How To Rebuild The Democratic Party


HERE’S MY FIVE-POINT PLAN ON HOW
TO REBUILD THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY. FIRST, WE GO INSIDE THE DNC AND
WE FIRE EVERYONE. CLEANUP GO HOME, YOU ARE
ALL FIRED. THIS IS BREATHTAKING FAILURE. IT MAKES EPIC FAIL LOOK SMALL. YOU LOST TO A CLOWN. HE SQUIRTS WATER OUT OF THE
FLOWER ON HIS LAPEL. MAYBE WE SEND TRUMP INTO THE DNC
AND HE FIRES THEM ALL. YOU GUYS ARE A NATIONAL
EMBARRASSMENT. ALL FIRE YOURSELVES IMMEDIATELY. BY THE WAY, THEY WERE SUPPOSED
TO WIN THE SENATE. THIS IS WHEN THEY HAD ALL THE
SENATE SEATS IN THEIR FAVOR. IN THE NEXT ELECTION ñ
THIS WAS THE ELECTION THEY WERE SUPPOSED TO WIN ON THE SENATE
SIDE. WHAT HAPPENED? THEY ARE A BUNCH OF LOSERS. I DID A WHOLE SEGMENT ON
LOSER DONALD. I UNDERESTIMATED HOW MUCH OF A
LOSER THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY IS. IT TURNS OUT THEY OUT
LOSERED HIM. YOU LOST TO AN ORANGE BUFFOON. WHY? WHY WOULD YOU KEEP YOUR JOBS? I’M NOT SURE I CAN COME UP WITH
A SCENARIO WHERE YOU COULD’VE LOST WORSE. THIS IS ALMOST AS
BAD AS IT GETS. THIS IS RECORD-BREAKING LOSSES. IF YOU DON’T GET FIRED OVER
THIS, WHAT GETS YOU FIRED? GUESS WHAT IS GOING TO HAPPEN
IN THE NEXT ELECTION? THEY ARE GOING TO GET MAULED. I WILL TELL YOU WHY THEY ARE
LOSERS AND A SECOND. IT IS NOT PERSONAL. AND IT IS NOT BECAUSE THEIR
HUMAN RESOURCES ARE MISERABLE. FIRST, I HAVE TO GIVE YOU A
SECOND STEP. THEY SHOULD HIRE BERNIE SANDERS
AS THE HEAD OF THE DNC. BERNIE SANDERS, A LOT OF PEOPLE
THINK HE IS NOT GOING TO RUN AGAIN GIVEN HIS AGE. I THINK HE HAS A LITTLE BIT OF
TIME ON HIS HANDS. HE WAS THE GUY WHO WAS
RIGHT, HE WAS UP 15 POINTS AGAINST DONALD TRUMP. YOU
MORONS WERE WRONG ABOUT THAT. HE WAS RIGHT, YOU ARE WRONG, GET
OUT, HE IS THE NEW BOSS. IT TURNS OUT HE OUTRAISED
HILLARY CLINTON. HE FIGURED OUT HOW TO GET
THE MONEY. HE FIGURED OUT HOW TO GET THE
MONEY WITHOUT SELLING OUT. ISN’T THAT AMAZING? HE HAD NO NAME RECOGNITION,
CLOSE TO 60 POINT LEAD ON CLINTON. BUT EVERYBODY AT THE DNC WILL
LOOK AT THIS AND LAUGH. WHO HAS THE POWER TO MAKE THESE
KINDS OF DECISIONS? IF WE HAD AN ACTUAL LEADER AS
PRESIDENT HE WOULD SAY IT MIGHT BE TIME TO REASSESS HERE. LET’S GO IN A NEW DIRECTION,
OBAMA IS NOT DONE, HE IS NOT GOING TO DO ANYTHING. LET’S GO TO THE THIRD THING HE
SHOULD DO, THE PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE WILL NOT TAKE BIG
MONEY DONORS. AND 2020 THEY SHOULD MAKE THAT
PLEDGE RIGHT NOW. THEN YOU CAN BE A TRUE POPULIST
PARTY, YOU CAN ACTUALLY REPRESENT PEOPLE INSTEAD OF
CORPORATIONS. HOW IS YOUR STRATEGY WORKING
OUT? PRETTY SURE I KNOW. IF YOU SAID THAT, YOU CAN REGAIN
THE POPULIST MANTLE. HOW DID DONALD TRUMP WIN? HE WAS INCOMPETENT, HAD NO
GROUND GAME, YOU OUTRAISED HIM WITH CORPORATE DONATIONS, THE
PEOPLE SAW YOU TAKING ALL THAT MONEY AND THEY PUNISHED
YOU FOR IT. THEY DIDN’T REWARD YOU FOR IT,
THEY PUNISHED YOU FOR IT. THE POINT IS YOU ARE SUPPOSED TO
WIN THE ELECTION, BUT YOU DIDN’T. YOU ARE WRONG. SOMEONE TOLD ME NOT TO DO THIS,
DON’T POUR SALT IN THEIR WOUNDS. SOMEONE GET ME A SALT SHAKER. IT IS NOT PERSONAL. YOU HAVE TO STRAIGHTEN THE SHIP
TODAY, YOU HAVE ENDANGERED THE WHOLE WORLD BY MAKING DONALD
TRUMP PRESIDENT WITH YOUR INCOMPETENCE. IF YOU RUN A POPULIST CAMPAIGN,
LET’S TRY TO ON THE LEFT. WE CAN DO REAL POPULIST. NUMBER FOUR IS SIMPLE, FIGHTING
TO GET MONEY OUT OF POLITICS. OVER 90% OF THE COUNTRY SAYS
THAT MONEY HAS A CORRUPTING INFLUENCE ON POLITICS. IT IS NOT A PARTISAN ISSUE. YEAH, REPUBLICAN POLITICIANS
DON’T WANT YOU TO GET MONEY OUT, THEY USE IT. PRESIDENTIAL CAMPAIGNS ARE
TOTALLY DIFFERENT BECAUSE THERE IS SO MUCH FREE MEDIA. HOW DO YOU THINK REPUBLICANS WON
THE SENATE? THERE WAS A TON OF MONEY TO
SPEND IN ADVERTISING WHEN NO ONE ELSE WAS PAYING ATTENTION. BUT REPUBLICAN VOTERS ARE NOT
WITH REPUBLICAN POLITICIANS, THEY ALSO HATE MONEY IN
POLITICS. YOU COULD ACTUALLY GET THEIR
VOTERS WITH AN ISSUE THAT IS ON OUR SIDE. WHY WOULD YOU WANT TO DO THAT? IT IS BEST TO LET IT GO. YOU GUYS ARE ALL WRONG. IT IS AMAZING THAT THEY DON’T
UNDERSTAND SIMPLE CONCEPTS LIKE THAT. I WILL SAY IT SLOW FOR YOU. YOU THINK ALL THOSE GUYS IN THE
BUILDING ARE DUMB, THEY ARE NOT. THEY THINK IT’S BERNIE SANDERS
ONE HE WILL NOT GIVE ME THE JOB HILLARY CLINTON WAS
GOING TO GIVE ME. BERNIE SANDERS IS GOING TO WANT
TO PUT PROGRESSIVES IN THERE. TO THEM, BERNIE WAS THE ENEMY. IT IS NOT THAT THEY ARE STUPID,
IT IS THAT THEY THINK I WANT A JOB. AFTER I AM DONE WITH THE
GOVERNMENT JOB, I WANT A LOBBYIST JOB. MAKE IT HAS TO GO
TO A PRIVATE SCHOOL. I HAVE TO TAKE THE
CORPORATE MONEY. BERNIE SANDERS AND THE REAL
PROGRESSIVES WILL UP AND THAT SYSTEM, THAT IS WHY THEY
DON’T WANT TO DO IT. THAT IS WHY THEY WILL FIGHT
THIS TOOTH AND NAIL. THAT IS WHY YOU NEED A REAL
LEADER TO COME IN AND CLEAN HOUSE. RUN THEM ALL OUT OF TOWN. THEY WILL NEVER HAVE AN
AWAKENING AND ACKNOWLEDGE THEY ARE THE WRONG ONES. FIRE THEM ALL. LAST STEP, REPRESENT THE PEOPLE
INSTEAD OF DONORS. SWEAR TO YOU, ALL OF YOU THAT
ARE ACTUAL AMERICANS ñ OF COURSE ANY DEMOCRACY YOU SHOULD
REPRESENT PEOPLE, NOT DONORS. I PROMISE YOU IF THERE ARE FOLKS
IN WASHINGTON WATCHING THIS THEY ARE SNICKERING AT EVERY
ONE OF THESE STEPS. WHEN YOU SAY REPRESENT PEOPLE
INSTEAD OF DONORS THEY LEFT. YOU HAVE TO GET THE DONOR MONEY,
WITHOUT IT YOU CANNOT WIN. WE ARE RIGHT, THEY ARE WRONG. IF THEY CAN’T COME TO THAT
CONCLUSION ON THEIR OWN WE WILL HAVE TO FORCE THEM. YOU HAVE TO DO THAT IN 2018, SO THAT IN 2020 WE HAVE AN
ACTUAL PROGRESSIVE RUNNING. IMAGINE THE DAMAGE TRUMP CAN
DO IN EIGHT YEARS? THIS IS ABOUT SAVING THE
REPUBLIC AND THE WORLD FROM ANOTHER FOUR YEARS OF
DONALD TRUMP. WE CAN’T HAVE THESE INCOMPETENT

Game of Elections: election rules restrict the outcome???!!!


Welcome back to the channel of the Political Academy. In this video we will talk about the “Game of Elections”. Elections are subject to rules that restrict the outcome. Politics has hardly anything to do with that. My name is Joost Smits. First I will show how many parties can be expected to have at least one seat. We will look at election results to prove the value of such a calculation. We will speculate on why the “game of elections” works. And then we will take it one step further. How large will parties be? Can we even predict elections using this tool? This is the first video of this kind that I am making. We have a board we can draw on … … and we have an arts and crafts table with books and stuff to play with. Let’s get started. The Netherlands and Belgium use proportional representation … … to fill the national parliament, provincial assemblies and the municipal councils. In a future video I will treat this electoral system … … and compare it to other systems that are used in the world. This video uses proportional representation as framework, … … but the mechanism applies everywhere. Let’s start with an example. Here we have a town council with 9 seats. If we know nothing about this town, we can assume … … there can be a maximum of 9 parties filling the benches. And a minimum of 1. If elections are random, … … we can expect 1 plus 9 divided by 2 parties … … is 5 parties on average to have at least one seat. If elections are random … … a party will have at least 1 and at the most 9 seats in the council. So, on average 1 plus 9 divided by 2 is 5 seats. Five parties on average times five seats on average equals 25 seats. But we only had 9 seats to fill? So, apparently there exists some other mechanism … … why some parties are big and others are small. §1. Literature Here I have some books about the subject. One is by Arend Lijphart, a Dutch-American professor … … of political science, currently at the University of California, San Diego. This is one of the books in which he treats electoral systems all over the world. Lijphart is also honorary member of the Dutch Political Science Association. Lijphart pays attention to Rein Taagepera, … … who is an Estonian former politician and now researcher. Currently at the University of California, Irvine. With colleagues he did a lot of research on … … the average number of parties that get at least one seat in an election. Taagepera found that in general the number of parties that get at least one seat … … is the square root of the number of available seats. At least that is the formula in countries like the Netherlands and Belgium. In other electoral systems the formula is just a little bit more complicated. I will not go into that now. So, the formula is p=square root of M Where p is the number of parties … … and M the number of available seats. Which can also be written like this. How to apply this? The Dutch and Belgian parliaments have 150 seats, … … therefore 12.2 parties are expected. This value of 0.5 is commonly referred to as Taagepera’s Index. It is not a true norm, it is an average. Taagepera describes that in some countries or other periods … … the fragmentation factor may vary. Since later in this video we will play with different values … I will refer to it as “the fragmentation factor”. Some of you may have a problem with this approach. It is very strange that there is no political content. Aren’t elections about debate? About choices to make for the country, for the province, for the city? Isn’t it true that voters only make up their mind in the last weeks before elections? What about Facebook campaigns, social media, fake news? Steven Reed commented on this in 1996. “Political scientists are traditionally less comfortable … … with the assumption of mathematical elegance than are physicists. We tend to be more comfortable … with the presumption that ‘things are much more complicated than that’. More importantly, … … we expect some behavioral model to underlie our theories. There is no particular behavioral basis to Taagepera’s theory. It does not depend on rational voters or strategic political parties. It is less a ‘political’ theory than a mechanical one. Taagepera apologised that he can not help it. “To paraphrase Winston Churchill’s dictum about democracy… … ‘p=M to the power ½’ is the worst possible prediction … … except for all others. This prediction is pulled almost completely from thin air, … … but all the others would be completely so, in the absence of further information.” In 1999 he called it “ignorance-based quantative modelling”. Let’s go back to the board to see some examples of how this works out in practice. §2. The Number of Parties Here you see the development of the number of parties … … in Dutch national parliament since the early seventies. The blue line is Taagepera’s 0.5 value. You see that Dutch parliament is quite “normal” … … with 13 parties securing at least one seat in March 2017. Three months before, in December 2016, 81 political parties said … … they wanted to take part in the March 2017 elections. Only 28 passed all formalities to wind up on the ballot. You see the strong influence of the “game”. Then we look at the Belgian national parliament timeline. In Belgium it is very easy to start a political party. But, they have Flemish-speaking parties who only compete in the northern part of the country … … and French-speaking parties who only compete in the southern part, … … and party families of both language groups. But still, the international average is met. 13 Parties in the 150 seat parliament since 2014, just like the Netherlands. In provincial and municipal elections, however, the picture is different. The “fragmentation factor” is on the rise in the Netherlands. Ever since the mid nineteen eighties, which was a period of economic prosperity. Often researchers say that fragmentation rises … … under conditions of economic downturn. How to read this? Municipal councils have different sizes … … depending on the size of the population. Amsterdam has 45 seats. The yellow line points to 0.647. We raise 45 to 0.647 and get 11.7. The city council indeed has 12 parties since 2018. Of course, the number in the chart is an average and it will not always fit perfectly. On 20 March we will again have Dutch Provincial elections … … and we can expect the line to rise again. Belgium has been experimenting with electoral law since the mid nineteen nineties … … which influences their development of the number of parties. It is rising gradually, … … but it is not at the high level of the Dutch. In a future video I will go more into that. So, even though voters are free to vote for any party they like, … … people are free to create new parties, … … it is very easy to take part in elections (more in Belgium than in the Netherlands), … … there is a clear influence that keeps the number of parties with seats … … low for national elections. Why is this? I think there are four main reasons. §3. Four main reasons The first reason is about electoral law … … and the way in which votes are transferred into seats. Something for a future video. Belgium uses a different calculation to turn votes into seats, … … and small parties are disadvantaged by that system. Taagepera says it is wrong to just assume … … that votes are turned into seats just like that. Votes indeed lead to seats, but the electoral system … … has influence on how many seats a party gets. The second reason is psychological and cultural influences. Will voters vote for small parties or only for potential winners? That also addresses so-called “strategic voting”. Strategic voting means that voters will not vote for the party they really prefer, … … but for some other party that has more chances of winning … … and deliver the preferred policies. I will get back to strategic voting later in this video. An example of cultural influence is that Belgian local elections produce much less parties … … with seats because of the so-called “List of the mayor”. Something also for future videos. The third main reason is the choice of groups. Parties can only get votes if there are groups … … in society that support their program. Or, a new party or political candidate can find out … … if there is support in society for issues … … that are not yet addressed by existing parties or candidates. In 1948 Duncan Black combined economic theory with elections. Let’s go to the arts-and-crafts table so I can show you. In 1948 Duncan Black combined economic theory with elections. He found out that when all voters’ preferences are arranged as single peaked, … … then the group’s preference can be found in the highest peak. An example of a single peaked line is for example this. If all preferences of voters … … are like this. Now there is one peak on the right. This is apparently the preference of this group. Another possibility may be … … is this. Also now there is one peak. For the neutral position. If one would have … … an arrangement like this … … there are two peaks. So this is not a valid conclusion. Later, in 1988 Andrew Caplin and Barry Nalebuff showed that if 64% … … of voters are aligned in their preferences, … … this is an unbeatable proposal winning every election. It is quite obvious that although in a society there may be a zillion issues, … … only a limited number have enough broad support to allow for electoral success. And the fourth and last reason is simple statistics of distributions. If you measure the length of a group of North-western European men or women … … some may be short and some may be tall. But the average is more or less predictable by the knowledge we have … … of the length of North-western European men or women from earlier measurements. Beforehand we can know more or less how many in a group of 100 … … will be 5 centimetres taller than the average. Same goes I think for groups of issues. This is not the end of it. Taagepera even shows he can predict the size of parties. §4. The Size of Parties In 1993 Rein Taagepera and Matthew Shugart came up with the following formula. The largest party has a share equal to the number of parties to the power of -½. Let’s get another marker. From this follows that the second party has a size of … This is s1, the first party. (1 minus s1) divided by (N0 – 1) So the share of the first party is equal to the number of parties to the power -½ … … or equal to 1 divided by the number of parties to the power ½. From this follows that the second party has a size of (1 minus the share of the first party) … … divided by (the number of parties from the beginning minus 1). Because the first party already had a share. And the third party … … (1-s1-s2) divided by (N0 – 1 – 1) … … to the power ½ We can do this example with 9 seats from the beginning. We will expect square root of 9 is 3 parties to have at least one seat. The share of party 1 is 0.57. Which means, times 9 seats … … 5.2 seats. The second party … … (1 minus 0.5774 ) … … divided by (3 – 1) to the power ½ … … is 0.2989 times 9 … … is 2.7 seats. And the third party … … (1- 0,5774 – 0,2989) … … divided by (3 – 1 – 1) to the power ½ is … … this is basically 1, so the share … … is 0.1237 Times 9 is … 1.1 If we go back to the beginning … … now we know the distribution of this town council of 9 seats. We now know, party 1 … … has 5 seats. Party 2 … … has 3 seats. And party 3 … … has only 1 seat. This means that an election is now downgraded to … … a contest of parties for a number of predefined slots. In this case there are three slots. There is a slot of 5 seats, a slot of 3 seats and a slot of 1 seat. In this case the orange party opts for the slot of 5 seats … … green got the slot of 3 seats, … … en purple only had the slot for 1 seat. These slots exist by definition. Before the election. The parties can only try to gain one of these slots. Taagepera’s sequence does not compute well in practice. First it predicts 12-13 parties for 150 seats, … … and then the smallest parties wind up with a seat below 1. So they do not have a seat. The formula also needs to be extended if we implement strategic voting. In 2006 Rein Taagepera and Mirjam Allik found that because of strategic voting … … the two largest parties normally get more votes than the formula predicts. Even 50% extra of their probabilistic share, at the expense of the smaller parties. Here is a diagram of a town council with 25 seats, according to the original formula. However, extending it with strategic voting … … we would need to add … … more seats to the two largest parties … … which would come at the expense of the smaller parties. They would get less. §5. Prediction If we want to apply Taagepera’s formula we need to modify it a bit … … and also choose whether we expect strategic voting or not. In December 2016 I expected 13 parties to win at least one seat … … in Dutch parliament, … … and because of our coalition governments in which even small parties can play an important role … … note, this is a psychological influence … … I left out strategic voting. Using a slightly modified form of Taagepera’s formula I got the following sequence: 31 25 21 17 13 11 9 7 5 4 3 2 1 and 1. Back to the main board. In March, a week before the election, together with political enthusiasts … … from Rotterdam (VVD Studio), we added party names to the sequence and posted it on Facebook. Later we could compare our prediction with those of major Dutch polling organisations. The prediction of slots was as good or better than most pollsters. The result-prediction, with added party names,, was a bit less lucky … … because we switched two parties. This was slots only, and this was the prediction by VVD Studio. Still our prediction did not cost any money, was still very close, … … was only based on an “ignorance-based model”, and we had fun. And guess what… The Belgian parliament also has 150 seats and 13 parties. If we apply the same December 2016 sequence to the … … Belgian national elections of 2014… we get even closer. If in the upcoming elections for the Belgian parliament only 13 parties … … are likely to get at least 1 seat, … … this prediction of 2016 still holds for that election. Thank you for watching this video. Your comments and questions are welcome below. Do not forget to subscribe, and please ring that bell … … so you will be notified for the next video.

