human being.

Careful. The femisupremacists are now chiming in to say that even observations of authenticity are verboten, off-limits and sexist! They say that women are forced to always have a polished look and that makes it gender oppressive to ask whether a woman is actually being true to what she actually believes or feels.

You cannot argue with this. It has been decreed.

AReasonableMan said...

Mrs Whatsit said...
Trouble is that the corrupt oligarchy argument kinda cuts against the Democrats when it comes to the truckloads of money that Hillary took from the banks.


Moron. That is the point. It cuts both ways. Why do you partisan hacks keep coming here?

Humperdink said...

ARM said: "Because no competent politician would do this. They would stall and let the conspiracy obsessives make a bigger and bigger issue out of this ..."

Ahh, the question was posed by Chuck Todd.

Original Mike said...

I don't read anything into Hillary's on the spot stall. It's not unreasonable to want to review them first for damaging material. I read everything into her refusal to release after she's had a chance to review them.

William said...

In the first speech, she thanked everyone for their time and generosity for inviting her to address so august a gathering. She told the assembly how she persuaded President Obama to launch the attack on Bin Laden and how it felt during those tension filled minutes when the raid was going on. She thanked the attendees for their attention and apologized for not having enough time to explain her efforts to further refine the provisions of the Glass Steagall Act. She said that she hoped someday to be invited back to speak on this subject.

Saint Croix said...

The speeches themselves were public in the sense that anyone could of recorded them and released them to the press, so it is unlikely that there is any smoking gun here

It's not the crime, it's the cover-up. She's defensive and suspicious and paranoid--the Nixon style. She wants to read what she said before she will allow you to read what she said. She's suspicious of her own words! What did I say? Maybe it's bad. Better do a second check, and a third check. I don't trust you, and I don't trust myself, either. Damn it! Why can't I just accept millions of dollars and give a stupid speech?! Why all this suspicion? Now look at all the work I have to do. I have to read my damn transcripts and make sure there are no nits to pick. Oh you evil bastards. I hate you all!

Now let's do a poll and find out why these suspicious bastards don't trust me.

Rhythm and Balls said...

It wasn’t clear that she had won and it still isn’t, but appearances had to be maintained.

As the femisupremacists have made very clear, appearances are the most important thing. To her or to any woman. We must be sympathetic to this or else.

Now once she's elected, it will be paramount that the appearance of a balanced budget is not question. The appearance of an America that can pull off regime change anywhere and at any time will be maintained. The appearance of being above financial reproach will never be criticized.

She will give the appearance of pretending to justly, fairly and competently run the country and you will not question it. It would be worse than questioning whether her make-up is real.

Listen, in order to be a moral and decent person you must accept that women should be allowed to keep secrets about anything, at any time. Beauty secrets, state secrets, policy secrets, and shady financial wheeling and dealing. It's all good.

This is the advantage of a woman leader - in Hillary's mold, at least.

Rhythm and Balls said...

They would stall and let the conspiracy obsessives make a bigger and bigger issue out of this failure to release the document so that they look like even bigger fools when the document is ultimately released and proves to be harmless. Obama played this perfectly with his birth certificate. The petulant noise and fury of her opponents obfuscates the real problems with the candidate and draws her supporters to her side in opposition to the apparently crazy forces opposed to her.

Wow ARM. You're actually trying to draw an equivalence between what Hillary doesn't want us to know about what she said to merit $225,000 per hour payments from Goldman Sachs and Obama's birth certificate?

No wonder this country is fucked.

Christy said...

Give her time! Give her time! Takes a few days to write a good, focus-group vetted speech.

Shouting Thomas said...

Wow, Ritmo has gone over to the men's movement side.

I won't chide you by noting that I was already there 25 years ago.

Welcome to reality!

Steve Uhr said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Rhythm and Balls said...

The stalling doesn't help. It doesn't inspire confidence. It didn't do that for Obama and it won't do that for a woman like Hillary with even greater trust and transparency issues. It just strengthens the shitstorm. This is a fucking democracy for Christ's sake. Be fucking transparent. Stop with this whole "I took the transcripts with me into my make-up room and you can't see them!" bullshit.

jaydub said...

