This Feb. 26 Reuters link. Source of the Crabgrass headline-quote.
On Tuesday, Mrs. Clinton further complained, “Why is there one standard for me, and not for everybody else?”
The only different standard here is the one Mrs. Clinton set for herself, by personally earning $11 million in 2014 and the first quarter of 2015 for 51 speeches to banks and other groups and industries.
Voters have every right to know what Mrs. Clinton told these groups. In July, her spokesman Nick Merrill said that though most speeches were private, the Clinton operation “always opened speeches when asked to.” Transcripts of speeches that have been leaked have been pretty innocuous. By refusing to release them all, especially the bank speeches, Mrs. Clinton fuels speculation about why she’s stonewalling.
I would say one standard for anyone having eleven million dollars of secret slush, another standard being fine for those not so.
Money for nothing? Then release. Money for something? Then what, exactly? Interesting wording by NY Times staff, "earning" all that loot, not "receiving," as in active voice vs passive voice.
What done, to "earn?" Just doing her, "Walk of Life?" What?
FURTHER: With the knives being sharpened, it is troublesome to see the stonewalling, for anyone wanting Dem down ticket wins in November. It is not just Bernie being peverse; it is a big festering sore - a boil better lanced sooner than later.
Release. If it is not a ticking timebomb, then defuse it now and move on. If it is a ticking timebomb, then move aside.
FURTHER: The NY Times oped ends [again, links are from the original]:
The hazards of Mrs. Clinton, a presidential hopeful, earning more than $200,000 each for dozens of speeches to industry groups were clear from the start. Mrs. Clinton was making paid speeches when she hired consultants to vet her own background in preparation for a run. If they didn’t flag this, they weren’t doing their jobs.
Well, come on, they flagged it. Nobody could miss it. These are not local Iowa town volunteers; but paid operatives on a national stage. They flagged it. No two ways. They did. They had to have.
Nothing for her to fear in releasing transcripts, but fear itself? Unlikely. The decision to feed the people bullshit while stonewalling is a major insult. And a larger insult with having early self-vetting, showing stonewalling was a decision made from the get-go. Stonewall pure and simple. It is expressing a disdain for the mood of voters who are Democrats. Again; Democrats wanting wins, down ballot.
FURTHER: Here is one where reader help is needed, since I have seen nothing on the web. How many speeches have the Clintons given to Big Pharma, and at what price per? And -- transcripts, are there transcripts, can we see them?