No proof! That's what Chris Matthews called out last night with Weaver who tried to innuendo some more....
Matthews caught Weaver flat footed in that lie and accused him (correctly) of spewing innuendo and trying to apply a 'guilty until proven innocent' standard. Weaver looked like a fool.
She got some riders in the original version that protected women in the event of a husband's bankruptcy, and was going to vote for the bill to get them passed. She said she didn't like the bill, but would hold her nose to get those provisions passed.
The bill died, though.
When it came up again a short while later, the riders were not in it so she opposed it.
So the idea that it proves she is in the pocket of the banks on this one is silly.
So for all the money the financial interests contributed to Clintons campaign, she did not give them the support they desired. At the same time, however, the vote was so lopsided that Clintons support was not needed.
In light of subsequent events, Warrens comments from 2004 at this point appear out of date. We would be curious to know if Warrens experience as senator has changed her perspective on Clintons actions in 2001.
He apparently just wants to continue to do KKKarl Rove's dirty work.