The Biggest Non-Answer by Hillary in the Debate

Last night during the debate Hillary was asked the question that is the question of her credibility as a Presidential candidate:

From the transcript:

Thank you both. Let me move on to our next question here, and in fact it comes to us through New England Cable News.

Secretary Clinton, it's addressed to you, and it's about this issue of the speeches, particularly to Goldman Sachs. This is what the questioner wrote verbatim.

"I am concerned with the abuses of Wall Street has taken with the American taxpayers money," and then she asks whether you would release the transcripts of your Goldman Sachs speeches, and then added, "Don't you think the voting public has a right to know what was said?"

But, let's make that bigger. Are you willing to release the transcripts of all your paid speeches? We do know through reporting that there were transcription services for all of those paid speeches. In full disclosure, would you release all of them?

basically:

"Will you release the transcript of the speech you gave to Goldman Sachs?"

With this question Hillary could have squashed the idea that Goldman Sachs or Wall Street had any influence on her or her campaign, but instead of that she gave a non-answer:

"I will look into that"

That was a yes or no question.

But let's look at the whole answer:

I will look into it. I don't know the status, but I will certainly look into it. But, I can only repeat what is the fact that I spoke to a lot of different groups with a lot of different constituents, a lot of different kinds of members about issues that had to do with world affairs. I probably described more times than I can remember how stressful it was advising the President about going after Bin Laden.

No answer, spin, spin, Bin Laden.

Doesn't that sound kind of like a noun a verb and 9-11?

She could not say she could release the transcript because she probably said some effed up stuff that the public would not appreciate or ...

Perhaps it was because Goldman Sachs was sitting in the audience

I have great respect for Senator Sanders's commitment to try to restore Glass-Steagall. But I do not believe that that is enough. And in fact, I don't believe it really addresses a lot of the biggest issues we have.

In response, who did Bernie cite?

Elizabeth Warren!

I would say that -- that folks who have looked at this issue for a long time, whether it's Elizabeth Warren or many other economists, will tell you that right now, yes, we do need a 21st century Glass-Steagall legislation. And I would tell you also that when you have three out of the four largest banks in America today, bigger than they were -- significantly bigger than when we bailed them out because they were too big to fail, I think if Teddy Roosevelt were alive today, a good Republican by the way, what he would say is: Break them up; they are too powerful economically; they are too powerful politically.

And that is what I believe and many economists believe. Time to break them up.

Clinton's response?

Look we have a law -- look, you know, I -- I appreciate the senator's advocacy. We have a law. It was passed. It was signed by President Obama. It lays out a process that you go through to determine whether a systemic risk is posed.

And by the way, President Obama signed that, pushed it through, even though he took donations from Wall Street, because he's a responsible president. So we have a law in place. If the circumstances warrant it, I will certainly use it. And from what you say, I know you will as well.

But that is not enough. And I keep going back to this because part of the reason the Wall Street guys are trying so hard to stop me -- the hedge fund guys, the shadow banking guys -- is because I've got their number on all of that. And my plan goes so much further to try to prevent the problems of the future.

You know, we can't just fight the last war. We've got to be prepared to stop these guys if they ever try to use their economic power once again, to hurt the economy, and to hurt so many Americans. And my plan, Paul Krugman, Barney Frank, a lot of experts who understand what the new challenges might be, have said I am exactly on point, and the Wall Street guys actually know that.

I don't think President Obama took money from Wall Street...But impugning the President because you've taken money from Wall Street doesn't add up to making someone a 'responsible President'

and because this issue is problematic, again she refers to "war talk" perhaps because her polling shows people trust her on terror?

People are tired of War and terror, but they do want to hold Banksters accountable, which is why Bernie is pulling into a tie with Clinton Nationally in the polls.

And in the same week as the CEO of Goldman Sachs warned about that Bernie Sanders was 'dangerous'

Who comes to defend Bernie Sanders?

Elizabeth Warren!

Yesterday Lloyd Blankfein, the head of Goldman Sachs, said that Bernie Sanders's criticism of Wall St. was becoming "dangerous." Today, Bernie got a new defender in Elizabeth Warren.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GM1FDhXrSPw