Republican opposition researchers have whipped themselves into a frenzy over Hillary Clinton's Wall Street speeches, and here's what they have to show for it so far: nothing.

We know that Hillary made around $12 million for various speeches over the last few years. We know that three of those speeches were to Goldman Sachs. We know that attendees weren't allowed to record what she said. And we know that she really, really, really does not want the transcripts released.

What a tantalizing mystery we have on our hands! Now the GOP has sent every Miss Marple they can find to unearth what Hillary might've said so that they can use it to destroy her. It probably won't work.

That's because politics is never really as interesting as an Agatha Christie novel, and only sometimes as interesting as Murder She Wrote. We know how Hillary's speeches go — she's made approximately eight billion of them over her career — and we can probably make a few assumptions about the Goldman Sachs appearances: she was upbeat, she demonstrated expertise in the subject matter, she made a few jokes that were funny on the level of "working hard or hardly working," and she was super, super, super, super boring.

It's when she's boring that Hillary's at her best: smart, practical, wonky, a problem-solver. She makes great policy, and lousy television. (For example, her campaign chairman recently spoke at a conference on climate change and laid out some pretty fantastic ideas; and there was practically no media coverage of it compared to the frenzy over Donald Trump's taco salad.)

It's unthinkable that Hillary would have dropped any bombshells that would harm her chances for president in those speeches, since she knew that she'd probably be running. It's not like she would have leaned over the podium, whiskey in one hand and cigar in another, and muttered, "okay, you assholes, now how are we going to fuck over the American people?" Or confessed her hatred of babies, or admitted to killing JFK, or chanted an incantation to summon the Manitou, or whatever Republicans think she did.

And she delivered those speeches not long after Mitt Romney was pilloried for his speech to some mega-rich donors. Remember that "47% speech"? There was nothing particularly revelatory about it — it just confirmed Mitt's disdain for the working class, but it was ever-so-slightly more candid than politicians are supposed to be, and everyone freaked the fuck out about it.

So knowing that there's always a chance there's a microphone hidden in the room, it's pretty unlikely that Hillary was like, "yeah, just between us rich people, I'm the one who told Bill to hook up with Monica."

And yet, even though we don't know exactly what she said, and even though there's an overwhelming likelihood that what she said was boring, somehow those speeches have become items of fascination. It's because we can't resist a mystery, and depriving us of the speeches has only made us want them more.

In other words, the most interesting thing about those speeches is how desperately we want something so boring.

I'd like to think that this is all part of the plan: that Hillary's refusing to release those speeches to drive GOP researchers wild. They've apparently spent months tracking down every possible lead, and when they talk about their lack of results they sound like they've been driven absolutely bonkers.

In a perfect world, Hillary will finally give in and release the transcripts after months of anticipation, and they'll turn out to be a dry analysis of quarterly sales projections. The Republicans will have spent months wasting their time chasing them down, and we'll all have a big laugh at their expense.

But then again, the world is seldom that perfect. It's usually just boring. Super duper mega boring.