citizen accused of a crime in the united states could be indefinitely detained. without a trial, without a lawyer. i was incredulous. i had in this debate, i do not want to name names, it was a senator from arizona -- [laughter] an americanou mean citizen to be snatched up and sent to guantanamo bay without a trial and lawyer? he said yes, if they are dangerous. i thought to myself, my goodness, who would give such as possibility to one person? and it begs the question, who is that person? the person that gets to decide who is going to be snatched up, who is innocent, guilty? i thought in that moment, of the times we have gotten it wrong. when we incarcerated 100,000 japanese during world war ii sibley because the way they look. when we wire cap the phones of severa civil rights leaders without any approval from a

judge. when we got it wrong. i thought of the time when richard jewel was accused of being a bomber. many of you, this happen before you were born, back in the 90's. you don't remember the 90's. he was accused of bombing centennial park in atlanta. everybody said he did it. withinid he was guilty, hours, his name was plastered across the country. he was guilty because he fit the profile. he were classes, i see a few you have glasses. he had a backpack, i see a few. he was solicitous to the victims. it was thought to be a bomber because he was kind afterward. they also he didn't. but the problem was he did not do it. that is why we have the bill of rights. imagine if richard jewell had been a black man in the south, what must happen to him? trial by jury is

to protect minorities. and people say, i am not a minority. you can be a minority because of the color of your skin, or the shade of your ideology. you can be a minority because you are an evangelical christian, because you teacher kids at home. you can be a minority because you are an atheist or because you believe in the constitution. the bill of rights is about defending, particularly those with had an unorthodox or unpopular idea. the bill of rights is not so much for the high school quarterback or for the prom queen. bill of rights is for the least among us, least popular among us. it is an amazing thing, but we cannot give it up. we can't interfere say, just take our liberties. make a safe again. and then some people say, if you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear? kind of a step down from innocent until proven guilty. we have to decide whether or not our freedom is precious enough to defend.

whether or not it is precious enough to fight for. i don't think necessarily fighting for your freedom is to go back to iraq. but there is a fight here, not so much physical but an intellectual battle for the way your country handles things. i will leave you with one last story. amendment also said you have a right to a speedy trial. --e leaf browder lived -- a khalif browder lived in the bronx. he went to rikers island. he spent two years in solitary confinement. the was beaten gangs, guards. the old billy tried to commit suicide. he was finally released, he can never get over the experience of present. he was accused of a crime by someone who is not in the country legally, they fled back to mexico. but he finally did commit suicide a few months ago.

and when i think about that, i think about -- that is of the country i believe in. that is not the country i want to represent. i do not want to represent a country that cannot obey the bill of rights. including people, young people in jail for nonviolent crimes. sometimes without a trial, letting them linger there. none of you would be left in jail, your parents would've found a way to get you out. but this is a poor black kid from the bronx who was kept there without a bond, a body could not. i want to be the party, be different than we were in the past. i want to be someone who says i want to defend everybody, rich, poor, black, white. i want to defend everybody and defend the entire bill of rights. i want to be the one who says, you know what, i will with passion defend the second amendment. but i want to have the same and equal if not greater passion to defend the justice for all, no matter where you came from. i hope you want to be part of that. thank you for coming out today. [applause]

thank you, i'm told i have a pretty quick plane ticket. [inaudible] senator paul: i am not familiar with. i don't know necessarily right offhand what those are. i know we do have for-profit prisons that is a problem, people cannot afford of the ankle bracelets they are told to get. and because of that, they end up having longer prisons and this is because they cannot afford

the punishment given them. i'm not sure about the rest. i will look at it. the corruption of transnational corporations, i know it is a big topic. any ideas how to control and regulate national corporations? senator paul: the question is whether or not corporations have too much power in our political world. this has been coming back and forth from long time. and people talk about it in terms of campaign finance reform, how can we try to get special interests out of our government. ? one of the important things remember is that the reason people purchase influence, whether it is donald trump giving millions of dollars to democrats and republicans, he told us this in the wall street journal. he said i buy politicians because i wanted to do whatever the hell i tell them to do.