"It was not fine in its context. It revealed Mitt Romney as a plutocrat who despised almost half the population of the country who he considered freeloaders. It also displayed that he lacked any empathy and didn't have a clue about the very real struggles that the less fortunate in this country face."

Wonder why that damn plutocrat gives $3.5 million of his own income to charity each year?

Michael K said...

" Why do you partisan hacks keep coming here?"

Your entertainment value.

It's priceless. You and garage are worth the price of admission.

AprilApple said...

B&R 9:46 - Spot on.

Rhythm and Balls said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Rhythm and Balls said...

I'm just not into bullshit. Women and men have different ways of playing up their own bullshit. I think by now I can sense it. From time to time I suppose I might come across with more of a "masculist" view or a "feminist" view but on the whole I think the humanist view is about just avoiding getting tied up with these gender distractions altogether. I suppose a gruff workplace might have been legitimately daunting to a woman 40 years ago. Today the opposite is the case. Men have generally been discriminated against in custody and alimony settlements. The problem is the issue nowadays is about fitness for public office and honesty and transparency and integrity - a realm in which some men have gotten away with being abject liars and in which those liars know that they are ready to be pilloried mercilessly. But women are not some sort of gender that is by default more honest or forthcoming. They are not morally superior. Other women know this. There are decent, honest and courageous women and there are a whole slew of shrews. And there are all sorts of ways that women even in 21st c. America are still allowed to get away with all sorts of little lies and dishonesty or just "passing" on the truth and other women know this. Hillary takes that to a whole new level and applies "personal transparency" privilege to every aspect of her public life. It's nauseating. It's one thing to say someone's not going to comment on their marriage or whatever (which she did, anyway) or make-up "secrets". Another to say those official documents...? You don't need to see them. She takes pathetic to new depths by claiming personal privilege over every aspect of what will now be the people's business.

David said...

It will leak.

AllenS said...

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton shared a laugh with a television news reporter moments after hearing deposed Libyan leader Muammar Qaddafi had been killed.

"We came, we saw, he died," she joked when told of news reports of Qaddafi's death by an aide in between formal interviews.


Question: Who was the news reporter? They both had a pretty good laugh over that comment.

Diogenes of Sinope said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Diogenes of Sinope said...

Hillary knows the content of her speeches to the wealthy is politically toxic and would ruin her politically, destroying the support she still has among her shrinking number of supporters. Hillary's calculation is the texts of these speeches are so bad that it is completely worth taking every bit of criticism for refusing to release them. Same as her emails. She is corrupt, she does lie and she has terrible secrets to hide.

It all depends on what the meaning of robot is.

Laslo Spatula said...

Corruption now is just a line under the 'Experience' column.

I am Laslo.

Rhythm and Balls said...

I guess I should have said "personal opacity" instead of personal transparency, above.

We might as well get used to this expression. Opacity in governing.

Hillary will make it the new normal.

Sandra said...



This article from December 2013 helps explain why Hillary Clinton does not want to release those transcripts. It reports on one of her speeches to Goldman Sachs, and is an interesting read:

http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2013/12/wall-street-white-house-republicans-lament-of-the-plutocrats-101047?o=3

The early parts are revealing:

"But Clinton offered a message that the collected plutocrats found reassuring, according to accounts offered by several attendees, declaring that the banker-bashing so popular within both political parties was unproductive and indeed foolish. Striking a soothing note on the global financial crisis, she told the audience, in effect: We all got into this mess together, and we’re all going to have to work together to get out of it. 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. And indeed Goldman’s Tim O’Neill, who heads the bank’s asset management business, introduced Clinton by saying how courageous she was for speaking at the bank. (Brave, perhaps, but also well-compensated: Clinton’s minimum fee for paid remarks is $200,000).

Certainly, Clinton offered the money men—and, yes, they are mostly men—at Goldman’s HQ a bit of a morale boost. “It was like, ‘Here’s someone who doesn’t want to vilify us but wants to get business back in the game,’” said an attendee. “Like, maybe here’s someone who can lead us out of the wilderness.”