The latest political news on ‘With All Due Respect’ (09/01/16)


♪>>HE’S GONE BACK AND FORTH BETWEEN SOFTENING AND NOT SOFTENING.>>WHAT THEY PERCEIVE OF TRUMP’S SOFTENING.>>SOFTENING.>>SOFTENING OF HIS IMMIGRATION STANCE, AND NOW HE IS BEING BLAMED FOR NOT SOFTENING OF.>>THERE WAS NO SOFTENING.>>THERE WAS NO PIVOT, NO SOFTENING. ♪ JOHN: ON THIS SEMI-SOFT NEWSDAY, DONALD J. TRUMP AND HIS TEAM ARE STILL RIFLING THROUGH THE REVIEWS OF HIS HYPED UP IMMIGRATION SPEECH LAST NIGHT. FOR DAYS, TRUMP HIMSELF AND HIS CAMPAIGN HAVE BEEN HINTING THAT HE IS ON THE PRECIPICE OF MODERATING HIS STANCE ON IMMIGRATION TO MAKE IT MORE CONGENIAL TO A GENERAL AUDIENCE. BUT HIS SPEECH WAS MODERATE IN BOTH TONE AND SUBSTANCE. THERE WAS NO SOFTENING, NO PIVOTING, JUST VINTAGE DONALD TRUMP. AT THE TIME THE SPEECH ENDED, TRUMP WAS BASICALLY IN THE SAME PLACE HE WAS ALL ALONG. IT TURNS OUT SOME OF TRUMP’S OWN HISPANIC ADVISORY COUNCIL THOUGHT THAT TOO. HERE IS ONE OF THEM ON CNN TODAY, EXPLAINING WHY HE IS ONE OF THE LEAST FREE TRUMP ADVISORS WHO ARE NOW SAYING ADIOS.>>HE GAVE THE IMPRESSION UNTIL YESTERDAY MORNING THAT HE WAS GOING TO DEAL WITH THE UNDOCUMENTED IN A COMPASSIONATE WAY. IN THAT SPEECH, HE IS BASICALLY SAYING, WE EITHER DEPORT YOU OR SELF DEPORT YOU. IT IS EVEN WORSE THAN WHAT HE INITIALLY PROPOSED. TODAY I AM SAYING, NOT ONLY AM I CONSIDERING WITHDRAWING MY SUPPORT, I AM TELLING YOU TODAY I AM WITHDRAWING MY SUPPORT FROM DONALD TRUMP. MANY LIKE ME THINK THE SAME WAY. JOHN: UNDETERRED BY CRITICISMS OF THAT KIND, DONALD TRUMP WAS BACK ON THE CAMPAIGN TRAIL THIS MORNING. AT A RALLY IN WOMEN — IN WILMINGTON, OHIO, HE FRAMED HIS IMMIGRATION POSTURE AS A MATTER OF PUTTING AMERICA FIRST. MR. TRUMP: WE ARE GOING TO BUILD A WALL. MEXICO IS GOING TO PAY FOR THE WALL. WE WILL TREAT EVERYONE WITH DIGNITY, RESPECT, AND COMPASSION, BUT OUR GREATEST COMPASSION WILL BE FOR THE AMERICAN CITIZEN. IT WILL BE, FROM NOW ON, AMERICA FIRST. [APPLAUSE] JOHN: SO NICOLE, MY FRIEND, THE LOVELY NICOLE WALLACE HERE TO GUEST HOST, AFTER THE BIG IMMIGRATION SPEECH LAST NIGHT, WHEN IT COMES TO THAT PARTICULAR AREA, IS TRUMP BETTER OR WORSE OFF THE LYRICALLY TODAY THAN HE WAS BEFORE? NICOLE: I THINK HE IS THE EXACT SAME GUY THAT HE HAS BEEN SINCE SHE STARTED THIS MADCAP ADVENTURE DEBT — SINCE HE STARTED THIS MADCAP ADVENTURE. ON IMMIGRATION, HE HAS ALWAYS BEEN TO THE HARD RIGHT OF HIS PARTY. I THINK IT REFLECTS HOW HE SORT OF PROCESSES HIS CHOICES. OBVIOUSLY, THERE WAS A DISCUSSION IN HIS CAMPAIGN ABOUT WHETHER IT WOULD BENEFIT HIM TO BE SEEN WITHIN OTHER COUNTRIES LEADER. HE SAID, YEAH, I WILL DO THAT. HE ALSO DOUBLED DOWN IN THE STATE OF ARIZONA ON THE TOUGHEST AND HARSHEST RHETORIC ON HIS IMMIGRATION POLICY. HE CHOSE ALL OF THE ABOVE. I THINK WORSE THAN A MUDDLED MESSAGE, IT WAS ALMOST A TAUNT THAT WILL SET HIM BACK ON THE PARTY BACK EVEN FURTHER THAN THEY WERE AHEAD OF THE PRIMARY. JOHN: I THINK HE IS ACTUALLY WORSE OFF TODAY THAN BEFORE, IN THIS SENSE. HAVING RAISED ALL THESE EXPECTATIONS THAT HE WOULD SOMEHOW BECOME IN A MORE HUMANE PLACE, HAVING RAISED THOSE EXPECTATIONS, HE THEN WENT IN THE OPPOSITE DIRECTION. I THINK HE FEELS THAT THE HISPANIC VOTE NOW IS GONE, TO A LARGE EXTENT, FOR DONALD TRUMP, AND A LOT OF THE PEOPLE WE ARE TALKING ABOUT, COLLEGE-EDUCATED, SUBURBAN, REPUBLICAN WOMEN, THEY LOOK AT THIS AND SAY, NOT ONLY IS HE HARSH ENDED HUMANE, BUT HE IS — HARSH AND INHUMANE, BUT HE HAS BEEN ALL OVER THE PLACE. NOT A GOOD LOOK. NICOLLE: AND FOR THE CAMPAIGN, IT UNDERSCORES THIS TEMPERAMENT ARGUMENT THAT HILLARY HAS BEEN MAKING. THE ARGUMENT THEY ARE TRYING TO MAKE IS A LEADERSHIP ARGUMENT, THAT YOU CAN’T TRUST SOMEONE WITH THE GREATEST DECISIONS OF THE PRESIDENCY IF THEY DON’T KNOW THE REMIND. — DON’T KNOW THEIR OWN MIND. HE GAVE THEM EXHIBIT 33 YESTERDAY. ONE THING THAT IS CLEAR ABOUT THE SPEECHES THAT HE SEEMED TO BE GIVING UP ON BROADENING HIS BASE. HE INSTEAD APPEARS TO BE TRICKLING DOWN ON THE NOTION THAT WHITE VOTERS ARE ALL HE NEEDS. THAT RUNS TO THE HEART OF THE ANXIOUS WRITTEN FOLKS IN THE INDUSTRIAL RUST BELT OF THE MIDWEST. THAT IS EXACTLY WHERE TRUMP WAS THIS MORNING. HE WAS GIVING A SPEECH TO THE AMERICAN LEGION IN CINCINNATI, FOLLOWED BY THE RALLY IN WOMEN THAN — IN WILMINGTON. JOE BIDEN WILL GO TO THE BUCKEYE STATE TO PLAY A LITTLE DONALD DEFENSE. LISTEN TO THIS. V.P. BIDEN: WE ALL COME FROM THE SAME NEIGHBORHOOD, WHETHER IT IS TOLEDO, PITTSBURGH. THIS OTHER GUY, HE DOES NOT UNDERSTAND THIS ANY MORE THAN YOU UNDERSTAND WHAT IT’S LIKE TO LIVE IN A 30,000 SQUARE FOOT PENTHOUSE 80 FLOORS UP IN NEW YORK. YOU DON’T UNDERSTAND THAT, I DON’T. HE DOESN’T HAVE ANY IDEA WHAT IT’S LIKE TO SIT AT MY DAD’S KITCHEN TABLE AND HEAR MY MOM SAY, HONEY, WE NEED NEW TIRES ON THE CAR, AND HE SAYS, HONEY, YOU’VE GOT TO GET 10,000 MORE MILES ON IT VERY I JUST HIM HAVE IT RIGHT NOW. NICOLLE: CAN TRUMP WHEN WITH THIS STRATEGY, AND WHY WOULD HE WANT TO? JOHN: I CITE REINCE PRIEBUS, WHO IN 2012 POINTED OUT CORRECTLY THAT ROMNEY LOST TO A LARGE EXTENT BECAUSE HE DID NOT DO WELL WITH NONWHITE VOTERS, AND REPUBLICANS NEED TO DO BETTER WITH NONWHITE VOTERS. DONALD TRUMP SEEMS DOOMED TO DO WORSE. I USUALLY GO TO THE TABLE AND PUT ALL MY CHIPS ON RED OR BLACK. HE HAS PUT ALL HIS CHIPS ON WHITE. ONLY WAY IT COULD WORK IS IF HE WAS THE OVERWHELMING FAVORITE OF WELL-EDUCATED WHITES. THERE AREN’T ENOUGH BLUE-COLLAR WHITES FOR HIM TO WIN THE PRESIDENCY, AND HE IS BEING CRUSHED AMONG WHITE-COLLAR WHITES BY HILLARY CLINTON. NICOLLE: THIS IS DISASTROUS FOR THE REPUBLICAN PARTY. GEORGE W. BUSH WON 44% OF THE HISPANIC VOTE. HE IS TALKING ABOUT WINNING WITH NONE, ZERO. I DON’T KNOW HOW YOU START THE REBUILDING WHEN YOU LITERALLY DROPPED 44% IN YOUR SUPPORT. TERRIBLE. JOHN: IT IS GOING TO HAVE A LONG-TERM EFFECT ON THE PARTY, FOR SURE. THERE WAS A TIME WHEN YOU COULD HAVE IMAGINED TRUMP PUTTING TOGETHER A DIFFERENT KIND OF MAP, MAYBE BEING ABLE TO COMPETE NOT JUST IN THE INDUSTRIAL MIDWEST, BUT MAYBE AS FAR AS PLACES LIKE MINNESOTA, ILLINOIS, WISCONSIN. RIGHT NOW, HEMORRHAGING ALL THOSE COLLEGE-EDUCATED WHITE VOTERS, THERE IS NOT A MAP THAT WORKS RIGHT NOW FOR DONALD TRUMP . UNLESS SOMETHING CHANGES IN A SERIOUS WAY, THERE ARE AN — THERE ARE NOT ENOUGH WHITE VOTERS. NICOLLE: AGAIN, AS A REPUBLICAN, WHY WOULD WE WANT OUR NATIONAL VICTORIES TO BE MADE UP OF JUST WHITE PEOPLE? THE GRIMMEST OUTLOOK EVER FOR US. JOHN: YOU CAN’T WIN THAT WAY, AND WHY WOULD YOU WANT TO? OVER THE PAST 36 HOURS, WE HAVE SEEN TWO DIFFERENT DONALD TRUMPS. THERE WAS THE MORE STATESMANLIKE, SOMEONE SAY SEDATED, DONALD TRUMP YESTERDAY IN MEXICO, AND IN PHOENIX, JEKYLL WAS REPLACED WITH MR. HYDE AREA TRUMP — MR. HYDE. TRUMP WAS SCRIPTED, SUGGESTING UNREST DESPITE THE BIG STAFF SHAKEUP A COUPLE OF WEEKS AGO. YOU HAVE BEEN INSIDE HIS PRESIDENTIAL CAMPAIGN, SOME FUNCTIONAL, SOMEWHAT LESS FUNCTIONAL. WHAT OF THE LAST TWO DAYS TELL US ABOUT WHAT IS GOING ON IN TRUMP WORLD? NICOLLE: MY BIGGEST WINDOW INTO TRUMP WORLD IS KELLYANNE CONWAY’S ROLE, BECAUSE SHE IS SERVING IN A JOB I HAD. WATCH WHAT SHE HAS HAD TO SAY ABOUT IMMIGRATION SINCE SHE TOOK CONTROL OF THAT CAMPAIGN. SHE STARTED ON THE SUNDAY SHOW WITH DAN ABASHED SAYING THAT — DANA BOESCH SAYING THE POLICY WAS TO BE DETERMINED. BUT HER EXPERTISE IS TAKING THE MORE — THE MOST POLARIZING FIGURES ON THE RIGHT AND MAKING THEM PALATABLE TO FEMALE VOTERS. IT WAS APPARENT HE WAS LISTENING TO HER, BUT AS WITH HIS VP SELECTION PROCESS, HE DELIBERATED IN PUBLIC, HE DID THAT IS OUR INTERVIEW WITH ANDERSON COOPER WHERE HE KEPT CALLING IT A HARDENING. TO WATCH HIM SORT OF TAKE ADVICE FROM DIFFERENT MEMBERS FROM HIS INNER CIRCLE IN PUBLIC, GRAPPLE WITH IT IN PUBLIC, AND HE CAME DOWN HARD-CORE ON THE RIGHT PART RIGHT — BREITBART RIGHT WITH THAT SPEECH YESTERDAY. THE PEOPLE WHO THOUGHT HE NEEDED TO LOOK PRESIDENTIAL WON THE FIGHT ON WHETHER TO GO TO MEXICO OR NOT, AND THE PEOPLE WHO WANTED HIM TO LOOK LIKE A BADASS WON ON THE SPEECH. IT SPEAKS TO A MORE FUNDAMENTAL CASE ON HOW HE MANAGES THINGS, AND HIS SELLING POINT IS THAT HE IS A RICH GUY WHO MANAGES A SUCCESSFUL BUSINESS. JOHN: I SAW SOMEONE TWEETED YESTERDAY THAT DAYTIME DONALD TRUMP — FOR THE DAYTIME DONALD TRUMP, KELLYANNE CONWAY IS UNDER CONTROL. THE NIGHTTIME DONALD TRUMP, HOWEVER, IS UNDER THE CONTROL OF STEPHEN BANNON. WE ALSO SAW IN “THE NEW YORK TIMES” ABOUT CHRIS CHRISTIE HAVING A ROLE, RUDY GIULIANI HAVING A ROLE. NONE OF THAT IS NEWS NECESSARILY, BUT AT THIS KIND OF MOMENT IN THE CAMPAIGN, TO HAVE THAT MUCH CONFLICTING ADVICE, NOT PEOPLE SINGING OUT OF THE SAME SONGBOOK — AGAIN, THERE ARE A LOT OF CAMPAIGNS THAT ARE CHAOTIC, BUT THIS IS ON VERSION FOUR OF CHAOS, AND IT’S NOT GETTING ANY BETTER. NICOLLE: CAN I THINK CANDIDATES HAVE TO BE ABLE TO TAKE A LOT OF DIFFERENT INFORMATION FROM DIFFERENT PEOPLE. THE PROBLEM IS, HE COMES OUT ON BOTH SIDES OF A TWO-SIDED DEBATE. ONLY COME BACK, WE WILL TAKE A SPIN THROUGH BATTLEGROUND STATES. ♪ ♪ NICOLLE: FOX NEWS HAS A NEW POLL OUT THAT SHOWS THE RACE TIGHTENING UP A BIT. IN A TWO-WAY CONTEST, HILLARY CLINTON IS BEATING DONALD TRUMP BY SIX POINTS, 48% TO 42%, BUT THAT IS DOWN FROM HER 10 POINT LEAD A MONTH AGO. IN A FOUR-WAY RACE, THE TWO CANDIDATES ARE ESSENTIALLY TIED. CLINTON AT 41 PERCENT, TRUMP AT 39%, AND LIBERTARIAN CANDIDATE GARY JOHNSON GETTING 9%, GREEN PARTY CANDIDATE JILL STEIN GETTING 4%. LARRY SABATO JOINS US NOW TO MAKE US SMARTER AND TALK ABOUT THE STATE OF THE BATTLEGROUND STATES. LARRY, WHAT SHOULD WE BE PAYING MORE ATTENTION TO, THESE TWO-WAY NUMBERS OR THE FOUR-WAY POLLS? LARRY: THE TWO-WAY IS MORE INDICATIVE OF THE WAY THE RACE WILL TURN OUT, AND THE SIX POINT DIFFERENCE IN THE TWO-WAY IS CLOSE TO THE POLLING AVERAGE OF ABOUT FIVE POINTS FOR HILLARY CLINTON. THERE IS SOME RESEARCH INDICATING, VERY GOOD RESEARCH, THAT THE FOUR-WAY RACE, JUST BY INTRODUCING THE NAMES OF THE THIRD-PARTY CANDIDATES, YOU INCREASE THEIR SUPPORT, ESPECIALLY IN A RACE LIKE THIS. THEIR NUMBERS ARE GOING TO GO DOWN BETWEEN NOW AND NOVEMBER. JOHN: I WANT TO TALK TO YOU ABOUT BATTLEGROUND STATES. I KNOW YOU SAY COLORADO, MINNESOTA, WISCONSIN, PENNSYLVANIA, VIRGINIA, ALL LIKELY DEMOCRAT, BUT THERE ARE OTHER TRADITIONAL BLUE STATES THAT ARE CLOSER THAN EXPECTED, NEVADA, OHIO, NORTH CAROLINA, FLORIDA. AMONG THOSE STATES THAT BARACK OBAMA WON THE LAST TWO CYCLES, WHERE IS HILLARY CLINTON MOST VULNERABLE NOW? LARRY: SHE IS VULNERABLE IN IOWA , BECAUSE ALMOST HALF THE POPULATION OF IOWA IS WHITE NONCOLLEGE, AND THAT IS TRUMP’S BILL WOULD. NEVADA HAS BEEN THROUGH A TERRIBLE RECESSION, MUCH LONGER AND DEEPER THAN THE REST OF THE COUNTRY. AND WE ALL KNOW THAT NORTH CAROLINA IS INCREDIBLY CLOSE AND ALWAYS IS. I THINK IT HAS A BLUE TINT THIS YEAR. FLORIDA AND OHIO, OBVIOUS TO EVERYBODY, ARE HIGHLY COMPETITIVE, BUT I STILL GIVE CLINTON THE EDGE. NICOLLE: WHAT DO YOU ATTRIBUTE THE TIGHTENING THIS WEEK TO? HILLARY CLINTON’S NUMBERS NOW LOOK A LOT LIKE WHAT THEY LOOKED LIKE AFTER THE COMEY PRESS CONFERENCE. IT SEEMS LIKE SHE GOES THROUGH A SCANDAL, THERE IS A TIGHTENING, WHEN SHE GETS A COUPLE OF GOOD WEEKS, SHE WIDENS THE SPREAD. IS THIS A PATTERN WE CAN EXPECT IF THE CONTOURS OF THE RACE STATUS SAME? LARRY: NO, I THINK IT IS THE EVAPORATION OF THE CONVENTION BOUNCE. DONALD TRUMP HAD A VERY BRIEF CONVENTION OUNCE THAT WAS NOT VERY IMPRESSIVE, BECAUSE TO BE BLUNT, THE CONVENTION WAS NOT VERY PERSPECTIVE. THE DEMOCRATIC CONVENTION WAS IMPRESSIVE FROM A LOT OF DIFFERENT PERSPECTIVES. THE CLINTON BOUNCE HAS DECLINED AS WE APPROACH LABOR DAY, AND WE ARE BACK TO A LEAD THAT MAKES SENSE. REMEMBER HOW POLARIZED WE ARE. I THINK IT IS UNLIKELY THAT HILLARY CLINTON IS GOING TO DO MUCH WORSE THAN OBAMA DID IN 2012. WERE MUCH BETTER THAN HE DID IN 2808, WHEN EVERYTHING WAS GOING THE DEMOCRATS’ WAY. HE WON BY SEVEN POINTS. JOHN: LET’S GO BACK TO THE MAP AND LOOK AT THESE TRADITIONALLY RED STATES THAT PEOPLE ARE TALKING ABOUT THE POSSIBILITY OF THE CLINTON CAMPAIGN PUTTING THEM IN PLAY. THEY ARE GOING ON THE AIR IN ARIZONA. THERE ARE FIVE OTHER NORMALLY REPUBLICAN STATES THAT COULD BE IN PLAY, GEORGIA, ARIZONA, AND MAYBE UTAH, KANSAS, MISSOURI, SOUTH CAROLINA. WHICH ONE OF THOSE NORMALLY-RED STATES IS ONE WHERE TRUMP MIGHT THE MOST VULNERABLE? LARRY: THERE ARE ONLY TWO, ARIZONA AND GEORGIA. THE OTHERS ARE FOND OF TALK ABOUT, BUT IN THE END, THEY WILL GO FOR TRUMP. THE MARGINS FOR HIM AS THE REPUBLICAN NOMINEE WILL BE CONSIDERABLY LOWER THAN FOR OTHER REPUBLICAN NOMINEES, THE POPULAR VOTE, THAT IS. BUT IT DOESN’T MATTER AS LONG AS HE GETS ONE MORE VOTE THAN CLINTON IN THOSE STATES. BUT ARIZONA AND GEORGIA ARE RIGHT FOR THE PICKING, AND YET WE ARE SO POLARIZED — ON MY MAP, I HAVE STILL KEPT THEM LIGHT RED BECAUSE IN THE END, I THINK THE PARTISANS WILL COME HOME, BUT IF I AM WRONG, IT WILL BE ABOUT ARIZONA AND GEORGIA. NICOLLE: LET’S SHIFT TO THE STATE OF THE SENATE RACES. YOU SAY DEMOCRATS ARE NOW THE SLIGHT FAVORITE TO WALK BACK THE CHAMBER. WALK US THROUGH THAT PATH OF VICTORY. LARRY: SURE. DEMOCRATS HAVE TO WIN COINTREAU SEATS, ASSUMING — FOUR SEATS, ASSUMING TIM KAINE BECOMES VICE PRESIDENT AND BREAKS THE TIME. REPUBLICAN INCUMBENTS IN ILLINOIS AND WISCONSIN ARE LIKELY TO LOSE. THE QUESTION COMES FROM, WHERE DID THE OTHER TWO SEATS COME FROM? THE MOST LIKELY SIEGES INDIANA, WHERE THE SENATOR IS TRYING TO RECLAIM HIS OWN SEAT. AND I THINK PENNSYLVANIA AND NEW HAMPSHIRE ARE BOTH LEANING TO DEMOCRATS, WHICH ARE INCUMBENTS. DEMOCRATS ONLY HAVE TO WORRY ABOUT NEVADA. NICOLLE: I AM GLAD MY FRIEND ROB PORTMAN IS NOT ON YOUR LIST OF PEOPLE YOU ARE WORRIED ABOUT. THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR GIVING US A LOOK INTO YOUR CRYSTAL BALL. WHEN WE COME BACK, WE WILL TALK ABOUT THE MAN BEHIND TRUMP’S CAMPAIGN FINANCES. ♪ ♪ JOHN: IT’S A FAIRYTALE ABOUT A WEALTHY BUSINESSMAN WITH NO POLITICAL EXPERIENCE WHO WENT FOR MAKING DEALS IN NEW YORK TO WORKING ON THE NATIONAL PRESIDENTIAL CAMPAIGN. NO, WE ARE NOT TALKING ABOUT DONALD TRUMP, WE ARE TALKING ABOUT STEVE NATION, THE SUSPECT OF A NEW BLOOMBERG BUSINESSWEEK STORY, CALLED TRUMPING’S TOP FUNDRAISER. JOINING US IS ONE OF THE REPORTERS, BLOOMBERG’S MAX ABELSON. TELL US ABOUT STEPHEN NUGENT. WHO IS THIS GUY? SEN. GRAHAM: THAT WAS — REPORTER: THAT WAS THE QUESTION MY COWRITER AND I HAD. NO ONE REALLY KNEW ABOUT HIM. JOBS THAT WE HAD — THE JOBS THAT HE HAD ARE THINGS THAT TRUMP FANS ARE NOT CRAZY ABOUT. WE ARE TOLD HE DROVE A PORSCHE. HE WORKED AT GOLDMAN SACHS. HE RAN HEDGE FUND MONEY FOR GEORGE SOROS. HE BECAME A HOLLYWOOD GUY, HE BOUGHT A BANK. DURING ALL THIS, BY THE WAY, HE WAS GIVING MONEY TO DEMOCRATS, INCLUDING HILLARY CLINTON AND BARACK OBAMA, SO PEOPLE WERE SURPRISED THAT HE GOT THIS JOB. NICOLLE: THAT HIS ROLE IS MUCH BROADER THAN JUST DIALING FOR DOLLARS. TALK ABOUT HIS ROLE IN TRUMP’S SPEAR OF INFLUENCE. IS HE CLOSE TO THE FAMILY? REPORTER: IT’S NOT LIKE STEV EN MNUCHIN IS JUST RISING MONEY FOR TRUMP. HE IS ON THE ECONOMIC ADVISORY COUNCIL, WHICH BY THE WAY, THERE ARE LIKE 17 ON THE COUNCIL, THE OTHER GUYS TOLD US THAT THEY SEE HIM AS A GUY WITH DONALD TRUMP’S HERE. — EAR. HE HAS SPENT A LOT OF TIME DOING CAMPAIGN FINANCE GUYS DON’T NORMALLY DO. HE TRAVELED TO SCOTLAND. THERE ARE NOT A LOT OF AMERICAN CITIZENS WHO ARE ALLOWED TO DONATE. I THINK HE IS PART OF THE INNER CIRCLE. JOHN: SO WHAT IS STEVE NATION’S IN GAME — END GAME? REPORTER: THAT IS ONE OF THE QUESTIONS WE HAVE. WHAT THE THEORY IN NEW YORK AND L.A. IS IS THAT THIS IS A GUY WHO CAN SPOT AN OPPORTUNITY. THERE IS A DOWNSIDE. PEOPLE THINK OF WALL STREET AS CONSERVATIVE. THEY ARE PRETTY LIBERAL. AND A LOT OF THEM ARE SUSPICIOUS ABOUT HIS TIES TO TRUMP. IT WILL BE HARD WORK FOR A FEW MONTHS. THE BRIGHT SIDE, IF DONALD TRUMP WINS, AND DOG IS THE GUY — AND DOG — MNUCHIN IS THE KIND OF GUY. NICOLLE: FINANCE CHAIRS ARE USUALLY IN CHARGE OF THE BUNDLING PROCESS, AND IT SEEMS TO ME THAT TRUMP IS DOING BETTER WITH THE SMALL DONATIONS. HOW SUCCESSFUL HAS HE BEEN IN HIS ACTUAL JOB ON THE TRUNK CAMPAIGN? REPORTER: WE FOUND OUT THAT THE ACTUAL OPERATION THAT STEVE MNUCHIN IS A CHART OF, — HE IS IN CHARGE OF — THESE GUYS SPENT DECADES BUILDING OF THESE KINDS OF NETWORKS. WHAT TRUMP HAS LOOKS LIKE A CLASSIC DONALD TRUMP BUSINESS. YOU KNOW WHEN HE HAS COLOGNE LIKE SUCCESS, WHICH I HAVE BACK IN MY DESK. NICOLLE: DO YOU SERIOUSLY? DOES IT SMELL GOOD? ARE YOU WEARING IT? REPORTER: NOT RIGHT NOW. THESE COLOGNES ARE MADE BY OTHER PEOPLE. THESE ARE BUSINESSES WHERE TRUMP LICENSES HIS NAME. IN A FUNNY WAY, THAT’S WHAT’S HAPPENING RIGHT NOW WITH THE FUND-RAISING OPERATION. RNC IS DOING A LOT OF THE WORK, BECAUSE DONALD TRUMP DID NOT HAVE NETWORKS OF PEOPLE AND WAYS OF MAKING MONEY, AND NEITHER DID STEVE MNUCHIN. JOHN: I WANT YOU TO GIVE US A PICTURE OF, WHAT IS THIS GUY LIKE? FIRST OF ALL, I CAN SMELL YOU HERE IN LOS ANGELES. I’M SURE YOU SMELL REALLY GOOD. IS HE CHARMING, IS HE SCHEMING, IS HE TOUGH? JUST GIVE US A QUICK PERSONALITY SKETCH. REPORTER: I WILL SAY IT WAS A LITTLE INTIMIDATING TO WRITE ABOUT HIM, BECAUSE HE COMES ACROSS AS A LITTLE BIT BLAND. HE DOES NOT SEEM SUPER INTO DONALD TRUMP. HE SEEMS LIKE A BUSINESSMAN KIND OF ON THE VERGE OF A BUSINESS DEAL THAT HE DOES NOT WANT TO GET INTO. YOU CAN SAY TO HIM, STEPHEN, WHY ARE YOU DOING THIS? HE SAID IT IS A VERY UNIQUE OPPORTUNITY AT A VERY UNIQUE TIME. HE IS VERY GOLDMAN SACHS. YOU CAN TELL THAT HE REALLY GREW UP AROUND GOLDMAN SACHS PARTNERS. LOU EISENBERG NEW STEVE MNUCHIN WHEN HE WAS 10 YEARS OLD. HE TOLD ME STEVE WAS A VERY CUTE 10-YEAR-OLD. JOHN: MAX, I IMAGINE YOU WERE A VERY CUTE 10-YEAR-OLD, TOO. COMING UP, WALL-TO-WALL COVERAGE OF THE TRUMP WALL. WE WILL TALK IMMIGRATION, AFTER THIS. ♪ NICOLLE: JOINING US NOW TO TALK MORE ABOUT DONALD TRUMP’S IMMIGRATION SPEECH, WE HAVE THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF AMERICANS VOICE, AND A LEGAL ANALYST AT THE CENTER FOR AMERICAN STUDIES. ALSO ON SET, WE ARE JOINED BY SAID COUPLER. THANK YOU FOR BEING HERE WITH ME. I WANT YOU TO START HEARING FROM ALL OF YOU ON JUST A POLICY LEVEL. THERE IS PLENTY OF TIME TO GET INTO THE POLITICS, BUT CAN YOU BOTH TELL ME YOUR TAKE ON THE SUBSTANCE OF WHAT HE PROPOSED IN HIS POLICY ADDRESS LAST NIGHT?