The announcement last week by the United
States of the largest military aid
package in its history – to Israel – was
a win for both sides.
Israeli prime
minister Benjamin Netanyahu could boast
that his lobbying had boosted aid from
$3.1 billion a year to $3.8bn – a 22 per
cent increase – for a decade starting in
2019.
Mr Netanyahu has presented this as a
rebuff to those who accuse him of
jeopardising Israeli security interests
with his government’s repeated affronts
to the White House.
In the past weeks alone, defence
minister Avigdor Lieberman has compared
last year’s nuclear deal between
Washington and Iran with the 1938 Munich
pact, which bolstered Hitler; and Mr
Netanyahu has implied that US opposition
to settlement expansion is the same as
support for the “ethnic cleansing” of
Jews.
American president Barack Obama,
meanwhile, hopes to stifle his own
critics who insinuate that he is
anti-Israel. The deal should serve as a
fillip too for Hillary Clinton, the
Democratic party’s candidate to succeed
Mr Obama in November’s election.
In reality, however, the Obama
administration has quietly punished Mr
Netanyahu for his misbehaviour. Israeli
expectations of a $4.5bn-a-year deal
were whittled down after Mr Netanyahu
stalled negotiations last year as he
sought to recruit Congress to his battle
against the Iran deal.
In fact, Israel already receives
roughly $3.8bn – if Congress’s
assistance on developing missile defence
programmes is factored in. Notably,
Israel has been forced to promise not to
approach Congress for extra funds.
The deal takes into account neither
inflation nor the dollar’s depreciation
against the shekel.
A bigger blow still is the White
House’s demand to phase out a special
exemption that allowed Israel to spend
nearly 40 per cent of aid locally on
weapon and fuel purchases. Israel will
soon have to buy all its armaments from
the US, ending what amounted to a
subsidy to its own arms industry.
Nonetheless, Washington’s renewed
military largesse – in the face of
almost continual insults – inevitably
fuels claims that the Israeli tail is
wagging the US dog. Even The New York
Times has described the aid package as
“too big”.
Since the 1973 war, Israel has
received at least $100bn in military
aid, with more assistance hidden from
view. Back in the 1970s, Washington paid
half of Israel’s military budget. Today
it still foots a fifth of the bill,
despite Israel’s economic success.
But the US expects a return on its
massive investment. As the late Israeli
politician-general Ariel Sharon once
observed, Israel has been a US
“aircraft carrier” in the Middle East,
acting as the regional bully and
carrying out operations that benefit
Washington.
Almost no one blames the US for
Israeli attacks that wiped out Iraq’s
and Syria’s nuclear programmes. A
nuclear-armed Iraq or Syria would have
deterred later US-backed moves at regime
overthrow, as well as countering the
strategic advantage Israel derives from
its own nuclear arsenal.
In addition, Israel’s US-sponsored
military prowess is a triple boon to the
US weapons industry, the country’s most
powerful lobby. Public funds are
siphoned off to let Israel buy goodies
from American arms makers. That, in
turn, serves as a shop window for other
customers and spurs an endless and
lucrative game of catch-up in the rest
of the Middle East.
The first F-35 fighter jets to arrive
in Israel in December – their various
components produced in 46 US states –
will increase the clamour for the
cutting-edge warplane.
Israel is also a “front-line
laboratory”, as former Israeli army
negotiator Eival Gilady admitted at the
weekend, that develops and field-tests
new technology Washington can later use
itself.
The US is planning to buy back the
missile interception system Iron Dome –
which neutralises battlefield threats of
retaliation – it largely paid for.
Israel works closely too with the US in
developing cyberwarfare, such as the
Stuxnet worm that damaged Iran’s
civilian nuclear programme.
But the clearest message from
Israel’s new aid package is one
delivered to the Palestinians:
Washington sees no pressing strategic
interest in ending the occupation. It
stood up to Mr Netanyahu over the Iran
deal but will not risk a damaging clash
over Palestinian statehood.
Some believe that Mr Obama signed the
aid package to win the credibility
necessary to overcome his domestic
Israel lobby and pull a rabbit from the
hat: an initiative, unveiled shortly
before he leaves office, that corners Mr
Netanyahu into making peace.
Hopes have been raised by an expected
meeting at the United Nations in New
York on Wednesday. But their first talks
in 10 months are planned only to
demonstrate unity to confound critics of
the aid deal.
If Mr Obama really wanted to pressure
Mr Netanyahu, he would have used the aid
agreement as leverage. Now Mr Netanyahu
need not fear US financial retaliation,
even as he intensifies effective
annexation of the West Bank.
Mr Netanyahu has drawn the right
lesson from the aid deal – he can act
against the Palestinians with continuing
US impunity.
- See more at: http://www.jonathan-cook.net/2016-09-19/palestinians-lose-in-us-military-aid-deal-with-israel/#sthash.fL4Eq28N.dpuf
Expanding the Debate: Jill Stein "Debates"
Clinton & Trump
Video By Democracy Now!
While the Green Party’s Jill Stein was
escorted off the campus at Hofstra, what
would it sound like if she actually
participated in the debate?
We air excerpts from the presidential debate
and get response from Green Party
presidential nominee Dr. Jill Stein.
Posted
September 30, 2016
Part 2
AMY
GOODMAN:
While the Green Party’s Jill Stein was
escorted off the campus at Hofstra, what
would it sound like if she actually
participated in the debate? Well, today, as
is our tradition, Democracy Now!
expands the debate. Debate moderator Lester
Holt will ask Hillary Clinton and Donald
Trump questions. After their responses, we
stop the tape to give Dr. Jill Stein a
chance to answer the same question from her
own podium. We invited Libertarian candidate
Gary Johnson to join us, as well, but he
couldn’t make it. NBC
News host Lester Holt, take it away.
LESTER
HOLT:
We’re calling this opening segment
"Achieving Prosperity." And central to
that is jobs. There are two economic
realities in America today. There’s been
a record six straight years of job
growth, and new census numbers show
incomes have increased at a record rate
after years of stagnation. However,
income inequality remains significant,
and nearly half of Americans are living
paycheck to paycheck. Beginning with
you, Secretary Clinton, why are you a
better choice than your opponent to
create the kinds of jobs that will put
more money into the pockets of American
workers?
HILLARY
CLINTON:
Well, thank you, Lester, and thanks to
Hofstra for hosting us.
The central question in this election is
really what kind of country we want to
be and what kind of future we’ll build
together. Today is my granddaughter’s
second birthday, so I think about this a
lot.
First, we have to build an economy that
works for everyone, not just those at
the top. That means we need new jobs,
good jobs, with rising incomes. I want
us to invest in you. I want us to invest
in your future. That means jobs in
infrastructure, in advanced
manufacturing, innovation and
technology, clean, renewable energy, and
small business, because most of the new
jobs will come from small business.
We
also have to make the economy fairer.
That starts with raising the national
minimum wage and also guarantee,
finally, equal pay for women’s work. I
also want to see more companies do
profit sharing. If you help create the
profits, you should be able to share in
them, not just the executives at the
top.
And I want us to do more to support
people who are struggling to balance
family and work. I’ve heard from so many
of you about the difficult choices you
face and the stresses that you’re under.
So let’s have paid family leave, earned
sick days. Let’s be sure we have
affordable child care and debt-free
college.
How are we going to do it? We’re going
to do it by having the wealthy pay their
fair share and close the corporate
loopholes.
Finally, we, tonight, are on the stage
together, Donald Trump and I. Donald,
it’s good to be with you. We’re going to
have a debate where we are talking about
the important issues facing our country.
You have to judge us: Who can shoulder
the immense, awesome responsibilities of
the presidency? Who can put into action
the plans that will make your life
better? I hope that I will be able to
earn your vote on November 8th.
LESTER
HOLT:
Secretary Clinton, thank you. Mr. Trump,
the same question to you. It’s about
putting money—more money into the
pockets of American workers. You have up
to two minutes.
DONALD
TRUMP:
Thank you, Lester.
Our jobs are fleeing the country.
They’re going to Mexico. They’re going
to many other countries. You look at
what China is doing to our country in
terms of making our product: They’re
devaluing their currency, and there’s
nobody in our government to fight them.
And we have a very good fight, and we
have a winning fight, because they’re
using our country as a piggy bank to
rebuild China, and many other countries
are doing the same thing. So we’re
losing our good jobs, so many of them.
When you look at what’s happening in
Mexico, a friend of mine who builds
plants said it’s the eighth wonder of
the world. They’re building some of the
biggest plants anywhere in the world,
some of the most sophisticated, some of
the best plants. With the United States,
as he said, not so much. So, Ford is
leaving. You see that, their small car
division leaving, thousands of jobs
leaving Michigan, leaving Ohio. They’re
all leaving. And we can’t allow it to
happen anymore.
As
far as child care is concerned and so
many other things, I think Hillary and I
agree on that. We probably disagree a
little bit as to numbers and amounts and
what we’re going to do, but perhaps
we’ll be talking about that later.
But we have to stop our jobs from being
stolen from us. We have to stop our
companies from leaving the United States
and, with it, firing all of their
people. All you have to do is take a
look at Carrier air conditioning in
Indianapolis. They left, fired 1,400
people. They’re going to Mexico. So many
hundreds and hundreds of companies are
doing this. We cannot let it happen.
Under my plan, I’ll be reducing taxes
tremendously, from 35 percent to 15
percent for companies, small and big
businesses. That’s going to be a job
creator like we haven’t seen since
Ronald Reagan. It’s going to be a
beautiful thing to watch. Companies will
come. They will build. They will expand.
New companies will start. And I look
very, very much forward to doing it. We
have to renegotiate our trade deals, and
we have to stop these countries from
stealing our companies and our jobs.
AMY
GOODMAN:
Dr. Jill Stein?
