The Collateral Consequences Of Hillary Clinton.

By Jerry Alatalo

“In public life, instead of modesty, incorruptibility, and honesty – shamefulness, bribery and rapacity hold sway.”

-SALLUST (86-34 B.C.) Roman historian

aaa-9Alphabet The Wall Street documentary expose’, “The Veneer of Justice in the Kingdom of Crime”, was written, produced and directed by Mr. John Titus. In the film he makes a strong case that the Obama administration Justice Department under Attorney General Eric Holder (the top law enforcement official in the United States), Assistant Attorney General Lanny Breuer and others from the department protected executives of Wall Street global giant Goldman Sachs from prosecution for major financial fraud – and prison.

For those men and women who view the film, it should become readily apparent the real reasons for Hillary Clinton’s firm resolve and still-persisting refusal to show the American people the transcripts of her three (3) $225,000 speeches to Goldman Sachs. At the same time, the level of concern over Ms. Clinton’s nondisclosure and total lack of transparency should rise exponentially, in a natural response seeing she’s, thus far, the favorite to become the next President of the United States.

Unfortunately, Mr. Titus’ outstanding film is a documentary based on facts – and not a work of fiction. The American people are reasonable in expecting a President Hillary Clinton to appoint the same caliber of legal minds to her Justice Department as Barack Obama, illustrated by Clinton campaign advertisements featuring Eric Holder giving her his “strong” endorsement. That Mr. Holder, Mr. Breuer and other Obama Justice Department attorneys now work at the Wall Street law firm Covington & Burling representing Goldman Sachs and other major “too big to fail/jail” banks should cause Americans to stop and think.

Americans might think again about Hillary Clinton, because in the eight years of Obama’s administration not one Wall Street executive went to jail, despite what many expert observers have concluded was major, epidemic financial fraud committed in the years leading up to the economic crash of 2007-8. The people of Britain recently voted to leave the European Union in what everyone has come to know as the “Brexit”. Considering Ms. Clinton’s unyielding secrecy over her $225,000 Goldman Sachs speeches combined with the film’s Goldman Sachs-specific revelations as associated with Obama’s Justice Department officials, the American people might start looking around for the nearest “Clexit” (Clinton exit).

At first glance, an analogy of “Brexit” and “Clexit” might seem somewhat silly or even ridiculous. But after further thought, both the British and Americans share the challenge of dealing with a handful of extremely wealthy, politically connected people operating from positions of massive centralized power, able to completely escape accountability from constraining legal or democratic means. In a real sense, Americans’ electing Ms. Clinton President of the United States is the precise opposite of Brits’ voting to leave the European Union – further concentration of power versus decentralization.

As Mr. Titus’ film points out, Eric Holder, Lanny Breuer and their Justice Department colleagues arranged for Goldman Sachs to commit crimes with impunity, conjuring up the excuse of sparing employees, the U.S. and world economy, etc. from negative “collateral consequences”. Holder and Breuer simply made up the “collateral consequences” argument to protect their friends at Goldman Sachs from going to prison.

However, the negative collateral (parallel) consequences of a Hillary Clinton presidency would be all too real, multi-faceted – including matters of war and peace, and cause for great concern internationally – only possible through attainment of one of the most powerful positions on Earth.

(Thank you to BestEvidence at YouTube)

The 28 Pages: George W. Bush Faces Big Trouble.

By Jerry Alatalo

393Alphabet George W. Bush has been silent on the “28 Pages” his administration classified during investigations into the events of September 11, 2001. After Bush left office in 2008, the new president Barack Obama promised to declassify the information, at the direct request of surviving family members of those who perished on that day. Barack Obama has yet to keep his promise, despite clear moral arguments that he do so.

The “28 Pages” have been the subject of discussions in America for years, only coming under much wider, global scrutiny after the popular CBS news magazine “60 Minutes” aired a segment on the controversial issue recently. One would have to talk directly to those at CBS with authority to air the segment to determine their intentions for giving it the go-ahead, but undoubtedly the Obama administration faces a situation most would find resembling “between a rock and a hard place”.

Mr. Obama’s predecessor George W. Bush finds himself in a “rock and a hard place” situation that is much more intense. With regard to the “28 Pages”, George W. Bush’s silence is part of the coverup over his inside knowledge of what happened on 9/11, and on the same level as his father George H.W. Bush’s stating he can’t remember where he was when John F. Kennedy was assassinated in Dallas, Texas in November 1963.