Those transcripts would be a target rich environment.

Rhythm and Balls said...

Distortion will be the new norm. Get used to it.

We will have a government-press relationship that resembles a room full of funhouse mirrors.

It's Hillary's country now.

Bill said...

It was a Palinesque response. Remember?

COURIC: I'm just going to ask you one more time, not to belabor the point. Specific examples in his [John McCain's] 26 years of pushing for more regulation?

PALIN: I'll try to find ya some, and I'll bring 'em to ya.

David said...

Hillary Clinton's corruption and dishonesty have been on display for anyone who cared to look for almost her entire life in the public eye. It's astonishing that she has been able to get away with it for so long. Her success in doing so shows how debased we have allowed our public life to become. At the national level government has become a tool for the advancement of those who govern. As a nation we have permitted this to happen.

Defeat of Hillary Clinton could be an important first step in dismantling this culture. It will be far from decisive if it happens. The personal advancement mentality is deeply embedded in all of our national political institutions, including the media. But it would be a start.

AReasonableMan said...

Rhythm and Balls said...
No wonder this country is fucked.


This county is fucked because the minions of the oligarchs do their best to hide the declining reality of working people's lives behind the smoke and mirrors of partisan hackery and legalese.

Michael said...

Actually, the more innocuous the speeches are, the greater the grounds for adverse inference. If all she had done was read Peter Rabbit, it would be obvious they weren't paying all that money to hear that. There really isn't anything she could have said that would lead to a non-adverse inference. And what about this bogus Foundation?

Rhythm and Balls said...

Guys, conservatives. Ladies. The liberals are your new ally in all this. USE US!

Here is Bill Moyers posting Elizabeth Warren's definitive refutation of Shillary's claim that no donation ever influenced her public service.

USE IT!

The "left" is not the "left" you came to know and believed you hated. We are SPLIT. There are the liars, the elite, the media-brokers. The Boss Tweeds and Tammany Hall people. The Dixiecrats.

And then there are the rest of us. The honest, idealistic ones down with something better than all that. Wether you agree with it or not we know that you know that you want and demand HONESTY in this whole business, which is taking the country down regardless of other ideological differences.

HILLARY NEARLY LOST AGAIN! in IOWA! This is NOT a sure thing. We can take her! There is at least an even 50/50 split and we can toss her ass out! Finally and for good! Bernie's momentum can keep growing and overtake hers, put her in the liar's stockade and END THIS SHIT WITH THE CORRUPT LYING CLINTONS! He can do it! There are enough of us on the left to know that not every conservative is our enemy and that between Bernie and Trump we all have common goals and interests that we can accomplish and more selling out the people's business and the people's house is part of it.

Some of us are your allies. We can make this happen.

Rhythm and Balls said...

The "left" is not the "left" you came to know and believed you hated. We are SPLIT. There are the liars, the elite, the media-brokers. The Boss Tweeds and Tammany Hall people. The Dixiecrats.

The Michaels.

Humperdink said...

ARM said: "This county is fucked because the minions of the oligarchs do their best to hide the declining reality of working people's lives behind the smoke and mirrors of partisan hackery and legalese."

And the answer is????

A) Free Stuff
B) Hillary
C) Both

bgates said...

The speeches themselves were public in the sense that anyone could of recorded them and released them to the press

Public in the sense that all verbal communication in the past 20 years has been public. Hillary's speeches were public in the way that the deliberations of the Chinese Politburo are public.

Rhythm and Balls said...

http://billmoyers.com/2015/11/18/flashback-elizabeth-warren-tells-a-story-about-hillary-clinton-wall-street-and-lobbying/

bgates said...

This county is fucked because the minions of the oligarchs do their best to hide the declining reality of working people's lives behind the smoke and mirrors of partisan hackery and legalese.

Public (adj)
1 of or concerning the people as a whole.
2 done, perceived, or existing in open view.
3 something that could "of" been recorded and released to the press

Spot the partisan hackery and legalese!

CStanley said...

The collusion between the MSM and the Democrats has created a game of "heads we win, tails you lose" for the GOP.