the government has power, i think it has too much power. so the more powerful government gets, the more likely people are to likely purchase the influence of government. one of the answers is a more broad answer, we need to make government smaller so no one was to purchase influence so much. the other answer, though, is i think there could be some rules -- i think i'm better off with this. can we go back to this? just the go back to tie. the other thing about special interests that i think we could do, we tried passing limitations on contributions. it has been deemed unconstitutional. i agree with that. i don't think you should limit people's speech. there is one way you can do a constitutionally. if you're a contractor for a government and you get a $1 billion contract, you are being given money, i think you should make a condition of the contract that you sign that you will not lobby government. at all.

now we try to stop it by saying you will not use any of the money i give you to lobby. but you have plenty of other mixed money gets together. so a lot of big companies that do business with the government, they're able to use that money to go lobby and get more. some of these big corporations have 50 lobbyists, some have 100 lobbyists. but the ones that are usually getting stuff from government, i determine the difference between corporations who want to be left alone with lower taxes and less regulation -- which is a legitimate complaint -- versus those that take money to get more of your money. i would separate that way. i have time for one more. right here. >> do you think an employer should be able to fire and lgbt employee because that person is lgbt? senator paul: i think the things you do in your house, you could just leave those in your house and not be a part of the

workplace. to tell you the truth. these are very difficult decisions on what you decide, it will be employer decision. it is not so much about that question as it is about that it sets up a class of people who can now sue. you see what i mean? what happens is, it sets up a whole industry of people who want to sue. if you happen to be gay and you get fired, now you have a reason. but it is impossible sometimes -- people do not put the sign because i'm firing you because you are gay. it is very much disputed. i do not know that we need to keep adding two different classifications to say, that the government needs to be involved in the hiring and firing. i think society is rapidly changing. and if you are gay, there are plenty of places that will hire you. i was in the vast majorities of corporations privately already have manuals or work manuals that say they do not discriminate in any way. i think that to be the fact.

i am really not for having the government more involved in the situation. thank you all for coming. i have to run catch my plane. [applause]

debt, and the heroine academic -- heroin state.c affecting the [applause] [cheering] >> wow, what a group. are we the luckiest people in this state? i'm going to say good afternoon. we made it past morning.

thank you also much for being here. i know you have a lot of patience waiting. it is certainly worth it. to be here this morning with hillary clinton. [applause] [cheering] i am a proud graduate of keene state college, and i want to welcome all of you to this outstanding campus this afternoon. [applause] i also want to thank hillary. i believe this is your third time here in our community to talk with us in a matter of months. we cannot thank you enough. and how about the debate? applause]and and what a great performance by hillary clinton. [applause] and here we have her with us today.

you know, i watched the debate, as all of you did. i have to say that one of the things that hillary talked about that really touched my heart and is so important to me is to end gun violence. [applause] whatever we say today, here, whatever we do here today, will not bring back the lives of those who have been lost to gun violence. and no matter what we do here today or what we say, it will not lessen the pain or the suffering or the grief for all of those families who have lost a loved one to gun violence. so today, i stand here with hillary clinton and support her because of her strong commitment to end gun violence. [applause] it was just a few weeks ago that

it was just a few weeks ago that we had another event at a community college. and innocent people lost their lives. and they did not need to lose their lives. and again, it was because of gun violence. we cannot always change what happened in the past. but we can work hard to move forward to make sure it never happens again. then i am here this afternoon to support hillary, because she wants to act on making sure that we end gun violence. she has said she will fight for comprehensive control of uns. she is going to make sure that our manufacturers and dealers are held accountable for acting irresponsible when they make decisions that put our lives in anger.

and she is going to make sure that guns are not in the hands of those they should not be in. like domestic abusers. the mentally unstable. and violent criminals. we know this is going to be very difficult. there are many forces out there that have prevented safe gun control to be passed in legislation. but the hillary i know and that hillary you know has never ever stepped back because something is difficult, right? jaime plasencia [applause] >> and for that reason and for many other reasons, i am here today to support hillary clinton as the next president of the united states. [applause] >> and it is truly a pleasure today to introduce my friend clay.

