Sanders Whiffs On Giving Example Of Wall Street Money Influencing Clinton

[RandySF]

During CNN's Democratic debate Thursday, Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) struggled to name a decision that Hillary Clinton has made based on donations from Wall Street.

Moderator Dana Bash asked Sanders to expand upon a common line from his speeches that Clinton has gotten donations and speaking fees from Wall Street executives, implying that she would make political decisions based on that.

Instead of pointing to a specific instance of Clinton's being compromised by receiving financial services industry money, Sanders spoke broadly of the industry's influence.

"The obvious decision is when the greed and recklessness and illegal behavior of Wall Street brought this country into the worst economic downturn since the Great Depression of the '30s, when millions of people lost their jobs, homes and life savings, the obvious response to that is you've got a bunch of fraudulent operators, and that they have got to be broken up. Now, Secretary Clinton was busy giving speeches to Goldman Sachs for $250,000 a speech"

Clinton responded to Sanders' point by stating that Sanders could not come up with an example.

"Well, as you can tell, Dana, he cannot come up with any example, because there is no example," Clinton said. "And it is -- it is important -- it is important -- it's always important -- it may be inconvenient, but it's always important to get the facts straight."


http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/sanders-clinton-wall-street-answer

[berniepdx420]

1. Were you sitting with Brooklynite at the debate ?? Next to the mayor and Gov.

[GeorgiaPeanuts]

2. He won't go there...

It is dangerous with her. We all saw how qualificationsgate went. If he insinuated she were bribed for a particular vote he would get run through the coals. And the issue isn't about someone giving you money to change your vote. It is about the system as a whole being rigged so that the interests of the wealthy are what matter. A Princeton study showed that this is in fact the case. That for all intents and purposes we are an oligarchy.

[Hortensis]

11. You mean Sanders would be criticized if he lied?

Come on. Isn't that what should happen? Maybe push partisanship aside long enough check in with your basic principles?

Bernie was unable to provide even one instance of Clinton being bought by business. If he had just one, being asked to provide it in a national debate would certainly have been the perfect time to lob that bomb. But he has nothing but the dishonest insinuations that caused the question to be asked.

As for "qualificationsgate" (really? ), Bernie's own disastrous performance in that interview rightly became news. He is asking people to elect him president, after all. After Sanders blew it, Clinton's only comment on the scandal was that he needed to "do his homework." The simple truth, guys, and so gently stated.

[GeorgiaPeanuts]

12. Nah, it has been brought up before...

I am pretty sure Sanders campaign has emailed this to supporters in the past. If he went there he would be attacked for impugning her as unethical or whatever sexist variation of that they can come up with. Him being a man and not a woman it would be very sticky to try and do what Elizabeth Warren did in the video clip at a debate.

[Hortensis]

13. Wrong! Just one honest example would have devastated HRC's

candidacy.

Didn't you ever wonder when the national press didn't point out even one instance that they knew of when they reported on his insinuations, month after month? They investigated and didn't have one honest example either. Instead they reported his accusations, which we now know are lies.

Bernie Sanders has been lying all along to smear his opponent. You can still like him, but he is NOT the person you once thought he was.

[GeorgiaPeanuts]

17. So you disagree with Warren about the bankruptcy bill?

The issue here is the candidate Sanders is. He does not do personal attacks and this would be a personal attack impugning her as essentially accepting bribes and being unethical not to mention calling her a liar. This is why every time in a debate this line of questioning comes up he pivots to talking about the system as a whole. Our politicians are just working with the system we have, but Sanders wants to go beyond the system we have and he is walking the walk at a time when walking the walk was thought to be impossible. He is outraising her in money all through 2016 and has now outraised her campaign committee over this primary season. He is proof that we can have a better way of financing our campaigns.

[Hortensis]

21. Good grief. I disagree with your foolish pretense that

answering the question put to him in the debate honestly was out of the question. The moderator tossed him a softball question. It was time for Bernie to hit that ol' grand slam out of the park and go on to become the Democratic Party nominee for president -- but he couldn't. He had nothing.

You have no more evidence than your leader does. And now that that has been made abundantly clear before an audience of many millions, I believe you should stop making accusations against Hilary Clinton that neither of you can back up. Time to step back and remember every individual's concern for honesty needs to start with their own.

[CorporatistNation]

18. Short Answer... Hillary Is "PAID" By Wall Street To PREVENT ANY Changes In The Current Paradigm...

that governs Wall Street Activities. Simple as that... Just act as a blocker of real financial regulatory reform and the moguls are very happy with that! She just has to obfuscate and dance... Her best qualities!