Former Governor/U.S. Senator from Florida Bob Graham and many others are right to urge a new investigation into September 11, 2001. Any good, decent, moral man or woman on Earth wants the “28 Pages” declassified, an investigation that is 100% transparent with George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld and others testifying under oath with cameras rolling, and the long-overdue arriving at the truth.

While George W. Bush has never explicitly called for the release of the “28 Pages” or a new investigation of 9/11, his statements while president could suggest he’d favor current efforts to arrive at the truth. One would have to speak to George W. Bush personally to find out his current views on this matter. It could also be the case that Mr. Bush is no longer passionate about the truth, but that his artistic endeavors have become the greater focus of his days since leaving public service.

Perhaps those lingering questions will become answered in the near future.

(Thank you to Platos Cave at YouTube)

72 Minutes That Changed The World.

By Jerry Alatalo

“The chief duty of the historian is to judge the actions of men, so that the good may meet with the reward due to virtue, and pernicious citizens may be deterred by the condemnation that awaits evil deeds at the tribunal of posterity.”

– CORNELIUS TACITUS (55-117 A.D.) Roman historian

aaa-38Alphabet It felt like synchronicity after posting University of California – Santa Cruz Professor Danny Sheehan’s surprising and revealing lecture on the history of what many call the “deep state” in America that Gary Null had just interviewed him on his radio program, part of the popular Progressive Radio Network.

The interview took place as part of “Conversations with Remarkable Minds” series on Dr. Null’s show, and titled, “The Masters of Wealth and Their History of Domination Over America”. Some of the discussion overlaps with the previous post featuring Mr. Sheehan’s university lecture, beneficial for review and retention of important facts, but includes details providing more context and a broader understanding of suppressed, secret American history.

Any reasonable man or woman will find the information conveyed in the interview similar to Edward Snowden and Chelsea Manning in that it’s “blowing the whistle” on illegality and corruption, and that Danny Sheehan is a different form of whistleblower – the qualitative difference being Mr. Sheehan’s revelations focus on the highest, broadest, systemic level and are all-encompassing. In a real sense, the history-corrective information presented sharply contrasts Mr. Sheehan in the morality, incorruptibility, and integrity arena to elected politicians and appointed officials. Too many Americans hold the mistaken belief that those who rise to positions of great power in private business and government are for the most part moral and honest, when in reality most are corrupt and too few have the best noble intentions.

Without their mentioning it, one could imagine the agreed intent of Gary Null and Danny Sheehan in publishing this explosive interview is strongly influencing the presidential election. Of note is the personal experience of Mr. Sheehan as a student in a government class at Harvard University – taught by none other than Henry Kissinger, in the minds of many one of the world’s foremost non-prosecuted war criminals.

Mr. Sheehan tells Mr. Null about the first day of that Kissinger-taught Harvard class in the 1960’s, where Kissinger told the all-male group of students: “Look, if you think that our government doesn’t have the right to lie, steal, cheat and to kill in order to forward the best interests of the country itself, in the world, then you shouldn’t be in this course”. This revelation has particular relevance to the 2016 presidential race because both Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump have sought the advice of Kissinger.

Another statement of Kissinger during the class shared by Mr. Sheehan involved the United Nations (UN), describing to students the “Uniting for Peace Resolution” provision of the UN Charter whereby “…any UN General Assembly nation, if they could get two-thirds of the other members to vote for them, they can take up an issue under this Uniting for Peace Resolution, they can override any veto on the part of the five major nations that are in charge of the Security Council. Kissinger said, ‘If the people of the world ever found out about this, we’re in trouble’ ”

Sheehan recalls after Kissinger’s “we’re in trouble” UN statement thinking to himself, “Who’s we?” He goes on to describe later personal events including starting a legal team while at Harvard that established the precedent of journalists’ right to protect confidential sources, working at Wall Street’s #1 legal firm where he read all 47 volumes of the Pentagon Papers, and researching America’s power structure and discovering heroin smuggling, covert wars, and the network of wealthy private individuals essentially carrying out U.S. foreign policy, prominent among them attorney and first Director of the Central Intelligence Agency, Allen Dulles.

These revelations illustrate how important is getting to the truth about Hillary Clinton’s relationship (or Donald Trump’s, if such is the case) with giant Wall Street firms, in particular the still secret status of her speech transcripts – the now well-known $225,000 per talk contracted events. The continuing stance of Ms. Clinton, her refusal to show the American people those transcripts, becomes much more troubling after learning the history of Allen Dulles, Brown Brothers Harriman, Sullivan and Cromwell, and their members’ connection to Nazi Germany, Adolf Hitler, the Third Reich, near world war with the Soviet Union, major illegal drug operations, and the murder of President John F. Kennedy in 1963 .

Among the many shocking pieces of information Mr. Sheehan conveyed during this interview is one experience from 1986, the year when he and his associates brought legal action against Reagan administration government officials alleged to have planned and carried out what has become known as the “Iran-Contra Scandal”. Sheehan described meeting a man named Joseph B. Smith, who shared with Sheehan his experience while in the Central Intelligence Agency in 1973.

In 1973, a CIA whistleblower named Phil Agee was ready to publish his expose of the agency – “Inside the Company”. Top CIA official Theodore Shackley, because the book could jeopardize the cover and safety of any Station Chief named in it, decided on replacing all Station Chiefs in Mexico and Latin America. Joseph B. Smith was one of the possible replacements, but he first had to undergo “vetting”.

He came to fly down to Buenos Aires, Argentina, then to a rural town in the northern part of the country, for a meeting to decide if he was the right man for the post. He described to Sheehan thinking he “was in Bavaria” after seeing the architecture of the town, walking into a Bavarian-style inn, seeing men sitting at a large oak table in front of a large fireplace, and above the fireplace a large Nazi flag.

Smith became informed about a CIA covert cocaine smuggling operation where profits became used to finance illegal military actions, and that the men needed to know if he could be counted on to keep the operation secret. At the 1986 meeting with Danny Sheehan, John B. Smith told him: “I just wanted you to make sure that if you were going to start a case like this (Iran-Contra), you know who you are really dealing with”.


As the radio interview starts to wind down (apparently another interview in the near future is coming), Mr. Sheehan asserts a secret CIA-Mafia assassination team, with the knowledge and consent of America’s most powerful private and government officials, murdered President John F. Kennedy. The coverup included the man who assumed the presidency – Lyndon B. Johnson.

On the events of September 11, 2001, now commonly known as 9/11 – and all over international media in reports about the “28 Pages”, Sheehan sees a “classic (Theodore) Shackley operation”, and that the so-called “19 hijackers” like Lee Harvey Oswald in 1963 were victims of manipulation by promises of completely different operations and results, and in the end became nothing more than “Patsies”.

In a time when the world’s most serious situations, developments and facts suffer suppression, classified-status, and other immoral means of keeping them from the public’s knowledge, may it be stated the information presented in this interview rises to the high level where Hillary Clinton, Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump have no option but addressing the startlingly important details.

Certain issues are of such minor significance that a President of the United States, or a candidate for that highest of offices, is better off delegating them to those serving under him or her and focusing solely on solutions for the most pressing problems. However, when considering the deeply disturbing issues revealed in the discussion between Gary Null and Professor Danny Sheehan, remaining candidates Clinton, Sanders and Trump cannot through any means whatsoever escape the personal responsibility of addressing them directly and forthrightly.

Throughout history there have occurred moments of great truth revealed. Now is such a moment.

(Thank you to Gary Null at Progressive Radio Network)

Clinton’s Historic Debate Lie Ends Her Campaign.

By Jerry Alatalo

“The writers of universal history will only prove themselves of real value when they are able to answer the essential question of history: What is power?”

– LEO TOLSTOY (1828-1910) Russian writer

aaa-16Alphabet Despite intense disagreement on the way questions were configured during the debate between Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton in Michigan, the political exercise was of highest importance and very revealing for voters in Michigan, the Midwest region, and the entirety of America.

Regarding the format, debates which are as important as this one – in a very real sense responsible and necessary for informing voters and electing the next President of the United States – questions mustn’t become individualized or different for each candidate. The candidates must answer the same questions, in a format implemented to make sure the highest degree possible of impartiality, fairness, scholarly rigor/emphasis and full intellectual exposition. The format used in this debate, frankly, was a terrible choice considering the profound and extraordinarily vital nature of the topics discussed.

That said, the Michigan debate has concluded.