>>THE MEDIA HAS BEEN DEMANDING A OF DETAIL FOR THE PAST COUPLE OF WEEKS. THIS WAS A VERY LONG SPEECH WITH A VARIETY OF PROVISIONS IN IT THAT, IF ENFORCED, WHAT HAVE AN EFFECT ON REDUCING OUR PROBLEM OF ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION AND OPEN BORDERS. IT IS QUITE DIFFERENT FROM WHAT WE HAVE BEEN SOLD BY POLITICIANS ON BOTH SIDES FROM THE PAST FEW YEARS. THE IDEA IS THAT WE CAN ONLY HAVE SOME SORT OF MASSIVE CONFERENCE OF BILL THAT — MASSIVE, COMPREHENSIVE BILL THAT FEW PEOPLE WILL BREED, BUT TRUMP — FEW PEOPLE WILL READ, BUT TRUMP SAID HE WILL PUT MEASURES IN PLACE FIRST, WE WILL GET A HOLD OF OUR IMMIGRATION SYSTEM, AND WE WILL DEAL WITH THOSE WHO ARE HERE AFTER THAT. I THINK THAT GETS US CLOSER TO AN ACTUAL FIX ON THE IMMIGRATION PROBLEM. NICOLLE: FRANK, I WOULD LIKE YOU TO WEIGH IN, BECAUSE I KNOW YOU HAVE A VERY DIFFERENT VIEW ON THE ACTUAL POLICY. LET ME HEAR FROM YOU OF WHAT YOU THINK OF THE POLICY PROPOSALS.>>SURE, THIS IS ONE OF THE MOST HARD-LINE PROPOSALS WE HAVE EVER SEEN FROM A NOMINEE IN MODERN POLITICAL HISTORY. ALL THE STEPS AT UP — ADD UP TO A MASS DEPORTATION STRATEGY THAT WOULD DRIVE MILLIONS OF UNDOCUMENTED IMMIGRANTS, MOST OF WHOM HAVE LIVED IN THE COUNTRY FOR MORE THAN 10 YEARS COME OUT OF THE COUNTRY, EITHER THROUGH GOVERNMENT DEPORTATION WHERE THEY ARE PICKED UP BY AGENTS OR LOCAL POLICE AND DETAINED OR DEPORTED, OR THEY ARE FORCED OUT BECAUSE LIFE IS SO MISERABLE. THIS IS A REAL FAR RIGHT, HARD-LINE PROPOSAL AIMED AT DRIVING 11 MILLION PEOPLE OUT OF THE COUNTRY. NICOLLE: OBVIOUSLY WE WON’T GET INTO THE POLITICS IN A SECOND WITH JOHN, BUT DO WE KNOW WHAT IS IN HIS MIND ON WHERE HE COMES ON IMMIGRATION ONCE AND FOR ALL? WAS THAT ACHIEVED? SEN. GRAHAM: YES, — REPORTER: YES, I DON’T THINK THAT WOULD HAVE BEEN CLEARER. THIS IS THE DONALD TRUMP WE KNOW FROM THE PRIMARIES, ALL THE THINGS THAT WORKS SO WELL WITH REPUBLICAN VOTERS — DEPORTATION IS ON THE CABLE FOR EVERYBODY. — ON THE TABLE FOR EVERYBODY. LEGAL STATUS AND CITIZENSHIP ARE OFF THE TABLE. HE IS GOING TO DO E-VERIFY TO MAKE IT VERY HARD FOR PEOPLE WHO ARE HERE TO FIND JOBS. THIS IS THE DONALD TRUMP ANTI-IMMIGRATION VISION THAT TOOK HOLD IN THE REPUBLICAN PRIMARY, NOT ONLY WITH DONALD TRUMP, BUT TED CRUZ. THIS IS SOMETHING REPUBLICANS HAVE TO DEAL WITH. THERE ARE A LOT OF STRATEGISTS WHO ARE EXTREMELY NERVOUS ABOUT WHAT THIS MEANS TO THE FUTURE OF THEIR PARTY. I THINK OUR GUEST WOULD AGREE THAT ONE CANDIDATE ON THE DEMOCRATIC SIDE IS RUNNING ON THE MOST PRO-IMMIGRATION PLATFORM WE HAVE SEEN IN MODERN TIMES, AND ONE CANDIDATE ON THE MOST ANTI-IMMIGRATION PLATFORM WE HAVE SEEN IN MODERN TIMES. THIS IS A VERY STARK CHOICE. JOHN: FRANK, LAST NIGHT WHEN HE GAVE HIS SPEECH, THERE WAS SOMETHING FUSION AMONG MY COLLEAGUES ON WHETHER HE HAD MODERATED IN ALL AND TERMS OF SUBSTANCE — HAD MODERATED ATOLL IN TERMS OF SUBSTANCE. HE DID NOT CALL FOR THE MASS DEPORTATION OF A MILLION — OF 11 MILLION WORKERS IN THE UNITED STATES. DID HE’S OFTEN? IS IS HARDER THAN EVER, OR EVEN HARDER?>>IN THE MATTER OF POLICY, I DON’T THINK YOU SOFT AND AT ALL. HE GOT A FEW HEADLINES FROM KELLYANNE CONWAY SAYING, LET’S JUST SAY WE WILL ENFORCE THE LAW AGGRESSIVELY. LET’S NOT CALL IT A DEPORTATION FORCE, LET’S SAY WE WILL TRIPLE THE NUMBER OF ICE AGENTS. I THINK IT WAS AN ATTEMPT TO SOME WERE REASONABLE, BUT FRANKLY, I EXPECTED IT TO HAVE MORE RHETORICAL FLOURISHES. I NEVER EXPECTED HE WOULD MOVE FROM HIS HARD-LINE POLICY. IT ENDED UP BEING MUCH MORE OF A STEPHEN BANNON SPEECH THAN A KELLYANNE CONWAY SPEECH. JOHN: LET ME ASK YOU THE SAME QUESTION. IS YOUR VIEW NOW — IS THIS A COVER SET OF PROPOSALS THAT HE OFFERED DURING THE NOMINATION FIGHT, IS IT BASICALLY ABOUT THE SAME, OR WOULD YOU SEE ANY SIGN THAT HE HAS MODERATED ATOLL? — AT ALL?>>IN MANY WAYS, IT IS WHAT HE HAS SAID IS HIS IMMIGRATION PLATFORM. WHAT HE MADE CLEAR LAST NIGHT IS THAT THE INTERESTS OF THE AMERICAN WORKER WILL COME FIRST. IN WASHINGTON, THE PEOPLE DRIVING THE DEBATE ON IMMIGRATION ARE PRIMARILY CHEAP LABOR LOBBYISTS WHO WANT MORE IMMIGRATION AT ALL COSTS. BY THE WAY, I WOULD NOT CALL THIS ANTI-IMMIGRATION. THIS IS ANTI-ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION. WE HAVE A COUNTRY MADE UP OF PEOPLE WHO ARE VERY GENEROUS. WE HAVE THE MOST PERMANENT RESIDENCY OF ANY OTHER COUNTRY BY A LONG SHOT. AT THE SAME TIME, IT DOES NOT MEAN WE HAVE TO TOLERATE ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION. ON THE OTHER HAND, I WOULD AGREE WITH YOU THAT IT IS A STARK CHOICE, BECAUSE I DON’T KNOW WHERE HILLARY CLINTON STANDS ON ANY OF THESE ISSUES. DOES YOU THINK THE BORDER IN ITS CURRENT STATE IS FINE? I DON’T KNOW. DOES SHE THINK E-VERIFY SHOULD BE MANDATED? I DON’T KNOW. UNDER HER PLAN, I THINK WE WOULD HAVE SOME MASS LEGALIZATION IN THE FIRST 100 DAYS, AND THEN WE WOULD HAVE MORE ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION. THAT’S NOT FIXING THE PROBLEM.>>JOHN, YOU MENTIONED THAT THIS IS NOT ANTI-IMMIGRATION, JUST ABOUT ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION. SURE, THERE ARE ANTI-ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION COMPONENTS IN THERE, BUT IT IS ABSOLUTELY ABOUT ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION TOO. THE PLAN — ABSOLUTELY ABOUT LEGAL IMMIGRATION, TOO. IT RAISES THE H-1B STANDARD TO THE GREEN CARD STANDARD, SO THIS IS AN ATTACK FROM ALL ANGLES.>>I WOULD AGREE WITH YOU, WELCOMING A GREATER CONVERSATION OF, ON THE ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION ANGLE. ALL THESE COMPREHENSIVE MEASURES , THERE WAS A GALLUP POLL THAT CAME OUT LAST WEEK, NOBODY, NOT LIBERALS, NON-HISPANICS, ONLY 15% OF MEXICAN IMMIGRANTS FROM MEXICO WANT UNLIMITED IMMIGRATION. PEOPLE ARE UNEMPLOYED AT HIGH LEVELS, AND THE IDEA OF DRASTICALLY INCREASING ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION IS FLAWED.>>LOOK, HILLARY CLINTON IS IN FAVOR OF COMPREHENSIVE IMMIGRATION REFORM. A FOX NEWS POLL CAME OUT AND SAID THAT 77% OF THE AMERICAN PEOPLE THINK THAT UNDOCUMENTED IMMIGRANTS SHOULD BE GIVEN A CHANCE TO GET LEGAL, RATHER THAN ROUNDING UP AS MANY AS WE CAN. ONLY 19% SAY, LET’S GET RID OF THE UNDOCUMENTED POPULATION. DONALD TRUMP IS SPEAKING TO THE 19%, BUT NOT TO BE A MORE — NOT TO THE MAJORITY OF AMERICANS WHO SAY, CAN’T WE FIGURE OUT HOW TO BE A NATION OF IMMIGRANTS AND OUTLAWS? CAN’T WE FIGURE OUT A WAY — AND OF LAWS? CAN’T WE FIGURE OUT A WAY TO MAKE SURE THAT PEOPLE COME HERE LEGALLY? THERE IS BROAD SUPPORT FOR THAT. UNFORTUNATELY, THE REPUBLICAN PARTY IS THE TALE WAGON OF THE DOG.>>IF IT WERE HAPPENING — IF IT WERE POPULAR, IT WOULD HAVE PASSED UNDER BUSH AND OBAMA, BUT IT HASN’T BECAUSE THE AMERICAN PEOPLE ARE SAYING NO. NICOLLE: I AM GOING TO GET THE LAST WORD ON ALL YOU GUYS. FOX NEWS HAS A PULLOUT SAYING THAT 77% OF REGISTERED VOTERS ARE IN FAVOR OF SETTING UP A SYSTEM TO LEGALIZE IMMIGRANTS IN THE UNITED STATES ILLEGALLY. BOTH — PRESIDENTS FROM BOTH PARTIES HAVE TRIED AND FALLEN SHORT, BUT THE POPULAR SUPPORT IS BEHIND SETTING UP SOME SYSTEM FOR DEALING PEOPLE ALREADY HERE. JOHN, FRANK, THANK YOU ALL FOR BEING WITH US. WHEN WE COME BACK, WE WILL CHECK IN WITH OUR FRIENDS ON THE CAMPAIGN TRAIL. IF YOU ARE WATCHING US IN WASHINGTON, D.C., YOU CAN LISTEN TO US ON THE RADIO AT 99.1 FM. WE WILL BE RIGHT BACK. ♪ ♪ JOHN: OUR NEXT GUEST IS “WASHINGTON POST” POLITICAL CORRESPONDENT AND AARON. WE HAVE TALKED A LOT ABOUT DONALD TRUMP. IT IS NOW TIME TO TALK ABOUT HILLARY CLINTON. I HAVE NOTICED, EVER SINCE THE EVENTS YESTERDAY IN MEXICO CITY, THE CLINTON CAMPAIGN SEEMS TO BE TAUNTING DONALD TRUMP. HAVE YOU NOTICED THAT, AND WHAT IS THAT ABOUT? GUEST: I THINK IT IS NOT BY COINCIDENCE. FOR SURE, THEY ARE TAUNTING HIM, TRYING TO POKE A LITTLE FUN AT WHAT THEY SEE AS A DEBACLE FOR HIM, GOING TO MEXICO TO BEGIN WITH, AND THEN HAVING TWO DIFFERENT MESSAGES IN THE SAME DAY. BUT WHAT I THOUGHT WAS MOST INTERESTING WAS JOHN PODESTA ISSUING NOT ONE, BUT TWO TROLL-LIKE TAUNTS YESTERDAY TO TRUMP THAT USED KIND OF WALL STREET NEGOTIATOR LANGUAGE, TO SAY THAT TRUMP WAS A POOR NEGOTIATOR, THAT HE DID NOT CLOSE THE DEAL IN THE ROOM, THAT HE GOT EACH IN THE ROOM. — BEAT IN THE ROOM. JOHN: THEY CALL HIM A CHOKER, WHICH IS ONE OF TRUMP’S FAVORITE ADJECTIVES. HE LIKES TO CALL PEOPLE A CHOKER OR A CHOKE ARTIST. I THINK THEY ARE TRYING TO GET IN HIS HEAD A LITTLE BIT. GUEST: YEAH, GET UNDER HIS SKIN A LITTLE BIT. THE CLINTON CAMPAIGN HAS LONG SEEN AS THEIR BEST WEAPON AGAINST TRUMP TRUMP HIMSELF AND HIS THIN-SKINNED, WITH ACS IS THIN-SKINNED. A LOT OF PEOPLE THINK HILLARY CLINTON AS A THIN-SKINNED TOO, BUT — HAS A THIN SKIN TOO, BUT IT SEEMS SHE HAS DONE A BETTER JOB OF GETTING UNDER HIS SKIN THAN HE IS GETTING UNDER HERS. NICOLLE: BIDEN WAS ON THE TRAIL. DO THEY VIEW HIM AS A SECRET WEAPON IN STATES WHERE SHE IS CLOSE TO TRUMP. WISCONSIN CAME CLOSE TO TRUMP THIS WEEK IN THE MARGIN OF ERROR. THEY NEED — DO THEY NEED BIDEN AND PLACES WHERE HE CAN SHORE UP THOSE KINDS OF VOTERS? GUEST: I THINK BIDEN IS A NOT SO SECRET WEAPON, REALLY. HIS CHIEF UTILITY WILL BE USEFUL IN GOING AT TRUMP WITH VERY STRONGLY MUCH. HE IS MORE COMFORTABLE THAN OBAMA AND CLINTON SOMETIMES AT LETTING THE OTHER SIDE HAVE IT. ALSO, TALKING TO WHITE, WORKING-CLASS, TRADITIONAL DEMOCRATS, MANY OF WHOM HAVE BEEN DISAFFECTED AND FOR WHOM TRUMP HAS PULLED SOME APPEAL. THAT SO FAR HAS BEEN THE MAIN WAY THEY HAVE TRIED TO USE WIDEN, AND ICE — BIDEN, AND I EXPECT THEY WILL CONTINUE TO DO SO. NICOLLE: HIS STORY TODAY OF SITTING AROUND THE TABLE TALKING ABOUT NOT HAVING THE MONEY TO BUY TIRES, I THINK — I CAN’T THINK OF ANYONE IN THE DEMOCRATIC ALL-STAR LINEUP THAT COULD DELIVER THAT MESSAGE WITH THE KIND OF CREDIBILITY THAT ITEM. — JOE BIDEN COULD. E-ZINES LIKE A LEAGUE OF HIS OWN AS A SURROGATE THAT CAN SPEAK TO THE FIVE — HE SEEMS LIKE A LEAGUE OF HIS OWN AS A SURROGATE THAT CAN SPEAK TO THE VOTERS LIKE THAT. GUEST: YEAH, I AM TRYING TO GIVE EVERYBODY A PATH TO THE MIDDLE CLASS, AND SORT OF RENEWED THE PROMISES OF WHAT THE MIDDLE CLASS MEANT, THAT IS A FOUNDATIONAL ARGUMENT FOR HILLARY CLINTON’S CAMPAIGN, AND IT IS ONE THAT SHE TRIES TO APPLY HER OWN FAMILY EXPERIENCE TO. AS YOU JUST POINTED OUT, THERE IS A GREATER SENSE OF AUTHENTICITY AND PERSONAL EXPERIENCE WHEN YOU HEAR IT COME FROM JOE BIDEN. JOHN: ALWAYS HAPPY TO HAVE YOU ON THE SHOW. WE WILL SEE YOU NEXT TIME, AND WE WILL BE BACK. ♪ JOHN: EARLIER THIS SUMMER, I GOT THE CHANCE TO SIT DOWN WITH THE AUTHOR OF “GRACE WITHOUT GOD” FOR A WIDE-RANGING DISCUSSION ABOUT TWO TOPICS THAT PEOPLE TYPICALLY AVOID, RELIGION AND POLITICS. I STARTED OUT BY ASKING HER EXACTLY WHAT COMPELS HER TO WRITE THIS BOOK.>>I STARTED THIS BOOK WHEN — MY HUSBAND WAS RAISED JEWISH, AND WE BOTH LEFT OUR FAITH. I WAS ASKED WHAT MY FAITH WAS, I SAID NOTHING. I FELT TERRIBLE. I SPENT THREE YEARS GOING AROUND THE COUNTRY, INTERVIEWING PEOPLE ABOUT WHAT THEY ARE DOING TO FILL THE VACUUM THAT IS OFTEN LEFT WHEN THEY LEAVE THEIR RELIGIOUS TRADITIONS BEHIND. JOHN: SO WHAT ARE THEY DOING?>>THEY ARE DOING ALL KINDS OF THINGS. THEY ARE SEEKING COMMUNITY, RITUAL, AND WAYS TO GET OUT AND DO WORK IN THEIR WIDER NEIGHBORHOOD, AND THEY ARE BASICALLY CREATING A DIY EXPERIENCE TO REPLACE RELIGION, BECAUSE THEY GOT TIRED OF THE INSTITUTIONS, AND THE INSTITUTIONS WERE NO LONGER SERVING THEM. SO THEY ARE TAKING BACK INTO THEIR OWN CONTROL THE THINGS THEY MISS ABOUT IT. JOHN: I THINK IT IS SOME OF THE MOST INTERESTING — ONE OF THE MOST INTRICATE — ONE OF THE MOST INTERESTING THINGS IN OUR SOCIETY THAT THERE IS NOT REALLY A DISCUSSION ABOUT THIS. NOT ONE PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE HAS SAID, I’M SORRY, I’M AN ATHEIST. IT WOULD BE POLITICALLY DEAD. GIVEN THAT THAT IS TRUE AND CONTINUES TO BE THE CASE, IT IS A GROWING PHENOMENON, RIGHT? WE HAVE MORE PEOPLE WITHOUT FAITH THAN THERE USED TO BE. CAN YOU GIVE US A SENSE OF WHY THAT IS? WHAT IS DRIVING THE GROWTH?>>FOR DECADES, FOR AS LONG AS PEOPLE HAVE STUDIED RELIGIOUS AFFILIATION, THE NUMBER OF AMERICANS WHO SAID THEY WERE NOTHING WAS 7%. STARTING IN THE 1990’S, IT STARTED TO GO UP. IT IS NOW NEARLY 25%. ONE OF THE PRIMARY THEORIES ABOUT THAT IS THE COUNTERCULTURE OF THE 1960’S CREATING A BOOMERANG EFFECT, THE MORAL MAJORITY, WHICH HARDENS THE RELIGIOUS RIGHT. ONCE THAT HAPPENS, POLITICS STARTED COMING INTO RELIGION, AND IT AFFECTED IT IN SUCH A WAY THAT PEOPLE SAID, IF CHRISTIANITY IS ABOUT GAY RIGHTS AND A WOMAN’S RIGHT TO CHOOSE, THAT’S NOT ME. I’M OUT OF HERE. I CAN’T IDENTIFY WITH THAT AREA — WITH THAT. JOHN: DO YOU THINK THAT POLITICS HAVE CO-OPTED RELIGION TO SOME EXTENT, AND RELIGION HAS CO-OPTED POLITICS, AND IS THAT PART OF THE REASON THAT PEOPLE HAVE DRIFTED AWAY FROM RELIGION, TOWARDS THE STATUS OF BEING UNAFFILIATED WITH ORGANIZED RELIGION?>>EXACTLY. MOST OF THE IS AFFILIATED STILL BELIEVE IN GOD. WHAT THEY ARE LEAVING IS NOT GOD, THEY ARE LEAVING THE INSTITUTION. I MET A WOMAN IN CALIFORNIA IN HER 60’S, AND SHE WAS RAISED CATHOLIC AND TREASURE THOSE MEMORIES OF BEING IN THE CATHOLIC CHURCH WITH HER FAMILY. SHE SAID ONCE THE PRIESTS STARTED TALKING ABOUT THOSE SOCIAL ISSUES INSTEAD OF CHARITY , GOOD WORK, HOW WE CAN HELP OTHERS, SHE FELT LOST AND DISILLUSIONED AND SHE LEFT. JOHN: RECENTLY WE SAW DONALD TRUMP ATTACK HILLARY CLINTON, SAYING SHE HAS NO RELIGION, WE DON’T KNOW ANYTHING ABOUT HER. IT WAS KIND OF AN ATTACK ON HER FOR NOT HAVING ANY CLEAR RELIGIOUS AFFILIATION. OF COURSE, SHE HAS BEEN A METHODIST ALL HER LIFE. BUT WHEN I HEAR THOSE KINDS OF POLITICAL ATTACKS IN THE PRESIDENTIAL CAMPAIGN, HOW DO THEY REACT TO THAT?>>THE RELIGIOUSLY UNAFFILIATED WOULD PREFER NOT TO KNOW ABOUT HILLARY CLINTON’S RELIGION, AND THEY DO PRIMARILY VOTE DEMOCRATIC. JOHN: INTERESTINGLY, WE TALKED TO OUR POLLSTER BEFORE WE SET DOWN FOR THIS INTERVIEW. SHE POINTED OUT THAT IN OUR LAST POLL, 18% OF LIKELY 2016 VOTERS WERE THE NONES, NO RELIGION, AND AMONG THE NONES, 60% WERE FOR CLINTON, AND 20% WERE FOR TRUMP. WHICH IS INTERESTING, BECAUSE IF YOU TAKE YOUR THESIS, IT IS CLEAR THAT THE PLACE WHERE RELIGION AND POLITICS MOST INTERSECT IS ON THE RIGHT, RATHER THAN ON THE LEFT, AND A KIND OF MAKES SENSE THAT THAT WOULD STILL BE THE CASE.>>EXACTLY. I WOULD SAY THIS ELECTION IS ONE WHERE RELIGION IS NOT AS RELEVANT. WHEN YOU HAVE DONALD TRUMP TRYING TO ALIGN WITH EVANGELICALS, I THINK MOST OF US KNOW THEY ARE NOT CONNECTING OVER MATTERS OF FAITH. IT CONNECTING OVER A SENSE OF NATIONALISM, OTHER THINGS THAT THEY CONNECT AND AGREE ON. BERNIE SANDERS, THE FIRST MAJOR PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE WHO IS NOT VERY RELIGIOUS, THE WAY HE DESCRIBES HIMSELF HE SOUNDS LIKE A SECULAR HUMANIST, AND HILLARY CLINTON IS REALLY THE ONE WHO IS THE MOST RELIGIOUS, AND SHE DOES NOT WEAR THAT ON HER SLEEVE. I THINK IN THIS PARTICULAR ELECTION, RELIGION IS NOT AS IMPORTANT. JOHN: IF YOU ARE ASKED TO ADVISE A PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE, DEMOCRATIC OR REPUBLICAN, HOW TO TALK ABOUT FAITH IN THE CONTEXT OF THIS PHENOMENON YOU HAVE WRITTEN ABOUT, HOW WOULD YOU ADVISE THEM TO TALK ABOUT IT? WOULD YOU SAY YOU DON’T TALK ABOUT IT AT ALL, OR WOULD YOU ADVISE THEM TO TALK ABOUT IT IN A WAY THAT WOULD APPEAL TO BOTH AFFILIATED AND UNAFFILIATED?>>PRESIDENT OBAMA DID SOMETHING INTERESTING IN HIS FIRST STATE OF THE UNION ADDRESS. HE WAS THE FIRST PRESIDENT TO WELCOME NONBELIEVERS. HE SAID WE WELCOME JUICE, CATHOLICS, PEOPLE OF FAITH, AND PEOPLE OF NO FAITH. TO BRING ME AND AFFILIATED TO THE TABLE AND A GROWING PRESENCE IS VERY IMPORTANT. — BRING THE UNAFFILIATED TO THE TABLE AS A GROWING PRESENCE IS VERY IMPORTANT. JOHN: EARLIER, I ASSERTED SOMETHING WHICH I BELIEVED TO BE TRUE, WHICH IS BAD IT WOULD BE — WHICH IS THAT IT WOULD BE VERY HARD TO RUN FOR PRESIDENT AND BE UNAFFILIATED OR ACTIVELY BE AN ATHEIST OR AGNOSTIC. IT WOULD BE A HUGE LIABILITY. DO YOU THINK THAT WILL BE THE CASE 20 YEARS FROM NOW, IF YOU THINK ABOUT THE TRENDS YOU ARE OBSERVING? DO YOU THINK THAT IS A TABOO THAT WILL EVENTUALLY START TO GO AWAY?>>IT IS HAPPENING SO QUICKLY. WHEN I STARTED THIS, ABOUT 20% OF PEOPLE WERE UNAFFILIATED. IN JUST THREE YEARS, IT IS ALMOST 25%. IT IS HAPPENING SO FAST, AND THESE GROUPS ARE BECOMING MORE LOCAL, AND THEY ARE BECOMING MORE ACCEPTED. SORT OF LIKE WITH THE GAY COMMUNITY, PEOPLE ARE STARTING TO SAY, OH, HEY, I HAVE A FRIEND WHO WAS AN ATHEIST AND THEY ARE NOT SO BAD. JOHN: SPEAKING AS ONE, WE ARE NOT THAT BAD, THE UNAFFILIATED. YOUR GRADE.>>THANKS FOR HAPPENING — THANKS FOR HAVING ME. JOHN: THE BOOK IS CALLED “RACE WITHOUT GOD — “GRACE WITHOUT GOD. ♪ NICOLLE: HEAD TO BLOOMBERGPOLITICS.COM RIGHT NOW FOR A LOOK AT FLORIDA’S FIGHT AGAINST ZIKA. COMING UP ON “BLOOMBERG WEST,” EMILY CHANG TALKS ABOUT A FORMER PROJECT MANAGER ON HIS LATEST ADVENTURE. AND AS FOR TOMORROW — JOHN: DON’T SAY SAYONARA YET. YOU’VE GOT TO LET ME SAY THANK YOU FOR GUEST HOSTING. IT IS GREAT TO HAVE YOU. NOW WE SAY SAYONARA. NICOLLE: SAYONARA. ♪ MARK: LET’S BEGIN WITH A CHECK OF YOUR FIRST WORD NEWS. RESIDENTS AND BUSINESSES ALONG

