Thing is I don't think there is a better answer. They want her to release the transcripts. She says no. They can imply there is something there. She says there isn't. It goes around and around. It's pointless to even keep talking about it because it's not going to happen and it's been presented in such a way that people really don't care about it. That's even assuming they did in the first place which I don't think they did.
A better response isn't even to address that but instead move quicker and harder to him on the idea that just because you get donations from an industry that you won't go after them. She's using Obama as her example and she should keep that up. She should find other examples. Continue to demand he provide her with an example of her being bought. He had no answer to that tonight and he won't going forward. Same for republicans if they decide to walk down this path but they likely won't.
I agree with you. The only good response I can come up with turns it into an attack against him. I get that she doesn't want to do that.
I'd simply say "I gave speeches to the ASPCA, but that doesn't make me a cat. I talked about America's role in the world, about how we can build public/private partnerships to solve our issues, and blah blah blah. That's what I talked about, Senator."
If he wants to slam her after that, he'd have to actually call her a liar. But, I get why they just want to let it go.