clay is going to talk to you all briefly this morning -- i guess we are now into the afternoon -- about her own personal experience. and what the danger of guns have done to her and her own personal life and to her family. let's give clay a great welcome. thank you. [applause] >> thank you for coming and thank you for coming to see hillary. this is really a powerful experience for me. i am also a graduate of keene state college, six years ago. and of the other reason you will soon find out why it is so important. y name is clay lasher-summers. i am honored to be here with you today, introducing hillary

clinton. and talking about my own experience as a gun violence survivor and as an advocate. it is not easy for me to talk about my own personal xperience. but it is important that people really understand the effects that gun violence has. on not only the people that are shot, but on the community as a whole. when i was 13 years old, i lived in westforland, new hampshire. and my stepfather shot me in my bedroom. he would always threatened to shoot me, usually while beating me and other membe of my family. one weekend after an escalation of violence, he came into my bedroom and shot me with a .06 hunting riffle, a high-powered rifle used for big

game. the bullet exploded in my back. i carry the remnants of shrapnel and bullet fragments with me today. after i was shot, i was brought to the old keene hospital. that is now the site of the elliott building on this ampus. this is a pivotal moment. not only do we have a gun iolence survivor of domestic violence, this person was brought to a hospital that is now part of this campus. i spent three hours at the elliott building nearly dying. then i was transferred to what is now what we would call artmouth medical center. decades later, i still feel the effects of gun violence and a

domestic abuse. feel it like a flashback. with every shooting in new hampshire and across this country. as i stand here on campus, after recent school shootings in arizona and oregon and 45 school shootings of this year alone, i refused to accept that we, as americans, must live in ear of being shot one may go -- when we go to school, when we go to church, when we go to he movies. in our homes. this month is also domestic violence awareness month. it is important to highlight a fact that many people do not realize. nearly 60% of mass shootings from 2009 to midway through 2014, were related to domestic or family abuse. that is why have committed my life to helping others who have experienced domestic abuse and to strengthening our gun laws

to make sure that dangerous people, including domestic abusers like my stepfather, to not get their hands on a gun. [applause] >> now we know that the conventional wisdom is that elected officials cannot go against the gun lobby. because it is too powerful. but that is not true. when congress refused to act, grassroots activist like myself took the fight to states that have passed background check egislation and bills to keep guns out of the hands of domestic abusers across the country. this week, and the democratic debate -- and this is good news -- candidates for the highest office in this country were asked about their position on guns.

and hillary, our leading candidate for president of the united states of america, not only spoke with deep passion about the need to strengthen our gun laws, but laid out her position on the issue in great etail. and hillary believed that some fights are two important to - too important to give up on. this is one of them. this is not a new fight. but it is a winnable one. hillary clinton has shown to be a champion on this issue. i trust that, as president -- because she will be president -- she will hold the gun lobby accountable. and you will fight to protect americans from gun violence. so please join me in thanking hillary clinton, a true dvocate.

ms. clinton: i think we can all go home now. wow. clay, thank you. i know, as you said, this was not easy to do. but thank you. i want more people to hear stories like that. so that this is not just some political debate about something happening far way. but people can really begin to think about standing in the shoes of those who have been victims of gun violence. and trying to understand what e can all do together.

clay survived that brutal, hateful attack in her own home. 90 people a day don't survive because of guns. 33,000 people a year die, by homicide, by suicide, or by ccidents, using firearms. i think we are better than that, as a nation. i think we can do something bout that. that is why i have been talking about it. have been laying out my olicies toward it. some people say that we should not talk about it. some say we should not shout about it. that i should not shout about it.