American History: The Greatest Speeches (1933-2008)


[FDR]: So first of all, let me assert my firm
belief that the only thing we have to fear is fear itself. Nameless, unreasoning,
unjustified terror which paralyzes needed us to convert retreat into advance. Yesterday, December 7, 1941—a date which will live in infamy—the
United States of America was suddenly and deliberately attacked by naval and
air forces of the Empire of Japan. A short time ago an American airplane
dropped one bomb on Hiroshima and destroyed its usefulness to the enemy.
That bomb has more power than 20,000 tons of TNT. The Japanese began the war
from the air at Pearl Harbor, they have been repaid many-fold. And the
end is not yet. With this bomb, we have now added a new
and revolutionary increase in destruction to supplement the growing
power of our armed forces. We have been compelled to create a permanent
armaments industry of vast proportions. In the council’s of government, we must
guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence—whether sought or
unsought—by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of
misplaced power exists and will persist. We must never let the weight of this
combination endanger our liberties or democratic process. I do not believe that any of us would
exchange places with any other people or any other generation. The energy, the
faith, the devotion which we bring to this endeavor will
light our country and all who serve it. And the glow from that fire can truly
light the world. And so my fellow Americans ask not what your country can
do for you, ask what you can do for your country. My fellow citizens of the world, ask not what America will do for you, but
what together we can do for the freedom of man. And there are even a few who say that it’s true that communism is an evil
system, but it permits us to make economic progress. Lasst sie nach Berlin kommen—let them come to Berlin. [Cheering] All free men—wherever they may live—are
citizens of Berlin and therefore, as a free man, I take pride
in the words ich bin ein Berliner. I have a dream, that my four little children will one day
live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color about skin, but by
the content in their character. I have a dream today. Let freedom ring and when it happens, we allow freedom ring, when we let it
ring from every village and every hamlet, from every state and every city, we will
be able to speed up that day when all of God’s children—black men and white men, Jews and Gentiles, Protestants and Catholics—will be able to join hands and
sing in the words of the old Negro spiritual, “free at last, free at last, thank God Almighty, we are free at last.” There is no constitutional issue here. The command of the Constitution is
plain. There is no moral issue. It is wrong, deadly wrong, to deny any of your fellow
Americans the right to vote in this country. To know war is to know that there is still madness
in this world. They are poor to be lifted up, and there
are cities to be built, and there’s a world to be helped. Yet, we do what we must. I’m hopeful—and I will try, best I
can, with everything I’ve got—to end this battle and to return our sons to their
desires. Yet as long as others will challenge America’s
security, and test the dearness of our beliefs with fire and steel, then we must
stand or see the promise of two centuries tremble. All we say to America is be true to what you
said on paper. But somewhere I read of the freedom of assembly. Somewhere I read of
the freedom of speech. Somewhere I read of the freedom of press. Somewhere I read that the greatness of America is the right
to protest for rights. [Cheering] And so, just as I say we aren’t going to let any dogs
or water hoses turn us around, we aren’t going let any injunction turn us around. I don’t know what will happen now. We’ve
got some difficult days ahead. but it really doesn’t matter with me now
because I’ve been to the mountaintop. [Cheering] And I don’t mind. Like anybody, I would like to live a long
life. Longevity has its place. But I’m not concerned about that now. I just want to do God’s will. And He’s
allowed me to go up to the mountain. And I’ve looked over, and I’ve seen the promised land. I may not get there with you, but I want
you to know tonight, that we as a people will get to the promised land. [Cheering.] So I’m happy tonight, I’m not worried about anything, I’m
not fearing any man. Mine eyes have seen the glory of the coming of the Lord. [Cheering] I have some very sad news for all of you,
and I think sad news for all of our fellow citizens and people who love
peace all over the world, and that is that Martin Luther King was shot and was
killed tonight in Memphis, Tennessee. Martin Luther King dedicated his life to
love and to justice between fellow human beings, he died in the cause of that effort. For
those of you who are black and are tempted to be filled with hatred and mistrust of the injustice of such an act against all white people, I would only say that I can also feel in
my own heart the same kind of feeling. I had a member
of my family killed, but he was killed by a white man. But we
have to make an effort in the United States. We have to make an effort to
understand, to get beyond—or go beyond— these rather difficult times. My favorite poem—my favorite poet was
Aeschylus—he once wrote ‘Even in our sleep, pain which cannot
forget, falls drop by drop upon the heart until in our own despair, against our
will, comes wisdom through the awful grace of God.’ What we need in the United
States is not division, what we need in the United States is not
hatred, what we need in the United States is not
violence and lawlessness, but is love and wisdom and compassion
toward one another, a feeling of justice toward those who
still suffer within our country, whether they be white, or whether they be black. Throughout the long and difficult period
of Watergate, I have felt it was my duty to persevere. To make every possible
effort to complete the term of office to which you elected me. In the past few
days however, it has become evident to me that I no longer have a strong enough
political base in the Congress to justify continuing that effort. Therefore, I shall resign the presidency
effective at noon tomorrow. Vice President Ford will be sworn in as
president at that hour, in this office. Today is a day for mourning and
remembering. Nancy and I are pained to the core over the tragedy of the shuttle Challenger. We know we share this pain with all of
the people of our country. This is truly a national loss. We’ve
never had a tragedy like this and perhaps we’ve forgotten the courage it
took for the crew of the shuttle. But they, the Challenger Seven were aware of the
dangers and overcame them and did their jobs brilliantly. We mourn seven heroes. And I want to say
something to the schoolchildren of America who were watching the live
coverage of the shuttle’s take off. I know it’s hard to understand, but
sometimes painful things like this happen It’s all part of the process of
exploration and discovery. It’s all part of taking a chance and
expanding man’s horizons. The future doesn’t belong to the
faint-hearted. It belongs to the brave. The Challenger crew was pulling us into the
future and we’ll continue to follow. There is one sign the Soviets can make
that would be unmistakable, that would advance dramatically the cause of
freedom and peace. General Secretary Gorbachev, if you seek
peace, if you seek prosperity for the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe, if you
seek liberalization, come here to this gate. Mr. Gorbachev, open this gate. Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall. Just two hours ago, allied air forces began an attack on
military targets in Iraq and Kuwait these attacks continue as I speak ground forces are not engaged this
conflict started August second when the dictator of Iraq invaded a small and
helpless neighbor Kuwait a member of the Arab Lee and a member of the United
Nations was crushed its people brutalized five months ago sediment
saying started this cruel war against Kuwait tonight that battle has been
joined this speaker mr. vice president members of Congress honored guests my
fellow Americans we are fortunate to be alive at this moment in history never before has our nation enjoyed at
once so much prosperity and social progress with so little internal crisis
and so few external threats never before have we had such a blessing
opportunity and therefore such a profound obligation to build a more
perfect union of our founders dreams we begin the new century with over 20
million new jobs the fastest economic growth in more than
30 years the lowest unemployment rates in 30
years the lowest poverty rates in 20 years the lowest african-american and Hispanic
unemployment rates on record the first back-to-back surpluses and 42 years and
next month America will achieve the longest period of economic growth in our
entire history good evening just moments ago I spoke with George W
Bush and congratulated him on becoming the 43rd President of the United States
and I promised them that I wouldn’t calling back this time now the US Supreme Court has spoken let
there be no doubt while I strongly disagree with the court’s decision I
accept it I accept the finality of this outcome
which will be ratified next monday in the electoral college and tonight for
the sake of our unity of the people and strength of our democracy I offer my concession this nation stands with the good people
of new york and the jersey and connecticut as we mourn the loss of
thousands of vs I can the rest of the world hears you and the
people and the people who knocked these
buildings down will hear all of us yeah yeah yeah and all those watching tonight from
beyond our shores from Parliament sand palaces to those who are huddled around
radios in the forgotten corners of the world are stories are singular but our
destiny is shared and a new dawn of American leadership is at hand to those to those who would tear the
world down we will defeat you to those who seek peace and security we
support you and to all those who have wondered if America’s beacon still burns
as bright tonight we proved once more that the true strength of our nation
comes not from the might of our arms or the scale of our wealth but from the
enduring power of our ideals democracy Liberty opportunity and
unyielding hope yeah that’s the true genius of America that
America can change our union can be perfect what we’ve already achieved gives us
hope for what we can and must achieve tomorrow this election had many firsts and many
stories will be told for generations but one that’s on my mind tonight’s about a
woman who cast her ballot in Atlanta she’s a lot like the millions of others
who stood in line to make their voice heard in this election except for one thing and Nixon Cooper is
a hundred and six years old she was born just a generation passed slavery a time
when there were no cars on the road or planes in the sky when someone like her
could vote for two reasons because she was a woman and because of the color of
her skin and tonight I think about all that she’s seen
throughout her century in America the Harding and the hope the struggle and
the progress the times we were told that we can’t and the people who pressed on with that
American creed yes we can at a time when women’s voices
were silenced and their hopes dismissed she lived to see them stand up and speak
out and reach for the bailout yes we can when there was this fair and
the Dust Bowl and depression across the lamb she saw a nation conquer fear itself
with a new deal new jobs a new sense of common purpose yes we can when the bombs fell on our
Harbor and tyranny threaten the world she was there to witness a generation
rise to greatness and a democracy was saved yes we can she was there for the buses
in Montgomery the hoses in birmingham a bridge in Selma and a preacher from
Atlanta who told the people that we shall overcome yes we can a man touch down on the moon a wall came down in Berlin a world was
connected by our own science and imagination and this year in this
election she touched her finger to a screen and
cast her vote because after a hundred and six years in America through the
best of times and the darkest of hours she knows how America can change yes we
can America we have come so far we have seen
so much but there’s so much more to do so tonight let us ask ourselves if our
children should live to see the next century if my daughter should be so lucky to
live as long as an mix and Cooper what change will they see what progress what we have made this is our chance to
answer that call this is our moment this is our time to
put our people back to work and open doors of opportunity for our kids to
restore prosperity and promote the cause of peace to reclaim the American Dream
and reaffirm that fundamental truth that out of many we are one that while we
breathe we hope and where we are met with cynicism and doubt and those who
tell us that we can’t we will respond with that timeless creed that sums up
the spirit of a people yes we can thank you God bless you and
may God bless the United States of America yeah

