<<I don't think she could have explained herself in a believable way without the release of the texts or video tapes of the speech.>>
Maybe not. But she is very smart, and I think she could have articulated her thinking very well without relying on the texts of the speech; in fact, if she couldn't, I think that would have presented another problem. And, as I said in my previous post, I don't think she or anyone else invoked a confidentiality agreement as a reason for not releasing the texts.  Was she acting as a consultant? That would be a different issue, too, but I don't think anyone ever said that either. Moreover, as it turns out -- at least some of the texts leaked out anyway; which was one of the reasons I argued at the time that she should have gotten them out herself.
At any rate: it's all water under the proverbial bridge now.