DR. JILL
STEIN:
So, I’ll start just by thanking
Democracy Now! for holding a real
debate, which the American people are
clamoring for. Over 75 percent of Americans
are saying they want an open debate. The two
candidates of the establishment parties are
the most disliked and untrusted in our
history, so we owe the American people a
full debate.
On
this question of prosperity, I think Donald
Trump knows what he’s talking about, about
the offshoring of jobs, because, in fact,
Donald Trump has offshored all of his jobs,
aside from his real estate. All of the
products that he manufactures and markets,
in fact, are produced offshore. And he, in
fact, has been an advocate of closing
factories, moving them offshore or down
south, and then moving them back—in this
case, to Michigan—so that workers’ wages
could be suppressed. So, indeed, he does
exemplify the very problem that he is
talking about.
The
prosperity issue has really reached crisis
proportions, because prosperity has gone to
the top, not to American workers who are
struggling. Half of Americans are basically
in poverty or near poverty and struggling to
survive. So we need truly transformative
solutions. This won’t be solved around the
margins.
My
campaign is calling for a Green New Deal,
which is an emergency jobs program that will
create 20 million good-wage, living-wage
jobs as part of solving the emergency of
climate change. So we—we call for 100
percent clean, renewable energy by 2030, in
time to actually solve the climate crisis.
And in doing so, we would revive the
economy, turn the tide on climate change and
actually improve our health so much by
phasing out fossil fuels, which in fact kill
200,000 people every year and cause lots
more illness in addition to that, but we
gain so much money by saving on these
needless sick care expenditures that that
savings alone is enough to pay the costs of
the Green New Deal.
And
in addition, 100 percent renewable energy
makes wars for oil obsolete. And we call for
cutting the military budget from this
bloated, dangerous budget, in fact, which is
bankrupting us, and putting our dollars into
true security here at home.
AMY
GOODMAN:
Hillary Clinton?
HILLARY
CLINTON:
I know how to really work to get new
jobs and to get exports that help to
create more new jobs.
LESTER
HOLT:
Very quickly—
DONALD
TRUMP:
But you haven’t done it in 30 years or
26 years, any number you want to—
HILLARY
CLINTON:
Well, I’ve been a senator, Donald.
DONALD
TRUMP:
You haven’t done it. You haven’t done
it.
HILLARY
CLINTON:
And I have been a secretary of state.
DONALD
TRUMP:
And excuse me.
HILLARY
CLINTON:
And I have done a lot—
DONALD
TRUMP:
Your husband signed
NAFTA, which was one of the worst
things that ever happened to the
manufacturing industry.
HILLARY
CLINTON:
Well, that’s your opinion. That is your
opinion.
DONALD
TRUMP:
You go to New England, you go to Ohio,
Pennsylvania, you go anywhere you want,
Secretary Clinton, and you will see
devastation where manufacture is down
30, 40, sometimes 50 percent.
NAFTA is the
worst trade deal maybe ever signed
anywhere, but certainly ever signed in
this country.
And now you want to approve
Trans-Pacific Partnership. You were
totally in favor of it. Then you heard
what I was saying, how bad it is, and
you said, "I can’t win that debate." But
you know that if you did win, you would
approve that, and that will be almost as
bad as NAFTA.
Nothing will ever top
NAFTA.
HILLARY
CLINTON:
Well, that—that is just not accurate. I
was against it once it was finally
negotiated and the terms were laid out.
I wrote about that in—
DONALD
TRUMP:
You called it the gold standard.
HILLARY
CLINTON:
I wrote about—well, I hope—I—
DONALD
TRUMP:
You called it the gold standard of trade
deals.
HILLARY
CLINTON:
And you know what?
DONALD
TRUMP:
You said it’s the finest deal you’ve
ever seen.
HILLARY
CLINTON:
No.
DONALD
TRUMP:
And then you heard what I said about it,
and all of a sudden you were against it.
HILLARY
CLINTON:
Well, Donald, I know you live in your
own reality—
DONALD
TRUMP:
Oh, yeah.
HILLARY
CLINTON:
—but that is not the facts. The facts
are, I did say I hoped it would be a
good deal, but when it was negotiated—
DONALD
TRUMP:
Not.
HILLARY
CLINTON:
—which I was not responsible for, I
concluded it wasn’t. I wrote about that
in my book—
DONALD
TRUMP:
So is it President Obama’s fault?
HILLARY
CLINTON:
—before you even announced.
DONALD
TRUMP:
Is it President Obama’s fault?
HILLARY
CLINTON:
Look, there are different—there—
DONALD
TRUMP:
Secretary, is it President Obama’s
fault?
HILLARY
CLINTON:
There are different—
DONALD
TRUMP:
Because he’s pushing it.
HILLARY
CLINTON:
There are different views about what’s
good for our country, our economy and
our leadership in the world. And I think
it’s important to look at what we need
to do to get the economy going again.
That’s why I said new jobs with rising
incomes, investments, not in more tax
cuts that would add $5 trillion to the
debt—
DONALD
TRUMP:
But you have no plan.
HILLARY
CLINTON:
—but in—oh, I do. In fact, I have
written—
DONALD
TRUMP:
Secretary, you have no plan.
AMY
GOODMAN:
Jill Stein?
DR. JILL
STEIN:
So, clearly more heat than light coming out
of much of the discussion in last night’s
debate. In addition to establishing an
emergency jobs program, we need to do
another major initiative, and that is to end
the predatory student loan debt, which has
basically held an entire generation hostage,
unable to actually participate in the
economy and create a decent future for
themselves. So we call for bailing out the
students, as the Democrats and Republicans
bailed out Wall Street. After Wall Street
had crashed the economy through their waste,
fraud, and abuse, we say it’s about time to
bail out the victims of that abuse. This
would be the stimulus package of our dreams,
to unleash an entire generation that is
already trained. They have the skills. They
have the passion and the vision. They need
to be turned loose by canceling that debt.
There are many ways we can pay for it. It’s
$1.3 trillion. We came up with $16 trillion
to bail out Wall Street when they needed it.
We can pay for ending student debt by
creating a small tax on Wall Street, for
example, or by increasing the income tax on
the highest bracket of earners up to, say,
60 or 65 percent. We also call for making
higher education free, because, in fact, it
pays for itself. For every dollar that we
put into higher education, in fact, we get
back $7 in return in improved benefits and
in actual increased revenues. So, we simply
cannot afford not to make public higher
education free.
AMY
GOODMAN:
Dr. Jill Stein, joining Hillary Clinton and
Donald Trump in Democracy Now!'s
special, "Expanding the Debate," based on
last night's debate at Hofstra University,
the first presidential debate. This is
Democracy Now! This is what democracy
sounds like. Back with the debate in a
minute.
[break]
AMY
GOODMAN:
"Everybody Wants to Rule the World" by Tears
for Fears. This is Democracy Now!,
democracynow.org, The War and Peace
Report. I’m Amy Goodman, as we return
to our "Expanding the Debate" special, as we
air excerpts from the debate between Hillary
Clinton and Donald Trump and expand the
debate by giving Green Party presidential
candidate Jill Stein a chance to respond to
the same questions posed to the major-party
candidates. NBC
News anchor Lester Holt, take it away.
LESTER
HOLT:
I want to move to our next segment. We
move into our next segment talking about
America’s direction. And let’s start by
talking about race. The share of
Americans who say race relations are bad
in this country is the highest it’s been
in decades, much of it amplified by
shootings of African Americans by
police, as we’ve seen recently in
Charlotte and Tulsa. Race has been a big
issue in this campaign, and one of you
is going to have to bridge a very wide
and bitter gap. So how do you heal the
divide? Secretary Clinton, you get two
minutes on this.
HILLARY
CLINTON:
Well, you’re right. Race remains a
significant challenge in our country.
Unfortunately, race still determines too
much, often determines where people
live, determines what kind of education
in their public schools they can get.
And, yes, it determines how they’re
treated in the criminal justice system.
We’ve just seen those two tragic
examples in both Tulsa and Charlotte.
And we’ve got to do several things at
the same time. We have to restore trust
between communities and the police. We
have to work to make sure that our
police are using the best training, the
best techniques, that they’re well
prepared to use force only when
necessary. Everyone should be respected
by the law, and everyone should respect
the law. Right now that’s not the case
in a lot of our neighborhoods. So I
have, ever since the first day of my
campaign, called for criminal justice
reform. I’ve laid out a platform that I
think would begin to remedy some of the
problems we have in the criminal justice
system.
But we also have to recognize, in
addition to the challenges that we face
with policing, there are so many good,
brave police officers who equally want
reform. So we have to bring communities
together in order to begin working on
that as a mutual goal.
And we’ve got to get guns out of the
hands of people who should not have
them. The gun epidemic is the leading
cause of death of young African-American
men, more than the next nine causes put
together.
So
we have to do two things, as I said. We
have to restore trust. We have to work
with the police. We have to make sure
they respect the communities and the
communities respect them. And we have to
tackle the plague of gun violence, which
is a big contributor to a lot of the
problems that we’re seeing today.
LESTER
HOLT:
All right, Mr. Trump, you have two
minutes. How do you heal the divide?
DONALD
TRUMP:
Well, first of all, Secretary Clinton
doesn’t want to use a couple of words,
and that’s "law" and "order." And we
need law and order. If we don’t have it,
we’re not going to have a country.
And when I look at what’s going on in
Charlotte, a city I love, a city where I
have investments, when I look at what’s
going on throughout various parts of our
country, whether it’s—I mean, I can just
keep naming them all day long—we need
law and order in our country.
And I just got today the—as you know,
the endorsement of the Fraternal Order
of Police. We just—just came in. We have
endorsements from, I think, almost every
police group, very—I mean, a large
percentage of them in the United States.
We
have a situation where we have our inner
cities, African Americans, Hispanics are
living in hell, because it’s so
dangerous. You walk down the street, you
get shot. In Chicago, they’ve had
thousands of shootings, thousands since
January 1st, thousands of shootings. And
I’m saying, "Where is this? Is this a
war-torn country? What are we doing?"