The Rise of Conservatism: Crash Course US History #41


Episode 41: Rise of Conservatism Hi, I’m John Green, this is CrashCourse
U.S. history and today we’re going to–Nixon?–we’re going to talk about the rise of conservatism.
So Alabama, where I went to high school, is a pretty conservative state and reliably sends
Republicans to Washington. Like, both of its Senators, Jeff Sessions and Richard Shelby,
are Republicans. But did you know that Richard Shelby used to be a Democrat, just like basically
all of Alabama’s Senators since reconstruction? And this shift from Democrat to Republican
throughout the South is the result of the rise in conservative politics in the 1960s
and 1970s that we are going to talk about today. And along the way, we get to put Richard
Nixon’s head in a jar. Stan just informed me that we don’t actually
get to put Richard Nixon’s head in a jar. It’s just a Futurama joke. And now I’m
sad. So, you’ll remember from our last episode
that we learned that not everyone in the 1960s was a psychedelic rock-listening, war-protesting
hippie. In fact, there was a strong undercurrent of conservative thinking that ran throughout
the 1960s, even among young people. And one aspect of this was the rise of free
market ideology and libertarianism. Like, since the 1950s, a majority of Americans had
broadly agreed that “free enterprise” was a good thing and should be encouraged
both in the U.S. and abroad. Mr. Green, Mr. Green, and also in deep space
where no man has gone before? No, MFTP. You’re thinking of the Starship
Enterprise, not free enterprise. And anyway, Me From The Past, have you ever
seen a more aggressively communist television program than “The Neutral Zone” from Star
Trek: The Next Generation’s first season? I don’t think so.
intro Alright so, in the 1950s a growing number
of libertarians argued that unregulated capitalism and individual autonomy were the essence of
American freedom. And although they were staunchly anti-communist, their real target was the
regulatory state that had been created by the New Deal. You know, social security, and
not being allowed to, you know, choose how many pigs you kill, etc.
Other conservatives weren’t libertarians at all but moral conservatives who were okay
with the rules that enforced traditional notions of family and morality. Even if that seemed
like, you know, an oppressive government. For them virtue was the essence of America.
But both of these strands of conservatism were very hostile toward communism and also
to the idea of “big government.” And it’s worth noting that since World War
I, the size and scope of the federal government had increased dramatically.
And hostility toward the idea of “big government” remains the signal feature of contemporary
conservatism. Although very few people actually argue for shrinking the government. Because,
you know, that would be very unpopular. People like Medicare.
But it was faith in the free market that infused the ideology of the most vocal young conservatives
in the 1960s. They didn’t receive nearly as much press
as their liberal counterparts but these young conservatives played a pivotal role in reshaping
the Republican Party, especially in the election of 1964.
The 1964 presidential election was important in American history precisely because it was
so incredibly uncompetitive. I mean, Lyndon Johnson was carrying the torch
of a wildly popular American president who had been assassinated a few months before.
He was never going to lose. And indeed he didn’t. The republican candidate,
Arizona senator Barry Goldwater, was demolished by LBJ.
But the mere fact of Goldwater’s nomination was a huge conservative victory. I mean, he
beat out liberal Republican New York Governor Nelson Rockefeller. And yes, there were liberal
Republicans. Goldwater demanded a harder line in the Cold
War, even suggesting that nuclear war might be an option in the fight against communism.
And he lambasted the New Deal liberal welfare state for destroying American initiative and
individual liberty. I mean, why bother working when you could just enjoy life on the dole?
I mean, unemployment insurance allowed anyone in America to become a hundredaire.
But it was his stance on the Cold War that doomed his candidacy. In his acceptance speech,
Goldwater famously declared, “Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice.”
Which made it really easy for Johnson to paint Goldwater as an extremist.
In the famous “Daisy” advertisement, Johnson’s supporters countered Goldwater’s campaign
slogan of “in your heart, you know he’s right” with “but in your guts you know
he’s nuts.” So in the end, Goldwater received a paltry
27 million votes to Johnson’s 43 million, and Democrats racked up huge majorities in
both houses of Congress. This hides, however, the significance of the election. Five of
the six states that Goldwater carried were in the Deep South, which had been reliably
democratic, known as the “Solid South,” in fact.
Now, it’s too simple to say that race alone led to the shift from Democratic to the Republican
party in the South because Goldwater didn’t really talk much about race.
But the Democrats, especially under LBJ, became the party associated with defending civil
rights and ending segregation, and that definitely played a role in white southerners’ abandoning
the Democrats, as was demonstrated even more clearly in the 1968 election.
The election of 1968 was a real cluster-Calhoun, I mean, there were riots and there was also
the nomination of Hubert Humphrey, who was very unpopular with the anti-war movement,
and also was named Hubert Humphrey, and that’s just what happened with the Democrats.
But, lost in that picture was the Republican nominee, Richard Milhous Nixon, who was one
of the few candidates in American history to come back and win the presidency after
losing in a previous election. How’d he do it?
Well, it probably wasn’t his charm, but it might have been his patience. Nixon was
famous for his ability to sit and wait in poker games. It made him very successful during
his tour of duty in the South Pacific. In fact, he earned the nickname “Old Iron Butt.”
Plus, he was anti-communist, but didn’t talk a lot about nuking people. And the clincher
was probably that he was from California, which by the late 1960s was becoming the most
populous state in the nation. Nixon won the election, campaigning as the
candidate of the “silent majority” of Americans who weren’t anti-war protesters,
and who didn’t admire free love or the communal ideals of hippies.
And who were alarmed at the rights that the Supreme Court seemed to be expanding, especially
for criminals. This silent majority felt that the rights
revolution had gone too far. I mean, they were concerned about the breakdown in traditional
values and in law and order. Stop me if any of this sounds familiar.
Nixon also promised to be tough on crime, which was coded language to whites in the
south that he wouldn’t support civil rights protests. The equation of crime with African
Americans has a long and sordid history in the United States, and Nixon played it up
following a “Southern strategy” to further draw white Democrats who favored segregation
into the Republican ranks. Now, Nixon only won 43% of the vote, but if
you’ve paid attention to American history, you know that you ain’t gotta win a majority
to be the president. He was denied that majority primarily by Alabama
Governor George Wallace, who was running on a pro-segregation ticket and won 13% of the
vote. So 56% of American voters chose candidates
who were either explicitly or quietly against civil rights.
Conservatives who voted for Nixon hoping he would roll back the New Deal were disappointed.
I mean, in some ways the Nixon domestic agenda was just a continuation of LBJ’s Great Society.
This was partly because Congress was still in the hands of Democrats, but also Nixon
didn’t push for conservative programs and he didn’t veto new initiatives. Because
they were popular. And he liked to be popular. So in fact, a number of big government “liberal”
programs began under Nixon. I mean, the environmental movement achieved success with the enactment
of the Clean Air Act, and the Clean Water Act, and the Endangered Species Act.
The Occupational Health and Safety Administration and the National Transportation Safety Board
were created to make new regulations that would protect worker safety and make cars
safer. That’s not government getting out of our
lives, that’s government getting into our cars.
Now, Nixon did abolish the Office of Economic Opportunity, but he also indexed social security
benefits to inflation and he proposed the Family Assistance Plan that would guarantee
a minimum income for all Americans. And, the Nixon years saw some of the most
aggressive affirmative action in American history. LBJ had begun the process by requiring
recipients of federal contracts to have specific numbers of minority employees and timetables
for increasing those numbers. But Nixon expanded this with the Philadelphia
plan, which required federal construction projects to have minority employees. He ended
up attacking this plan after realising that it was wildly unpopular with trade unions,
which had very few black members, but he had proposed it.
And when Nixon had the opportunity to nominate a new Chief Justice to the Supreme Court after
Earl Warren retired in 1969, his choice, Warren Burger was supposed to be a supporter of small
government and conservative ideals, but, just like Nixon, he proved a disappointment in
that regard. Like, in Swan v. Charlotte-Mecklenbug Board
of Education, the court upheld a lower court ruling that required busing of students to
achieve integration in Charlotte’s schools. And then the Burger court made it easier for
minorities to sue for employment discrimination, especially with its ruling in Regents of the
University of California v. Bakke. This upheld affirmative action as a valid governmental
interest, although it did strike down the use of strict quotas in university admissions.
Now, many conservatives didn’t like these affirmative action decisions, but one case
above all others had a profound effect on American politics: Roe v. Wade.
Roe v. Wade established a woman’s right to have an abortion in the first trimester
of a pregnancy as well as a more limited right as the pregnancy progressed. And that decision
galvanized first Catholics and then Evangelical Protestants.
And that ties in nicely with another strand in American conservatism that developed in
the 1960s and 1970s. Let’s go to the ThoughtBubble. Many Americans felt that traditional family
values were deteriorating and looked to conservative republican candidates to stop that slide.
They were particularly alarmed by the continuing success of the sexual revolution, as symbolized
by Roe v. Wade and the increasing availability of birth control.
Statistics tend to back up the claims that traditional family values were in decline
in the 1970s. Like, the number of divorces soared to over one million in 1975 exceeding
the number of first time marriages. The birthrate declined with women bearing 1.7 children during
their lifetimes by 1976, less than half the figure in 1957. Now, of course, many people
would argue that the decline of these traditional values allowed more freedom for women and
for a lot of terrible marriages to end, but that’s neither here nor there.
Some conservatives also complained about the passage in 1972 of Title IX, which banned
gender discrimination in higher education, but many more expressed concern about the
increasing number of women in the workforce. Like, by 1980 40% of women with young children
had been in the workforce, up from 20% in 1960.
The backlash against increased opportunity for women is most obviously seen in the defeat
of the Equal Rights Amendment in 1974, although it passed Congress easily in 1972. Opponents
of the ERA, which rather innocuously declared that equality of rights under the law could
not be abridged on account of sex, argued that the ERA would let men off the hook for
providing for their wives and children, and that working women would lead to the further
breakdown of the family. Again, all the ERA stated was that women and men would have equal
rights under the laws of the United States. But, anyway, some anti-ERA supporters, like
Phyllis Schlafly claimed that free enterprise was the greatest liberator of women because
the purchase of new labor saving devices would offer them genuine freedom in their traditional
roles of wife and mother. Essentially, the vacuum cleaner shall make you free. And those
arguments were persuasive to enough people that the ERA was not ratified in the required
¾ of the United States. Thanks, ThoughtBubble. Sorry if I let my personal
feelings get in the way on that one. Anyway, Nixon didn’t have much to do with the continuing
sexual revolution; it would have continued without him because, you know, skoodilypooping
is popular. But, he was successfully reelected in 1972,
partly because his opponent was the democratic Barry Goldwater, George McGovern.
McGovern only carried one state and it wasn’t even his home state. It was Massachusetts.
Of course. But even though they couldn’t possibly lose,
Nixon’s campaign decided to cheat. In June of 1972, people from Nixon’s campaign broke
into McGovern’s campaign office, possibly to plant bugs. No, Stan, not those kinds of
bugs. Yes. Those. Now, we don’t know if Nixon actually knew
about the activities of the former employees of the amazingly acronym-ed CREEP, that is
the Committee for the Reelection of the President. But this break in at the Watergate hotel eventually
led to Nixon being the first and so far only American president to resign.
What we do know is this: Nixon was really paranoid about his opponents, even the ones
who appealed to 12% of American voters, especially after Daniel Ellsberg leaked the Pentagon
Papers to the New York Times in 1971. So, he drew up an enemies list and created
a special investigative unit called the plumbers whose job was to fix toilets. No, it was to
stop leaks. That makes more sense. I’m sorry, Stan, it’s just by then the
toilets in the White House were over 100 years old, I figured they might need some fixing,
but apparently no. Leaking. Nixon also taped all of the conversations
in the Oval Office and these tapes caused a minor constitutional crisis.
So, during the congressional investigation of Watergate, it became known that these tapes
existed, so the special prosecutor demanded copies.
Nixon refused, claiming executive privilege, and the case went all the way to the Supreme
Court, which ruled in U.S. v. Nixon that he had to turn them over. And this is important
because it means that the president is not above the law.
So, what ultimately doomed Nixon was not the break in itself, but the revelations that
he covered it up by authorizing hush money payments to keep the burglars silent and also
instructing the FBI not to investigate the crime.
In August of 1974, the House Judiciary Committee recommended that articles of impeachment be
drawn up against Nixon for conspiracy and obstruction of justice. But the real crime,
ultimately, was abuse of power, and there’s really no question about whether he was guilty
of that. So, Nixon resigned. Aw man, I was thinking I was going to get
away without a Mystery Document today. The rules here are simple.
I guess the author of the Mystery Document, and lately I’m never wrong.
Alright. Today I am an inquisitor. I believe hyperbole
would not be fictional and would not overstate the solemnness that I feel right now. My faith
in the Constitution is whole, it is complete, it is total. I am not going to sit here and
be an idle spectator to the diminution, the subversion, the destruction of the Constitution.”
Aw. I’m going to get shocked today. Is it Sam Ervin? Aw dang it! Gah!
Apparently it was African American congresswoman from Texas, Barbara Jordan. Stan, that is
much too hard. I think you were getting tired of me not being
shocked, Stan, because it’s pretty strange to end an episode on conservatism with a quote
from Barbara Jordan, whose election to Congress has to be seen as a huge victory for liberalism.
But I guess it is symbolic of the very things that many conservatives found unsettling in
the 1970s, including political and economic success for African Americans and women, and
the legislation that helped the marginalized. I know that sounds very judgmental, but on
the other hand, the federal government had become a huge part of every American’s life,
maybe too huge. And certainly conservatives weren’t wrong
when they said that the founding fathers of the U.S. would hardly recognize the nation
that we had become by the 1970s. In fact, Watergate was followed by a Senate
investigation by the Church Committee, which revealed that Nixon was hardly the first president
to abuse his power. The government had spied on Americans throughout
the Cold War and tried to disrupt the Civil Rights movement. And the Church Commission,
Watergate, the Pentagon Papers, Vietnam all of these things revealed a government that
truly was out of control and this undermined a fundamental liberal belief that government
is a good institution that is supposed to solve problems and promote freedom.
And for many Conservatives these scandals sent a clear signal that government couldn’t
promote freedom and couldn’t solve problems and that the liberal government of the New
Deal and the Great Society had to be stopped. Thanks for watching, I’ll see you next week.
Woah! Crash Course is made with the help of all of these nice people and it exists because
of…your support on Subbable.com. Subbable is a voluntary subscription service
that allows you to support stuff you like monthly for the price of your choosing, so
if you value Crash Course U.S. History and you want this kind of stuff to continue to
exist so we can make educational content free, forever, for everyone, please check out Subbable.
And I am slowly spinning, I’m slowly spinning, I’m slowly spinning. Thank you again for
your support. I’m coming back around. I can do this. And as we say in my hometown,
don’t forget to be awesome.

Who Should Lead The DNC Now?


THE DNC OBVIOUSLY HAD A MISERABLE FAILURE
IN THIS ELECTION. THEY WERE SUPPOSED
TO WIN A LOT, AND THEY BLEW IT. THEY DIDN’T TAKE MEDICINE AT
ALL. THE REPUBLICAN STILL CONTROL IT
OUT THEY DID NOT REGAIN THE HOUSE AND THEY HAD A HUMILIATING
DEFEAT AGAINST DONALD TRUMP. I IS THAT FROM OUR ONE THAT
EVERYONE IN THE BUILDING SHOULD BE FIRED AND THAT THE DNC
SHOULD GO NEW DIRECTION THAT YOU CAN’T POSSIBLY KEEP
THESE LOSERS. NOW EVERYBODY ACKNOWLEDGES
THAT IS TRUE. NOT BECAUSE THE ME, BECAUSE
IT IS OBVIOUS. WHICH NEW DIRECTION ARE THEY
GOING TO GO? IN THE BEGINNING, IMMEDIATELY, ESTABLISHMENT
FOLKS WERE CONSIDERED. THESE ARE NOT NECESSARILY THE
FOLKS WHO WERE CONSIDERED FOR THE DNC, BUT THEY WERE TALK
ABOUT IT SOMETIMES IN TERMS OF RUNNING FOR PRESIDENT 2020 AND
OTHERWISE TALKED ABOUT THEM AS AN THE NEW STARS OF THE
DEMOCRATIC PARTY. LET ME DISMISS THEM OUT OF
HAND IMMEDIATELY. ONE WAS TIM KAINE. AT ENOUGH THEY KNOW THIS, HE WAS
PART OF THE LOSING TEAM AGAINST DONALD TRUMP. NO CHANCE. CHUCK SCHUMER. HE WAS GETTING READY TO BE
MAJORITY LEADER BUT WRONG HE IS MINORITY. BECAUSE THEY LOST. KRISTEN JOURNAL A BRAND
OTHERWISE KNOWN AS HILLARY CLINTON LIGHT. HILLARY CLINTON MAJOR DIDN’T WIN
WHY WOULD WE GO TO HILLARY CLINTON LIGHT. CORY BOOKER, BARACK OBAMA LIGHT
THAT SECRETLY TAKES MORE MONEY THAN ANYONE ELSE IN CONGRESS
FROM WALL STREET AND DONORS. NOT REMOTELY INTERESTED. NO IS THE ANSWER. HERE ARE FOUR PEOPLE I SUGGEST
THAT MIGHT TAKE THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY AND A DIRECTION WITH A
MIGHT ACTUALLY WIN. THE FOLKS WHO ACTUALLY FIGURED
OUT WHERE INDEPENDENT VOTERS ARE AND WERE RIGHT ALL ALONG. HERE’S ONE GUY THAT WAS
RIGHT ALONG. BERNIE SANDERS. THE FOLKS AT THE DNC, EV ON
THEIR WAY OUR LIKE BERNIE SANDERS? NO WAY. WHAT DIFFERENCE DOES IT MAKE. YOU ARE ALL FIRED. REAL VOTERS TO GET TO DECIDE. I KNOW YOU ARE STILL SO PROUD TO
HILLARY CLINTON WITH HER GIANT LEAD AND INFRASTRUCTURE AND ALL
OF THE DEMOCRATIC OFFICIALS BEHIND HER AND NAME RECOGNITION
EAT OUT A VICTORY AGAINST BERNIE SANDERS SO YOU THINK
WE ARE REDEEMED. NO YOU ARE NOT. YOU LOST A DONALD TRUMP. YOU ARE THE FURTHEST YOU COULD
BE FROM REDEEMED. BERNIE SANDERS DOES NOT THE JOB
VERY LIKELY THAT THERE PLENTY OTHER GOOD CHOICES IN
THAT REALM. TULSI GABBARD WOULD BE A LOVELY
CHOICE. NINA TURNER. YOU WANT STRONG PROGRESSIVE? AT HER. BUT I THINK THE BEST CANDIDATE
IS KEITH ELLISON. HE’S A MEMBER OF CONGRESS. HE IS ONE OF THE LEADERS IN THE
PROGRESSIVE CAUCUS. THAT THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY WERE
PROGRESSIVE .RU PROGRESSIVE OR NOT? IF YOU SAY NO BUT LET’S GOING TO
MODERATE DIRECTION, YOU KNOW YOU ARE SAYING? I AM NOT REALLY PROGRESSIVE. I’M GOING TO DO WITH THE
DONORS TELL ME TO DO. I DON’T WANT TO ROLL
PROGRESSIVELY KEITH ELLISON IN CHARGE OF THE BUILDING. IN CHARGE OF THE PARTY THAT NO,
WE HAVE TO LET THE DONORS CHOOSE. THAT’S A LOST AND ENDANGERED
WHOLE WORLD BY PUTTING DONALD TRUMP IN CHARGE. HELL NO, WE’RE GOING TO GO
FOR KEITH ELLISON. THE OTHERS ARE GREAT
CHOICES AS WELL. IT SEEMS THAT EVERYONE IS
COALESCING AROUND KEITH ELLISON AND I WOULD BE SUPER HAPPY WITH
THAT BECAUSE IT WOULD BE A SMART DECISION NOT JUST FOR POLICY
REASONS WHICH BY THE WAY YOU COULD CARE LITTLE BIT ABOUT THE
FOR POLITICAL REASONS. YOU WERE WRONG. YOUR STRATEGY WAS MISERABLE. A FAILED ASSAULT. YOU KNOW WHAT HAPPENED JUST
HAPPENED IN THE MIDDLE THE SHOW? THE ESTABLISHMENT PANIC. I WAS IN AN INTERVIEW THIS
MORNING AND REMEMBER WHEN WE PUT IN THAT TRICK WHERE WE TOOK OUT
DEBBIE WASSERMAN SCHULZ AND PUT IN SOMEONE ELSE? IT WASN’T CUTE. YOU KNOW WHAT, WHO JUST
ANNOUNCED? HOWARD DEAN. THE ANSWER IS NO, I WILL
TELL YOU WHY. HOWARD DEAN, WHEN HE RAN THE
DNC, DID GREAT. I AM NOT UNAWARE OF THAT. I WAS FOR HOWARD DEAN. I’M NOTHING BECAUSE I DISLIKE
EMERY WASN’T SUCCESSFUL. NOW HOWARD DEAN IS PART OF
THE ESTABLISHMENT. HE IS COMPLETELY SUPPORTED
HILLARY CLINTON AND REST OF THE SAME COMPANIES THAT IN THE PAST
WE’VE TALKED ABOUT ALL OF THE MONEY HE HAS TAKEN FROM THOSE SAME CORPORATE DONORS. I’M NOTHING HE IS A BAD GUY. I DON’T KNOW WHO HE IS ANYMORE. I DON’T KNOW WHO HE IS. WHAT HOWARD DEAN IMMEDIATELY
ANNOUNCED RUNNING FOR THE DNC THAT IS THE ESTABLISHMENT SAYING
LET’S JUST GO BACK TO HOWARD DEAN. HE IS OKAY. WE CAN LIVE WITH HIM, RIGHT? LET’S MAKE A DEAL. HERE’S MY ANSWER. NO DEAL. THIS TIME WE GO FOR ACTUAL
PROGRESSIVES. KEITH ELLISON. WE DID NOT STUTTER. KEITH ELLISON.