Hillary Clinton’s clear and blatant lie accusing Bernie Sanders of voting against the government bailout of the U.S. auto industry could be the greatest attempt at mass deception ever perpetrated in the history of U.S. presidential debates. Bernie Sanders firmly addressed the issue the day after the debate while speaking at a Michigan rally (see video below). In my view, such an overwhelmingly unethical and immoral action on the part of Hillary Clinton should automatically disqualify her from the 2016 campaign and necessitate her immediate exit.

What follows is that portion of the debate transcript which focused on trade and economics. Comments on particular candidate statements are found inside parentheses ( … ). Included is a video related to Hillary Clinton’s opposition, while running for President in 2008, to a proposed trade deal with Colombia – and her total reversal on that stance after becoming Secretary of State. Because Ms. Clinton received training in corporate law, she will likely become forced to provide a much more detailed explanation.

Voters in Michigan and America, once aware of this issue over Colombia, will choose to vote for her or Bernie Sanders based on the thoroughness and integrity provided in her explanation – that is, if she provides one.

Ms. Clinton calmly restated her position of nondisclosure of transcripts recording the messages she conveyed in three behind-closed-door meetings with Goldman Sachs for which she received $225,000 per speech, reiterating that she will provide the American people those transcripts once “both Republicans and Democrats do…”. Bernie Sanders responded by “throwing” – “releasing” – his transcripts in the air for her, emphasizing the fact that he hasn’t delivered paid speeches to Wall Street owners – there is “nothing” to “release”.


Begin debate transcript dealing with trade, economics, jobs:

COOPER: I want to go to Tanisha Motron, she grew up in Flint and now works in Detroit at the Shinola watch factory which as you know, is often held up as the blueprint for how to save American industry jobs. She says she’s leaning towards Secretary Clinton and has a question for her.

QUESTION: A lot of members work in the auto industry here in Flint. That’s ultimately what I wanted to do when I got out of school unfortunately, I was unable to get any one of the big three and that’s why I now reside at Shinola. If you are elected president, what are you going to do to in the United States instead of sending them overseas to other countries?

COOPER: Secretary Clinton?

CLINTON: I’m going to do what I think will work which is both carrots and sticks. Let me talk about the carrots. We’re going to have a very clear set of proposals and incentives for manufacturing so that we change the way that companies think about making investments again in America. I have a comprehensive manufacturing plan that I will be implementing.

We’re also going to invest more on infrastructure as we both have said, “it’s woefully under resourced.” That will put a lot of people to work. I want to do more to help small businesses, they are the source of two-thirds of our jobs and we have to help them start and grow, particularly minority and women-owned small businesses.

We need to do more to help create clean energy as a source of good jobs but I am also going to go after companies. You know, when a company decides to leave like Nabisco is leaving and they have gotten tax benefits from Chicago and Illinois to stay there, I will claw back the benefits. They will have to pay them back if they are leaving a place that actually invested in them.

I am also going to go after companies like Johnson Controls in Wisconsin. They came and got part of the bailout because they were an auto parts supplier and now they want to move headquarters to Europe. They are going to have to pay an exit fee. We are going to stop this kind of job exporting and we are going to start importing and growing jobs again in our country.


(*Ms. Clinton said “a very clear set of proposals and incentives…”, “I have a comprehensive manufacturing plan I will be implementing”… without so much as providing an iota of further description or specifics. She fails to mention NAFTA, CAFTA, TPP, TTIP or any specific, massive trade deals which have resulted in previously abundant Michigan/Midwest state jobs moving to Mexico, thus Ms. Motron’s inability to secure employment at one of the “Big Three” U.S./Michigan automakers, in Flint, Detroit, or many areas of the region.)


COOPER: Senator Sanders, I will let you…

SANDERS: I am very glad, Anderson, that Secretary Clinton discovered religion on this issue but it’s a little bit too late.

Secretary Clinton supported virtually every one of the disastrous trade agreements written by corporate America. (APPLAUSE)

NAFTA, supported by the Secretary, cost us 800,000 jobs nationwide, tens of thousands of jobs in the Midwest. Permanent normal trade relations with China cost us millions of jobs. Look, I was on a picket line in early 1990’s against NFATA because you didn’t need a PhD in economics to understand that American workers should not be forced to compete against people in Mexico making 25 cents an hour. (APPLAUSE)

SANDERS: And the reason that I was one of the first, not one of the last to be in opposition to the TPP is that American workers… (APPLAUSE)

… should not be forced to compete against people in Vietnam today making a minimum wage of $0.65 an hour. Look, what we have got to do is tell corporate America that they cannot continue to shut down. We’ve lost 60,000 factories since 2001. They’re going to start having to, if I’m president, invest in this country — not in China, not in Mexico.

