Meet the Press - posavski-obzor.info
Meet the Press is a weekly American television news/interview program broadcast on NBC. The show's moderator since is Chuck Todd, who also serves as political director for NBC .. Hillary Clinton – Meet the Press". posavski-obzor.info Follow Chuck Todd as he uncovers breaking news events with the experts on News and analysis from Meet the Press and the NBC News Political Unit. Chuck Todd's full "Meet the Candidates" interview with Hillary Clinton on "Meet the Press".
When I ran for the senate the voters of New York, they overlooked all of that, and they looked at my record, and they looked at what I would do for them and I was elected senator after going through years of this kind of back and forth. And it is regrettable but it's part of the system. You know, one of the things about this over the last six months that I've heard from supporters is that there's an allegation about your e-mail server.
The campaign provides an explanation, you provide an explanation. There's a new allegation, you have to provide a new explanation. There's an addendum that had explanation—it has the feel of a drip-drip-drip. Can you reassure Democrats that there's nothing else here? Well, it is like a drip-drip-drip and that's why I said there's only so much that I can control.
But what I have tried to do in explaining this is to provide more transparency and more information than anybody that I'm aware of has ever served in the government and I'm happy to do that because I want these questions to be answered.
I can't predict to you what the Republicans will come up with, what kind of charges or claims they might make. I have no control over that. I can only do the best I can to try to respond. The Justice Department has the e-mails, they have the server. They're conducting a security inquiry. They will take whatever necessary steps are required to get this matter resolved.
Can you say with percent certain that the deleted e-mails that the FBI is not going to find anything in there that's going to cause you to have to explain again? All I can tell you is that when my attorneys conducted this exhaustive process I did not participate. I didn't look at them. I would want to know what e-mails. Why wouldn't you want to know?
I wanted them to be as clear in their process as possible. I didn't want to be looking over their shoulder. If they thought it was work-related it would go to the State Department. If not then it would not. As I just said, over 1, of the e-mails that we were overly inclusive in trying to be comprehensive the State Department has said we don't want these.
These aren't work related. They're sending them back. So when that process finished, you know, my attorney said what do you want us to do with all these personal e-mails? I said I don't need to keep them. I don't need them or want them. So they then talked to the IT server, the technical people who were responsible for maintaining them and said we don't need them anymore. That's the limit of my knowledge and I know I was a little sarcastic in one exchange with the press for which I—I'm sorry guys.
NBC's Chuck Todd: Media knew how 'hated' Hillary was in heartland and we 'underplayed' it
But you know, I'm not a technical expert. I just said I don't need them. Whatever happened to them happened to them and I'm very sure that my attorneys did the most meticulous job that could have been done.
Would anything having to do with the Clinton Foundation, would that have been personal or work? Well, it would depend. I did not communicate with the foundation. Other people in the State Department did in accordance with the rules that have been adopted. Any of these deleted e-mails are not going to be foundation related at all? Well, there might be, you know, there's going to be a meeting or there's this but not anything that relates to the work of the State Department. That was handled by, you know, the professionals and others in the State Department.
Let me sort of move on from that a little bit. I say sort of move on because obviously you've taken a hit in the polls.
There's the New Hampshire poll. Do you believe you have explained this and that there aren't any contradictions here? So is the issue not truthfulness but the issue of how you've handled it?
Well, you know, let me say this Chuck. I have tried to the best of my ability to be able to respond and if people are uncertain, if they have concerns about these questions around the e-mails it's their choice to say that's going to influence, you know, how I think about the election.
I understand that, I get it. But I also hope people will look at my life long advocacy for kids and families and women and look at what I'm proposing, the vision I have for the country to move forward on everything from raising incomes to equal pay for equal work to getting the cost of college down to dealing with high prescription drug costs—that's what I hope people focus on and people get to make their minds up.
That's the beauty of our process. People can decide on whatever basis they choose. Your distrust deficit—your husband did an interview on CNN and he basically put it all on the Republicans and a little bit of us on the press that this whole thing that has driven down your poll numbers. Do you bear any responsibility?
Well, first of all, I love my husband and he does get upset when I am attacked. I totally get that. But we also get the fact that, look, this is a contest and it's fair game for people to raise whatever they choose to raise. As he said I think in that same interview, they're not giving this job away, you have to get out there, you have to earn it.
And that's what I'm trying to do. And of course I take responsibility. It was my choice. It was a mistake back when I did it and I'm trying to do the best I can to answer all of the questions that people have.
And as I said during the 90s I was subjected to the same kind of barrage and it was—it seemed to be at the time endless. And then when I ran for the Senate people said, hey, we are more concerned about what you're going to do for us. And I trust the voters to make that decision this time around, too. I want to play a little comp we've put together of some of the positions where your positions have changed a little bit.
Meet the Press - Wikipedia
So it is with conviction that I support this resolution as being in the best interest of our nation. I've made it very clear that I made a mistake, plain and simple. I believe that marriage is not just a bond but a sacred bond between a man and a woman. This morning love triumphed in the highest court in our land. We've not yet signed off on it but we are inclined to do so. We're either going to be dependent on dirty oil from the gulf or dependent on dirty oil from Canada.
I oppose it because I don't think it's in the best interests of what we need to do to combat climate change. How do you respond to some critics who say your positions have changed out of political expediency? That you're sort of whatever the majority is at that time, that's the position you have. Well, I just don't think that reflects either my assessment of issues and I don't think it reflects how people who are thoughtful actually conduct their lives.
I mean if we don't learn, if we don't, you know, make decisions based on the best information we have available, well, you know, that's regrettable.
And what I've always tried to do is just say ok, what is the best decision that I can think about making? Now, with those that you did number one on the Iraq war vote, I've written about it, I've talked about it, I said it was a mistake. It certainly became a very clear mistake when you saw the way the Bush administration conducted that war and the decisions that they made. And so I have been very forthright in saying, you know, as I looked at what was happening it was a mistake.
On same-sex marriage, like a lot of people, including our president, I did evolve and I was not raised to even imagine this. And I'm thrilled now that it's the law of the land and I have a lot of good friends who are now able to be married because of the changes we've made legally and constitutionally.
When it comes to Keystone, you know, I was at the beginning of the process of trying to evaluate what was the best outcome. I did feel that I shouldn't jump in before the President and Secretary Kerry and make my views known because they're still in the middle of that process.
I feel good about where we are. Obviously, we'll find out a week from tomorrow. But if you look at the differences between Senator Sanders and myself, I just don't think we can't wait. We can't wait to make progress on the myriad of issues that I think we're going to be facing in the next administration. I want to build on the progress that President Obama has made and he has a different approach.
And that's what voters are trying to determine, which they prefer. Look, as you know, the caucuses sometimes are about passion, enthusiasm. That might get her nominated in the long run but it's not really the kind of image that makes you go whistling into the election booth. By the way, she wrote that inMadam Secretary. Is there a deja vu happening here?
I just have to tell you, can only react to what I'm doing, feeling, getting responses from people. And you know, I feel great that we have the level of enthusiasm that we do and we also have a really good team on the ground that has been working for months to make sure that it's not just here today, gone tomorrow.
But people are involved. They are really reached out to and yes, we believe they're going to come caucus.
So, you know, the speculation and all the rest of it is entertaining, I admit that. But we're just going to keep moving forward and do the work that we think is going to be successful on February 1st. Are you worried that experience, your long resume, is not an asset in this wild year? No, I'm really not. Because I think at the end of the day people take this vote seriously. They know they're voting for who they prefer to be the next president and commander in chief, and I believe that when I am out there talking with people about what we have to go up against here at home, get the economy working for everybody, not just those at the top, begin to raise incomes, which hasn't happened, deal with health care, going from 90 percent coverage, which is what we have under the Affordable Care Act now, to percent and I lay out what intend to do to get there.
I can only tell you they see people nodding. I know people are signing up as they leave my events. That's what matters here. It's very personal, and people look and they think, can we imagine this person to be president and commander in chief? And because of my experience, particularly my years as secretary of state working with President Obama, I think that's something that people really take into account. What are you willing to—you know, it's interesting, your husband used a lot of political capital—you and your husband used a lot of political capital to do health care.
President Obama, arguably, used all of his political capital to get health care passed. What is the one issue you are going to be willing to use all your political capital to focus on? You and I both know you basically have one big shot at one big issue. What is it that you're willing to use all your political capital to do with? Well, Chuck, first of all, I don't agree with you on that.
I think that there are several really important issues, health care being one of them. We've got to get costs down. I met a man on Friday who no longer can afford to pay for his HIV medication. That really hits my heart. I know what people are going through. I'm going to use whatever tools I can to get us lower prices, cap those prescription drug companies and take that on.
But I'm also going to focus on the economy because unless we create more jobs and get incomes rising and fix the tax system so that it doesn't in so many ways tilt toward the wealthy, people are not going to get ahead, they're not going to feel they're getting ahead and they're going to still believe that the government, the economy is rigged against them which is bad for our democracy.
As you know, your opponent Senator Sanders has been hitting you on Wall Street contributions and including some paid speeches that you did for Goldman Sachs among other banks. Well, look, I gave speeches to a wide array of groups from health care groups to auto dealers and many, many more, and I think what they were interested in because what we talked about was the world coming off of four years as secretary of state in a complicated world, people were interested in what I saw, what I thought, they asked questions about matters that were on their minds.
A lot of interest in the bin laden raid, how such a tough decision was made and what I advised the President. You know, I think Americans who are doing business in every aspect of the economy want to know more about the world. I actually think it's a good conversation for people to be having. You don't think they expect anything in return?
You know, first of all, I was a senator from New York. I took them on when I was senator. I took on the carried interest loophole.