And we have to stop the violence. We
have to bring back law and order. In a
place like Chicago, where thousands of
people have been killed, thousands over
the last number of years—in fact, almost
4,000 have been killed since Barack
Obama became president. Over four—almost
4,000 people in Chicago have been
killed. We have to bring back law and
order.
Now, whether or not in a place like
Chicago you do stop-and-frisk, which
worked very well—Mayor Giuliani is
here—worked very well in New York. It
brought the crime rate way down. But you
take the gun away from criminals that
shouldn’t be having it. We have gangs
roaming the street. And in many cases,
they’re illegally here, illegal
immigrants. And they have guns. And they
shoot people. And we have to be very
strong. And we have to be very vigilant.
We have to be—we have to know what we’re
doing. Right now, our police, in many
cases, are afraid to do anything. We
have to protect our inner cities,
because African-American communities are
being decimated by crime. Decimated.
LESTER
HOLT:
Your two minutes is—your two minutes
expired.
AMY
GOODMAN:
Jill Stein?
DR. JILL
STEIN:
So, first, just to be clear, immigrants are
among the most peaceful and nonviolent
populations in the United States, so one
should not be misled by Donald Trump’s
efforts to do fear mongering and create
animosity towards immigrants.
Where we need to start in addressing this
crisis of police violence and the issues of
the Black Lives Matter campaign, we need to
begin with accountability. We need to ensure
that police do not have impunity to wreak
havoc in communities of color. And that
needs to start with police review boards, or
so-called citizen review boards, where the
community actually has the ability to
control their police rather than having the
police control the communities. And those
review boards should have the power to hire
and fire police chiefs. They should also
have the power of subpoena.
In
addition, communities should have
independent investigators who are available
to look into every case of death or serious
injury at the hands of police, so that every
person who dies in—with—due to police
actions, their family has a right to know
what happened. Each case should be
investigated.
And
in addition, we call for a truth and
reconciliation commission, because we are a
society that is divided by fear, that is
divided by suspicion, long-standing hatred.
In fact, it’s known that when slavery was
ended, it simply transformed into lynchings,
which then led to Jim Crow, which then led
to redlining and segregation, and then the
war on drugs and then this epidemic of
police violence. So there’s a long-standing
and cumulative legacy of racism and violence
that we must come to terms with as a
society. So we call for a truth and
reconciliation commission in order to truly
have a conversation about race, so that we
can transcend this history of division and
violence and racism.
AMY
GOODMAN:
Thank you. Lester Holt?
LESTER
HOLT:
But I do want to follow up.
Stop-and-frisk was ruled
unconstitutional in New York, because it
largely singled out black and Hispanic
young men.
DONALD
TRUMP:
No, you’re wrong. It went before a
judge, who was a very against-police
judge. It was taken away from her. And
our mayor, our new mayor, refused to go
forward with the case. They would have
won on appeal. If you look at it,
throughout the country, there are many
places where it’s allowed.
LESTER
HOLT:
The argument is that it’s a form of
racial profiling.
DONALD
TRUMP:
No, the argument is that we have to take
the guns away from these people that
have them and that are bad people that
shouldn’t have them. These are felons.
These are people that are bad people
that shouldn’t be—when you have 3,000
shootings in Chicago from January 1st,
when you have 4,000 people killed in
Chicago by guns from the beginning of
the presidency of Barack Obama, his
hometown, you have to have
stop-and-frisk. You need more police.
You need a better community, you know,
relation. You don’t have good community
relations in Chicago. It’s terrible. I
have property there. It’s terrible
what’s going on in Chicago. But when you
look—and Chicago’s not the only—you go
to Ferguson, you go to so many different
places. You need better relationships. I
agree with Secretary Clinton on this.
You need better relationships between
the communities and the police, because
in some cases it’s not good.
But you look at Dallas, where the
relationships were really studied, the
relationships were really a beautiful
thing, and then five police officers
were killed one night very violently. So
there’s some bad things going on. Some
really bad things.
LESTER
HOLT:
Secretary Clinton, you want to weigh in?
DONALD
TRUMP:
But we need—Lester, we need law and
order. And we need law and order in the
inner cities, because the people that
are most affected by what’s happening
are African-American and Hispanic
people. And it’s very unfair to them
what our politicians are allowing to
happen.
LESTER
HOLT:
Secretary Clinton?
HILLARY
CLINTON:
Well, I’ve heard—I’ve heard Donald say
this at his rallies, and it’s really
unfortunate that he paints such a dire,
negative picture of black communities in
our country.
DONALD
TRUMP:
Ugh.
HILLARY
CLINTON:
You know, the vibrancy of the black
church, the black businesses that employ
so many people, the opportunities that
so many families are working to provide
for their kids—there’s a lot that we
should be proud of and we should be
supporting and lifting up.
But we do always have to make sure we
keep people safe. There are the right
ways of doing it, and then there are
ways that are ineffective.
Stop-and-frisk was found to be
unconstitutional, and in part because it
was ineffective. It did not do what it
needed to do.
Now, I believe in community policing.
And, in fact, violent crime is one-half
of what it was in 1991. Property crime
is down 40 percent. We just don’t want
to see it creep back up. We’ve had 25
years of very good cooperation.
But there were some problems, some
unintended consequences. Too many young
African-American and Latino men ended up
in jail for nonviolent offenses. And
it’s just a fact that if you’re a young
African-American man and you do the same
thing as a young white man, you are more
likely to be arrested, charged,
convicted and incarcerated.
So, we’ve got to address the systemic
racism in our criminal justice system.
We cannot just say law and order. We
have to say—we have to come forward with
a plan that is going to divert people
from the criminal justice system, deal
with mandatory minimum sentences, which
have put too many people away for too
long for doing too little.
AMY
GOODMAN:
Jill Stein?
DR. JILL
STEIN:
Well, let me just comment that Hillary
Clinton knows what she’s talking about when
she refers to the injustices and the racial
biases in our criminal justice system.
Indeed, it was Bill Clinton’s omnibus crime
bill of the 1990s, which Hillary supported,
that opened the floodgates to mass
incarceration and to this assault by police
and the criminal injustice system on
communities of color. So, indeed, that bill,
that she herself promoted, saying how we
needed to, quote, "bring them to heel,"
referring to African-American communities
and youth, that indeed does need to be put
behind us.
When Donald Trump talks about law and order,
the place where law and order is most needed
in our society, the place of greatest
lawlessness and crime, is actually Wall
Street. In fact, all the cops on the beat
were laid off prior to the Wall Street crash
in the years leading up to it; that is, from
the Department of Justice, the
FBI investigators,
the security and exchange watchdogs had all
been laid off. So, we call for actually
bringing back the cops on the beat. Wall
Street does not regulate itself. It needs
people on Wall Street watching Wall Street,
so we can in fact catch the crooks before
they crash the economy again.
Stop-and-frisk was indeed unconstitutional
and was indeed a flagrant case of racial
profiling. It’s also true that it was not
effective. In fact, crime rates were
dropping in cities all over the country
while they were also dropping in New York.
So, to attribute that to stop-and-frisk,
which was not causing the reduction around
the country, is just wrong thinking.
And
then, let me say also, regarding policing,
we need to end the broken windows policing,
which is confrontational, aggressive
policing that results in the kinds of
tragedies we saw last week, particularly
with Keith Scott, who in fact was just
sitting in his car reading a book. It’s
disputed that he had a gun, as the police
claimed, but in fact it is legal to have a
gun and to carry a gun openly in North
Carolina. So, this is really a classic study
of the violence, the inherent violence, of
this broken windows policing. Police need to
be trained in de-escalation techniques. We
need to be demilitarizing our police and
changing the hiring practices so that police
actually look like the communities that they
should be a part of.
AMY
GOODMAN:
Green Party presidential candidate Jill
Stein, joining Democratic presidential
candidate Hillary Clinton and Republican
presidential candidate Donald Trump in
Democracy Now!'s special, "Expanding
the Debate" special. And we'll continue with
it in a minute.
[break]
AMY
GOODMAN:
"Soldier of the Heart" by Judee Sill, here
on Democracy Now!,
democracynow.org, The War and Peace
Report. We return to our "Expanding the
Debate" special. We’re airing excerpts of
the first Hillary Clinton-Donald Trump
debate and expanding the debate by giving
Green Party presidential candidate Jill
Stein a chance to respond to the same
questions posed to the major-party
candidates. I’m Amy Goodman. Back to Lester
Holt.
LESTER
HOLT:
Mr. Trump, for five years you
perpetuated a false claim that the
nation’s first black president was not a
natural-born citizen. You questioned his
legitimacy. In the last couple of weeks,
you acknowledged what most Americans
have accepted for years: The president
was born in the United States. Can you
tell us what took you so long?
DONALD
TRUMP:
I’ll tell you very—well, just very
simple to say. Sidney Blumenthal works
for the campaign and close—very close
friend of Secretary Clinton. And her
campaign manager, Patti Doyle, went
to—during the campaign, her campaign
against President Obama, fought very
hard. And you can go look it up, and you
can check it out. And if you look at
CNN this past
week, Patti Solis Doyle was on Wolf
Blitzer saying that this happened.
Blumenthal sent McClatchy, highly
respected reporter at McClatchy, to
Kenya to find out about it. They were
pressing it very hard. She failed to get
the birth certificate.
When I got involved, I didn’t fail. I
got him to give the birth certificate.
So I’m satisfied with it. And I’ll tell
you why I’m satisfied with it.
LESTER
HOLT:
That was in 2011.
DONALD
TRUMP:
Because I want to get on to defeating
ISIS, because
I want to get on to creating jobs,
because I want to get on to having a
strong border, because I want to get on
to things that are very important to me
and that are very important to the
country.
LESTER
HOLT:
I will let you respond. It’s important.
But I just want to get the answer here.
The birth certificate was produced in
2011. You continued to tell the story
and question the president’s legitimacy
in 2012, ’13, ’14, ’15.
DONALD
TRUMP:
Yeah.
LESTER
HOLT:
As recently as January. So the question
is: What changed your mind?
DONALD
TRUMP:
Well, nobody was pressing it. Nobody was
caring much about it. I figured you’d
ask the question tonight, of course. But
nobody was caring much about it. But I
was the one that got him to produce the
birth certificate. And I think I did a
good job.
Secretary Clinton also fought it. I
mean, you know, now everybody in
mainstream is going to say, "Oh, that’s
not true." Look, it’s true. Sidney
Blumenthal sent a reporter. You just
have to take a look at
CNN, the last
week, the interview with your former
campaign manager. And she was involved.
But just like she can’t bring back jobs,
she can’t produce.
LESTER
HOLT:
I’m sorry. I’m just going to follow up,
and I will let you respond to that,
because there’s a lot there. But we’re
talking about racial healing in this
segment. What do you say to Americans,
especially people of color who
[inaudible]—
DONALD
TRUMP:
Well, it was very—I say nothing. I say
nothing, because I was able to get him
to produce it. He should have produced
it a long time before. I say nothing.
But let me just tell you. When you talk
about healing, I think that I’ve
developed very, very good relationships
over the last little while with the
African-American community. I think you
can see that. And I feel that they
really wanted me to come to that
conclusion. And I think I did a great
job and a great service not only for the
country, but even for the president, in
getting him to produce his birth
certificate.
LESTER
HOLT:
Secretary Clinton?
HILLARY
CLINTON:
Well, just listen to what you heard. And
clearly, as Donald just admitted, he
knew he was going to stand on this
debate stage and Lester Holt was going
to be asking us questions, so he tried
to put the whole racist birther lie to
bed.
But it can’t be dismissed that easily.
He has really started his political
activity based on this racist lie that
our first black president was not an
American citizen. There was absolutely
no evidence for it, but he persisted. He
persisted year after year, because some
of his supporters, people that he was
trying to bring into his fold,
apparently believed it or wanted to
believe it.
But, remember, Donald started his career
back in 1973 being sued by the Justice
Department for racial discrimination,
because he would not rent apartments in
one of his developments to African
Americans, and he made sure that the
people who worked for him understood
that was the policy. He actually was
sued twice by the Justice Department. So
he has a long record of engaging in
racist behavior.
And the birther lie was a very hurtful
one. You know, Barack Obama is a man of
great dignity. And I could tell how much
it bothered him and annoyed him that
this was being touted and used against
him. But I like to remember what
Michelle Obama said in her amazing
speech at our Democratic National
Convention: "When they go low, we go
high." And Barack Obama went high,
despite Donald Trump’s best efforts to
bring him down.
AMY
GOODMAN:
Dr. Jill Stein?
DR. JILL
STEIN:
So, it’s important—excuse me—that Hillary
Clinton point out Donald Trump’s record of
flagrant, blatant racism. It’s also
important, I think, to point out the record
of Hillary Clinton’s actions that have also
been hurtful, particularly to the
African-American and Latino communities. In
addition to the omnibus crime bill that
opened the floodgates to mass incarceration
and massively disproportionate locking up of
African Americans, particularly young men,
in addition to that, Secretary Clinton—prior
to being secretary, of course—supported the
destruction of Aid to Families with
Dependent Children and the replacement of
this basic social safety net with a new
program, so-called TANF,
Temporary Assistance to Needy Families, that
locked out a large proportion of the
families that needed assistance, throwing an
additional 1 million-plus children and their
families into poverty. And that problem
persists to this day.
Secretary Clinton also has a track record
for suppressing the minimum wage. This was
in the African-American country of Haiti,
where Secretary Clinton led the charge to
push down the minimum wage from an abysmal
60 cents an hour down to a mere 40 cents an
hour, in order to prop up the corporate
profits of American corporations that were
residing in Haiti. So, she certainly has a
track record of her own that needs to be
aired.
To
talk about racial healing, it’s important to
recognize not only do we have to end violent
policing—not one more violent, racist
killing—but we need to look at where the
money of our municipal budgets are going. In
Los Angeles, for example, where the police
department has a particularly violent
record, half of the city’s budget actually
goes into policing. Well, what the Black
Lives Matter movement is suggesting there is
that a substantial portion of that money
needs to be spent on prevention. An ounce of
prevention is worth a ton of cure in this
case. We need programs for youth. We need
quality schools. We need to end the
school-to-prison pipeline and the sense of
hopelessness that it creates. And, in fact,
we need school systems that teach to the
whole student for lifetime learning, that
incorporate art, music and recreation and
community engagement, not this high-stakes
testing which is used as an excuse to shut
down public schools, to abuse teachers, to
fire them and to turn our public schools
into a resource for the private charter
industry.
AMY
GOODMAN:
Back to Lester Holt.
LESTER
HOLT:
You mentioned ISIS,
and we think of ISIS
certainly as over there, but there are
American citizens who have been inspired
to commit acts of terror on American
soil—the latest incident, of course, the
bombings we just saw in New York and New
Jersey, the knife attack at a mall in
Minnesota, in the last year, deadly
attacks in San Bernardino and Orlando.
I’ll ask this to both of you: Tell us
specifically how you would prevent
homegrown attacks by American citizens.
Mr. Trump?
DONALD
TRUMP:
Well, first I have to say one thing,
very important. Secretary Clinton is
talking about taking out
ISIS. "We will
take out ISIS."
Well, President Obama and Secretary
Clinton created a vacuum the way they
got out of Iraq, because they got out
wrong. They shouldn’t have been in, but
once they got in, the way they got out
was a disaster. And
ISIS was formed. So she talks
about taking them out. She’s been doing
it a long time. She’s been trying to
take them out for a long time. But they
wouldn’t have even been formed if they
left some troops behind, like 10,000 or
maybe something more than that. And then
you wouldn’t have had them.
Or, as I’ve been saying for a long time,
and I think you’ll agree, because I said
it to you once, had we taken the oil—and
we should have taken the oil—ISIS would
not have been able to form either,
because the oil was their primary source
of income. And now they have the oil all
over the place, including the oil—a lot
of the oil in Libya, which was another
one of her disasters.
LESTER
HOLT:
Secretary Clinton?
HILLARY
CLINTON:
Well, I hope the fact checkers are
turned upping—turning up the volume and
really working hard. Donald supported
the invasion of Iraq.
DONALD
TRUMP:
Wrong.
HILLARY
CLINTON:
That is absolutely—
DONALD
TRUMP:
Wrong.
HILLARY
CLINTON:
—proved over and over again.
DONALD
TRUMP:
Wrong.
HILLARY
CLINTON:
He actually advocated for the actions we
took in Libya, and urged that Gaddafi be
taken out—after, actually, doing some
business with him one time.
AMY
GOODMAN:
Jill Stein?
DR. JILL
STEIN:
So, this is another example of why we need
to open up these debates, because mostly
they are arguing—Secretary Clinton and
Donald Trump are arguing about their record
and who said what, when, and when did they
take various positions. We’re not discussing
the fundamental fact that we have a
catastrophic failed policy of regime change,
of a foreign policy based on economic and
military domination, which is blowing back
at us big time. If we want to have peace at
home, we need to achieve peace abroad. And
in the words of Martin Luther King, "Peace
is not simply the absence of violence: It is
the presence of justice."
So,
let’s look at our foreign policy. What have
these regime change wars accomplished?
They’ve cost us $5 to $6 trillion since
9/11, which comes out to about $50,000 per
American household. Tens of thousands of
U.S. soldiers have been killed and maimed,
over a million people killed in Iraq alone.
And what do we have for all of this? What we
have to show are failed states, mass refugee
migrations, which are tearing apart the
Middle East and Europe, for that matter, and
worse terrorist threats. They are not
getting better. They only get worse with
each turn of the cycle of violence.
So,
we need a new kind of offensive in the
Middle East, what we call a peace offensive
in the Middle East. And it begins with a
weapons embargo. Since we, the United
States, are supplying the weapons directly
or indirectly to all parties, all combatants
on all sides, and we are the major supplier
of weapons to the region, as well as around
the world, it’s clear that we have enormous
power here to initiate this weapons embargo
and to work, in fact, with the Russians to
achieve it also, because they, too, are
paying a price that they cannot afford for
these failed wars. In addition, we need to
put a freeze on the bank accounts of those
countries, largely our allies, who are
continuing to fund terrorist enterprises.
Hillary Clinton’s own leaked emails as
secretary of state identified the Saudis as
still the major funder, even many years
after 9/11, still the major funder of
terrorist Sunni jihad enterprises. We got
this started. We can put it to a stop.
AMY
GOODMAN:
And that does it for Part 1 of our
"Expanding the Debate" special. Many
stations are running our full two-hour
special. For those that aren’t, you can go
to democracynow.org.
Part 2
LESTER
HOLT:
And I want to talk about taxes. The
fundamental difference between the two
of you concerns the wealthy. Secretary
Clinton, you’re calling for a tax
increase on the wealthiest Americans.
I’d like you to further defend that.
And, Mr. Trump, you’re calling for tax
cuts for the wealthy. I’d like you to
defend that. And this next two-minute
answer goes to you, Mr. Trump.
DONALD
TRUMP:
Well, I’m really calling for major jobs,
because the wealthy are going create
tremendous jobs. They’re going to expand
their companies. They’re going to do a
tremendous job. I’m getting rid of the
carried-interest provision. And if you
really look, it’s not a tax—it’s really
not a great thing for the wealthy. It’s
a great thing for the middle class. It’s
a great thing for companies to expand.
And when these people are going to put
billions and billions of dollars into
companies, and when they’re going to
bring two-and-a-half trillion dollars
back from overseas, where they can’t
bring the money back, because
politicians like Secretary Clinton won’t
allow them to bring the money back,
because the taxes are so onerous, and
the bureaucratic red tape, so what—is so
bad. So what they’re doing is they’re
leaving our country, and they’re,
believe it or not, leaving because taxes
are too high and because some of them
have lots of money outside of our
country. And instead of bringing it back
and putting the money to work, because
they can’t work out a deal to—and
everybody agrees it should be brought
back. Instead of that, they’re leaving
our country to get their money, because
they can’t bring their money back into
our country, because of bureaucratic red
tape, because they can’t get together,
because we have a—we have a president
that can’t sit them around a table and
get them to approve something.
And here’s the thing: Republicans and
Democrats agree that this should be
done. Two-and-a-half trillion. I happen
to think it’s double that. It’s probably
$5 trillion that we can’t bring into our
country, Lester. And with a little
leadership, you’d get it in here very
quickly, and it could be put to use on
the inner cities and lots of other
things, and it would be beautiful. But
we have no leadership. And honestly,
that starts with Secretary Clinton.
LESTER
HOLT:
All right. You have two minutes on the
same question, to defend tax increases
on the wealthiest Americans, Secretary
Clinton.
HILLARY
CLINTON:
I have a feeling that by the end of this
evening I’m going to be blamed for
everything that’s ever happened.
DONALD
TRUMP:
Why not?
HILLARY
CLINTON:
Why not? Yeah, why not? You know, just
join—join the debate by saying more
crazy things. Now, let me say this.
DONALD
TRUMP:
There’s nothing crazy—
HILLARY
CLINTON:
It is absolutely the case—it—
DONALD
TRUMP:
—about not letting our companies bring
their money back into their country.
LESTER
HOLT:
OK, this is—this is Secretary Clinton’s
two minutes, please.
DONALD
TRUMP:
Yes.
HILLARY
CLINTON:
Yeah, well, let’s start the clock again,
Lester. We’ve looked at your tax
proposals. I don’t see changes in the
corporate tax rates or the kinds of
proposals you’re referring to that would
cause the repatriation, bringing back of
money that’s stranded overseas. I happen
to support that.
DONALD
TRUMP:
Then you didn’t read it.
HILLARY
CLINTON:
I happen to—I happen to support that in
a way that will actually work to our
benefit. But when I look at what you
have proposed, you have what is called
now the Trump loophole, because it would
so advantage you and the business you
do. You’ve proposed an approach that has
a—
DONALD
TRUMP:
Who gave it that name? The first I’ve
ever—who gave it that name?
LESTER
HOLT:
This is—sir, this is Secretary Clinton’s
two minutes.
HILLARY
CLINTON:
—$4 billion tax benefit for your family.
And when you look at what you are
proposing—
DONALD
TRUMP:
How much—how much for my family? Lester,
how much?
HILLARY
CLINTON:
—it is, as I said, trumped-up
trickle-down. Trickle-down did not work.
It got us into the mess we were in in
2008 and '09. Slashing taxes on the
wealthy hasn't worked. And a lot of
really smart, wealthy people know that,
and they are saying, "Hey, we need to do
more to make the contributions we should
be making to rebuild the middle class."
I
don’t think top-down works in America. I
think building the middle class,
investing in the middle class, making
college debt-free so more young people
can get their education, helping people
refinance their—their debt from college
at a lower rate—those are the kinds of
things that will really boost the
economy. Broad-based, inclusive growth
is what we need in America, not more
advantages for people at the very top.
LESTER
HOLT:
Mr. Trump, we’re—
DONALD
TRUMP:
Typical politician: all talk, no action.
Sounds good, doesn’t work. Never going
to happen. Our country is suffering
because people like Secretary Clinton
have made such bad decisions in terms of
our jobs and in terms of what’s going
on.
Now, look, we have the worst revival of
an economy since the Great Depression.
And believe me: We’re in a bubble right
now. And the only thing that looks good
is the stock market, but if you raise
interest rates even a little bit, that’s
going to come crashing down. We are in a
big, fat, ugly bubble. And we better be
awfully careful.
And we have a Fed that’s doing political
things. This Janet Yellen of the Fed—the
Fed is doing political—by keeping the
interest rates at this level. And
believe me: The day Obama goes off and
he leaves and he goes out to the golf
course for the rest of his life to play
golf, when they raise interest rates,
you’re going to see some very bad things
happen, because the Fed is not doing
their job. The Fed is being more
political than Secretary Clinton.
AMY
GOODMAN:
Dr. Jill Stein, you have two minutes.
DR. JILL
STEIN:
So, we need a just tax system. Both
Democrats and Republicans, over the past
decades, have shifted the tax base from
corporations and the wealthy far more onto
the backs of the middle class and working
people and the poor. So, the things that
Donald Trump is talking about, indeed, they
don’t work. They’ve been tried before.
The
Democrats and Republicans essentially
eliminated the—well, Donald Trump is
proposing to eliminate the inheritance tax,
after Democrats and Republicans reduced it
through the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy,
which then Barack Obama made permanent. So,
that inheritance tax needs to be restored,
because the inheritance tax helps us prevent
the establishment of an aristocracy, which
is what we now have in the United States,
where 22 billionaires have the wealth, among
them, equivalent to 50 percent of the
American population. And this wealth is
being massively accumulated and passed on,
which establishes the kind of aristocracy
which was not supposed to be a part of this
country. So we need to put the inheritance
tax back where it was before the Bush tax
cuts.
We
need to increase the top marginal rates in
the income tax. You could put them back to
where they were even under Ronald Reagan,
and they would be at the 55, 60 percent tax
level. And we should put a tax on Wall
Street. Why should the wealthiest sector of
the economy be the one sector which is not
contributing a sales tax to our general
revenues? So, even putting a tiny tax on
Wall Street transactions would generate
hundreds of billions of dollars, which are
critically needed.
In
addition, as I mentioned, we need a Green
New Deal to actually create the jobs
directly, government-funded jobs, which
create incentives, grants and loans for
small businesses, for worker cooperatives
and nonprofits, and with government as an
employer of last resort to ensure that we
have the jobs that we need to transition the
economy in the time frame needed to 100
percent clean, renewable energy by 2030, a
healthy and sustainable food system, which
is currently the source of many of our
fossil fuel emissions, and efficient,
renewably powered public transportation,
also to restore our ecosystems. And finally,
healthcare as a human right needs to be
provided as a basic right for everyone
through an improved Medicare-for-all system.
It doesn’t cost any more. We simply
eliminate the middleman and the
profiteering, and put our healthcare dollars
into real healthcare.
AMY
GOODMAN:
Let’s go back to Lester Holt.
LESTER
HOLT:
Mr. Trump, we’re talking about the
burden that Americans have to pay, yet
you have not released your tax returns.
And the reason nominees have released
their returns for decades is so that
voters will know if their potential
president owes money to who he owes it
to and any business conflicts. Don’t
Americans have a right to know if there
are any conflicts of interest?
DONALD
TRUMP:
I don’t mind releasing. I’m under a
routine audit, and it’ll be released.
And as soon as the audit’s finished, it
will be released. But you will learn
more about Donald Trump by going down to
the federal elections, where I filed a
104-page essentially financial statement
of sorts, the forms that they have. It
shows income—in fact, the income—I just
looked today—the income is filed at $694
million for this past year, $694
million. If you would have told me I was
going to make that 15 or 20 years ago, I
would have been very surprised.
But that’s the kind of thinking that our
country needs. When we have a country
that’s doing so badly, that’s being
ripped off by every single country in
the world, it’s the kind of thinking
that our country needs, because
everybody—Lester, we have a trade
deficit, with all of the countries that
we do business with, of almost $800
billion a year. You know what that is?
That means—who’s negotiating these trade
deals? We have people that are political
hacks negotiating our trade deals.
LESTER
HOLT:
The IRS says
an audit—
DONALD
TRUMP:
Excuse me.
LESTER
HOLT:
—of your taxes—you’re perfectly free to
release your taxes during an audit. And
so the question: Does the public’s right
to know outweigh your personal—
DONALD
TRUMP:
Well, I told you, I will release them as
soon as the audit. Look, I’ve been under
audit almost for 15 years. I know a lot
of wealthy people that have never been
audited. I said, "Do you get audited?" I
get audited almost every year. And in a
way, I should be complaining. I’m not
even complaining. I don’t mind it. It’s
almost become a way of life. I get
audited by the IRS.
But other people don’t.
I
will say this. We have a situation in
this country that has to be taken care
of. I will release my tax
returns—against my lawyer’s wishes—when
she releases her 33,000 emails that have
been deleted. As soon as she releases
them, I will release.
AUDIENCE
MEMBERS:
Yeah! Yeah!
DONALD
TRUMP:
I will release my tax returns. And
that’s against—my lawyers, they say,
"Don’t do it." I will tell you this.
No—in fact, watching shows, they’re
reading the papers. Almost every lawyer
says you don’t release your returns
until the audit’s complete. When the
audit’s complete, I’ll do it. But I
would go against them if she releases
her emails.
LESTER
HOLT:
So it’s negotiable?
DONALD
TRUMP:
It’s not negotiable, no. Let her release
the—why did she delete 33,000 emails?
LESTER
HOLT:
Well, I’ll let her answer that. But let
me just admonish the audience one more
time. There was an agreement: We did ask
you to be silent, so it would be helpful
for us. Secretary Clinton?
HILLARY
CLINTON:
Well, I think you’ve just seen another
example of bait and switch here. For 40
years, everyone running for president
has released their tax returns. You can
go and see nearly, I think, 39, 40 years
of our tax returns, but everyone has
done it. We know the
IRS has made clear there is no
prohibition on releasing it when you’re
under audit.
So
you’ve got to ask yourself: Why won’t he
release his tax returns? And I think
there may be a couple of reasons. First,
maybe he’s not as rich as he says he is.