COOPER: Secretary Clinton? (APPLAUSE)

CLINTON: Well — well, I’ll tell you something else that Senator Sanders was against. He was against the auto bailout. In January of 2009, President-Elect Obama asked everybody in the Congress to vote for the bailout.

The money was there, and had to be released in order to save the American auto industry and four million jobs, and to begin the restructuring. We had the best year that the auto industry has had in a long time. I voted to save the auto industry. (APPLAUSE)

He voted against the money that ended up saving the auto industry. I think that is a pretty big difference.


(*Bernie Sanders corrects the blatant lie the next day (Monday), spoken with false, Academy Award worthy emotion by Clinton of “righteous indignation”, and a clearly despicable attempt to deceive Michigan voters. In my view, Hillary Clinton should end her campaign over this disgusting action alone.)


SANDERS: Well, I — If you are talking about the Wall Street bailout, where some of your friends destroyed this economy…

CLINTON: You know…

SANDERS: … through — excuse me, I’m talking.

COOPER: Let him (inaudible). (APPLAUSE)

CLINTON: If you’re gonna talk, tell the whole story, Senator Sanders.

SANDERS: Let me tell my story. You tell yours.

CLINTON: I will.

SANDERS: Your story is for — voting for every disastrous trade agreement, and voting for corporate America. Did I vote against the Wall Street bailout?

When billionaires on Wall Street destroyed this economy, they went to Congress and they said, “please, we’ll be good boys, bail us out.” You know what I said? I said, “let the billionaires themselves bail out Wall Street.” It shouldn’t be the middle class of this country. (APPLAUSE)


COOPER: Secretary Clinton?

SANDERS: Wait a minute. Wait. Could I finish? You’ll have your turn, all right?

But ultimately, if you look at our records, I stood up to corporate America time and time again. I went to Mexico. I saw the lives of people who were working in American factories and making $0.25 an hour.

I understood that these trade agreements were going to destroy the middle class of this country. I led the fight against us (sic). That is one of the major differences that we have.

COOPER: Secretary Clinton.

CLINTON: Well, if I — if I could… (APPLAUSE)

… to set the record straight, I voted against the only multinational trade agreement that came before me when I was in the Senate. It was called CAFTA. I came out against the TPP after it was finished. I thought it was reasonable to actually know what was in it before I opposed it. I oppose it.


(*Hillary Clinton seems to have completely omitted – and Bernie Sanders didn’t confront her on what newly released emails have revealed – the most germane historical facts about her reversal from opposing what became the Colombia Free Trade Agreement while running in 2008, to her subsequent, disturbing “entanglements” while pushing for it after becoming Secretary of State. Workers in Colombia have suffered the horrific, harsh consequences:)

(Thank you to Sane Progressive (Debbie) at YouTube)

Michigan voters (and all Americans) would be most interested in the following article posted by International Business Times:


(*So – she wants to “set the record straight”?… Ms. Clinton described the TPP as the “Gold Standard” of trade agreements. Should she have instead used the term “Goldman Sachs Standard”? Did she voice any criticism, from the start, against the ultra-secret nature of the TPP’s contents and legal provisions, before reading it – before fully supporting? Will she “reverse” her stance on TPP, just as she did on the Colombia agreement? If TPP becomes reality, will the results felt by workers in Colombia become the results felt by workers in each TPP signatory nation?)



Now let me get back to what happened in January of 2009. The Bush administration negotiated the deal. Were there things in it that I didn’t like? Would I have done it differently? Absolutely.

But was the auto bailout money in it — the $350 billion that was needed to begin the restructuring of the auto industry? Yes, it was. So when I talk about Senator Sanders being a one-issue candidate, I mean very clearly — you have to make hard choices when you’re in positions of responsibility. The two senators from Michigan stood on the floor and said, “we have to get this money released.” I went with them, and I went with Barack Obama. You did not. If everybody had voted the way he did, I believe the auto industry would have collapsed, taking four million jobs with it. (APPLAUSE)

COOPER: Senator Sanders?