[oasis]

3. Huuumuna huuuumuna huuuumuna. Deer in headlights moment.

[redstateblues]

4. I've challenged BSS often to provide proof of quid pro quo. Still waiting

[Lucinda]

5. Glad it's out there. It always was a loser of a talking point. n/t

[Gothmog]

6. Sanders looked bad on this issue

[calguy]

8. Sanders looked the whole night

I've always liked Bernie the Senator but really showed tonight he is in no way presidential material.
Hillary smoked his ass and handed it to him on stick.
After Tuesday it's bye bye Bernie time.

[HERVEPA]

10. Yes, I'm sure you've always liked Bernie.

[EndElectoral]

16. We apparently were watching two different debates. She looked lost on so many issues such as ....

Soc. Sec. Cap, the transcripts, regime change, incarceration rates, fracking...

Not sure what you're smoking, but Hillary wasn't exactly smoking.

[KPN]

7. Sanders nailed her with his answer.

Her defense in essence was you can't prove that and he came back at her with a roundhouse. You could see her knees give.

[Bobbie Jo]

9. What WAS his answer?

He didn't have one. At all.

[KPN]

19. Yes he did.

That she decided to take the money. That was a personal decision in itself. The point is, there's hardly anyone who doesn't believe that taking big money from big money interests doesn't flavor ones perspective when those interest are involved. Everyone gets that ... except those who can't see the forest for the trees. ... MONEY influences political decisions far more (almost exclusively) than public opinion as recent studies have shown.

[Bobbie Jo]

20. That was a complete NON answer.

He couldn't answer the question. Just more meandering platitudes.

[KPN]

22. OK, like just about every fucking answer she gave to everything last night.

You Hillary folks are so damned biased in your perspective. Bernie almost always says Yes or No in response to a question and then explains. Hillary on the other hand does the standard polished politician thing wherein she always has lots of wiggle room because she never really answered the question.

Her line about diagnosing the problem is a lot easier than coming up with a solution is the perfect example. That line in itself is a bunch of bullshit. Diagnosing the "problem" is the point at which most failed "solutions" FAIL!!! Anyone who has studied rational problem solving will tell you that -- so she can't even get that right, despite her great intelligence (and I'm being honest here, Hillary is extremely bright -- no question). If you can't or don't define the problem correctly, then you likely won't come up with a good and lasting solution. The reason she's had so many failed decisions as a Senator, Presidential spouse/advisor, and Sec of State, is she fails to define the problem correctly. She looks at everything with a status quo or establishment perspective and, consequently, ends up not seeing the woods for the trees. It never occurs to her that the "establishment" perspective might actually be at the root of the problem!

[EndElectoral]

14. There were so many examples of how he could have nailed her and he couldn't come up with them

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/bernie-sanders-wall-street_us_56b420fee4b01d80b245cd2c

But Clinton had set a high bar, asking for a specific way in which specific contributions influenced her.

Sanders could have brought up Blair Effron after Clinton herself slammed what are known as corporate “inversions,” specifically citing the company Johnson Controls, which pulled off an egregious example of a move done to reduce a company’s U.S. tax bill. Effron is a founding partner of Centerview Partners, an investment firm that played a major role in the Johnson inversion.

Effron has raised at least $100,000 for Clinton’s campaign, and it has been widely reported that he hopes to win a job in the Treasury Department. He has been referred to in print as one of the very few people Clinton listens to when it comes to economic policy.

Clinton’s claim that campaign money has never influenced her raises two possible scenarios, both of them odd: Either Effron opposes inversions but pushes them anyway in the private sector, and advises Clinton against them — or Effron supports inversions, and Clinton ignores the input of one of her top advisers on a key issue.

There is, of course, a third possibility: Effron is just fine with inversions, and is able to articulately defend them in conversations with Hillary Clinton, conversations that he is able to have because he is such a high-dollar donor. Clinton, to be sure, can still make up her own mind, but opponents of inversions have reason to worry, knowing that one of her key advisers is such a leading player on the opposite side.

Johnson Controls, meanwhile, has given at least $250,000 to the Clinton Foundation.

And here's a few comments from Elizabeth Warren on HRC and the Bankruptcy Bill.

http://4newstalk.com/politics/elizabeth-warren/in-elizabeths-warrens-own-words-hillary-clintons-m-o/

...

Sanders is correct that her contributions do compromise her ability to remain a neutral party, but he's got to be better prepared for exactly this question. He could very well have scored big if he had been because the examples are out there.

[beedle]

15. I don't see why it matters if she specifically did out didn't

It's wrong and shows the appearance of corruption.

The evidence strongly shows money does corrupt, and is corrupting government. Clinton might be the one in a thousand politician who money can't corrupt, but so what? That doesn't change the need to get rid of the corruption.