Read how Matthews pulverized Weaver on Friday (even more fun in print)

Transcript from Hardball:

http://www.msnbc.com/transcripts/hardball/2016-04-22

MATTHEWS: Jeff, will that happen?

JEFF WEAVER, BERNIE SANDERS CAMPAIGN MANAGER: Well, it`s not a personal
attack at all.

The fact that the secretary took these speeches and refuses to divulge what
was said – there`s a news story out today that shows that vast majority of
these people have business before the government, either as contractors or
lobbyists. I think she should tell us what`s in the speeches. That`s what
would get rid of this. Tell us what is in the speeches.

(CROSSTALK)

MATTHEWS: Will your candidate, Senator Sanders, ever endorse Hillary if
she doesn`t release these transcripts, or is that a condition?

WEAVER: He`s always said that he would endorse the nominee of the
Democratic Party.

MATTHEWS: Even if she doesn`t release these transcripts?

WEAVER: Right, but it`s very damaging to her not only in the primaries,
but in the general election. Why won`t she release what`s in the speeches?

MATTHEWS: What does it say about her that she gave speeches for big money
like that?

WEAVER: Well, the fact that she won`t – let`s see what is in them.

(CROSSTALK)

MATTHEWS: What does it say about her politically?

WEAVER: Well, I think it was poor judgment, certainly.

MATTHEWS: That`s a nice phrase. It`s character issues. You`re going to
after character here.

WEAVER: No, no, look, she should release what`s in the speeches. That`s
what she should do. This will put it to rest.

MATTHEWS: You are suggesting she`s not honest.

WEAVER: This will put it to rest.

MATTHEWS: Are you suggesting she`s honest in dealing with this issue?

WEAVER: It`s not a question of honesty. It`s a question of not telling
what`s in the speeches, a lack of transparency. That`s the problem.

MATTHEWS: I guess we disagree.

WEAVER: You don`t think it`s a lack of transparency?

MATTHEWS: I think it`s all of those things. I think that she has a
problem taking that kind of money. I think even in a more reasonable level
of speechmaking, 50, 75, something does blow people`s minds when she makes
more in 20 minutes than the Sanders family, husband and wife, make in a
year. Yes, I think that does bother people.

Anyway, our April NBC/”Wall Street Journal” poll said this. This is
striking. And I think it gets to what your candidate is doing right now;
56 percent of both the Clinton and Trump people, their voters today, self-
identified, are supporting their candidates mainly because they do not want
the other to be president.

In other words, they are voting against someone, not for someone.

Governor, isn`t this going to feed that, the fact that you have Republicans
out there not particularly enamored of the temperament of Donald Trump or
what he said publicly, but just being encouraged or even more so to dislike
the Democratic candidate, probably Hillary Clinton?

RENDELL: Sure it is. There`s no doubt about that.

But, look, the seminal question is, has any money Hillary Clinton taken
from Wall Street or anybody else affected a decision that she made?

And Dana Bash asked Senator Sanders to name one decision that was affected
by her taking this money, and Senator Sanders couldn`t, not because he
didn`t know of any. Because there are none. And that`s the truth.

So, yes, these attacks are going to continue to make it more difficult.
They`re going to feed the beast. And it`s going to make it more difficult
for a Democratic candidate, who is for the same type of Supreme Court as
Bernie Sanders is, who`s for getting rid of income inequality, as Bernie
Sanders is, who is universal health care, as Bernie Sanders is, a different
mode to get there.

All the things that Bernie Sanders believe in, he`s jeopardizing by
continuing to attack the person who is going to be nominee.

MATTHEWS: Respond to that.

WEAVER: Well, Hillary Clinton doesn`t support what Bernie Sanders
supports. He supports a $15 minimum wage. She does not.

(CROSSTALK)

MATTHEWS: No, no, the question, what deal did she strike to take that
money from Goldman Sachs? What did she do for it?

WEAVER: Well, let me just rely on Elizabeth Warren.