SANDERS: I believe that the recklessness, the greed, and the illegal behavior of Wall Street drove this country into the worst economic downturn in the history of the United — modern history of the United States of America. And I will be damned if it was the working people of this country who had to bail out the crooks on Wall Street. (APPLAUSE)

And what I proposed — and I had an amendment that was defeated — it was defeated by a voice vote on the floor of the Senate — that said to those people on the top who benefited from Wall Street greed — I said, “you pay for the bailout. Don’t go to my constituents, who are struggling to make ends meet.”

In terms of the auto bailout, of course that made sense. In terms of the stimulus package, of course that made sense, and I strongly supported President Obama’s position on that.

But let us be clear, one of the major issues Secretary Clinton says I’m a one-issue person, well, I guess so. My one issue is trying to rebuild a disappearing middle class. That’s my one issue. (APPLAUSE)


(*Bernie Sanders tried to remove from bailout provisions any monies directed toward Wall Street firms, while leaving provisions/monies for the auto industry and an economic stimulus.)


COOPER: Senator Sanders…

CLINTON: Well, all I can say is that given the terrible pressures that the auto industry was under and that the middle class of this state and Ohio and Indiana and Illinois and Wisconsin and Missouri and other places in the Midwest were facing, I think it was the right decision to heed what President-elect Obama asked us to do.


(*In preparation for this extremely important Michigan debate, Hillary Clinton identified the auto bailout as the response to Sanders’ trade deal criticisms of her record, including in her response – “coincidentally” – mention of Michigan, Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Wisconsin, Missouri and “other places in the Midwest”.)


He sent a letter, an authorized letter, asking us to support that to save the auto industry. Yes, were there things in it that you and I would not have necessarily wanted? That’s true. But when it came down to it, you were either for saving the auto industry or you were against it. I voted to save the auto industry. And I am very glad that I did. (APPLAUSE)


(*She accuses Sanders of being against “saving the auto industry”, states that she had voted to save the industry – just seconds after Sanders in explanation said: “In terms of the auto bailout, of course that made sense. In terms of the stimulus package, of course that made sense, and I strongly supported President Obama’s position on that”.)


SANDERS: Let me just say this, while we are on Wall Street, one of us has a super PAC. One of us has raised $15 million from Wall Street for that super PAC. One of us has given speeches on Wall Street for hundreds of thousands of dollars. Now, I kind of think if you get paid a couple hundred thousand dollars for a speech, it must be a great speech. I think we should release it and let the American people see what that transcript was. (APPLAUSE)

CLINTON: And I have said and I will say again, I will be happy to release anything I have as long as everybody else does too, because what really is behind that question, Republicans and Democrats, is where I can stand up to Wall Street.

Well, let’s have some facts instead of some rhetoric for a change. I went to Wall Street when I was a United States senator. I told them they were wrecking the economy. I asked for a moratorium on foreclosures. I asked that we do more to try to prevent what I worried was going to happen. I also called for closing loopholes including the carried interest loophole. I also called for changes in CEO pay. I have a record. And you know what, if you were going to be in some way distrusted or dismissed about whether you can take on Wall Street if you ever took money, President Obama took more money from Wall Street in the 2008 campaign than anybody ever had.

And when it came time to stand up to Wall Street, he passed and signed the toughest regulation since the Great Depression with the Dodd-Frank regulations.

COOPER: Senator Sanders, just yesterday, in fact, you said just — I believe it was yesterday you said not only her speech must have been a fantastic speech, it must have been a Shakespearean speech for that amount of money. Is her answer enough for you that she will release it when all the Republicans and Democrats do?

SANDERS: All right, look, Secretary Clinton wants everybody else to release it, well, I’m your Democratic opponent, I release it, here it is. There ain’t nothing. I don’t give speeches to Wall Street for hundreds of thousands of dollars, you got it.

Second of all, when we talk about being tough on Wall Street, and this galls me and the American people. Recently Goldman Sachs, among many other major financial institutions on Wall Street, as you know, reached a settlement with the federal government for $5 billion because they were selling worthless packages of subprime mortgages, $5 billion settlement.

You know how many people, executives on Wall Street have gone to jail? If you are a kid caught with marijuana in Michigan, you get a police record. If you are an executive on Wall Street that destroys the American economy, you pay a $5 billion fine, no police record.