Second, maybe he’s not as charitable as
he claims to be. Third, we don’t know
all of his business dealings, but we
have been told through investigative
reporting that he owes about $650
million to Wall Street and foreign
banks. Or maybe he doesn’t want the
American people, all of you watching
tonight, to know that he’s paid nothing
in federal taxes, because the only years
that anybody’s ever seen were a couple
of years when he had to turn them over
to state authorities when he was trying
to get a casino license, and they showed
he didn’t pay any federal income tax.
So—
DONALD
TRUMP:
That makes me smart.
HILLARY
CLINTON:
—if he’s paid zero, that means zero for
troops, zero for vets, zero for schools
or health. And I think probably he’s not
all that enthusiastic about having the
rest of our country see what the real
reasons are, because it must be
something really important, even
terrible, that he’s trying to hide.
And the financial disclosure statements,
they don’t give you the tax rate. They
don’t give you all the details that tax
returns would. And it just seems to me
that this is something that the American
people deserve to see. And I have no
reason to believe that he’s ever going
to release his tax returns, because
there’s something he’s hiding. And we’ll
guess. We’ll keep guessing at what it
might be that he’s hiding. But I think
the question is: Were he ever to get
near the White House, what would be
those conflicts? Who does he owe money
to? Well, he owes you the answers to
that, and he should provide them.
AMY
GOODMAN:
Dr. Jill Stein, your response?
DR. JILL
STEIN:
Well, they’re both right. They should both
release their information. For Donald Trump,
not only his tax returns, but we really
deserve to know what his business dealings
are. The investigative report by
Newsweek suggested that Donald Trump
seems to be engaged in business
relationships with some of the most corrupt
and Mafioso-type characters that exist
around the world. For example, one of his
business deals is with a member of a family
that does laundering, money laundering, for
the Iranian military. He also appears to
have connections in South Korea who would
benefit by this policy he suggested of
providing nuclear weapons or encouraging
nuclear weapons to be developed by South
Korea. So, Donald Trump has a number of
business dealings that are—shall we say,
have major conflicts of interest with U.S.
policy positions. So, the American people
deserve to know what those conflicts of
interest are, and, in particular, we need to
know who the unsavory business partners are
of Donald Trump.
Hillary Clinton herself, you know, has some
disclosures that are owed the American
public. With her Clinton Foundation, we
know, for example, that she received some
many millions of dollars from the ruling
prince of Bahrain in exchange,
apparently—now, we don’t know for sure, but
there was a suspicious sequence of events
here whereby she received a major donation
in close proximity to providing a major
weapons deal for the ruler of Bahrain around
the time of the Arab Spring, when there were
massive human rights violations going on in
Bahrain. We also know that Senator Clinton,
or, I should say, Secretary Clinton,
approved the purchase of a major portion of
the U.S. uranium supply by a Russian company
around the time she was receiving major
donations to the Clinton Foundation from
those parties.
So,
indeed, Secretary Clinton’s—half of her
emails while secretary of state were
declared her private business. If half of
your emails while you are serving a busy job
like secretary of state—if half of your
emails is spent on your private business,
you know, one has to ask: What are you doing
on company time while you are being paid by
the taxpayers of the United States of
America, engaging half of your emails in
your own private business? So, this
represents the kind of merger of the
economic and political elites that the
American people are so very concerned about
and are essentially rejecting. That’s why
the American people are not happy with these
two candidates and badly deserve not only a
right to vote, but to fully know who they
can vote for in this critically important
election.
AMY
GOODMAN:
Dr. Jill Stein, Green Party presidential
candidate. We continue our "Expanding the
Debate" Democracy Now! special in a
minute.
[break]
AMY
GOODMAN:
"People Make the World Go Round" by The
Stylistics, here on Democracy Now!,
democracynow.org, The War and Peace
Report. I’m Amy Goodman, as we return
to our "Expanding the Debate" special. We
are airing excerpts of the debate between
Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump at Hofstra
University and expanding that debate by
giving Green Party presidential candidate
Jill Stein a chance to respond to the same
questions posed by the major-party
candidates. Lester Holt of
NBC News.
LESTER
HOLT:
On nuclear weapons, President Obama
reportedly considered changing the
nation’s long-standing policy on first
use. Do you support the current policy?
Mr. Trump, you have two minutes on that.
DONALD
TRUMP:
Well, I have to say that, you know, for
what Secretary Clinton was saying about
nuclear with Russia, she’s very cavalier
in the way she talks about various
countries. But Russia has been expanding
their—they have a much newer capability
than we do. We have not been updating
from the new standpoint. I looked the
other night. I was seeing B-52s. They’re
old enough that your father, your
grandfather could be flying them. We are
not—we are not keeping up with other
countries.
I
would like everybody to end it, just get
rid of it. But I would certainly not do
first strike. I think that once the
nuclear alternative happens, it’s over.
At the same time, we have to be
prepared. I can’t take anything off the
table, because you look at some of these
countries—you look at North Korea, we’re
doing nothing there. China should solve
that problem for us. China should go
into North Korea. China is totally
powerful as it relates to North Korea.
And by the way, another one powerful is
the worst deal I think I’ve ever seen
negotiated, that you started, is the
Iran deal. Iran is one of their biggest
trading partners. Iran has power over
North Korea. And when they made that
horrible deal with Iran, they should
have included the fact that they do
something with respect to North Korea.
And they should have done something with
respect to Yemen and all these other
places.
And when asked to Secretary Kerry, "Why
didn’t you do that? Why didn’t you add
other things into the deal?"—one of the
great giveaways of all time, of all
time, including $400 million in cash.
Nobody’s ever seen that before. That
turned out to be wrong. It was actually
$1.7 billion in cash, obviously, I
guess, for the hostages. It certainly
looks that way. So you say to yourself,
why didn’t they make the right deal?
This is one of the worst deals ever made
by any country in history. The deal with
Iran will lead to nuclear problems. All
they have to do is sit back 10 years,
and they don’t have to do much—
LESTER
HOLT:
Your two minutes is expired.
DONALD
TRUMP:
—and they’re going to end up getting
nuclear. I met with Bibi Netanyahu the
other day. Believe me, he is not a happy
camper.
LESTER
HOLT:
All right. Mrs. Clinton—
HILLARY
CLINTON:
Well—
LESTER
HOLT:
Secretary Clinton, you have two minutes.
HILLARY
CLINTON:
Let me—let me start by saying, words
matter. Words matter when you run for
president. And they really matter when
you are president. And I want to
reassure our allies in Japan and South
Korea and elsewhere that we have mutual
defense treaties, and we will honor
them. It is essential that America’s
word be good. And so, I know that this
campaign has caused some questioning and
some worries on the part of many leaders
across the globe. I’ve talked with a
number of them. But I want to, on behalf
of myself and I think on behalf of a
majority of the American people, say
that, you know, our word is good.
It’s also important that we look at the
entire global situation. There’s no
doubt that we have other problems with
Iran. But personally, I’d rather deal
with the other problems, having put that
lid on their nuclear program, than still
to be facing that.
And Donald never tells you what he would
do. Would he have started a war? Would
he have bombed Iran? If he’s going to
criticize a deal that has been very
successful in giving us access to
Iranian facilities that we never had
before, then he should tell us what his
alternative would be. But it’s like his
plan to defeat ISIS:
He says it’s a secret plan, but the only
secret is that he has no plan.
So, we need to be more precise in how we
talk about these issues. People around
the word follow our presidential
campaigns so closely, trying to get
hints about what we will do. Can they
rely on us? Are we going to lead the
world with strength and in accordance
with our values? That’s what I intend to
do. I intend to be a leader of our
country that people can count on, both
here at home and around the world, to
make decisions that will further peace
and prosperity, but also stand up to
bullies, whether they’re abroad or at
home. We cannot let those who would try
to destabilize the world to interfere
with American interests and security—
LESTER
HOLT:
Your two minutes is—
HILLARY
CLINTON:
—to be given any opportunities at all.
LESTER
HOLT:
—is expired.
AMY
GOODMAN:
And, Jill Stein, you have two minutes.
DR. JILL
STEIN:
So, let’s also be mindful here of Secretary
Clinton’s track record. Was the invasion of
Libya an example of how we lead with
strength consistent with our values? It
would be hard to imagine a more catastrophic
war than what took place in Libya, that
helped strengthen ISIS,
that helped release an incredible stock
of—stockpile of weapons, further inflaming
the crisis and the violence in the Middle
East.
Hillary Clinton has said she would like to
impose a no-fly zone over Syria, which
basically means we are going to war with
Russia, because that’s what you do when you
impose a no-fly zone, is you shoot down
people that are in that airspace. And
remember, we have 2,000 nuclear weapons now,
between us and the Russians, on hair-trigger
alert. So, this is certainly a very
dangerous territory, where Hillary Clinton
has continued to beat the drums of war with
this idea that we are showing strength and
leadership, but leading us in exactly the
wrong direction and a very dangerous
direction.
Instead of spending a trillion dollars
creating a new generation of nuclear weapons
and modes of delivery, it’s time to instead
change direction here and move as quickly as
humanly possible towards nuclear
disarmament. And instead of blaming the
Russians, we need to acknowledge it was
actually the Russians who tried to engage us
in a nuclear disarmament process, again,
several decades ago. We need to revive that
proposal, take them up on it and move to
nuclear disarmament—excuse me—as quickly as
we possibly can, because this is sitting on
an absolute catastrophe into which we could
stumble at any point, particularly given the
crazy circular firing squad that’s taking
place now around Syria, where there are so
many allies at cross-purposes with each
other that any of us could be dragged into a
larger, full-scale, and even nuclear, war at
any moment.
And
it’s important to remember, not only is this
a trillion dollars which has been
proposed—actually, is underway, a trillion
dollars’ worth of spending over the next
decade and a half, approximately, on new
nuclear weapons, but let’s look at our whole
war budget, which is half of our
discretionary budget. Nearly half of your
income taxes are going to pay for these
absolutely catastrophic wars.