MATTHEWS: No, no, what did she do for it?

WEAVER: Let me just rely on Elizabeth Warren, who pointed out in a
televised interview about Hillary Clinton`s flip-flop on the bankruptcy
bill and its impact on working-class people. Let`s just start there.

MATTHEWS: Was that related, are you saying, to her speaking for Goldman
Sachs?

WEAVER: I`m just relying on what…

(CROSSTALK)

MATTHEWS: Let`s find an – can you think of, to answer the governor`s
question of what Dana Bash asked, can you think of – all your research –
you must do oppo research.

Did you ever come across any time where it looked like Hillary Clinton had
responded favorably to something she wouldn`t otherwise have done because
of the money she took for a speech?

WEAVER: No, no, but that`s not how it works, Chris. You work in
Washington. That`s not how it works.

In fact, Hillary Clinton the other day said, oh, when people give me money,
I promise them a hearing. I don`t know that I will come out on their side,
but at least they get a hearing.

MATTHEWS: No, that`s no – not – she doesn`t say that about speaking
fees. She said that about campaign – you`re switching around here.

WEAVER: She said about campaign contributions.

MATTHEWS: Yes. Well, stop moving the question around.

WEAVER: It`s not moving the question around.

(CROSSTALK)

WEAVER: That`s the same people giving the money.

MATTHEWS: Your candidate right there, we saw him do it in Pennsylvania.
He keeps doing it. What does he mean when he says – to answer the
governor and Dana Bash, what does he mean when he says Hillary is taking
money from Goldman Sachs? Why does he keep doing it? What is the point?

WEAVER: Well, let`s see what`s in those speeches. And then I will tell
you what the point is.

MATTHEWS: But you don`t know?

WEAVER: Well, no one knows what is in the speeches, other than the
secretary.

MATTHEWS: But you`re – you mean guilty until proven innocent is what
you`re saying. No, that`s what you`re saying.

WEAVER: People don`t give you all this money.

(CROSSTALK)

MATTHEWS: You`re saying guilty until proven – in other words, he has to -
- in other words, Hillary Clinton has to clear herself of the innuendo of
your charges that she`s bought.

WEAVER: One of those speeches was 20 minutes` long. She made more in a
minute than a minimum wage worker makes in a year.

MATTHEWS: I made that point. Then what?

(CROSSTALK)

WEAVER: In a year, a minimum wage worker makes in a year.

(CROSSTALK)

MATTHEWS: How does that affect public policy?

WEAVER: Because people have access to you once they give you money.
That`s how it works. You know that.

(CROSSTALK)

MATTHEWS: Are you saying that she gets the – she opens her door to
Goldman Sachs for meetings because she gives a speech to them?

WEAVER: I think that when you`re cozy with special interests, they get
meetings that you wouldn`t otherwise get.

MATTHEWS: Cozy?

WEAVER: Absolutely.

MATTHEWS: How is she cozy? Her speaker bureau set her up with a speech.
She made a ton of money. I agree with that. It`s an outlandish amount of
money. But what makes her cozy? Why does it make her cozy?

(CROSSTALK)

WEAVER: … million in her super PAC from Wall Street.

MATTHEWS: What`s that mean, cozy?

WEAVER: Chris, if you don`t under – if you don`t perceive this as being a
problem, that`s the problem in Washington.

MATTHEWS: I want you to explain to people what the problem is.

WEAVER: The problem is, is that when these big money interests give you
money, they have access to you? Now, do they always get their way? No.
But things aren`t as tough on them as they might otherwise be.

MATTHEWS: Well, give me an example where they have exploited that access
with Hillary Clinton, just one example.

WEAVER: Hillary Clinton has not said that she won`t put Wall Street people
in her Treasury Department.

MATTHEWS: Just – you`re here to explain your case of your candidate.
Give me one example where she was bought.

WEAVER: Well, I gave you the bankruptcy bill.

MATTHEWS: She was bought? That was a quid pro quo? You`re saying that
was a quid pro quo?