If I am elected president, we are going to bring justice back to a broken criminal justice system. (APPLAUSE)

COOPER: Secretary Clinton?

CLINTON: Well, I think we are in vigorous agreement on this. I have said repeatedly no bank is too big to fail, no executive too powerful to jail. And I have said that I would use the tools in the Dodd-Frank regulations, that if any bank posed a systemic risk to the economy, they would be broken up.

Because we now have tools, laws that we didn’t have before. And I am very happy we did. Because there does need to be accountability, including criminal accountability if it is called for.


(*”…no executive too powerful to jail”? Former Attorney General Eric Holder, who now practices at Covington and Burling (the same law firm where he practiced before becoming Attorney General) representing Wall Street’s, and the world’s, most powerful banking firms – has endorsed Hillary Clinton in TV ads for her campaign. Mr. Holder did not prosecute or jail one Wall Street executive during his tenure as the nation’s highest law enforcement official.)


COOPER: Senator Sanders, I just want to show the audience, you sent a tweet, I want to return to trade.

You sent a tweet on Thursday, this is the tweet, I’m showing it to viewers. It says the people of Detroit know the real costs of Hillary Clinton’s free trade policies. It shows pictures of crumbling buildings. It seems like you’re blaming her for the situation in Detroit.

SANDERS: Well, I’m blaming the trade policies. You know what? This is an amazing thing which I didn’t know until recently, and I wonder how many people did know this.

COOPER: But, you’re calling them Hillary Clinton’s failed trade policies.

SANDERS: Well, Hillary Clinton, and everybody else who supported these disastrous trade policies. She wasn’t alone. We have many, many Republicans and far too many Democrats who supported these disastrous trade policies.

Do you know… (APPLAUSE)

SANDERS: … Do you know that in 1960 Detroit Michigan was one of the wealthiest cities in America? Flint, Michigan was a prosperous city, but then what happened is corporate America said why do I want to pay somebody in Michigan a living wage when I can pay slave wages in Mexico or China? We’re going to shut down, we’re going to move abroad, we’re going to bring those products back into this country.

Those trade policies, as much as any other set of policies, has resulted in the shrinking of the American middle class. And, I’ll tell you what else it did. It’s not only job loss by the millions, it is the race to the bottom so that new jobs in manufacturing, in some cases today, pay 50 percent less than they did 20 years ago. How stupid is that trade policy? (APPLAUSE)

COOPER: Secretary Clinton?

CLINTON: You know, if we’re going to argue about the 1990’s instead of talking about the future, which I’d much prefer because I think every election is about the future, and you all deserve to know what we will do to help you have a brighter future — but, if we are going to talk about the 1990’s I think it’s only fair to say that at the end of the 1990’s, after two terms of my husband’s presidency, the unemployment rate in Michigan was 4.4 percent.

There had been a net increase of 54,000 manufacturing jobs. There had been a net increase of 653,000 jobs overall.

And, one of the ways jobs were brought to, and grown here in Michigan was through something called the Export-Import Bank which helped a lot of businesses, particularly small businesses, be able to export around the world.

Senator Sanders opposes that. I think we’re in a race for exports. I think China, Germany, everybody else supports their businesses. Here in Michigan there’s been $11 billion dollars in recent years used to support exports, primarily from small businesses.

I favor that, he’s opposed it. I want to do everything I can for us to compete and win in the global economy…

COOPER: … Senator Sanders…

CLINTON: … and that’s what I will do as president…

COOPER: … I just want to explain to viewers what the Export- Import Bank is, in case everybody is not quite as wonkish as everybody on this stage here.

The Export-Import Bank, it’s a federal agency, it gives loans to companies that export American products. Senator Sanders, you do oppose it. The vast majority of the bank’s customers are small businesses, 176 right here in Michigan. What do you say to small business owners….

SANDERS: … I’ll tell you what I say…

COOPER: … Who rely on the banks to make their company profitable…

SANDERS: … I’ll tell you what I say. Do you know what the other name of the Export-Import Bank is? What it’s called in Washington? It’s called the bank of Boeing because Boeing itself gets 40 percent of the money discharged by the Export-Import Bank.

Seventy-Five percent of the funds going from the federal government, the Export-Import Bank, goes to large, profitable corporations. Many of these corporations have shut down in America, and have gone abroad to exploit poor people.