i think we have to keep talking, but more importantly, we have to act. we have to be willing to take on those who are not in favor of sensible gun safety easures. that includes the nra. and it includes a of people in public life today, who are intimidated. i think that is no longer easible. it's no longer right. what i have said is yes, as president, i will push and achieve universal background checks, something that the majority of americans support and the majority of gun owners support. sensible, responsible gun owners support it. [applause]

ms. clinton: the brady bill has kept 2 million guns from being sold into the wrong hands. because of that background check, despite its loopholes, prohibited purchasers because they were felons, fugitives, stalkers, domestic abusers, people with serious mental illness. have been stopped from buying a gun. as bad as the gun carnage is, i like to think that at least, 2 million prohibited purchasers were not part of that. i also think it is critically important to close those loopholes. close the gun show loophole and the online loophole. back when the brady bill was

passed in 1994, online purchases were not an issue. we now know they are. so we have to go for universal background checks and we have to close those loopholes. i have said that if the congress does not cooperate, i would use executive action to make sure that sellers are held accountable. i also believe we should close what is now being called the charleston loophole. under the background checks, if someone applies to buy a gun, the seller has three days, those sellers that are covered, to conduct a background check and if it is not completed by the end of three days, the purchaser gets to buy the gun anyway. the reason it's called the charleston loophole, is that the killer of those nine people

at bible study in mother emoon -- emanuel church in chafrlston got his gun not because he was eligible, because in fact it was learned shortly after, he was not eligible. he had a felony record. but because of this lophole he -- loophole he was able to go back at the end of three days and buy the gun he used to kill those nine innocent people. nd then finally we have to repeal the broad immunity that has been given to gun manufacturers and sellers in america and -- [applause] -- which has shielded them from any responsibility for their sale of guns and

ammunition for -- or their manufacture of of either. now, just recently there was some small slimmer of hope when jury in wisconsin found a because guns liable of a straw purchase, which the seller clearly knew to be a straw purchase. a straw purchase is you're not eligible, you're a felon, you've got a domestic abuse order against you, you've been committed. remembering the shooter at virginia tech had been committed for outpatient treatment for mental health, still got a gun. but in this particular case in wisconsin, the prohibited purchaser sent somebody else in with a clean record to buy the gun for him. there's video and other evidence that the seller knew that the gun was for somebody

else, sold it anyway to the seller. buys it, turns it over to the real purchaser, who goes out nd shoots two police officers. injuring both seriously. and so when the police officer sued the gun seller, the jury ard the evidence and came in with a verdict in favor of the police officers. now, we're going to see whether that case stands up under the broad immunity that's been given to the gun industry. there is really no other industry in america that has this kind of blanket permission to be reckless, negligence, sell defective products eefpblet it's just outrageous and we have to repeal that so that those who manufacture guns

and sell them are held to some standard of accountability. so i'm going to do everything i can in this campaign to not only talk about this issue and give the platform to people ike clay, who can be much more eloquent than i ever can about why this is an important issue, but i'll also appealing to responsible gun owners. organize an alternative to the nra, which is nothing but a lobby for the most absolutist gun ons that the manufacturers and sellers emand. each -- i'll not against guns.

my cad -- dad taught me to shoot when i was a little girl. i've even gone duck hunting, standing in the cold water in he cold sun hd rise. once -- sunrise. once was enough, getting in that water and beeth -- getting up that early, i'll tell you. but this is the tactics they use, just scare responsible folks into thinking that the black helicopter is going to land in the front yard and somebody is going sthow -- to show up and take your gnltss that is nonintelligence -- nonsense and it needs to be called aught -- out for what it is. but the fight against the n.r.a. should be led by a new rganization of gun owners.

i'm collect willing names of people who enjoy hunting, enjoy target shooting but are sick and tired of the violence. so i am very grave. kelly, senator, molly and to clay for sharing what say very painful personal story to try to save lives and i really look forward to working with a groundswell of people cross our country who know we can do better than this. we are better than this. so with that, let me throw this open to questions on whatever issues or concerns you might ave.

> hi, my name is leslie ruhle. we have snowden on one end of the spectrum and traitor on the other and i want to know where you stand on that. i think, i consider him very close to a patriot and i think the american people needed what he released 478 that's my question time-out secretary clinton: are let me say this. i firmly believe that he could have gone public and released the information about the collection of information on americans under whistleblower protection and he could have

done it within the tradition in our country that shields people who come forth acting out of conscience to present information that they believe he public should have. i do not know why in addition to releasing the information that you're referring to he felt compelled to steal a lot of information and -- that by any definition had nothing to do with american civil rights, liberties and privacy but instead were about trefts and -- just to ations name two, china and russia -- do to gather information about us and what our government does to try to prevent that and to get information about them. so if he had been a whistleblower and if he had