Watch Donald Trump’s FULL Election Night Victory Speech


[APPLAUSE] {CHANTING “USA”] MR. TRUMP: THANK YOU. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. SORRY TO KEEP YOU WAITING. COMPLICATED BUSINESS. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. I JUST RECEIVED A CALL FROM SECRETARY CLINTON. [APPLAUSE] MR. TRUMP: SHE CONGRATULATED US. IT IS ABOUT US, ON OUR VICTORY. I CONGRATULATED HER AND HER FAMILY ON A VERY VERY HARD-FOUGHT CAMPAIGN. SHE FOUGHT VERY HARD. [APPLAUSE] MR. TRUMP: HILLARY HAS WORKED VERY LONG AND VERY HARD OVER A LONG. OF TIME — IT OVER A LONG PERIOD OF TIME. WE OVER A MAJOR DEBT OF GRATITUDE FOR HER SERVICE TO OUR COUNTRY. I MEAN THAT’S VERY SINCERELY. NOW IT IS TIME FOR AMERICA TO BIND THE WOUNDS OF DIVISION. TO ALL REPUBLICANS AND DEMOCRATS AND INDEPENDENTS ACROSS THE NATION, I SAY IT IS TIME FOR US TO COME TOGETHER AS ONE UNITED PEOPLE. IT IS TIME. I PLEDGE TO EVERY CITIZEN OF OUR LAND THAT I WILL BE PRESIDENT FOR ALL AMERICANS. THIS IS SO IMPORTANT TO ME. FOR THOSE WHO HAVE CHOSEN NOT TO SUPPORT ME IN THE PAST — OF WHICH THERE WERE A FEW PEOPLE. [LAUGHTER] MR. TRUMP: I AM REACHING OUT TO YOU FOR YOUR GUIDANCE AND YOUR HELP SO THAT WE CAN WORK TOGETHER AND UNIFY OUR GREAT COUNTRY. [APPLAUSE] MR. TRUMP: AS I HAVE SAID FROM THE BEGINNING, OURS WAS NOT A CAMPAIGN, BUT RATHER AN INCREDIBLE AND GREAT MOVEMENT, MADE UP OF MILLIONS OF HARD-WORKING MEN AND WOMEN WHO LOVE THEIR COUNTRY AND WANT A BETTER, BRIGHTER COUNTRY FOR THEMSELVES AND FOR THEIR FAMILY. IT IS A MOVEMENT COMPRISED OF AMERICANS FROM ALL RACES, RELIGIONS, BACKGROUNDS, AND BELIEFS, WHO WANT AND EXPECT OUR GOVERNMENT TO SERVE THE PEOPLE, AND SERVE THE PEOPLE IT WILL. [APPLAUSE] MR. TRUMP: WORKING TOGETHER, WE WILL BEGIN THE URGENT TASK OF REBUILDING OUR NATION, AND RENEWING THE AMERICAN DREAM. I HAVE SPENT MY ENTIRE LIFE IN BUSINESS, LOOKING AT THE UNTAPPED POTENTIAL IN PROJECTS AND IN PEOPLE ALL OVER THE WORLD. THAT IS NOW WHAT I WANT TO DO FOR OUR COUNTRY. [APPLAUSE] MR. TRUMP: TREMENDOUS POTENTIAL. I HAVE GOTTEN TO KNOW OUR COUNTRY SO WELL, TREMENDOUS POTENTIAL. IT IS GOING TO BE A BEAUTIFUL THING. EVERYTHING WILL AMERICAN WILL HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO REALIZE HIS OR HER FULLEST POTENTIAL. THE FORGOTTEN MEN AND WOMEN OF OUR COUNTRY WILL BE FORGOTTEN NO LONGER. [APPLAUSE] MR. TRUMP: WE ARE GOING TO FIX OUR INNER CITIES, AND REBUILD OUR HIGHWAYS, BRIDGES, TUNNELS, AIRPORTS, SCHOOLS, HOSPITALS. WE ARE GOING TO BE BUILD OUR INFRASTRUCTURE. WHICH WILL BECOME, BY THE WAY, SECOND TO NONE. WE WILL PUT MILLIONS OF OUR PEOPLE TO WORK AS WE REBUILD IT. WE WILL ALSO FINALLY TAKE CARE OF OUR GREAT VETERANS. [APPLAUSE] MR. TRUMP: YOU HAVE BEEN SO LOYAL, AND I HAVE GOTTEN TO KNOW SO MANY OVER THE THIS 18 MONTH JOURNEY. THE TIME I HAVE SPENT WITH THEM DURING THIS CAMPAIGN HAS BEEN AMONG MY GREATEST HONORS. OUR VETERANS ARE INCREDIBLE PEOPLE. WE WILL EMBARK UPON A PROJECT OF NATIONAL GROWTH AND RENEWAL. I WILL HARNESS THE CREATIVE TALENTS OF OUR PEOPLE, AND WILL CALL UPON THE BEST AND BRIGHTEST TO LEVERAGE THEIR TREMENDOUS TALENT FOR THE BENEFIT OF ALL. IT IS GOING TO HAPPEN. WE HAVE A GREAT ECONOMIC PLAN. WE WILL DOUBLE OUR GROWTH, AND HAVE THE STRONGEST ECONOMY ANYWHERE IN THE WORLD. AT THE SAME TIME, WE WILL GET ALONG WITH ALL OTHER NATIONS WILLING TO GET ALONG WITH US. WE WILL HAVE GREAT RELATIONSHIPS . WE EXPECT TO HAVE GREAT, GREAT RELATIONSHIPS. NO DREAM IS TOO BIG, NO CHALLENGE TO GREAT. NOTHING WE WANT FOR OUR FUTURE IS BEYOND OUR REACH. AMERICA WILL NO LONGER SETTLE FOR ANYTHING LESS THAN THE BEST. [APPLAUSE] MR. TRUMP: WE MUST RECLAIM OUR COUNTRY’S DESTINY, AND DREAM BIG AND BOLD AND DARING. WE HAVE TO DO THAT. WE ARE GOING TO DREAM OF THINGS FOR OUR COUNTRY, AND BEAUTIFUL THINGS, AND SUCCESSFUL THINGS ONCE AGAIN. I WANT TO TELL THE WORLD COMMUNITY THAT WHILE WE WILL ALWAYS PUT AMERICA’S INTEREST FIRST, WE WILL DEAL FAIRLY WITH EVERYONE — WITH EVERYONE. ALL PEOPLE AND ALL OTHER NATIONS. WE WILL SEEK COMMON GROUND, NOT HOSTILITY. PARTNERSHIP, NOT CONFLICT. NOW, I WOULD LIKE TO TAKE THIS MOMENT TO THANK SOME OF THE PEOPLE WHO REALLY HELPED ME WITH WHAT THEY’RE CALLING TONIGHT A VERY HISTORIC VICTORY. FIRST, I WANT TO THANK MY PARENTS, WHO I KNOW ARE LOOKING DOWN ON ME RIGHT NOW. [APPLAUSE] MR. TRUMP: GREAT PEOPLE. I HAVE LEARNED SO MUCH FROM THEM . THEY WERE WONDERFUL IN EVERY REGARD. I HAD TRULY GREAT PARENTS. I ALSO WANT TO THANK MY SISTERS, MARIANNE AND ELIZABETH, WHO ARE HERE WITH US TONIGHT. WHERE ARE THEY? THEY ARE HERE SOMEPLACE. THEY ARE VERY SHY, ACTUALLY. AND MY BROTHER ROBERT, MY GREAT FRIEND. WHERE IS ROBERT? MY BROTHER ROBERT. THEY SHOULD ALL BE ON THE STAGE, BUT THAT IS OK. THEY LOOK GREAT. ALSO, MY LATE BROTHER FRED. GREAT GUY, FANTASTIC GUY. FANTASTIC FAMILY. I WAS VERY LUCKY. GREAT BROTHERS, SISTERS, GREAT, UNBELIEVABLE PARENTS. TO MELANIA, AND DON. [APPLAUSE] MR. TRUMP: AND IF ON TO — IVANKA AND ERIC AND TIFFANY AND BARON. I LOVE YOU, AND I THANK YOU, AND ESPECIALLY FOR PUTTING UP WITH ALL OF THOSE ERRORS — HOURS. THIS WAS TOUGH. THIS POLITICAL STUFF IS NASTY, AND IT IS TOUGH. I WANT TO THANK MY FAMILY VERY MUCH. REALLY FANTASTIC. THANK YOU ALL. UNBELIEVABLE JOB. VANESSA, THANK YOU. LOT OF RATE — A LOT OF GREAT PEOPLE. YOU HAVE GIVEN ME INCREDIBLE SUPPORT. WE HAVE A LARGE GROUP OF PEOPLE. THEY SAY WE HAVE A SMALL STAFF. LOOK AT ALL THE PEOPLE WE HAVE. LOOK AT ALL THESE PEOPLE. AND KELLY AND — KELLYANNE AND CHRIS AND RUDY AND STEVE AND DAVID. WE HAVE GOT TREMENDOUSLY TALENTED PEOPLE APPEAR — UP HERE. IT HAS BEEN VERY SPECIAL. I WANT TO GIVE A VERY SPECIAL THANKS TO OUR FORMER MAYOR, RUDY GIULIANI. [APPLAUSE] MR. TRUMP: UNBELIEVABLE. HE TRAVELED WITH US AND HE WENT THROUGH MEETINGS. YEAH, RUDY NEVER CHANGES. WHERE IS HE? RUDY. GOVERNOR CHRIS CHRISTIE, FOLKS, WAS UNBELIEVABLE. [APPLAUSE] MR. TRUMP: THANK YOU CHRIS. THE FIRST MAN, FIRST MAJOR POLITICIAN. HE IS HIGHLY RESPECTED IN WASHINGTON, BECAUSE HE IS AS SMART AS YOU GET, SENATOR JEFF SESSIONS. WHERE IS JEFF? [APPLAUSE] MR. TRUMP: GREAT MAN. ANOTHER GREAT MAN, VERY TOUGH COMPETITOR, HE WAS NOT EASY. HE WAS NOT EASY. IS THAT REALLY IS THAT — IS THAT RUDY? ANOTHER GREAT MAN WHO HAS REALLY BEEN A FRIEND TO ME BUT I WILL TELL YOU, I GOT TO KNOW HIM AS A COMPETITOR. BECAUSE HE WAS ONE OF THE FOLKS THAT WAS NEGOTIATING TO GO AGAINST THOSE DEMOCRATS. DR. BEN CARSON. WHERE IS BEN? AND BY THE WAY, MIKE HUCKABEE IS HERE SOMEPLACE. MIKE AND HIS FAMILY. SARAH. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. GENERAL MIKE FLYNN. WHERE IS MIKE? IN GENERAL KELLOGG. WE HAVE OVER 200 GENERALS AND ADMIRALS THAT HAVE HELPED US TURN THE CAMPAIGN. THEY ARE SPECIAL PEOPLE AND IT’S REALLY AN HONOR. WE HAVE 22 CONGRESSIONAL MEDAL OF HONOR RECIPIENTS. WE HAVE TREMENDOUS PEOPLE. A VERY SPECIAL PERSON. I NEVER HAD A BAD SECOND WITH HIM. HE IS AN UNBELIEVABLE STAR. IT’S RIGHT. HAD YOU POSSIBLY GUESS? LET ME TELL YOU ABOUT REINCE. REINCE — AND I KNOW IT. REINCE IS A SUPERSTAR. I SAID, THEY CAN’T CALL YOU A SUPERSTAR UNLESS WE WIN. YOU CAN’T BE CALLED A SUPERSTAR LIKE SECRETARIAT. SECRETARIAT CAME IN SECOND. SECRETARIAT WOULD NOT HAVE THAT BIG BEAUTIFUL BRONZE BUST AT THE TRACK AT BELMONT. REINCE IS REALLY A STAR AND HE’S THE HARDEST WORKING GUY. AND IN A CERTAIN WAY — WHERE IS REINCE? BOY, OH BOY. IT’S ABOUT TIME YOU DID THIS, REINCE. MY GOD. COME HERE. SAY SOMETHING. REINCE: LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, THE NEXT PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES. DONALD TRUMP. IT’S BEEN AN HONOR. MR. TRUMP: AMAZING GUY. OUR PARTNERSHIP WITH THE RNC WAS SO IMPORTANT TO THE SUCCESS OF WHAT WE HAVE DONE. I HAVE GOTTEN TO KNOW SOME INCREDIBLE PEOPLE. THE SECRET SERVICE PEOPLE. THEY ARE TOUGH, THEY ARE SMART. THEY ARE SHARP. I DON’T WANT TO MESS AROUND WITH THEM. I CAN TELL YOU. THEY WRITTEN ME DOWN. THEY ARE FANTASTIC PEOPLE. I WANT TO THANK THE SECRET SERVICE. [APPLAUSE] MR. TRUMP: AND LAW ENFORCEMENT IN NEW YORK CITY. THEY ARE HERE TONIGHT. THESE ARE SPECTACULAR PEOPLE. SOMETIMES, UNDERAPPRECIATED. WE APPRECIATE IT. IT HAS BEEN WHAT THEY CALL AN HISTORIC EVENT. BUT TO BE REALLY HISTORIC, WE HAVE TO DO A GREAT JOB. AND I PROMISE YOU THAT I WILL NOT LET YOU DOWN. WE WILL DO A GREAT JOB. ALL OF THE VERY MUCH FORWARD TO BEING YOUR PRESIDENT. AT THE END OF TWO YEARS OR THREE YEARS OR FOUR YEARS, OR MAYBE EVEN EIGHT YEARS — YOU WILL SAY , SO MANY OF YOU WORK SO HARD FOR US. BUT YOU WILL SAY THAT — YOU WILL SAY THAT THAT WAS SOMETHING THAT YOU REALLY WERE REALLY VERY PROUD TO DO. AND I CAN THANK YOU VERY MUCH. AND I CAN ONLY SAY THAT WHILE THE CAMPAIGN IS OVER, OUR WORK ON THIS MOVEMENT IS NOW REALLY JUST BEGINNING. WE ARE GOING TO GET TO WORK IMMEDIATELY FOR THE AMERICAN PEOPLE. AND WE ARE GOING TO BE DOING A JOB THAT HOPEFULLY YOU WILL BE SO PROUD OF YOUR PRESIDENT. HE WILL BE SO PROUD. AGAIN, IT’S MY HONOR. IT’S AN AMAZING EVENING AND IT HAS BEEN AN AMAZING TWO-YEAR PE RIOD. AND I LOVE THIS COUNTRY. THANK YOU. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. THANK YOU TO MIKE PENCE. THANK YOU, EVERYBODY.>>YOU ARE LOOKING AT LIVE PICTURES COMING AS DONALD TRUMP, THE PRESIDENT-ELECT OF THE UNITED STATES LAYS OUT SOME OF HIS IDEAS FOR THE WHAT THE NEXT FOUR YEARS WHAT WILL BE LOOKING LIKE. THE MARKETS RESPONDED REASONABLY POSITIVELY OVER THE LAST FEW MINUTES. HE TALKED ABOUT INFRASTRUCTURE SPENDING. IT WILL BE INTERESTING TO SEE HOW THIS GETS PRICED IN. THE EARLY INDICATIONS ARE THAT THE MARKETS HAVE PRICED SOME OF THE NEGATIVITY EARLY ON. EUROPEAN MARKETS HAVE OPENED AS HE HAS BEEN SPEAKING. THE DAX OPENED. LONDON COMING A LITTLE FURTHER DOWN. IT IS 2.31%. AS YOU CAN SEE, LONDON CARING REASONABLY WELL. LET’S GET SOME DETAILS ON WHAT EXACTLY WE HAVE BEEN SEEING IN THE MARKETS AS WE HAVE BEEN LISTENING TO DONALD TRUMP, THE PRESIDENT-ELECT OF THE UNITED STATES.>>THEY’VE BEEN SAYING THAT THIS IS AS BIG AS BREXIT, BUT THE MARKETS DO NOT THINK THIS IS AS BIG. THIS SHOWS YOU THE REGIONAL BITE DOWN AS WE LOOK AT THE BENCHMARK IN EUROPE. DOWN BY 2%. CASTOR MIND BACK TO JUNE 24 WOULD WE SAW THE EURO STOCK FALL 54%. TODAY, WE ARE DOWN CATEGORICALLY ACROSS EVERY SINGLE REGION, BUT NOT AS MUCH AS IN THE RAMIFICATIONS OF POST-EVENT ON BREXIT. WE SEE A FLIGHT TO SAFETY INTO U.K. DEBT, YIELDS COMING DOWN. WE ARE ABOUT FIVE BITS LOWER. MONEY MOVING INTO THE SO-CALLED HAVENS. AND WE SEE MONEY MOVE TO THE EURO. WE HAVE SEEN A SIGNIFICANT RUN. 15% HIGHER, COMING OFF OF THOSE IMMEDIATE CONCERNS. THE CONCILIATORY VISIONS, DIGGING BACK INTO STOCKS. THE BANKS AS WELL FEELING THE PAIN. WE KNOW THEY HAVE BEEN GOING NEGATIVE ON THIS PARTICULAR SECTOR.>>HEALTH-CARE STOCKS THE ONLY INDUSTRY GROUP GAINING ON THE STOXX 600. NORDIC UP 5.8% NOW, NOW 5.9%. A LOT OF STOCKS SAYING THIS INDUSTRY GROUP MIGHT RALLY, OF COURSE, ON THE BACK OF A TRUMP VICTORY. THAT IS WHAT WE ARE SEEING. IT IS MOVING INVERSELY WITH CLINTON’S PROSPECTS FOR VICTORY. THIS IS ABOUT TRUMP BEING MORE AGAINST RENEWABLES AND WANTING TO BRING BACK COAL. DOWN 10.5%. IT GETS SIGNIFICANT AMOUNT OF THE REVENUE FROM THE U.S.. THIS DANISH WIND TURBINE MAKER VERY MUCH FEELING THE PAIN. IT IS ACTUALLY THE WORST PERFORMER, AT LEAST ONE OF THE WORST PERFORMERS AT THE STOXX 600 AT THE MOMENT. I PUT IN WPP HERE BECAUSE THIS IS ONE OF THE STOCKS FROM BARCLAYS THAT SAID THE UNDERPERFORM — THEY GET A LOT OF THEIR REVENUE FROM THE U.S. AND OFF BY 1.8% AT THE MOMENT. ANOTHER STOCK WOULD HAVE BEEN RAND GOLD. ON THE PERFORMANCE OF GOLD WE ARE, JUMPING THE MOST THIS BREXIT. ON THAT BID FOR THE SAKE HAVEN. HSBC HERE, DOWN 2.7% A MOMENT. DIFFERENT CALLS, THEY SAY THAT HIGHER BOND YIELDS ON A TRUMP VICTORY MIGHT BE POSITIVE. A WIN FOR TRUMP MIGHT INCREASE GLOBAL BOND YIELDS. THERE ARE STILL, HOWEVER, A SIGNIFICANT RISK.>>WITH US TO DISCUSS WHAT THE IMPLICATIONS OF A DONALD TRUMP PRESIDENCY ACTUALLY MEAN FOR THE FINANCIAL MARKETS. THE MARKETS HEARD SOMETHING IN THAT SPEECH THAT IT LIKED. WHAT WAS IT?>>I THINK IT WAS CONCILIATORY, INFRASTRUCTURE SPENDING IS A GOOD THING FROM AN ECONOMY PERSPECTIVE. THEY ARE BEGINNING TO REALIZE THAT. THE REPUBLICAN CLEAN SWEEP. I THINK MR. TRUMP WILL HAVE TO BECOME A LOT CLEARER. IT IS THAT ISSUANCE, AND IT IS TALK ABOUT THE FACT THAT GREAT ISOLATIONISM SHOULD MEAN HIGHER PRICES. MORE INFLATION. THE OTHER INTERESTING PART OF THIS IS EUROPE. WE CAN TALK ABOUT THE SHORT-TERM REACTION THAT I THINK IS VERY CLEAR. A LONGER RUN FOR NEXT YEAR IS FIVE CRITICAL REFERENDUM DIRECTIONS — ELECTIONS IN EUROPE. THE EXTREMIST NATIONALIST CANDIDATE. THE U.K. REFERENDUM. ABOUT WHAT COULD HAPPEN IN ITALY, AUSTRIA, FRANCE, GERMANY, AND THE ONE THAT SCARES ME IS THE ONE THAT WILL HAPPENED IN HOLLAND. IN THAT CONTEXT, THE WHOLE BREXIT DEBATE WILL BE INTERESTING. I MENTIONED THIS BEFORE, BUT NATO BECOMES A KEY ISSUE. WITH THE U.S. LESS WILLING TO WRITE A BLANK CHECK FOR NATO, NATO’S OTHER RESOURCES ARE GOING TO BE EXPOSED. THE REALITY FOR NATO, U.K., AND FRANCE, THERE IS NOT A LOT OF MILITARY CREDIBILITY THERE. THIS WILL BE PART OF THE BREXIT DEBATE AS WELL. IT IS A GLOBAL STORY. THE EUROPEAN MARKET HAS BEEN RELATIVELY MUTED. I THINK THIS TELLS YOU MUCH MORE ABOUT THE ASIA-PACIFIC RELATIONSHIPS GOING FORWARD AND HOW THAT WILL PLAY OUT. VERY KEY HERE FOR CHINA.>>AN INDEPENDENT CLIMATE ADVISER, THANK YOU FOR BEING ON THE PROGRAM. INTERESTING MOVES IN THE BOND MARKET. THE ACCEPTANCE SPEECH, PUTTING INFRASTRUCTURE AT THE EPICENTER OF IT. WE SAW THE TREASURY MARKETS START TO ADJUST. ON THE FRONT END OF THE CURVE IS A REPRICING OF THE PROSPECT OF THE FED HIKE. IT GETS AGGRESSIVE WITH 38 YIELDS UP ABOUT NINE BASIS POINTS. DO WE GET THE INFRASTRUCTURE SPENDING THAT HE PUT ON THE CAMPAIGN TRAIL? WILL THAT BECOME REALITY?>>I’M NOT SURE ABOUT THE TERMINAL BUT WE WILL BRING IT UP IF WE CAN TO TALK ABOUT WHAT, EXACTLY, IT IS IN TERMS OF THE PRICING. OVER THE LAST FEW HOURS, WE PRICED OUT SIGNIFICANT INDICATIONS FROM THE FED AS WE LOOK AT 51 PERCENT PROBABILITY OF THE FED HIKE NOW. SO MANY THINGS WE NEED TO BE THINKING ABOUT.>>THE QUESTION I WANT TO ASK IS, HOW ON EARTH DOES THE FED COMMUNICATE NOT HIKING INTEREST RATES WHEN THE DATA IS UNLIKELY TO CHANGE?>>THE DATA WON’T CHANGE. AND WHEN EVENTS CHANGE, YOU NEED TO START CHANGING YOUR VIEW OF THE WORLD AS WELL.>>LET’S HEAD OVER TO BARCLAYS HEADQUARTERS IN LONDON WERE WILLIAM HOLT’S HEAD OF INVESTMENT STRATEGY FOR EUROPE AT BARCLAYS IS STANDING BY. WILLIAM, WE WILL PUT THAT QUESTION TO YOU. QUITE SIMPLY, POLITICS DON’T MATTER? IN DECEMBER, HOW DO THEY NOT HIKE INTEREST RATES? WILLIAM: THAT IS A GREAT QUESTION. THAT IS WHAT WE HAVE TO CONSIDER AT THE MOMENT. RATES MIGHT BE PUSHED BACK INTO NEXT YEAR. IT WILL BE QUITE A LONG TIME BEFORE THEY SET THE ADMINISTRATION NOT. YOU HAVE THE HIGHER 4000 PEOPLE AND RUN SOME OF THOSE THROUGH SENATE APPROVAL AND RUN ALL OF THOSE THROUGH SECURITY APPROVAL. MOST ADMINISTRATIONS HAVEN’T REALLY GOT GOING UNTIL THE SECOND QUARTER. WILL THE FED BE IN LIMBO UNTIL THEN? INFLATION CONTINUES TO NORMALIZE. IT HAS BEEN HAPPENING. IT HAS BEEN KIND OF A FUNNY DECISION. TO SOME, THEY LOOK AT BUYING THE CURVE ANYWAY.>>THE MARKET HEARD SOMETHING IN A SPEECH THAT DONALD TRUMP DELIVERED A FEW MINUTES AGO. AND THE INFRASTRUCTURE STORY IS GOING TO BE A BIG PART OF WHAT THIS ADMINISTRATION IS? HOW LONG BEFORE THIS WILL BE A NEGATIVE SHOCK FOR IT TO BE A POSITIVE ONE. WHAT IS THE MARKET GOING TO DO TO THAT? DOES IT NEED TO WAIT FOR DETAILS OR IS THE BROADBRUSH ENOUGH?>>IF YOU GET TO TRY TO GET A SENSE — IF YOU TRY TO GET A SENSE OF HIS PRESIDENCY FROM THE CONFLICTING CAMPAIGN TRAIL PROMISES, IT’S DIFFICULT TO GET A SENSE. ACROSS CONGRESS, CERTAINLY ACADEMICALLY AND THE OFFICIAL SECTORS, THERE IS BIG AGREEMENT THAT U.S. INFRASTRUCTURE NEEDS UPDATING. SO MAYBE THIS IS ONE OF THE THINGS THAT DOES GET DONE. BUT GENERALLY, WHAT WE ARE LOOKING AT IS DOMESTICALLY, WE WILL ARGUE THAT THE CONGRESSIONAL CHECKS AND BALANCES WILL REIGN IN SOME OF THE EXTREME CAMPAIGN TRAIL PROMISES. THE PRESIDENT THOSE HAVE MORE POWER TO ACT UNILATERALLY, EVEN THOUGH CONGRESS HAS THE POWER TO MONITOR THE U.S. RELATIONS INTERNATIONALLY IN TERMS OF COMMERCE. THE PRESIDENT DOES HAVE POWER TO ACT UNILATERALLY AND THAT IS WHAT PEOPLE ARE WATCHING FOR. A GOOD PIECE RECENTLY SUGGESTING THAT IF HE DOES GET TO CARRY OUT ALL OF HIS THREATS TO THE DEGREE THAT HE CAN, YOU’RE LOOKING AT A RECESSION IN THE U.S. IN 2018 OR 2019, PROBABLY GLOBAL AS WELL.>>MAYBE WE CAN SHOW IT ON THE SCREEN FOR VIEWERS. HEALTH CARE AND THE PRICING ISSUE THAT SURROUNDED THIS CAMPAIGN WILL SOMEHOW GO AWAY. IS THAT THE CORRECT ASSUMPTION?>>CAMPAIGN PROMISES — IF YOU LOOK AT WHAT POLITICIANS IN THE U.S. HAVE BEEN TALKING ABOUT. IT PROBABLY TRANSLATES TO A LOT OF SPECTACLE. YOU HAVE TO WORRY ABOUT PRECISELY WHAT THEY ARE SAYING. IT GETS THROUGH CONGRESS. IT IS STILL AN ECONOMY YOU HAVE TO WATCH. CALLING CHINA A CURRENCY MANIPULATOR, ALL OF THAT LOOKS QUITE EXTREME TO US. AND WHEN YOU HAVE MIKE PENCE AS YOUR RUNNING MATE,

