Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
At no time did Blankfein, who personally supported Hillary Clinton against Barack Obama in 2008, find fault with Clinton; his alarm is solely focused on the senator from Vermont. He contrasted Sanders with more flexible candidates who are willing to work with Wall Street when he emphasized that a candidate must be "willing to compromise."
The Sanders campaign - supported by public records - charges that Wall Street donations make up a considerable portion of the Clinton war chest. She is supported by at least one huge Wall Street PAC, and, of course, has made millions of dollars in speaking fees from Wall Street financial firms.
On February 4, MSNBC reported that Clinton was surprisingly flummoxed - given that this wasn't a new question - when asked in a debate why she accepted $675,000 for three speaking Goldman Sachs' engagements:
He attacked Clinton for her super PAC's acceptance of special interest donations, saying that if candidates' claims that special interest funds won't affect their decisions were true, "why would Wall Street be spending $15 million?" He also mocked the former secretary of state for her refusal to release her paid speeches to big banks, including Goldman Sachs, unless every candidate also releases their speeches. "I kind of think if you're going to be paid $225,000 for a speech, it must be a fantastic speech," Sanders said, "a brilliant speech which you would want to share with the American people." He said the remarks must be "Shakespearean" given how much Clinton was paid to deliver them, and said he looks forward to being able to read them.