confined himself to releasing information that i think did provoke the right kind of discussion in our country and has led to some changes which i approve of then i think people could across all spectrums say hey, thank you for bringing this to our attention and thank you for gick us the opportunity to spofpbletd because he took valuable information and went first to chine that -- chine ha -- china and then is now under the protection of vladimir putin, i think that raises a lot of questions about everything else he did. so i do not think he should having to return and answer for what he has done. i think, though, we need to continue the balance on civil rights, privacy and security. it's always a challenge and i

would -- i do support what the pong passed, the u.s.a. freedom act because i think it did have some good changes and we have to remain vigilant. but it's a balance. it's not all one-sided. if you go too far toward security you do infringe on the legitimate right of americans and that's what we're trying to end. if you go too far toward privacy and, you know, sirts, you can -- civil liberties, you can leave us vulnerable, and we're trying to prevent -- prevent that, too. i -- so that's the kind of hard-choice balancing act i think president obama has been attempting to do and i support changes he has been making from the executive level and i support the new legislation hat the congress passed. now just a minute, sir. just a minute. i'll get to you, i promise.

but i kind of like to go in a broad sweep. but ok, you stood up. we'll hear from you. where is the microphone. just a mifment i mean it's reat having people so eager. >> after the recent footings, what president obama said is gun control is not enough. what we need is a culture of gun safety and i think we need to add to what we're doing. secretary clinton: i agree with refer that and i like to to what i'm advocating as gun safety measures and the gentleman pakeds a very good point. like so many of you, i am reading news on line and i seed a headline, i think it was in the "washington post," which aid some, as i recall,

"toddlers are killing more people with guns." i stopped and went, what? why? because the people whose homes they live in. mostly their parents, sometimes their grandparents, have loaded guns in their homes, in their cars and children are curious! thed toler in the back seat pick the begun and shooting his grandmother. and the gentleman is buhl right. if you are going to have a gun, please, please exercise gun

safety and keep those away from toddlers, young kids and teach a proper respect for guns. one of the worst cases i have read about in the last two weeks is that an 11-year-old boy asked to see the new puppy of the 8-year-old girl who lived near him and the little girl bhor whatever reason said no, she didn't want him to see the puppy. he went home, got his father's loaded shotgun, he went back and he killed her. so i'll -- all i'm ask i think is pretty common sense. we need new legislation to close the loopholes to remove the immunity from liability, to use technology to get instant background checks for real, not just saying it, but ultimately people, people have to exercise common sense in dealing with these weapons. and keeping them away from children. should be rule number one in my

opinion. so thank you. thank you. this gentleman right there in . e gray clean e your, views on energy but what do you think of shale energy and fracking and gas? secretary clinton: let's give the obama administration a lot be credit for their energy and climate change policy. they've been struggling with this and have begun to come out with recommended regulations like, for example, to control

methane emissions. i think you also have to have very tough water standards. i think, from talking to experts in the obama administration, and on the outside, here is what they have convinced me of. this is the following. there are some places in our country where this extraction technique may be appropriate if we do more research, and figure out how to cut the methane emissions, and keep the water clean. there are lots of other places where it is not. part of what the federal government needs to start doing is drawing some lines and informing states and localities, and we should also never preempt states and localities from saying no. if a local government says, no, not here, they should be able to do that. [applause]

ms. clinton: part of the reason why i think the obama administration experts have taken this position is we have to go through a transition. we have to move away from fossil fuels, including gas. gas can be a useful bridge, especially if we move away from oal, and dirtier oil, and some of the really bad alternatives. we want to keep more fossil fuels in the ocean and under the ground. that is why i am against arctic drilling and offshore drilling. because i don't think we should start that. i'm trying to listen to people who i know care a lot about the environment and climate change, and think about what are the smart steps we can take. in some instances, i can go along with that, and others, i can't. we need to be moving as quickly as possible to 100% clean, enewable energy. we have a long way to go, but

that should be our goal, and we should do nothing to undermine or interfere in our efforts to reach that goal as soon as possible. [applause] ms. clinton: the lady in green right there. this lady right there? >> thank you for taking my question. it is actually a follow-up to that. outhern new hampshire is actually fighting a fracked gas pipeline right now, which i believe you know about. one of our biggest problems is that it is coming through new hampshire, it is not for us, we don't need it, it is for export. one of my concerns beyond the issues of fracked gas is the federal oil commission. what will you do to change ferc? candidates have told us it is a ocal issue, it is not, it is under federal control. what can you do to help us? ms. clinton: you have made a very important point.