Election 2016: For whom should you vote? Walter has the answer! | JEFF DUNHAM


– The freedom to vote. My fellow Americans, and all illegal immigrants too, you’re not really Americans,
but somehow you’re voting, so shut up and listen carefully. This will only be in English. Lately, we have all heard folks saying “we have an important election coming up.” My response to them is really? Did you just say that? Does that mean all past
elections were not important? You’re a moron, go back to your cat videos and your Candy Crush
phone crap, we got this. And to the celebrities who are
talking about this election, pull your head out of
your self-indulgent butts. Contrary to what your kiss-ass
agents are telling you, you are not smarter or more
informed than everyone else. It’s probably the opposite, and being famous does not mean we care what the F you think. Just shut up and act or sing, or make your little dolls talk, okay? – Okay. – No one cares what you think. – Right. – No one. – Okay. – Anyway, why am I here today? Because our great nation,
the United States of America, with all the magnificence we have, with so many brilliant
minds and intelligent folks throughout the land have somehow nominated for president the two worst
candidates imaginable. I am not kidding, I mean
really, what the (bleep)? You know I’m right. Deep down, we all that these
two are a serious joke. How did this happen? I don’t know, it’s like our country went panning for gold and
ended up with two pieces of Grape Nuts cereal in the bowl. Have you heard anyone say “we
have two great candidates?” No, this election is us
simply trying to figure out which candidate sucks less. Do you want the sour milk
or the rotten tomato? Smash your finger or stub your toe? Live in Iraq or live in Iran? I don’t know, I’ll say
this very concisely, this election is stupid. It’s important and it’s stupid. So as Americans, what do we do about it? Move to Canada, no, they
love us as tourists, but they want us to stay up there about as much as you
want your pervert uncle and stay in your kid’s room. How do we make this better? I’ll tell you one thing,
you can’t just sit back and watch what happens on November 8th because you don’t like the the candidates. That’s even a bigger dumb ass move than nominating these two chuckleheads. You have to get out and vote,
and for whom do you vote? It’s your call, America. If you don’t want to
vote either candidate in, than vote just to keep
the other (bleep) out. It’s your chance to
make America suck less. So whatever you do, just effing vote. Thank you, and gracias. See how I did that? – Yeah. – Yeah, it was good. – Yeah. – De nada. (dinging)

The latest political news on ‘With All Due Respect’


