She was for releasing the transcripts before she was against it. The fact is, there could well be contractual requirements for not releasing them. However, I discount that because if such contract clauses existed, she’d cite them. Her latest weasel-worded excuse for not releasing is this, instead, in response to a George Stephanopoulos question about why she’d not yet:
Yeah, you know, here’s another thing I want to say. Let everybody who’s ever given a speech to any private group under any circumstances release them. We’ll all release them at the same time. You know, I don’t mind being the subject in Republican debates, the subject in the Democratic primary. That kind of goes with the territory.…
Couple things about this. One is the typical Clintonian (and others’) tactic of releasing the bad news within a deluge of good news, other bad news, and utterly irrelevant news. Everyone releasing at the same time would bury whatever embarrassing or outright bad stuff might be in the Clintons’ Wall Street speeches.
The other thing is this: why not show the way and be the first to release the transcripts? Because that would be taking the high road.
Before I retired, she was the featured speaker at a global sales meeting, recorded internally and available to us internally – and we were specifically warned not to copy or distribute the content.
I declined to play that part – my stomach just wasn’t up to it.