![Clinton Surrogate Sen. Shaheen Utterly Fails To Explain The Clinton's Lavish Speaking Fees [screen shot MSNBC]](https://images.dailycaller.com/image/width=960,height=411,fit=cover,f=auto/https://cdn01.dailycaller.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/Clinton-Surrogate-Sen.-Shaheen-Utterly-Fails-To-Explain-The-Clintons-Lavish-Speaking-Fees-screen-shot-MSNBC-e1453488406630.jpg "Clinton Surrogate Sen. Shaheen Utterly Fails To Explain The Clinton's Lavish Speaking Fees [screen shot MSNBC]")
Democratic Sen. [crscore]Jeanne Shaheen[/crscore] of New Hampshire was unable to defend Hillary Clinton and her husband’s extravagant speaking fees that have totaled $125 million since 2001.
In an interview with “MSNBC Live” Craig Melvin on Friday, the Clinton surrogate claimed that “it doesn’t matter” whether voters support the hundreds of thousands of dollars in speaking fees Hillary received from Goldman Sachs. (VIDEO: Hillary: No Regrets About Giant Wall Street Speaking Fees)
Melvin began by introducing a clip of Sen. Bernie Sanders at a rally, saying the Vermont senator “appears to be connecting with a number of voters who are angry about the economic disparities in this country. This is the senator talking about Goldman Sachs this week on the campaign trail.”
Sanders was shown saying, “A huge and powerful financial institution functions illegally, destroys the economy. Nobody gets charged with anything. … This same financial institution provides huge amounts of money in campaign contributions and in speaking fees to unnamed candidates. That is what a corrupt system is about.” (VIDEO: Bernie Sanders Hits Hillary On Goldman Sachs Speaking Fees)
Melvin then said, “I think the unnamed candidate probably Hillary Clinton, safe to say there, senator. Nick Confessore of The New York Times reporting Thursday Goldman Sachs has paid Hillary Clinton $675,000 for three speeches in recent years. She was paid millions more by other Wall Street firms. Along with her husband, they’ve been paid more than $125 million for paid speeches since 2001. That is, of course, not the kind of money that most Americans can relate to. Were the speeches a mistake, senator?”
“Listen, voters are angry, and I don’t blame them, because they’ve been watching a Washington that has been divisive, that hasn’t worked together,” Shaheen claimed, avoiding Melvin’s question. “And I believe we need a candidate who’s not going to further divide this country, but who’s going to unite it.”
“That’s not my question. Senator, that’s not my question,” Melvin interjected.
“That’s one of the reasons I’m supporting Hillary. Well, your first question was, are voters angry? And I would say yes,” Shaheen continued to argue.
“No, no, I never asked that question. I think that’s well established. The question was, are the speeches, were the speeches a mistake? Did it make sense to accept close to three quarters [of a million dollars],” Melvin asked.
“Listen, they’re done. So it doesn’t matter whether you support that or not. The fact is, that’s in the past, just as Bernie’s socialism, he claims, is in the past,” Shaheen claimed. “So, the question is, what do voters want to see now from the candidates, and who can deliver? And that’s what I believe the difference is between the candidates in this race … on the Democratic side and on the Republican side.”