So
we need an approach, not—a whole new
approach, not one which is basically bought
and paid for by the weapons industry, who is
the only beneficiary here, because these
regime-change wars, this militarization of
our foreign policy, is not creating a more
stable world. It is not benefiting democracy
in the Middle East. It’s not helping women’s
rights in the Middle East. It’s causing
nothing but the greater proliferation of
violence. In fact, the drone wars kill nine
unintended victims for every intended
target. And even that intended target is
essentially an assassination victim, which
is a violation of international law to start
with. So, we need to start over. We need a
foreign policy based on international law
and human rights. That is the direction we
need to go to create true stability and
peace in the world.
AMY
GOODMAN:
Let’s go back to moderator Lester Holt.
LESTER
HOLT:
Mr. Trump, a lot of these are judgment
questions. You had supported the war in
Iraq before the invasion. What makes
your judgment—
DONALD
TRUMP:
I did not support the war in Iraq.
LESTER
HOLT:
In 2002—
DONALD
TRUMP:
That is a mainstream media nonsense put
out by her, because she—frankly, I think
the best person in her campaign is
mainstream media.
LESTER
HOLT:
My question is, since you supported it,
why is your—
DONALD
TRUMP:
Would you like to hear?
LESTER
HOLT:
Why is your judgment—
DONALD
TRUMP:
I was against the war—wait a minute. I
was against the war in Iraq. Just so you
put it out.
LESTER
HOLT:
The record shows otherwise, but why is—
DONALD
TRUMP:
The record does not show that.
LESTER
HOLT:
Why is your judgment any—
DONALD
TRUMP:
The record shows that I’m right. When I
did an interview with Howard Stern, very
lightly, first time anyone’s asked me
that, I said, very lightly, I don’t
know, maybe, who knows? Essentially. I
then did an interview with Neil Cavuto.
We talked about the economy is more
important. I then spoke to Sean Hannity,
which everybody refuses to call Sean
Hannity. I had numerous conversations
with Sean Hannity at Fox. And Sean
Hannity said—and he called me the other
day, and I spoke to him about it. He
said, "You were totally against the
war," because he was for the war.
LESTER
HOLT:
Why is your judgment better than—
DONALD
TRUMP:
And when—excuse me. And that was before
the war started. Sean Hannity said, very
strongly, to me and other people—he’s
willing to say it, but nobody wants to
call him. I was against the war. He
said, "You used to have fights with me,"
because Sean was in favor of the war.
And I understand that side also, not
very much, because we should have never
been there. But nobody calls Sean
Hannity.
And then they did an article in a major
magazine, shortly after the war
started—I think in '04. But they did an
article which had me totally against the
war in Iraq. And one of your compatriots
said, you know, whether it was before or
right after, Trump was
definitely—because if you read this
article, there's no doubt. But if
somebody—and I’ll ask the press—if
somebody would call up Sean Hannity—this
was before the war started, he and I
used to have arguments about the war. I
said, it’s a terrible and a stupid
thing. It’s going to destabilize the
Middle East. And that’s exactly what
it’s done. It’s been a disaster.
LESTER
HOLT:
My reference was to what you had said in
2002, and my question was—
DONALD
TRUMP:
No, no. You didn’t hear what I said.
LESTER
HOLT:
Why is your judgment—why is your
judgment any different than Mrs.
Clinton’s judgment?
DONALD
TRUMP:
Well, I have much better judgment than
she does. There’s no question about
that. I also have a much better
temperament than she has, you know? I
have a much better—she spent—let me tell
you—she spent hundreds of millions of
dollars on an advertising—you know, they
get Madison Avenue into a room, they put
names—oh, temperament, let’s go after—I
think my strongest asset, maybe by far,
is my temperament. I have a winning
temperament. I know how to win. She does
not know how to win.
LESTER
HOLT:
Secretary Clinton?
DONALD
TRUMP:
Wait. The AF-of-L-CIO,
the other day, behind the blue screen, I
don’t know who you were talking to,
Secretary Clinton, but you was totally
out of control. I said, "There’s a
person with a temperament that’s got a
problem."
LESTER
HOLT:
Secretary Clinton?
HILLARY
CLINTON:
Whew, OK. Let’s—let’s talk about two
important issues that were briefly
mentioned by Donald. First,
NATO. You
know, NATO, as
a military alliance, has something
called Article 5, and basically it says
this: An attack on one is an attack on
all. And do you know the only time it’s
ever been invoked? After 9/11, when the
28 nations of NATO
said that they would go to Afghanistan
with us to fight terrorism, something
that they still are doing by our side.
With respect to Iran, when I became
secretary of state, Iran was weeks away
from having enough nuclear material to
form a bomb. They had mastered the
nuclear fuel cycle under the Bush
administration. They had built covert
facilities. They had stocked them with
centrifuges that were whirling away. And
we had sanctioned them. I voted for
every sanction against Iran when I was
in the Senate. But it wasn’t enough. So
I spent a year and a half putting
together a coalition, that included
Russia and China, to impose the toughest
sanctions on Iran. And we did drive them
to the negotiating table. And my
successor, John Kerry, and President
Obama got a deal that put a lid on
Iran’s nuclear program—without firing a
single shot. That’s diplomacy. That’s
coalition building. That’s working with
other nations.
The other day, I saw Donald saying that
there were some Iranian sailors on a
ship in the waters off of Iran, and they
were taunting American sailors who were
on a nearby ship. He said, "You know, if
they taunted our sailors, I’d blow them
out of the water"—and start another war.
That’s not good judgment.
DONALD
TRUMP:
That would not start a war.
HILLARY
CLINTON:
That is not the right temperament to be
commander-in-chief, to be taunted. And
the worst part—
DONALD
TRUMP:
No, they were taunting us.
HILLARY
CLINTON:
—of what we heard Donald say has been
about nuclear weapons. He has said
repeatedly that he didn’t care if other
nations got nuclear weapons—Japan, South
Korea, even Saudi Arabia. It has been
the policy of the United States,
Democrats and Republicans, to do
everything we could to reduce the
proliferation of nuclear weapons. He
even said, "Well, you know, if there
were nuclear war in the East Asia, well,
you know, that’s fine.
DONALD
TRUMP:
Wrong.
HILLARY
CLINTON:
"You know, have a good time, folks."
DONALD
TRUMP:
It’s lies.
HILLARY
CLINTON:
And, in fact, his cavalier attitude
about nuclear weapons is so deeply
troubling. That is the number one threat
we face in the world. And it becomes
particularly threatening if terrorists
ever get their hands on any nuclear
material. So a man who can be provoked
by a tweet should not have his fingers
anywhere near the nuclear codes, as far
as I think anyone with any sense about
this should be concerned.
AMY
GOODMAN:
Dr. Jill Stein, you have roughly two
minutes.
DR. JILL
STEIN:
So, let me just add that, yes, nuclear
material in the hands of terrorists is a
very dangerous thing. This is yet another
reason why nuclear power and nuclear power
plants and their proliferation around the
world is an intolerable threat, not only
because of the nuclear weapons that can be
made from their—their materials once they
have been used, but also because of the
inherent dangers of nuclear power,
particularly in the era of climate change.
In our country, we have something like 16
nuclear power plants which are located at
sea level. Right now, the most recent
studies, for example, by Jim Hansen, the
foremost climate scientist, who has never
been wrong yet in the many decades that he’s
been alerting us to this crisis—he is now
predicting we could see as much as nine feet
of sea level rise as soon as 2050, which
means that our 16 or so nuclear power plants
are all going Fukushima.
So,
this is just another example of why nuclear
power is something that must also be
urgently phased out and is part of our call
for 100 percent clean, renewable energy by
2030, which doesn’t mean ending jobs, it
means creating jobs and moving the workers
who are in the dangerous jobs right now of
nuclear power, and particularly in the
fossil fuel industry, where walking into a
refinery or onto a frack site or into a
truck and driving some of these materials,
these very explosive and toxic materials,
around—to walk into a fossil fuel job is to
increase your risk of dying by 700 percent
from explosions and crashes and motor
vehicle accidents, because these workers are
not protected. So we are—we are proposing a
just transition, first and foremost, for the
workers and the communities that are
dependent on the fossil fuel industry, on
the nuclear industry and also on the weapons
industry, so that we can transition to a new
economy which is safe and sustainable, which
creates far more jobs, many more jobs. In
fact, the fastest area of job growth right
now is in the solar and wind industries. In
solar, in fact, jobs are being created right
now at 12 times the rate of the rest of the
economy. So this is a win-win, which, in
fact, pays for itself by the reduction in
military expenditures, because we no longer
need the wars for oil, and by the
improvements in our health.
So,
this is how we get to true security, not
only security against nuclear weapons, but
security, as well, for our climate, which is
the other number one threat, right up there
with nuclear war. They must both be
addressed. And the fact that the other two
candidates have managed to duck their way
around a real discussion and a real
examination of these catastrophic wars and
this catastrophic nuclear weapons reality
that we face right now, that they cannot put
these issues on the table, is another reason
why it’s really critical for us to stand up
and insist on the open debates that the
American people are clamoring for. You can
go to our website,
Jill2016.com, to join our campaign for
open debates.
AMY
GOODMAN:
Dr. Jill Stein, joining here on
Democracy Now! the debate, as we expand
the debate, the first presidential debate at
Hofstra University with Hillary Clinton and
Donald Trump, Democracy Now!
breaking the sound barrier, as is our
tradition, by inviting the major third-party
candidates in. We’ll be back with this
debate in a moment.
[break]
AMY
GOODMAN:
"Wake Up Everybody" by Harold Melvin & The
Blue Notes, here on Democracy Now!,
democracynow.org, The War and Peace
Report, as we return to our "Expanding
the Debate" special. We break the sound
barrier by bringing you the first debate,
the presidential debate held at Hofstra
University, between Hillary Clinton and
Donald Trump, stop the tape after they have
each of their two minutes, and expand it
with the major third-party candidates. We
are here with Green Party presidential
candidate Jill Stein. We invited the
Libertarian presidential candidate, Gary
Johnson, but Jill Stein accepted, and she is
responding to the same questions posed to
the major-party candidates. Back to Lester
Holt.
LESTER
HOLT:
Mr. Trump, this year Secretary Clinton
became the first woman nominated for
president by a major party. Earlier this
month, you said she doesn’t have, quote,
"a presidential look." She’s standing
here right now. What did you mean by
that?
DONALD
TRUMP:
She doesn’t have the look. She doesn’t
have the stamina. I said she doesn’t
have the stamina. And I don’t believe
she does have the stamina. To be
president of this country, you need
tremendous stamina.
LESTER
HOLT:
The quote was: "I just don’t think she
has the presidential look."
DONALD
TRUMP:
You have—wait a—wait a minute, Lester.
You asked me a question. Did you ask me
a question?
You have to be able to negotiate our
trade deals. You have to be able to
negotiate—that’s right—with Japan, with
Saudi Arabia. I mean, can you imagine,
we’re defending Saudi Arabia? And with
all of the money they have, we’re
defending them, and they’re not paying?
All you have to do is speak to them.
Wait. You have so many different things
you have to be able to do, and I don’t
believe that Hillary has the stamina.
LESTER
HOLT:
Let’s let her respond.
HILLARY
CLINTON:
Well, as soon as he travels to 112
countries and negotiates a peace deal, a
ceasefire, a release of dissidents, an
opening of new opportunities in nations
around the world, or even spends 11
hours testifying in front of a
congressional committee, he can talk to
me about stamina.
DONALD
TRUMP:
The world—let me tell you. Let me tell
you. Hillary has experience, but it’s
bad experience. We have made so many bad
deals during the last—so she’s got
experience, that I agree. But it’s bad,
bad experience. Whether it’s the Iran
deal that you’re so in love with, where
we gave them $150 billion back—whether
it’s the Iran deal, whether it’s
anything you can—you almost can’t name a
good deal. I agree. She’s got
experience, but it’s bad experience. And
this country can’t afford to have
another four years of that kind of
experience.
LESTER
HOLT:
We are at the—we are at the final
question.
HILLARY
CLINTON:
Well, one thing. One thing, Lester, is—
LESTER
HOLT:
Very quickly, because we’re at the final
question now.
HILLARY
CLINTON:
—you know, he tried to switch from looks
to stamina. But this is a man who has
called women pigs, slobs and dogs, and
someone who has said pregnancy is an
inconvenience to employers, who has
said—
DONALD
TRUMP:
I never said that.
HILLARY
CLINTON:
—women don’t deserve equal pay unless
they do as good a job as men.
DONALD
TRUMP:
Didn’t say that.
HILLARY
CLINTON:
And one of the worst things he said was
about a woman in a beauty contest. He
loves beauty contests, supporting them
and hanging around them. And he called
this woman "Miss Piggy." Then he called
her "Miss Housekeeping," because she was
Latina. Donald, she has a name.
DONALD
TRUMP:
Where did you find this? Where did you
find this?
HILLARY
CLINTON:
Her name is Alicia Machado.
DONALD
TRUMP:
Where did you find this?
HILLARY
CLINTON:
And she has become a U.S. citizen, and
you can bet—
DONALD
TRUMP:
Oh, really?
HILLARY
CLINTON:
—she’s going to vote this November.
DONALD
TRUMP:
OK. OK, good. Let me just tell you. Let
me just tell you.
LESTER
HOLT:
Mr. Trump, could we just take 10
seconds, and then we’re going to have
the final question?
DONALD
TRUMP:
You know, Hillary is hitting me with
tremendous commercials. Some of it’s
said in entertainment. Some of it’s
said—somebody who’s been very vicious to
me, Rosie O’Donnell, I said very tough
things to her, and I think everybody
would agree that she deserves it, and
nobody feels sorry for her. But you want
to know the truth? I was going to say
something—
LESTER
HOLT:
Please, very quickly.
DONALD
TRUMP:
—extremely rough to Hillary, to her
family. And I said to myself, "I can’t
do it. I just can’t do it. It’s
inappropriate. It’s not nice." But she
spent hundreds of millions of dollars on
negative ads on me, many of which are
absolutely untrue. They’re untrue, and
they’re misrepresentations. And I will
tell you this, Lester: It’s not nice.
And I don’t—I don’t deserve that. But
it’s certainly not a nice thing that
she’s done. It’s hundreds of millions of
ads. And the only gratifying thing is I
saw the polls come in today, and with
all of that money—
LESTER
HOLT:
We have to move on to the final
question.
DONALD
TRUMP:
—over $200 million is spent, and I’m
either winning or tied. And I’ve spent
practically nothing.
AMY
GOODMAN:
Dr. Jill Stein, your response?
DR. JILL
STEIN:
More heat than light, I’m afraid to say,
throughout much of this so-called debate
between the two corporate candidates. In
this country, you know, we have two major
political parties, which are, in fact, no
longer the major voting bloc. The largest
voting bloc has repudiated both the
Democratic and Republican parties, because,
in fact, Americans are tired of being thrown
under the bus. They are tired of this rigged
economy, and they are tired of the rigged
political system that has created this
economy. And they are also rejecting, at
unprecedented levels, the two candidates
that are being forced down their throats as
the most disliked and untrusted candidates
in our history.
I
am the only candidate in this race who is
not taking money from lobbyists, from
corporations, from—I do not have a super
PAC to coordinate
with or not. I’m the one candidate that
actually has the freedom to stand up for
what the American people are clamoring for.
That means an emergency jobs program, which
will solve the emergency of climate change.
It means bailing out the students, like they
bailed out Wall Street, the crooks on Wall
Street who crashed the economy. It’s time to
bail out the victims. And let me just
mention about that. There are 43 million
young people right now, and not-so-young
people, Gen Xers and on into middle age and
well beyond, who are trapped into student
loan debt, because once you get in, you
cannot get out. Very few get out, actually,
in the current economy that we have of
low-wage, part-time and temporary jobs. So
people get stuck in student loan debt.
But
it turns out that 43 million is actually a
winning plurality of the vote in a three-way
race. So when people say, "Oh, resistance is
futile. Why even bother? Surely, you know,
you’re wasting your time," you know, that is
part of the propaganda to keep us locked in
this system. In the words of Alice Walker,
"The biggest way people give up power is by
not knowing we have it to start with." We do
have the power. It’s time to stand up and
use it. And just by students coming out,
people who are carrying student loan debt
coming out, to cancel that debt, and voting
Green in 2016, we actually have the power to
turn this election on its head.
AMY
GOODMAN:
Let’s go back to Lester Holt for the final
question of the debate.
LESTER
HOLT:
One of you will not win this election.
So my final question to you tonight: Are
you willing to accept the outcome as the
will of the voters? Secretary Clinton?
HILLARY
CLINTON:
Well, I support our democracy. And
sometimes you win, sometimes you lose.
But I certainly will support the outcome
of this election. And I know Donald’s
trying very hard to plant doubts about
it, but I hope the people out there
understand: This election’s really up to
you. It’s not about us so much as it is
about you and your families and the kind
of country and future you want. So I
sure hope you will get out and vote as
though your future depended on it,
because I think it does.
LESTER
HOLT:
Mr. Trump, very quickly, the same
question: Will you accept the outcome as
the will of the voters?
DONALD
TRUMP:
I want to make America great again. We
are a nation that is seriously troubled.
We’re losing our jobs. People are
pouring into our country. The other day,
we were deporting 800 people. And
perhaps they passed the wrong
button—they pressed the wrong button, or
perhaps, worse than that, it was
corruption. But these people that we
were going to deport, for good reason,
ended up becoming citizens. Ended up
becoming citizens. And it was 800. And
now it turns out it might be 1,800, and
they don’t even know.
LESTER
HOLT:
Will you accept the outcome of the
election?
DONALD
TRUMP:
Look, here’s the story. I want to make
America great again. I’m going to be
able to do it. I don’t believe Hillary
will. The answer is: If she wins, I will
absolutely support her.
AMY
GOODMAN:
Jill Stein, will you accept the outcome of
the election?
DR. JILL
STEIN:
Well, this is a very wounded democracy. If
there is evidence of voter fraud, we will
challenge it, and we will bring it to court,
as the Greens have led the way in doing
before. But, you know, I think our job here
is not to surrender to a very corrupt
system, whichever one of these candidates
wins. Donald Trump has had $4 billion worth
of free prime-time media. Hillary Clinton
has had $2 billion worth of free prime-time
media. We’ve had essentially zip. And as a
non-corporate campaign, we don’t have big
bucks to put the word out, but we are doing
well in the polls relative to how other
non-corporate third-party candidates have
done.
So,
this is the time for us to stand up. In this
election, we are not just deciding what kind
of a world we will have, but whether we will
have a world or not going forward, looking
at the climate change that’s barreling down
on us, the threat of nuclear weapons and
these massive, expanding wars, for which
there is no end in sight under both
Democrats and Republicans, and specifically
Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump. This is
the time for us to stand up for the future
we deserve, to reject the lesser evil and to
fight for the greater good like our lives
depend on it, remembering that we do have
the votes if we stand up with the courage of
our convictions.
AMY
GOODMAN:
And that’s Jill Stein of the Green Party,
along with Hillary Clinton, Democratic
Party, and Donald Trump, Republican Party.
That does it for our "Expanding the Debate"
special. Watch the two—the full two-hour
special at democracynow.org. And also watch
our
debate night roundtable with Eddie
Glaude, Allan Nairn, Ramzi Kassem, Arlie
Russell Hochschild, Kshama Sawant and Isabel
Garcia at democracynow.org. |