Anything that is potentially awkward for a GOP candidate is blown out of proportion as the liberal media, pundits and bloggers rationalize the relevance of it and magnify the gravity.

But when a Democrat is involved, they spin it as trivial and irrelevant and they gin up outrage against the people who are raising the question. This infuriates conservatives who know that there's a stench and resent being told that "the one who smelt it dealt it." Some of the conservatives really do become unhinged over this, and that creates the justification in the minds of Democrat voters for this whole game to work on the next round.

There's also a variation though, where opponents begin sniffing down the wrong hole. The candidate starts acting cagey because they actually want people to pursue this so that nothing will turn up, and again, the opposition loses credibility. It's not clear to me at this stage which variant Hillary is playing on this issue.

Diogenes of Sinope said...

"I'll look into it" from Hillary Clinton means "no fucking way in hell".

sunsong said...

Bill & Hillary Made $153 million in speaking fees

#releasethetranscripts

CStanley said...

And then yet another variant, practically invented and certainly perfected by Ms. Clinton herself, is where she uses the delay and drip tactic to her advantage. It used to be conventional wisdom that the coverup was worse than the crime, so politicians should quickly dump all data and get it out of the way. Hillary turned this on its ear and it has worked for her- deny, delay, and when all else fails, start letting things drip out at such an agonizingly slow pace that no one even cares anymore, and they get so irritated by the whole thing that they start attributing blame toward the people who are exposing the Information instead of her,

Michael K said...

"start letting things drip out at such an agonizingly slow pace that no one even cares anymore, "

No, that only works for Democrats and their MSM allies.

Nixon would have served out his term if he had not gone after Alger Hiss.

Bob Ellison said...

Here, I've got the transcripts:

We need a society that does good for people.

We need a government that does good for people.

Thanks for the bribe.

CStanley said...

Michael K that was exactly my point, that the Democrats have rigged the game so that this works for them. The only time Democrats are at risk for exposure of scandal is when they cross their party's leaders. Any time I hear of one like Weiner, Bill Richardson, etc, I think, "wow, I wonder what he did to piss them off?" Because it's clearly not an issue of ethical standards, it's about whether or not the mob bosses want to protect them or not,

Original Mike said...

"I'll look into it" from Hillary Clinton means "no fucking way in hell".

Yeah, I watched the debate live and I guess you could characterize my response as a guffaw.

It was priceless when she wended her way to "when Obama and I got Osama."

YoungHegelian said...

Isn't it amazing that the Clintons, who by their own admission were broke in 2000, are now together worth about $110 million? Carly Fiorina, an ex-CEO of a major US corporation married to another ex-CEO of a major US corporation, has a household worth of about $60 million.

Is there anyone out there who actually thinks that in 15 years two politicians can go from zero to $110 million honestly? That they're worth almost twice what two ex-CEOs are worth?

I can't believe anyone takes HRC seriously. I really can't. I will go to my grave thinking "In 2016, was that really the best the Dems could do?".

cubanbob said...

sunsong said...
Bill & Hillary Made $153 million in speaking fees

#releasethetranscripts

2/6/16, 10:42 AM"

Money for nothing and chicks for free.

ARM, dude seriously this isn't a Hill to die on. The Democrats need to ditch this crook ASAP not only for the good of the party but for the good of the country. The Democrats aren't going to win the control of Congress with Hillary even if she were to win the prospect of four years of innumerable corruption hearings and special prosecutions a second Clinton Administration would entail is too much for the country. The Republicans got rid of Nixon and the time has come for the Democrats to get rid of the Clintons.

Big Mike said...

If I were Clinton, I wouldn't rest easy if the media drop the matter.

But does anyone seriously doubt that the media will drop the matter?

dbp said...

I doubt that there is anything really damning in Hillary's speeches. It is just that Clinton Inc. has been spinning and handling scandals so long, they have a standard template they use: Stonewall for a while, then later, endlessly repeat the mantra that this is all old news. It works when the media is complicit, as they will always be for people who are Democrats.

The thing is that there is a perfectly reasonable explanation for the high fees to hear Clintonian banalities. She might be president some day and won't all the attendees dine out on the fact they shook her hand back when? Her value is as a celebrity, not a thinker.

