Go ahead and imagine what Hillary Clinton might have told Wall Street executives behind closed doors during her big-bucks days on the speaking circuit.

Heh, heh — you're being cheeky, aren't you? You're contemplating a scenario so unseemly, with remarks so fawning, that it would cause blushing among the scheming villains on "Game of Thrones."

And there you have the dilemma facing Clinton the now-candidate for president: She has refused calls to release speech transcripts because, she has said, other candidates haven't done so — although it appears there is no other candidate who has pocketed financiers' money for palaver as aggressively as she has.

Yes, if she discloses what she's said to bankers, her detractors — led by Bernie Sanders — may find reasons to lambaste her for cozying up to special financial interests. But if she won't release the transcripts, the public will fill in the gap with nasty presumptions.

As Clinton edges closer to knocking off Sanders for the Democratic nomination, the focus may shift to other issues, but it shouldn't. Voters have a legitimate interest in exploring what she has said to rooms full of bankers and investors in the context of evaluating her perspective on financial regulations and economic growth.

Does what she says now in public jibe with what she said then to small, select gatherings of the rich and powerful? If not, what's changed?

Clinton was in the speechmaking business for about two years. Business was good, as it has been for her husband, former President Bill Clinton. He has earned more than $100 million on the lecture circuit since leaving office, The Washington Post reported in 2014. Hillary Clinton earned $21.7 million from about 100 speaking engagements after her tenure as secretary of state, according to The Wall Street Journal.

She spoke to many business groups. Of all the paid gigs, one trio garners most of the attention: three appearances she made at Goldman Sachs client conferences, for which the firm paid her a reported $675,000. What did Clinton tell Goldman Sachs? Well, let's assume the firm didn't pay $225,000 per session to get a dressing-down. Politico quoted one attendee saying Clinton praised the firm for its role in the economy: "It's so far from what she sounds like as a candidate now. It was like a rah-rah speech. She sounded more like a Goldman Sachs managing director."

Clinton has been dogged by Sanders over the Wall Street connection because of the theme central to his campaign: that he's for the little guy and gal, while she stands with the big money boys and girls who nearly destroyed the economy.

Let's pause here for context: There is nothing inherently evil about banks or businesses, though Sanders has found them to be effective whipping posts for his brand of populism. There were many reasons for the 2007-08 financial crisis, and you can put Wall Street failings among them — alongside congressional pressure on lenders to give mortgages to people who couldn't repay them. But without banks we have no free markets, and without markets we have no economy.

There also was nothing inherently evil about Clinton as a private citizen taking money to speak to private groups. Companies pay fat fees to hear from influential people because they want insight and enjoy the prestige that comes from access. They especially like to impress clients and employees. Clinton was a good get, but if Goldman Sachs could have booked Beyonce for $225,000, maybe it would have. This was not about buying influence: Goldman executives are savvy enough to know that paying Hillary Clinton in 2013 will get them no special treatment in 2017, should she become president. Besides, Wall Street firms have plenty of ways to lobby the government.

The issue here is that Clinton, now a would-be president, earned an extraordinary living giving speeches and making appearances. All transcripts from those activities should be available for public scrutiny, just as all presidential candidates' previous professional work should be open to examination. For example, if Donald Trump wins the Republican nomination, expect to read a lot more details about his decades in business. And rightly so. Voters deserve to know, and understand, how he made his money.

Why are those particular speeches and conversations important for assessing Clinton's candidacy? Because how she presented herself to influential people in a private setting reflected her judgment. Voters are reasonable to ask: How did she handle the situation? Better than Mitt Romney? In 2012 he did himself in by talking disparagingly about low-income people in private to wealthy donors.

We're guessing Clinton made nice with Wall Street and feels uncomfortable about it now. Maybe she said something to damage her credibility among some potential supporters. So be it. Clinton could have avoided scrutiny by finding different work. Instead, she earned big speaking fees based on her experience as a public servant. If she likes that role and wants to be president, she has an obligation to share what she said.