i did not really focus on this until i've been traveling round new hampshire. the concerns that residents have expressed about ferc really are legitimate. the process that ferc's employed does not really give enough weight to public opinion, and locations where pipelines are going through. it does not pay, in my opinion, i enough attention to all of the other issues, whether they be health issues, safety issues, and the like. 'm going to do what i can to try to make it absolutely the ase that ferc has to, in any of these decisions, pay much more attention to local communities, and listen to what your concerns are, and do much more to evaluate whatever the consequences, or the downsides f these decisions are.

right now, their mandate seems to be only about delivery of energy anywhere, anytime. i don't think that is adequate in today's world. if we are going to have -- hat? [inaudible question] ms. clinton: that's not -- let's not confuse the two issues. when you say supported, they are not paid for by oil and gas. they are certainly, at as a regulator for oil and gas, used o paying attention to what the oil and gas industry does. i will absolutely give you that. see, my problem, now that people have raised this with me, if we are going to have a national commitment to do something about climate change, ferc has to be part of that national commitment. that is my view on how we have

to alter a lot of parts of the federal government. you know, it is not just the epa that needs to be focused on combating climate change, every part of the federal government needs to be focused. because i want to have a national goal thei said, look, i want to have, by the end of my first term, half a million solar panels installed, and by the end of my term, enough renewable energy to power every home in america. if those are our goals, it is really important that we don't have the right hand doing something different than the left hand, in the old saying. it would be my intention, if regulatory changes are necessary, to undertake those, but also appoint people who will be really focused on how everyone works towards this big, overarching, national oal. and not have, you know, kind of

have "old-think." there was a time when we needed more energy. some of us are able to remember. being in very long gas lines, at least i remember those days. we were pretty much captive to middle east oil. we had a different mindset. now, we have to change that. i think your question is not only a specific what about a particular decision, but it raises a larger issue about what we are going to do to change our values, our goals. that is what i'm going to try to do. >> secretary clinton, the national student debt level has breached $1.1 trillion. the average student graduating in a -- from a new hampshire college will graduate with 30,000 dollars, and honestly, i would be surprised to meet someone with that little. what will you do about students graduating from college?

[applause] ms. clinton: great question. let me ask, how many in this room currently have student debt? wow! keep your hands up. how many have ever had student ebt? that is a healthy majority here. that is a great question. your statistics are right. we have 40 million people with student debt that now reaches $1.2 trillion. the first the most important thing is we need to make it possible for every person with student debt, current, and those who have graduated, refinance that debt. you know, that, to me, is the number one about goal. if you think about it, everyone else can refinance their debt. corporations can refinance their debt. you can refinance your

mortgage, your car payment. why is it that students cannot refinance their debt? the worst injustice to me is that we have had 0% interest rates for years. i want to ask, how many of you know that you are paying an interest rate of at least 7%? yeah. we have people who are paying interest rates far beyond what the real interest rates are. so i wnt everybody to be able to refinance. and then i want everybody to be able to do much more to get into income contingency repayment plans. what is that? this is what i had when i went to law school, so did my husband. we both borrowed money. we worked, we borrowed money. the loans we had, when we graduated, we both were teachers. we taught at the university of arkansas law school. my first job was with the children's defense fund, and then with the university of rkansas.

i recall making between 14,000-$17,000 per year. we couldn't have paid some big fixed rate based on a high interest rate. we paid on a poly about, as i recall it was like 10%,it took 15 years. it did not have the burden that i hear about because of the high fixed rates. he other thing i would like to do more of his make sure that people who go into our public service and national service jobs get a lower rate, more forgiveness faster, and a discount because they are doing something that serve their community. [applause]