Bill R said...

There's NOTHING in the transcripts except stupid platitudes. Trust me.

No one on Wall Street was interested in what she had to say. She didn't have anything to talk about.

The $675K was a thinly described bribe so that if, by chance, Hillary ever got to the White House, Goldman-Sachs would have a friend there. That's it. That's the whole story.

That's not to say that if she gets to the White House and Wall Street desperately needs a friend, she'll be one. It's easy to buy Hillary. Getting her to stay bought is the problem.

rcocean said...

Ha. You know who is going to pursue it, if he gets Nominated? Trump.

You can just imagine what he would say. The tweets will write themselves.

And all Democrats will call him a racist in response.

rcocean said...

Rubio wouldn't pursue it though. He's too much of Gentlemen to hurt a Lady.

He wants to win for the right reasons.

Original Mike said...

"There's NOTHING in the transcripts except stupid platitudes. Trust me."

Maybe yes, maybe no. Take a look at Sandra's 10:17 post. But in the likely event that there is nothing in them that just drives home the point that this was GS buying influence. Sanders can run with that, if he has the balls.

Mary Beth said...

AReasonableMan said...

The speeches themselves were public in the sense that anyone could of recorded them and released them to the press, so it is unlikely that there is any smoking gun here.

2/6/16, 7:56 AM


They could "of" if there were anyone in there whose interests would not be better served by keeping it private.

Hammond X. Gritzkofe said...

We noticed that too. Beyond credulity that you didn't retain proprietary rights to your own remarks. So, either yes you will release them, or any other answer means GFYS

Crazy Jane said...

What Bill R. said. I am familiar with one of HRC's "speeches," which I did not attend. It was at a large public college and 400 of the 1,800 seats were reserved for students. She spoke for 15 minutes or so and then sat down for a slightly longer interview with an admiring interlocutor. Recordings and press coverage were banned. For this she negotiated a $300,000 fee, a chartered 16-seat Gulfstream flight there and back and lodging at the presidential suite of the nearest 5-star hotel. (The fee was paid by a private donor but, even so, the university should has said no. Very unseemly.) My guess was that the speech had nothing in it, but if it were released, she or one of her hacks would have had to write a second speech to deliver to the next batch of saps and then a third speech and on and on. This would have been too much work. The business plan was one speech, rattled off many times, for money and a presumption of influence during the Clinton restoration.

Lydia said...

Give the poor woman some time -- it took her two years to find the Rose Law Firm files in one of her White House rooms:

In January 1996, a long sought-after copy of billing records from the Rose Law Firm were identified and turned over to prosecutors by Carolyn Huber, a White House assistant to Hillary Rodham Clinton. Ms. Huber, herself a former Rose Law Firm employee, recognized the records and realized that they had been among papers that she had removed six months earlier from the First Lady's book room on the third floor of the White House.

The mysterious appearance of the billing records, which had been the specific subject of various investigative subpoenas for two years, sparked intense interest about how they surfaced and where they had been. Shortly after the discovery of the records, Hillary Clinton made history -- she became the only First Lady ever called to testify before a Grand Jury inquiry.


Ah, the good times all today's young folks have missed.

Gabriel said...

If I got paid 6 figures to talk before people who wanted influence with me, I'd have maybe three canned sets of remarks, more-or-less devoid of substance with a little autobiography. The premise is that no one really cares what I say, they just want an excuse to give me a large amount of money.

MaxedOutMama said...

Goldman Sachs doesn't dump that type of money in your pockets to hear about your stress.

Cut me a break. Most people are not that stupid and Goldman Sachs is not that naive.

Nice post, but really, we all know what they gave her the money for. Buying influence in government.

If she now wants to make the argument that she took the money but they are not getting any influence in return, we may all draw our own conclusions about the relative value of our votes to her.

For some reason the old proverb about an honest politician being one that stays bought keeps resounding in my head.

Original Mike said...

