In recent dazzling investigative work, Spoof reporting is able to finally bring out the contents of Hillary Clinton's controversial speeches to Goldman Sachs.
These speeches occurred as part of her early campaign to win the Democratic nomination for president in 2016.
They have been criticized as showing her ties to Wall Street, at issue in the current race.
The money she earned has also been an issue, meaning $675,000 for three speeches, to which Ms. Clinton has responded, "That's what they offered."
Also, she has not yet clarified the contents of those speeches and they have remained buried--until now.
Meanwhile, pressured by Mr. Sanders in his anti-Wall Street remarks, Ms. Clinton has changed her tune to self-righteous and critical of the financial titans.
She has begun talking about financial reform.
But in her Goldman Sachs speeches, she sounded somewhat different.
"Now, as all of you who work for this fine company know, Goldman Sachs is a vital banking industry in this great country, and deserves the sympathy--I might add, as with Barack Obama--the sympathy of all presidential executives, no matter which party."
A standing ovation at that point shook Ms. Clinton's podium so that her glass of water nearly spilled over.
Ms. Clinton further reassured the Goldman Sachs' gathering that there would be no special prosecutor to investigate the banking industry, or anything like that.
She added that the mistakes creating the 2008 crash were "water under the bridge."
As with Mr. Obama, she certainly would not be the one to conduct a witchhunt into the financial industry and start demanding reforms.
No, she emphasized, that is not what the Democratic Party is all about.
A witness at these proceeding (who preferred anonymity) said Ms. Clinton's attitude was "enthusiastic, highly supportive."
He speculated Ms. Clinton might be seeking a position with the company, if her candidacy failed and she was looking for something to do after November 2016.
Contacted to respond to these allegations, Ms. Clinton's representative said a transcript of the speeches will prove these insinuations are completely false.
The documents supposedly found must be forgeries, he said. Or just more propaganda.
They are likely part of "an artful smear," he said, using some of Ms. Clinton's own language against Mr. Sanders, who has drawn attention to her high speaking fees.
But, he was asked, is this a smear if those high speaking fees and what they imply is fact?
And if the high fees are fact, isn't it Ms. Clinton who is doing the smearing?
The Clinton representative paused and looked puzzled for a moment. Then he brushed this point aside with his final comment:
"Anyway, the speeches have gone missing. I can't say why. So it's all conjecture, isn't it?"