(CROSSTALK)

WEAVER: Her closeness with Wall Street…

(CROSSTALK)

MATTHEWS: No, you`re saying that her position…

WEAVER: No, there is no – because that would be – now you`re trying to
get me to say that she committed a crime, which I`m not going to do.

MATTHEWS: Well, you`re basically getting to it.

WEAVER: No, no, that`s what you`re getting to. That`s not me. That`s not
where I`m getting to.

MATTHEWS: Your candidate is going after Hillary Clinton for giving
speeches for big money, and then he cutely says they must be really good
speeches.

WEAVER: Oh, of course. All right.

MATTHEWS: OK, what is the joke?

WEAVER: The joke is, she won`t release the transcripts. Tell us what is
in the transcripts. She said she went to Wall Street…

MATTHEWS: So, she has to clear herself of the charge.

WEAVER: She said she went and gave them what-for.

MATTHEWS: OK. Just to put your thoughts together. She has to clear
herself of the charges. There might be a quid pro quo, but you don`t know
what the quid pro quo is. And you might find it in this haystack of
transcripts. You might find it in there.

WEAVER: OK. Well, if you don`t think voters want to know what`s in the
transcripts, then I think you`re wrong.

MATTHEWS: Of course. You guys have been dog-training people for weeks to
say…

(CROSSTALK)

MATTHEWS: I agree. Look, it`s smart politics.

Governor…

WEAVER: No, it`s not just politics. It`s substance.

MATTHEWS: Well, you don`t know what the substance is, though.

WEAVER: The substance is, is that they won`t release the transcripts.
That`s the substance.

MATTHEWS: OK. Great. I`m sorry to use up all this time.

Governor, you`re more important than this. Let me ask you this about
Hillary Clinton. Is she going to win all five on Tuesday, do you think?

How does it look in Maryland and it looks in Delaware? We have got Rhode
Island. We have Pennsylvania and Connecticut. It`s a hell of a handful.

(CROSSTALK)

RENDELL: I don`t know about Rhode Island. But I think she is going to win
the other four.

But, look, just to respond to Mr. Weaver, as you know, Chris, I probably
raised more money than any elected official in the history of the state of
Pennsylvania. And all I ever gave my contributors was the ability to come
in and make their case.

I could pass any lie-detector test anywhere. If you ask me, did I ever do
something for a contributor because they gave me money, against the
interest of the people, I would say no and I would pass with flying colors.

And it`s really offensive to everyone who has ever been an honest and
decent elected official – and the majority of elected officials are honest
and decent – to make the claim that both Mr. Weaver and to some degree
Senator Sanders is making.

WEAVER: It`s a totally – he just said that he gave people access to come
in and make their case. The average man on the street does not get to come
in and make his case.

RENDELL: But I also gave people access who I never met before and who
wrote me a letter and said we want to speak to you about environmental
conditions in Hazleton. I gave people access, but I never did anything as
a quid pro quo ever.

(CROSSTALK)

WEAVER: Most politicians do.

RENDELL: Well, and I think it`s true about Hillary Clinton. So, we should
get off this. Let`s talk about substantive things.

WEAVER: We can end it as soon as she releases the transcripts.

(LAUGHTER)

MATTHEWS: You know, Governor, I think they are going back to the Nixon
era. I think they heard release the tapes 30, 40 years ago, and they have
just gotten their phrase.

WEAVER: There was a lot on those tapes.

(CROSSTALK)

MATTHEWS: I know. Look, you guys, I know you found your little thing
here.

WEAVER: Well, no, the new thing is, is that the secretary now apparently
supports a 72 percent tax on soda.

MATTHEWS: OK. Thank you. Thank you. We will talk about that off-camera.
It`s of no interest.

By the way, it`s the Philadelphia soda tax that…

(CROSSTALK)

MATTHEWS: … pushing, anyway, 3 cents per ounce.

Anyway, Jeff Weaver, off the subject there. A good debate. Thank you,
Governor Rendell, very well.