Megan McArdle:"Last night, on the other hand, Clinton decided to stop mucking about with vague promises to bring Wall Street to heel. Instead, she claimed that she was a financial regulator of rare foresight and rarer steely will, hated and feared by the denizens of New York’s financial district. Presumably we are supposed to see that $675,000 she was paid by Goldman Sachs to make three speeches less as a warm gesture between close friends, than as the bags of gold left outside the city gates for the Visigoth king who is threatening to sack the place."

Heh.

MaxedOutMama said...

AReasonableMan - HOW can you rationally describe AA's response to you as BS?

Don't you realize that passing laws to restrict the ability of people to band together for the purpose of political speech is a facial violation of the First Amendment?

To take such a position is nonsense. If an individual who is wealthy is free to take his or her money and buy a full page ad in the NYT, how is it a distortion of democracy to have 2,000 people interested in an issue pool their money and buy the ad in the NYT?

Explain that to me. Explain to me the thinking, whatever it may be, that lies behind your comments. Will we have a better, more vibrant democracy if a union of poorly paid health care workers is forbidden by law to exercise in political speech? Really?

Rich people always have influence. They are always heard in government. Poorer or average-income people only have influence when we band together. Isn't that the PURPOSE of the First Amendment?

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

When individuals combine into associations of various kinds, they are assembling. When they pool their funds to petition the government or to lobby either the public or their elected representatives, they are engaging in PRECISELY the type of behavior that the First Amendment protects.

The very sick concept that a candidate may write a book about politics and sell it, but that a group of people may not write a book or make a movie and sell it cannot lead to a stable democracy. The very, very, corrupt idea that Donald Trump may commit ten million dollars to lobby for the election of his preferred candidate, but that UAW may not is a gross constitutional violation, but more importantly, the opposite of what you think it is.

Citizens United was a victory for the little guy.

Eh, read about it. Think about it:
http://www.publicintegrity.org/2012/10/18/11527/citizens-united-decision-and-why-it-matters

Smilin' Jack said...

I don't know the status, but I will certainly look into it." What "status"? Who even has an idea what that means?

Um, I do.

Levi Starks said...

In fact the surprise might be that she didn't even give 3 speeches. She may have given the first, and then at some point down the road they were like ok, how about if we just give you the money and we'll say you gave a speech.

HoodlumDoodlum said...

"Who can believe that?"

I suppose the same people who can believe that she set up her own private homebrew server (that she paid for, and for whom she hired & paid an IT guy) because doing so was more convenient than using the already-in-place .gov email system.
To me, it's an unbelievable reason, and a laughable excuse. But either a large number of people actually do believe it, or that same large number of people don't care about such an obvious lie.

HoodlumDoodlum said...

Bah! I deride your truth-handling ability!"

William said...

You're condemning some poor bastard to read the transcribed speeches of Mrs. Clinton in toto. There has been no recorded case of anyone actually reading Mrs. Clinton's entire book, and that book is War and Peace compared to these speeches. Two of her editors committed suicide and one of her ghost writers had a nervous breakdown. You're asking too much. This is a bridge too far as they say in the dentist's office.

Biff said...

It seems that the message of her campaign is, "Stop! Don't think! Leave the thinking to us!"

Michael K said...

"Explain to me the thinking, whatever it may be, that lies behind your comments."

Oh Oh, the circuits just blew !

Sam P said...

What if... Hillary doesn't own the copyrights to all the speeches? How could this happen? She didn't write the speeches and the speeches weren't written as works for hire. What if she was given some of the speeches by a third party, a behind he scenes supporter/sponsor.

dwick said...

"AReasonableMan said...
Because no competent politician would do this. They would stall and let the conspiracy obsessives make a bigger and bigger issue out of this failure to release the document so that they look like even bigger fools when the document is ultimately released and proves to be harmless..."


You mean like Harry Reid (and his imaginary friend, 'anonymous source') caterwauling on the Senate floor about Mitt Romney not having paid taxes in 10 years? That kind of conspiracy-obsessed fool?

mccullough said...

Maybe she just read excerpts from Paradise Lost

Paul said...

Why, oh why, didn't you ask these questions BEFORE you voted for Obama Ann?

Iapetus said...

