BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
For more let me bring in Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont who was running for president. Senator, good to have you with us. You have reacted to her refusal to give an answer on Keystone. Secretary Clinton has come back and said that bringing this up is shooting in the dark. What is your response to that?
SEN. BERNIE SANDERS, (I-VT) PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: No, I strongly disagree. I mean, we know exactly where the oil is coming from. It is tar sands oil. The issue here is, Ed, if we are serious about combatting climate change, which the scientists tell us is the major environmental crisis facing our planet, we have got to do everything we can to prevent the excavation and transportation of the some of the dirtiest fossil fuel on earth. I think this Keystone pipeline idea is a terrible idea. I`m against it and frankly I think Secretary Clinton should be speaking out on this issue.
SCHULTZ: Well, we`ve got to pattern answer from the candidate Clinton.
She says that because she was secretary of state it`s not appropriate for her to comment on these two major issues. What is your reaction to that? Is that political cover or is there merit to that answer as you see it?
SANDERS: No, I don`t think there is merit to that answer. She`s a candidate for president of the United States. Climate change is one of the great issues that all of us have got to deal with and I think the people are entitled to know her opinion on the issue.
SCHULTZ: It is true her she did start the study on this, which was later debunked because there were some, conflict of interest is going on and then the State Department had to come back and do another one. So they are not operating under the same investigation that they were under her watch as secretary of state, does that have merit?
SANDERS: No, I don`t think. I don`t think it does -- they did studies and that`s fine when she was secretary of state. We can argue about the merits or not merits of it. And I share the concerns on many people about some of those studies. But the point is she`s not secretary of state now. She`s a candidate for the president of the United States. This is enormously important issue. You could say you are for it. You could say you are against it but I think should have an opinion on that issue.
SCHULTZ: Senator, do you think that her non committal on these two issues is going to help your campaign because you have been so crystal clear on it?
SCHULTZ: Well, you know, I think, Ed that people are willing to say well, I disagree with somebody. But I think there is a feeling that people should at least have an opinion on the most important trade agreement ever entered into why the United States of America. I happen to think TPP is the continuation of disastrous trade policies which have cost us millions of jobs. I`m against it. Secretary should have a position on it.
I think that the Keystone pipeline is excavating and transporting some of the dirtiest fuel on earth. I think if we`re serious about addressing climate change, the secretary should have an opinion on that as well.
SCHULTZ: Well, if she is -- for doing something about climate change, what difference does it make who the president is now or what decision`s on his desk? I guess my question is, is her loyalty to the climate and the future of the country or the president of the United States who hasn`t made a decision. Your thoughts?
SANDERS: I don`t think it`s a question of the president of the United States either, a loyalty. It`s not a question of loyalty. She is a candidate. You can agree with the President. You can disagree with the President. But when running for office and these are two of the monumental issues that we`re facing, I think it is obligatory for you to speak out and tell the American people what your view is.
SCHULTZ: All right. All of the unions and I mean, not some all of them in this country are against the Trans-Pacific Partnership. Yet, Secretary Clinton refuses to take a position on that. What`s the hold up here as you see it? What would be the hold up? The deal is about 99 percent done.
They`re down to a couple of small issues when it comes to the Canadians and the dairy products and how much they have to accept. This deal everybody I talk to is just about there. Her refusal to give a position, is this an opening for you? I mean, is this something your campaign is going to highlight?
SANDERS: Well look, Ed, I think what the American people want is to know your views on the important issues. And of course we have and will highlight this. Look, again, you know, I think -- and every trade union in America as you have just indicated, understands that our trade policies have been disastrous. They have cost us millions of jobs. They`re forcing American workers to compete against people who make pennies an hour.
We`ve lost 60,000 factories since 2001. And I think what the American people are saying, we need a new trade direction. We need corporate America start investing in this country, creating jobs in this country rather than abroad. That is my view. The secretary can agree, she can disagree. But I think you got have to have a position on that issue, on Keystone. You can`t quite not, you know, have a clear stated position.
SCHULTZ: Senator, there`s quite a debate going on in Congress right now about the Iranian nuclear deal that the President obviously wants to see the Congress approve. The majority of Americans, a slight majority of Americans say that the Congress should not approve it. What is your position on this? And what happens if the congress does not approve this? Where does this leave us with Iran in your opinion?
SANDERS: Well, I think the last part of your question is the $64 question here, Ed. I have not made a definitive statement on my view. I am leaning towards supporting the agreement based on what I know. I`ve got some meetings coming up in the next week which will provide some important answers to me. I applaud the President and I applaud Secretary Kerry for doing everything they can to try to make sure that Iran does not have a nuclear weapon. And you do that without a war.
A war would be a terrible, terrible thing. And I got to tell you, Ed, I get very nervous hearing some of my Republican friends apparently not knowing what the war in Afghanistan was about, what the war in Iraq was about and are talking rather blighty (ph) about oh well we may have to go to war about Iran. I worry about that very, very much. So I am leaning toward supporting the agreement there are questions that I still have that I want to see answered.
SCHULTZ: And what is your number one question?
SANDERS: Well, my number one question is whether or not this agreement in fact is verifiable, whether in fact Iran is going to do what they say they will do.
SCHULTZ: OK. Senator tell us about your grassroots gathers tonight. I understand it`s something that is almost of a record proportion. What is going on tonight?
SANDERS: Well, Ed, it is. I think it`s kind of unprecedented. Tonight about 7:00, we are going to be holding some 3,000 organizational meetings.
We think about 100,000 people have signed up. And the purpose of this meeting is to help people get deeply involved in the campaign at a grassroots level. I think we`re going to win this thing if we can put together a strong grassroots movement. Tonight is an important first step in putting that movement together.
SCHULTZ: How encouraged are you by the recent polling? You have not taken a step back since this whole thing started.
SANDERS: Now we`re feeling pretty good. And what I`m especially feeling good about is the match ups with Republicans. You know, a lot of people with say well Bernie Sanders, good ideas, nice guy. But he can`t defeat Republicans. Well, turns out that we were ahead in a recent CNN poll of both Scott Walker, Donald Trump and Jeb Bush. So, you know, I think we`re running strong against the Republicans. I think we can defeat them. And I think our job now is to win the primary and caucus process.
SCHULTZ: Senator Bernie Sanders, best of luck to you. Good to have you with us here tonight on the Ed Show. Appreciate your time. Thanks so much.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT