So in a trial run, the president's men experiment with laundering contributions through the state parties.

On August 22nd, the Democratic National Committee sends $30,376 to Florida. That same day, $30,376 is sent from the Florida party back to Washington, straight to the company producing the Clinton-Gore advertising campaign.

ANNOUNCER: [Democratic National Committee television commercial] As Americans, there are something we do simply and solely because they are moral, right and good-

BILL MOYERS: In six states, ads produced by the Washington campaign team and "sponsored" by the DNC go on the air.

ANNOUNCER: [Democratic National Committee television commercial] -but because it was the right thing to do. The Republicans are wrong to want to cut Medicare benefits. And President Clinton is right to protect Medicare-

BILL MOYERS: The ad attacks the Republicans, but does not include the words "Vote for Bill Clinton." They claim it is an "issue" ad. It is now clear to the president that "Plan B" will let him have it both ways.

Pres. BILL CLINTON: It means that we can finance this campaign in 1995, so I don't have to worry about it in 1996. So this is a brilliant thing that they have done, this plan that you have participated in because-

BILL MOYERS: He can take public money and agree to the limits on spending by his campaign, and at the same time raise tens of millions of dollars in private money for the advertising blitz and spend it through the DNC.

Dylan Matthews: In 2007, you had some concerns about the immigration bill being weighed by the Senate, and voted against it. Now that the new Gang of Eight bill is out of committee, what do you make of it?

Sen. Bernie Sanders: Thanks for calling. Let me just say this. I'm a strong supporter of immigration reform, and of the need to provide a pathway to citizenship for 11 million undocumented immigrants. I very strongly support the DREAM Act, and will continue to strongly support it. I very strongly believe, as someone who knows what's going on in the dairy industry in Vermont, that there's no question we need to create a status for immigrant workers in agriculture, and I think the committee is making good progress there.

My concerns are in regards to where we stand in terms of guest workers programs, made worse by amendments offered by Senator Hatch. What I do not support is, under the guise of immigrant reform, a process pushed by large corporations which results in more unemployment and lower wages for American workers.

Under the current H-2 program overseen by the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL), employers brought about 106,000 guestworkers into this country in 2011 — approximately 55,000 for agricultural work and another 51,000 for jobs in forestry, seafood processing, landscaping, construction and other non-agricultural industries.

But far from being treated like “guests,” these workers are systematically exploited and abused. Unlike U.S. citizens, guestworkers do not enjoy the most fundamental protection of a competitive labor market — the ability to change jobs if they are mistreated. Instead, they are bound to the employers who “import” them. If guestworkers complain about abuses, they face deportation, blacklisting or other retaliation.

Bound to a single employer and without access to legal resources, guestworkers are routinely:

Cheated out of wages

Forced to mortgage their futures to obtain low-wage, temporary jobs

Held virtually captive by employers or labor brokers who seize their documents

Subjected to human trafficking and debt servitude

Forced to live in squalid conditions

Denied medical benefits for on-the-job injuries.

In fact, the documents released today show a meeting that Hillary chaired at the White House on November 10, 1993 where she promoted the passage of NAFTA to 120 people. Reports are coming out in every news agency pointing out the contradictions between her stated positions since announcing her bid for the Presidency and everything before that.

One of the things you would expect of someone who really has good experience and judgment is that they can articulate a basic set of principles and positions on issues that they can run on and defend and that stay relatively static. I'm not saying you have to stick to them in the face of overwhelming evidence that one of your positions has been proven to be wrong, like George W. Bush does, even someone who has good experience and judgment occasionally changes their mind. That is not what we have with Hillary. Hillary gives a different opinion on the same subjects every couple of weeks depending on her audience and what she thinks it will net her. As evidence of this is now coming out and is going to be presented to the American people in the starkest terms, how can one be expected to trust her to do anything that she says she is going to do? How can one really know what she believes or intends to do about anything? The only things Hillary's experience seems to be good for is perfecting how to talk out of both sides of her mouth, engaging in the politics of personal destruction and other aspects of her ruthless pursuit of power that remind one of what a Karl Rove might do. That kind of person ought not to be the Democratic nominee.