When she gave those speeches she wasn't thinking about running for president and said some things she now regrets and wishes to keep secret. Ha ha ha ha. Her nose grows longer by the week with each lie told.

StephenFearby said...

Ann Althouse said...

"The absence of evidence is a basis for inference."

There are all kinds of evidence, some of which may be conclusive, some not.

So one may deduct from the conclusive evidence, but still infer from non-conclusive evidence.

Example: The proposition that Hilary (or a member or members of her immediate staff) arranged for H to receive classified information stripped of its classification slugs on her non-secured email-server.

Evidence: Brian Pagliano was the IT director for Clinton’s 2008 presidential campaign and held the State Department title of special adviser and deputy chief information officer.


"The former aide to Hillary Clinton who helped set up and maintain her private email server has declined to talk to the FBI and the State Department inspector general’s office, as well as a congressional committee, invoking his Fifth Amendment right not to incriminate himself, sources familiar with the investigation confirmed to Yahoo News."

https://www.yahoo.com/politics/clinton-aide-has-rebuffed-fbi-and-state-department-128271848515.html?Source=GovD&nf=1

Assuming this is a true fact, and therefore evidence, it allows us to infer, but not to deduce that Mr. Pagliano took the 5th because he wanted either to protect his former boss's assm, his own ass...or both.

I'd say there is a very strong inference that it is both...strong enough to place a bet that Madam Secretary is much more likely than not to withdraw as a Presidential candidate.

(At which point Biden would get in the race.)

I'd say its 50-50 whether she receives a Nixon-type pardon from Obama when she withdraws.

Gary said...

If I am paying that much for someone to speak I want to own the rights to the speech.
She could be right, what do the speech contracts look like.

Hyphenated American said...

"Because no competent politician would do this. They would stall and let the conspiracy obsessives make a bigger and bigger issue out of this failure to release the document so that they look like even bigger fools when the document is ultimately released and proves to be harmless..."

Reminds me of LAT for 7 years refusing to release the video of obama's visit and participation in the pro-Moslem, anti-Jewish meeting. Right?

Michael K said...

Oh Oh. The Washington Post just broke omerta on the e-mail scandal.

"Warm up Biden."

Big Mike said...

Well hold on a second there! According to Madeline Albright any woman who doesn't support Hillary is doomed to Hell. You wouldn't want to go to Hell, would you Professor?

Someone tell me, was Madeline Albright always this stupid? Or is she just entering senile dementia now that she's almost 80?

Kirk Parker said...

Althouse,

"It is hard to seek power and exercise it. It's nothing I want to do, and I appreciate that some not completely evil Americans step up to the work."

A subset of which Hillary! is certainly a member.

John said...

Some here seem to think those fees were campaign conributions. they were not. Hilary was not a candidte at the time. They were straight up income. she can do whatever she likes with the money as long as she pays txes on it.

that doesn't make it any less of a bribe but it does give her more flexibility to use it.

John henry

tim in vermont said...

But Clinton offered a message that the collected plutocrats found reassuring, according to accounts offered by several attendees, declaring that the banker-bashing so popular within both political parties was unproductive and indeed foolish. Striking a soothing note on the global financial crisis, she told the audience, in effect: We all got into this mess together, and we’re all going to have to work together to get out of it. 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. And indeed Goldman’s Tim O’Neill, who heads the bank’s asset management business, introduced Clinton by saying how courageous she was for speaking at the bank. (Goldman Sachs)

Kirk Parker said...

Big Mike @ 7:49pm,

Yes, "Mad Madeline" always was that stupid (or maybe it's immoral.) Remember her quote, "What's the point of having this superb military that you're always talking about if we can't use it?" (Yes, in many ways the point of having a superb military is precisely that--people choose to not fight you.)

Sammy Finkelman said...

Big Mike said...2/6/16, 7:49 PM

Someone tell me, was Madeline Albright always this stupid?

Yes, she was always this stupid. She didn't realize for many many years that she was Jewish, and she accepted Bill Clinton's word that he did not have sex with that woman, Monica Lewinsky. (although maybe there maybe she felt obliged to back him up, but she shold have kown a Secretary of State does not have to get involved in something like that)