You know what? I don’t think it’s a great idea for the American taxpayer to have to subsidize through corporate welfare profitable corporations who downsize in the United States of America.

COOPER: Senator…

SANDERS: … Seventy-Five percent of that money goes to large profitable corporations.

COOPER: Senator Sanders, you are the only member of the Democratic caucus to vote against it. You’re agreeing with Senator Ted Cruz on this, why is he right and the Democrats wrong?

SANDERS: Well, let me tell you, I don’t want to break the bad news.


SANDERS: Democrats are not always right. Democrats have often supported corporate welfare… (APPLAUSE)

SANDERS: Democrats have supported disastrous trade agreements, but on this issue I do not believe in corporate welfare, and in fact, secretary Clinton may know or not know, but as a member of the Financial Services Committee, I worked hard and successfully to make sure that at least 20 percent of the money went to small businesses which is where it should go and not to profitable corporations and downsizing in our country.

COOPER: Secretary Clinton?

CLINTON: When I traveled around the world on you behalf as Secretary of State and went to 112 countries, one thing I saw everywhere was how European and Asian countries were supporting their companies back in their countries, to be able to make sales and contracts in a lot of the rest of the world. In fact, without the export-import bank, supporting businesses of all sizes — I believe more jobs would be lost here at home and more jobs literally would be exported. Instead of exporting products, we would be exporting jobs.


(*Ms. Clinton fails to discuss Mr. Sanders’ point about Export-Import Bank monies going to corporations who’ve moved facilities and jobs offshore/out of America.)


I just believe that Senator Sanders took that lonely position because most of us who saw the results — I saw it as a senator from New York. Your Senators saw it here in Michigan. They can give you the names of 240 companies in Michigan that have been helped.

There is a company in Livonia being helped, there are companies all over this state. I know, if we are going to compete and win in the global economy, we can’t let every other country support their companies and we take a hands off approach. I will not agree with that.

COOPER: I’m going to let you respond but I just want to push back on this. Senator Sanders is correct, the majority of the money does go Boeing, does go to companies like Caterpillar. Do they need this money?

CLINTON: I will tell you what, Anderson, after I investigated it, I concluded they did and here’s why. There two big plane manufacturers in the world, there’s Airbus and Boeing. Airbus does everything it can to get contracts to sell planes everywhere in the world. We don’t have as quite an aggressive outreach from our government.

I did go in many places around the world to sell American products because the alternatives were usually European, Asian, primarily Chinese products. That to me was an unacceptable concession. So yes, Boeing and other big companies get support just like their competitors do from the companies that they are from in the countries that provide the support.

COOPER: Thank you. Senator Sanders?

SANDERS: Isn’t it tragic that the large multinational corporations making billions of dollars a year, shutting down in America, going to China, going to Mexico? Absolutely they need a handout from the American middle class — I don’t think so. Second of all. (APPLAUSE)


(*Again, Clinton failed in addressing Sanders’ point about limiting or prohibiting Export-Import Bank funds going to corporations who’ve outsourced facilities and jobs overseas.)


Second of all, Secretary Clinton traveled the world, she has been to Europe. And let’s talk about Europe versus the United States. I’m sure that when you were in Europe, and France, and Germany and the U.K., and all of the other countries; you noticed something and that is every one of those countries guarantees health care to all of their people as a right. (APPLAUSE)

And I am sure you know as you know you do that in countries like the U.K. compared to America, we are spending almost three times as much as they spend in the U.K. for health care for our people. We are spending 50 percent more than the French. When we talk about Europe and their pluses and minuses, one thing they have done well that we should emulate and that is guaranteed health care for all people for a better care for all.

COOPER: Thank you, Senator Sanders. Secretary Clinton, 30 seconds and we have to take a break. So 30 seconds if you can.

CLINTON: We are on the path to doing that thanks to President Obama and the Affordable Care Act, we have 90 percent coverage. We are lacking 10 percent. We are going to stay on that and get to 100 percent universal coverage.

End of selected transcript


(*Mr. Sanders’ vision for universal health care is “Medicare for all”, the system of every industrialized nation on Earth but America, while Ms. Clinton’s “vision” of universal health care is mandatory by law for every citizen and privately run by profit-driven corporations.)



Please consider sharing this information with family, friends and associates across America, and especially those in Michigan. In the 2016 presidential race, the real debate has only just begun.