ADMINISTRATION ANNOUNCED THREE MAJOR JOB PICKS. ONE OF THEM IS MIKE POMPEO TO BE CIA DIRECTOR, WELL RECEIVED BY BOTH PARTIES. THE OTHER TWO PICKS ARE CREATING CONTROVERSY. JEFF SESSIONS FOR THE JOB OF U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL, AND MICHAEL FLYNN FOR WHITE HOUSE NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISER. THE FIRST REQUIRES CONFIRMATION, THE SECOND IS NOT. BOTH HAVE RECORDS OF A COMMERCE MEN AND WERE AMONG TRUMP’S EARLIEST SUPPORTERS. THIS IS REWARD FOR THAT LOYALTY, BUT THEY ARE BOTH UNDER FIRE FOR STATEMENTS CONSIDERED RACIALLY CHARGED, A PROBLEM THAT HAS PLAGUED THREE OUT OF THE FIRST FIVE PEOPLE TRUMP WANTS TO HIRE FOR HIS ADMINISTRATION. LET’S START WITH JEFF SESSIONS, DENIED A JUDGESHIP BECAUSE HE MADE INFLAMMATORY STATEMENTS AND DISPARAGE ORGANIZATIONS SUCH AS THE NAACP AND ACLU. ELIZABETH WARREN SAID INSTEAD OF EMBRACING THE BIGOTRY, I URGE PRESIDENT TRUMP TO REVERSE HIS APPARENT DECISION TO NOMINATE SENATOR SESSIONS TO BE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES. IF HE REFUSES, THEN IT WILL FALL TO THE SENATE TO EXERCISE FUNDAMENTAL MORAL LEADERSHIP FOR OUR NATION AND ALL ITS PEOPLE. IT IS RARE TO USE SUCH LANGUAGE. THE DEMOCRATIC CONGRESSMAN FROM SOUTH CAROLINA FOLLOWED WITH HIS OWN SCATHING STATEMENT SAYING, “HIS CIVIL RIGHTS RECORD IS APPALLING AND SHOULD DISQUALIFY HIM FROM SENATE CONFIRMATION.” CABLE NEWS IS SUGGESTING THERE COULD BE A FIGHT OVER SESSIONS.>>HE IS EXPECTED TO BE A MAJOR PLAYER IN ENFORCING DONALD TRUMP’S IMMIGRATION POLICY.>>HE IS A FEARS COMBATANT, A LITTLE PARTISAN.>>TROUBLING GIVEN HIS BACKGROUND.>>ACCUSED OF USING THE IN-WORD AND SAYING THE KKK WAS OK.>>I THINK HE BELIEVES IN THE RULE OF LAW AND WILL PROBABLY GET CONFIRMED. MARK: HE GOT SUPPORT TODAY FROM HIS REPUBLICAN COLLEAGUES IN THE SENATE, INCLUDING FLAKE AND LINDSEY GRAHAM. GIVEN THE SENATE RULES, A MAJORITY WOULD CONFIRM SESSIONS, SO IS THIS A GOOD PICK AND HOW CONTROVERSIAL WILL IT BE? DONNY: HE WILL GET CONFIRMED. THREE OUT OF OUR FIVE FIRST PICKS FROM TRUMP HAVE A GENUINE HISTORY OF RACISM OR ANTI-SEMITISM. I WILL ALWAYS TALK ABOUT APPOINTEES, AND TALK ABOUT STEVE BANNON, NOW WE HAVE JEFF SESSIONS. VERY SIMPLE, A HISTORY OF IT. HE DID NOT GET APPOINTED — CONFIRMED AS A FEDERAL JUDGE BECAUSE OF IT. I DON’T KNOW WHEN WE GOT TO THE POINT WHERE SOMEBODY WHO COULD NOT BE THE CEO OF A COMPANY OR A PRINCIPLE OF AN ELEMENTARY SCHOOL BASED ON THINGS THEY HAVE SAID AND DONE. WE ARE NOW, WELL, BUT, WELL, BUT. POLITICS ASIDE, JUST AS A DAD, I AM DISTURBED AND CONCERN. MARK: YOU SAY HE WILL BE CONFIRMED, AND I SUSPECT HE WILL BE, HE WILL BE PRESENT AT HEARINGS TO EXPLAIN THE STATEMENTS HE HAS MADE IN THE PAST THAT KEPT HIM FROM BEING CONFIRMED. I THINK, AS I HAVE SAID ABOUT BANNON, HE WILL HAVE TO EXPLAIN HIMSELF. I DON’T THINK HIS ANSWERS THAT HE GAVE WILL BE GOOD ENOUGH FOR THIS. I THINK HE WILL HAVE TO GIVE BETTER ANSWERS. WE CAN RUN THROUGH WHAT THESE STATEMENTS ARE, BUT PEOPLE CAN READ ABOUT THEM, HE SAID I DON’T REMEMBER SAYING THAT OR I DID NOT SAY THAT. HE SHOULD NOT BE THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES UNLESS HE SHOWS PEOPLE THAT IN HIS HEART THAT WHATEVER HE SAID IN THE PAST, THAT HE BELIEVES IN EQUAL PROTECTION UNDER LAW AND WILL NOT TREAT RELIGIOUS STATEMENTS CASUALLY. HE WILL NOT MAKE THEM HIMSELF. IF HE PERFORMS POORLY IN THE HEARING, HE WILL NOT BE CONFIRMED. DONNY: THERE IS A FACT THAT HATE CRIMES ARE ALREADY UP, PARTICULARLY IN SCHOOLS. HE HAS GIVEN AIR COVER, AND WE WILL TALK ABOUT FLYNN, HAS GIVEN AIR COVER FOR THIS, AND IF WE CAN BEHAVE PROPERLY WITH EACH OTHER, WE — THERE IS AN ALARMING PATTERN HAPPENING HERE. MARK: IT IS STUDYING THAT THEY SEQUENCED THE ANNOUNCEMENTS THIS WAY. STUNNING. DONNY: THE HITS KEEP GETTING BETTER. MOVING ON TO MICHAEL FLYNN. THAT POSITION DOES NOT REQUIRE CONFIRMATION, BUT HE IS TAKING FLAK FOR ANTI-MUSLIM RHETORIC. THE LIEUTENANT GENERAL TWEETED “THE FEAR OF MUSLIMS IS RATIONAL.” HIS CONSULTING BUSINESS HAS REPORTED TIES TO MIDDLE EASTERN COUNTRIES, AND HE TOOK A PAID SPEAKING ENGAGEMENT WITH A RUSSIAN TELEVISION NETWORK. MARK: THE PRESIDENT IS ENTITLED TO SOMEONE WHO HE TRUSTS. IF YOU TOOK THESE CONTROVERSIAL THINGS AWAY, YOU JUST LOOK AT HIS RECORD OF MILITARY SERVICE, THE FACT HE HAS CHALLENGED AUTHORITY, THE FACT THAT DONALD TRUMP TRUST THEM, I THINK HE WOULD BE A GOOD PICK. THERE ARE QUESTIONS ABOUT HIS TEMPERAMENT, AND IF DONALD TRUMP TRUST HIM, DONALD TRUMP’S TEMPERAMENT IS SIMILAR, THESE STATEMENTS MUTTS BE EXPLAINED — MUST BE EXPLAINED. WHEN HE HAS BEEN ASK ABOUT THESE THINGS, HE HAS BEEN EVASIVE. HE SHOULD EXPLAIN FORTHRIGHTLY. HE SHOULD HAVE THE CONFIDENCE OF THE NATION AND NOT HIDE BEHIND THE FACT THAT HE’S NOT REQUIRED TO BE CONFIRMED BY THE SENTIMENT. DONNY: ON TWITTER, HE HAS REACH WE DID FROM PEOPLE, CRAZY ALT RIGHT, HIS SON TWEETING “SO AFRICAN-AMERICANS CAN HAVE BE ET , BUT WHITES CAN HAVE THEIR OWN DATING SITE.” I AM TERRIFIED THAT ONE WEEK INTO A TRUMP PRESIDENCY WE GET ATTACKED BECAUSE THEY WANT AN OVERREACTION. I THINK THE JIHADIST ARE SALIVATING BECAUSE THEY WANT TO GET THE PARTY STARTED, AND WE NEED RESTRAINT. HE IS DOUBLING DOWN. I AM TERRIFIED. I AM NOT INEXPERT. I’M JUST A GUY WHO WATCHES PEOPLE. MARK: ALL RIGHT, THERE WAS LESS ONE CONTROVERSIAL PICK DONALD TRUMP MADE TODAY, MIKE POMPEO TO BE CIA DIRECTOR. HE IS NOT AS PROMINENT OF A FIGURE, BUT HIS RESUME IS IMPRESSIVE, WEST POINT, HARVARD LAW, AND A SEAT ON THE HOUSE INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE. HE WAS ALSO ON THE COMMITTEE THAT INVESTIGATED THE BENGHAZI, LIBYA ATTACKS, WHERE HE ACCUSED THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION OF A COVER-UP AND WAS ONE OF THE HARSHEST CRITICS OF HILLARY CLINTON.>>WHY WAS HEAVEN AND EARTH NOT MOVED AT THE INITIAL SOUND OF THE GUNS? MAYBE EVEN PUTTING TANKERS IN THE AIR FROM O’CONNELL AIR FORCE BASE? IT WAS CLEAR THAT YOU DID NOT KNOW HOW LONG IT WOULD CONTINUE OR THE RISK WOULD REMAIN.>>CONGRESSMAN, YOU WILL HAVE TO ASK THE DEFENSE DEPARTMENT THESE QUESTIONS. MARK: SO, POMPEO DID GET SOME LOVE FROM DEMOCRATS TODAY DESPITE HIS BENGHAZI HEARING PERFORMANCE THAT SOME HAVE CRITICIZED. NANCY SODERBERG, ADAM SCHIFF, BOTH HAD RESERVATIONS ABOUT HIS HARD-NOSED, PARTISAN PATH, BUT CALLED HIM A RESPECTABLE CHOICE.>>POMPEO COULD BE A PERFECTLY FINE CIA DIRECTOR. HE KNOWS THE AGENCY, AND THAT IS A GOOD THING.>>I THINK MIKE IS A BRIGHT GUY, HARD-WORKING, SO HE IS A SOLID PICK. MIKE CAN BE PARTISAN, AS YOU SAW IN THE BENGHAZI HEARINGS, AND HE WILL HAVE TO SET THAT ASIDE, BUT I AM CONFIDENT HE CAN DO THAT AND IS A CAPABLE CHOICE. OF THE THREE TODAY, HE WAS THE MOST SOLID PICK. MARK: GOOD PICK ON THE MERITS AND HOW CONTROVERSIAL WILL HE BE? DONNY: WHEN I WAS HIRING PEOPLE, I STARTED WITH ONE THING, SMART. I LIKE THAT HE IS RELATIVELY FRESH PHASE. HE SEEMS TO HAVE A GREAT REPUTATION. HE SEEMS TO HAVE THE RIGHT DEMEANOR ABOUT HIM. HE STILL THINKS BENGHAZI WAS POLITICIZED. IF IT WAS UP TO HIM, IT WOULD STILL BE GOING ON, BUT I THINK IT IS A GOOD PICK. MARK: IF BEING AN AGGRESSIVE ON BENGHAZI, DONALD TRUMP WOULD BE DISQUALIFIED. I KNEW HE WAS ON INTELLIGENCE, BUT I DID NOT KNOW ABOUT HIS BACKGROUND. IT IS REALLY IMPRESSIVE. IT IS HELPFUL TO HAVE MEMBERS OF CONGRESS IN THE ADMINISTRATION. ONE THING THAT HAS HURT OUR FOREIGN POLICY IS THE FAILURE TO HAVE GOOD BIPARTISAN RELATIONS BETWEEN THE EXECUTIVE AND LEGISLATIVE BRANCH. THIS SEEMS LIKE A GOOD PICK. IT IS CURIOUS THAT HE MADE THIS PICK WITHOUT ANNOUNCING WHO SECRETARY OF DEFENSE AND SECRETARY OF STATE WILL BE. YOU WANT A TEAM THAT CAN WORK TOGETHER. DONNY: IT IS HIS MANAGEMENT STYLE. HE LIKES TO PICK PEOPLE AGAINST EACH OTHER AND SEE WHERE THAT MATH LEADS. MARK: I GUESS I DON’T GET THE LOGIC OF CLUSTERING THESE THREE TODAY, BUT MAYBE THERE IS NO LOGIC. DONNY: ERIC SCHNEIDERMAN PUT OUT A STATEMENT SAYING DONALD TRUMP HAS AGREED TO DROP — PAY FRAUD ALLEGATION LAWSUITS RELATED TO HIS TRUMP UNIVERSITY REAL ESTATE SEMINARS. THIS WAS A BIG ISSUE DURING THE CAMPAIGN, AND TRUMP TOUTED HIMSELF AS SOMEONE WHO WOULD RATHER FIGHT LITIGATION. MARK, WHAT DOES IT SAY THAT HE SETTLED THIS CASE? MARK: IT IS A BIG SURPRISE TO ME. HE SAID HE WOULD NEVER SETTLE. TO ME, IT IS A GOOD SIGN. DONALD TRUMP IS SOMEONE WHO NOT IN THE PAST LOOKED AT THE KIND OF DISTRACTIONS A NORMAL PRESIDENT WOULD SEE AND SAY WE HAVE TO GET RID OF THIS, ATTACKING JOHN MCCAIN, ATTACKING MEGYN KELLY. THIS IS POTENTIALLY A GOOD SIGN. HE NEEDS TO BE LESS ENCUMBERED AS PRESIDENT FROM DISTRACTION. THIS TO ME IS ASSIGNED TODAY THAT MAYBE HE GETS THAT HE NEEDS TO CLEAR THE DECKS. DONNY: HE SAYS WHEN YOU SETTLE, YOU LOST. NO, YOU MADE A BUSINESS DECISION. LET’S SAY THERE WAS SOME REALLY NASTY STUFF IN THERE, CERTAINLY NOT GOOD FOR HIS PRESIDENCY. EVEN IF HE FELT HE WOULD BE EXONERATED, IT WAS STILL THE RIGHT THING TO DO. EVEN IF IT COST HIM $25 MILLION, HE HAS TO GET THIS OUT OF THE WAY. YOU HAVE AN OBLIGATION TO GET IT OUT OF THE WAY, AND I THINK YOU DID THE RIGHT THING. MARK: BASED ON THE NEWS REPORTING THAT WAS DONE ON THIS, HE OF THOSE PEOPLE SOME MONEY. THAT UNIVERSITY WAS A SCAM IN MANY WAYS, AND WHILE IT MAY NOT HAVE BEEN AS WORTHLESS AS THE CRITICS SAID, HE OF THOSE PEOPLE SOME MONEY. ALL RIGHT, COMING UP, A PREVIEW OF DONALD TRUMP’S WEEKEND GETAWAY PLANS AND WHAT IT MEANS FOR YOUR WEEKEND TRAFFIC AND WEATHER TOGETHER RIGHT AFTER THIS. ♪ ♪>>THERE ARE SOME THINGS THAT YOU JUST CAN IMAGINE HAPPENING IN YOUR LIFE. THIS IS ONE OF THEM. BEING IN DONALD TRUMP’S MAGNIFICENT HOTEL AND HAVING HIS ENDORSEMENT IS A DELIGHT. I AM SO HONORED AND PLEASED TO HAVE HIS ENDORSEMENT, AND OF COURSE I’M LOOKING FOR THE ENDORSEMENT OF THE PEOPLE OF NEVADA. MARK: THAT WAS MITT ROMNEY IN 2012 EXCEPTING THE ENDORSEMENT OF ONE DONALD J. TRUMP. WE TALKED ABOUT DONALD TRUMP’S PLANNED TÊTE-À-TÊTE WITH MITT ROMNEY. THE MEETING IS ON. SEVERAL SOURCES SAY THIS IS NOT FOR SHOW AND WILL BE A SERIOUS DISCUSSION ABOUT A POSSIBLE CABINET POSITION, SECRETARY OF STATE MOST MENTION. SO FAR, THE REACTION TO THE PROSPECT OF MITT ROMNEY AS SECRETARY OF STATE HAS BEEN MET WITH VERY FAVORABLE VIEWS, INCLUDING CAPITOL HILL, THOUGH ONE SOURCE SAID THIS MEETING IS IN FACT JUST FOR SHOW. I’M NOT SURE WHERE IT STANDS, BUT AS I SAID, THE REACTIONS HAVE BEEN POSITIVE, SO WHAT IS YOUR GOT ON WHETHER THIS IS REAL AND WHETHER HE MIGHT END UP WITH THE JOB? DONNY: SOMEONE VERY HIGH UP TOLD ME IT WAS VERY REAL. THEY WERE VERY EXCITED ABOUT IT. WE TALKED ABOUT THIS YESTERDAY. THIS WOULD BE SUCH A TREMENDOUS GESTURE, PUT SO MANY PEOPLE AT EASE. THE GODZILLA FACTOR KEEPS GOING UP. SOME VERY SCARY FIGURES. A GUY LIKE ROMNEY, HIS BIGGEST DEFICIT WAS HIS CALM. IT WOULD GIVE A LOT OF PEOPLE PAUSE, COMFORT, AND IF IT IS JUST FOR SHOW, A HEAD FAKE, THAT IS MARK: FRIGHTENING IN AND OF ITSELF. IF HE PICKS SOMEONE DON’T — MARK: IF HE DOESN’T PICK SOMEONE THAT PEOPLE ARE COMFORTABLE, IT WILL BE A PROBLEM. I CAN’T TELL YOU HOW WELL PEOPLE HAVE REACTED, DEMOCRATS, REPUBLICANS, FOREIGN-POLICY TYPES, AND THE REALITY IS MITT ROMNEY IS NOT SOFT ON FOREIGN-POLICY. HE IS AGGRESSIVE ON FOREIGN-POLICY. HIS VIEWS DEVIATE FROM DONALD TRUMP’S, BUT NOT THE FUNDAMENTAL ONES. DONNY: HE WAS THE FIRST ONE TO SAY CORRECTLY THAT RUSSIA IS OUR GEOPOLITICAL ENEMY. THE REASON IT FEELS SO GOOD AS WE ARE DEALING WITH SUCH AN UNKNOWN NOW. EVERYWHERE WE GO, WOW, THAT SMELLS KIND OF FUNKY, AND TO PUT SOMEONE IN THERE, OK, HE’S A GROWN UP. HE IS SMART. HE HAS BEEN AROUND. IT IS COMFORTABLE. MARK: IT WILL BE INTERESTING TO SEE WHAT KIND OF REPORTING COMES OUT OF THE MEETING. IF TRUMP WANTS TO PICK HIM, HE WILL PICK HIM PRETTY SOON. DONNY: MY ONLY QUESTION IS, IF HE IS NOT GOING TO PICK HIM, IF HE WAS GOING TO PICK THEM, IT WOULD BE A SURPRISE. MARK: COMING UP, WE WILL SHOW YOU HOW DONALD TRUMP’S MEETING WITH THE JAPANESE PRIME MINISTER WAS COVERED IN JAPAN, RIGHT AFTER THIS. ♪ ♪ DONNY: IT HAS BEEN A MADHOUSE AT TRUMP TOWER. REPORTERS ARE WATCHING THE PEOPLE GO UP AND DOWN THOSE GILDED ELEVATORS. WE WENT OVER TO GET A SENSE OF WHAT IT IS LIKE AT A TRUMP STAKEOUT. THIS IS HOW THE MEDIA IS COPING.>>I AM HERE AT THE TRUMP TOWER TO LEARN ALL THE NEW RULES ON HOW THE PRESS CAN COVER DONALD TRUMP. RULE NUMBER ONE, LIVE SHOTS MUST BE ACROSS THE STREET. I AM PRESS. CAN I COME THROUGH HERE? CAN’T GO THIS WAY.>>AS WE WERE WALKING DOWN FIFTH AVENUE, WE SAW ALL THE PRESS VANS. IT HIT US LIKE, THIS IS WHY THE THEY ARE HERE.>>IT IS A PUBLIC SPACE, TERRORISTS, FOREIGN DIGNITARIES, COPS, BIG GUNS, TRUMP AMERICA, RIGHT?>>WE HAD TO GO THROUGH SOME SECURITY.>>A BUNCH OF PRESS WERE CAMPED OUT WAITING TO SEE WHO IS WHO AND IF ANYONE IMPORTANT IS COMING.>>COULD BE A CELEBRITY, COULD BE A TOURIST FROM OKLAHOMA.>>ARE THERE ANY RULES?>>KNOW, AND THERE IS A LOT OF US HERE. ONE REPORTER WAS TRYING TO SIT ON THE FLOOR, AND THEY ARE NOT ALLOWED TO. THERE IS AN ADEQUATE SEATING.>>ARE YOU USING STARBUCKS WI-FI?>>YES, BLAZING FAST WI-FI BECAUSE OF STARBUCKS. ♪ MARK: NEW YORKERS THINK WE ARE THE CENTER OF THE UNIVERSE, AND IN SOME WAYS, WE ARE. THIS IS THE MOST IMPORTANT CITY IN THE MOST IMPORTANT COUNTRY, AND THE PRESS IS GRAPPLING WITH LOGISTICS THERE. IT IS UNTENABLE. DONNY: IT IS. HERE IS THE REALITY. I’M TALKING AFTER THE INAUGURATION, I’M HEARING THAT DONALD TRUMP IS THREE KING ABOUT — IS THINKING ABOUT SPENDING WEEKENDS HERE. IT IS NOT BUILT FOR THIS. HE HAS AN OBLIGATION TO NEW YORK CITY AND HIS VOTERS. ONCE AGAIN, YOU COME HERE ONCE IN A WHILE, BUT THIS CANNOT BE HIS HOME AWAY FROM HOME. MARK: NOT A SKYSCRAPER IN THE HEART OF MIDTOWN MANHATTAN. IT IS NOT JUST DISRUPTIVE AND A SECURITY PROBLEM, BUT IT IS NOT A RATIONAL THING. THERE IS NOTHING SENSIBLE ABOUT IT, EXCEPT HE WANTS TO BE HOME. ALL RIGHT, PRESIDENT ELECT HAS FIELDED CONGRATULATORY CALLS FROM ALL OVER THE PLANET. YESTERDAY, HE HELD HIS FIRST FACE-TO-FACE MEETING WITH A FOREIGN LEADER, WITH THE LUCKY OR SKILLFUL JAPANESE PRIME MINISTER SHINZO ABE. WE COULD SHOW YOU HOW THE U.S. NETWORKS COVER THAT TV SIT DOWN, BUT WE WERE MORE INTERESTED IN HOW IT IS PERCEIVED ABROAD, SO LET’S TAKE A LOOK AT TRUMP JAPAN STYLE.>>IN ORDER TO MEET, PRIME MINISTER ABE ARRIVES, WE HAVE OUR REPORTER LIVE IN FRONT OF TRUMP TOWER. PRIME MINISTER ABE HAS JUST APPEARED, HEADING TO TRUMP TOWER FOR THE FIRST FACE-TO-FACE MEETING. ONSIDE CAMERAS CAPTURED A HORIZONTAL LONG BOX WRAPPED WITH A RIBBON. COULD IT BE A PRESIDENT FOR MR. TRUMP? WHAT COULD BE IN THE MYSTERIOUS LONG BOX. MEDIA COVERAGE WAS NOT PERMITTED. FURTHERMORE COME THE TIME AND PLACE OF THE MEETING WERE OFFICIALLY ANNOUNCED BY MR. TRUMP ONLY AFTER THE PRIME MINISTER DEPARTED JAPAN, ADDING TO THE LIST OF UNUSUAL ARRANGEMENTS REQUESTED. AFTER SEEING WHEN PRIME MINISTER ABE SHOOK DONALD TRUMP’S HAND, INTERIORS ARE ADORNED IN GOLD, THIS IS DONALD TRUMP’S RESIDENCE.>>I HAVE BEEN CONVINCED THAT PRESIDENT-ELECT MR. TRUMP IS DEFINITELY A LEADER THAT CAN BE TRUSTED. THAT I CAN TRUST. MARK: VERY BIG DRAMA OR A GATO TO OUR COLLEAGUE HELPING US TO TRANSLATE THAT NEWS COVERAGE. I THINK DONALD TRUMP’S PERSONALITY GIVES HIM A CHANCE TO HAVE INSTANT RAPPORT WITH FOREIGN LEADERS. DONNY: ABSOLUTELY. INTERESTING. THIS IS A WORLDWIDE CELEBRITY BECOMING A PRESIDENT, AND EVEN WORLD LEADERS GET TAKEN WITH CELEBRITIES. TRUMP HAS THIS WAY, AFTER THE IOWA PRIMARY, HE CALLED TO THANK ME FOR PREDICTING IT. BY THE END OF THE CONVERSATION, I AM SAYING, HOW CAN I HELP YOU, BUDDY? HE IS A CHARMING GUY, HUGE PRESENCE, AND I THINK THAT IS WILL SERVE HIM WELL. MARK: THERE ARE TWO PEOPLE WHO LIKE HIM AND 98 DON’T, AND HE TALKS TO THE TWO WHO LIKE HIM. WORLD LEADERS, AS YOU SAID, NOT JUST BECAUSE HE IS FAMOUS. HE HAS A BIG PERSONALITY. WHY DID HILLARY CLINTON SAY SHE WENT TO DONALD TRUMP’S WEDDING, BECAUSE HE IS FUN TO BE AROUND. DONNY: IF YOUR BARACK OBAMA IT’S LIKE YOU’RE THE KID IN THE ROOM. HE IS A GUY WHO FILLS UP A ROOM. HE IS PRESOLD. I THINK HIS STATUS IN THAT WAY HELPS HIM. MARK: A LOT OF THESE WORLD LEADERS ARE UNSETTLED NOW. WHEN THEY GET IN THE ROOM WITH HIM AND SEE THAT HE IS A CALM PRESENCE — AHEAD OF MITT ROMNEY’S MEETING WITH DONALD TRUMP, WE WILL CHECK IN WITH SOME REPORTERS WHO COVERED HIS 2012 RACE RIGHT AFTER THIS. ♪ JOHN: WE’RE JOINED NOW BY PHIL ROCKER. WE HAVE SCOTT LEHIGH. LET ME START WITH YOU. JUST FROM YOUR REPORTING, A SCALE FROM ONE TO 10. WHERE ARE WE ON ROMNEY?>>MAY BE A FOUR OR A FIVE. IT DOESN’T SEEM VERY FIRM. SOMETHING COULD HAPPEN. MY UNDERSTANDING IT IS MORE GENERAL CONVERSATION. HE WANTED HIS ADVICE ON THE TRANSITION TO POWER. THEY ARE GOING TO DISCUSS THE POSITION OF SECRETARY OF STATE. WE WILL SEE IF TRUMP ACTUALLY DECIDES TO EVEN OFFER HIM THE JOB.>>I AM SURE YOU DID NOT COVER OUR NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISOR. HOW DO YOU IMAGINE A TEMPERAMENT LIKE ROMNEY, THOSE PERSONAS WORKING TOGETHER?>>NOT PARTICULARLY WELL. THEY HAVE DIFFERENT APPROACHES. THEY HAVE DIFFERENT PATTERNS OF BEHAVIOR AND VIEWS ON ISSUES LIKE MUSLIMS FOR EXAMPLE. IF ROMNEY WERE TO BE SECRETARY OF STATE HE WOULD TRY TO BE CEREBRAL AND DIPLOMATIC. THAT WOULD BE A CLASH WITH THE NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISOR. I DO NOT KNOW HOW THEY WOULD WORK THAT OUT. ROMNEY IN 2012 SIDED RUSSIA AS OUR NUMBER ONE GEOPOLITICAL FOE. CLEARLY THERE IS A DISSENT DISAGREEMENT — THERE IS A DISAGREEMENT. MARK: WHAT ABOUT HIS BACKGROUND, HIS INTEREST WOULD MAKE HIM WANT TO GIVE UP THE GRANDKIDS AND TRAVEL THE GLOBE AS SECRETARY OF STATE?>>IT SEEMS TO ME WHAT THEY ARE DOING IS OFFERING AND ALL OF BRANCH TO THE ESTABLISHMENT WING OF THE PARTY BY BRINGING IN PEOPLE FOR MEETINGS. IT IS HARD TO SEE HOW TEMPERAMENT ALI — TEMPERAMENTALLY, WHAT HE THINGS ABOUT RUSSIA AND WHAT DONALD TRUMP THINGS ABOUT RUSSIA. TRUMP THINGS THAT GLOBAL WARMING IS A HOAX. MITT ROMNEY HAS FLIP AND FLOP A FEW TIMES BUT THE LAST SPEECH HE GAVE, HE SAID IT WAS A SERIOUS PROBLEM WE HAD TO ADDRESS. I CANNOT SEE IT HAPPENING. MARK: I HEAR YOUR POINT OF VIEW. BUT I ASK THIS QUESTION, YOU ARE TELLING ME IF DONALD TRUMP OFFERS IT TO HIM HE WILL TURN IT DOWN?>>I CAN’T SEE DONALD TRUMP SAYING TO HIM GIVEN HIS VIEW OF RUSSIA AND GLOBAL WARMING, I DON’T SEE WHY HE WOULD OFFER IT TO HIM? MARK: HIS CABINET IS GOING TO HAVE PEOPLE WHO SUPPORT THE — FREE TRADE, WHO SUPPORT NATO AS IT STANDS. YOU SAY THESE ARE FUNDAMENTAL.>>I THINK THAT THE VIEW ON RUSSIAN IS SO DIAMETRICALLY OPPOSED, YOU CAN’T HAVE A FOREIGN-POLICY TEAM THAT HAS COMPLETELY OPPOSITE VIEWS ON WHAT OUR NATION’S RELATIONSHIP OR POSTURE TOWARDS RUSSIA SHOULD BE. HE SEES RUSSIA AS A STRATEGIC PARTNER. I DON’T SEE HOW YOU RECONCILE THAT. I DON’T THINK IT IS ONE OF THOSE DIFFERENCES YOU CAN MEET IN THE MIDDLE. DONNY: I WANT TO GO BACK TO YOU ON FLYNN. HE WAS FIRED FOR CONTENTIOUS MANAGEMENT STYLE. IN THE INSIDE BASEBALL ON WHAT HE WAS LIKE?>>THERE WAS A CHANGE IN HIS BEHAVIOR BASED ON WHAT HIS FORMER COLLEAGUES SAY. HE WAS A DECORATED INTELLIGENCE OFFICER AND REGARDED AS HIGHLY CREDIBLE AND GOOD AT HIS JOB. HIS BEHAVIOR CHANGED IN THE LAST FEW YEARS, ESPECIALLY SINCE HE LEFT THE GOVERNMENT. HE HAS GRAVITATED TO THESE FRENCH ELEMENTS. HIS TWITTER FEED IS LIKE DONALD TRUMP’S TWITTER FEED ON STEROIDS. IT IS A LOT OF BREITBART ARTICLES AND CONSPIRACY THINGS YOU WOULD NOT EXPECT FROM A THREE-STAR GENERAL WITH THE KIND OF BACKGROUND THAT HE HAD.>>MARK: ANY SENSE OF ARE OTHER PEOPLE IN DONALD TRUMP SCAMPI WAR VIEWING THIS AS A POSITIVE AND REAL PROSPECT THAN OTHERS?>>IT IS UNCLEAR TO GET INFORMATION THAT IS REAL ABOUT WHERE DONALD TRUMP’S HEAD IS ON THIS. PEOPLE AROUND HIM HAVE BEEN SAYING THIS IS NOT REAL. BUT IT COULD BE. THERE IS POTENTIAL HERE. THEY ARE GOING TO BE DISCUSSING SOMETHING. I THINK YOU WERE THERE A A YEAR AND A HALF AGO, HE DID A SLIDESHOW PRESENTATION ABOUT FOREIGN POLICY, ABOUT HOW HE WOULD REORGANIZE FOGGY BOTTOM. THIS IS SOMETHING HE HAS GIVEN THOUGHT TO. HIS FRIENDS TELL ME HE IS INTERESTED IN GETTING BACK INTO GOVERNMENT SERVICE. SECRETARY IS THE ONE JOB HE WOULD WANT. MARK: DO YOU THINK HE WILL STAY SUPPORTIVE OF THE ADMINISTRATION OR IF HE IS NOT INSIDE HE IS GOING TO BE A CRITIC?>>I THINK HE WILL TRY TO BE A RESPONSIBLE, BRING TRUMP INTO MORE WHAT MET THINKS OF AS RESPONSIBLE REPUBLICANISM RATHER THAN TOWARD THE FRENCH ELEMENTS WHERE HE SEEMS TO LEAN. I THINK MITT WOULD SAY LET ME TRY TO MOLD THIS GUY, BE SUPPORTIVE AND NUDGE HIM TOWARDS THE POLICY HE THINKS IS PRUDENT. DONNY: YOU HAVE BEEN GREAT. THANK YOU. WE WILL BRING IN SOME COOL STRATEGISTS SNACK. — STRATEGISTS NEXT. YOU CAN LISTEN US ON THE RADIO. WE WILL BE RIGHT BACK. ♪ MARK: WE’RE JOINED NOW BY A REPUBLICAN STRATEGIST IN OUR NATION’S CAPITAL. ADAM HODGES THE COMMUNICATIONS DIRECTOR FOR THE DEMOCRATIC NATIONAL COMMITTEE. AND DAVE, FROM JEB BUSH’S CAMPAIGN. I CONTINUE WITH MY OF SESSION WHETHER MITT ROMNEY WILL BE SECRETARY OF STATE. DOES THE PROSPECT MAKE SENSE TO YOU?>>IT MAKES A LOT SENSE. IT WOULD SEND AN AMAZING MESSAGE TO THE WORLD, A COMFORTING MESSAGE WHICH IS SHOOK UP A LITTLE BIT ABOUT THIS ELECTION. I THINK IT WOULD MAKE A LOT OF SENSE. HE HAS A DENSE — DEEP AND ABIDING SENSE OF HISTORY. HE BELIEVES IN THE GOODNESS AND AMERICA, AND THE GOODNESS AMERICA REPRESENTS TO THE WORLD WHEN IT IS STRONG. I HAVE NO IDEA IF IT WOULD HAPPEN. HIS LOVE OF COUNTRY WOULD MOTIVATE HIM TO LISTEN TO THE CONVERSATION, TO PROVIDE FEEDBACK AND SEE IF IT WOULD BE A GOOD FIT. I THINK IT WOULD BE A GENIUS STROKE TO BRING IN GOVERNOR ROMNEY. MARK: MY GUESS IS WHEN WE DISCUSS THE PICKS TODAY YOU ARE NOT GOING TO BE BIG FANS. HOW WOULD YOU FEEL?>>I WOULD LOVE TO BE A FLY ON THE WALL FOR THAT FIRST MEETING IN THE OVAL OFFICE BETWEEN THE TWO OF THEM. OR WHEN DONALD TRUMP AND MITT ROMNEY GO BACK-AND-FORTH ABOUT THE TERRIBLE THINGS THEY SAID ABOUT EACH OTHER A FEW SHORT MONTHS AGO. I THINK THAT IS GOING TO BE TOUGH. MARK: AS AN AMERICAN AND CONCERNED ABOUT AMERICA’S FUTURE, WILL YOU WELCOME MITT ROMNEY?>>MR. TRUMP WOULD BE BEST SERVED HAVING AS MANY ADULTS IN THE ROOM AS HE CAN GET. MITT ROMNEY HAS HIS OWN CHALLENGES FROM HIS PAST, AND HIS OWN RECORD THAT I THINK WOULD DEEPLY CONCERNING A LOT OF THE FOLKS ON OUR SIDE. WE WILL HAVE TO SEE WHAT HAPPENS WITH HIS NOMINATION AND HIS CONFIRMATION. PEOPLE WILL HAVE SOME TOUGH QUESTIONS. MARK: IF DONALD TRUMP SAID SHOULD I PICK MITT ROMNEY WHAT WOULD YOU TELL HIM?>>I WOULD SAY YES. JEFF SESSIONS IS GOING TO BE THE MOST POWERFUL ATTORNEY GENERAL WE HAVE HAD. THAT IS A GREAT FIND FOR CONSERVATIVES. WE’RE GOING TO HAVE AN ATTORNEY GENERAL UNDERSTANDS OUR ISSUES AND HAS THE AIR OF THE PRESIDENT. OR SOMEONE LIKE MITT ROMNEY NAMED SECRETARY OF STATE IS ANOTHER GREAT FIND FOR SECRETARY OF STATE LOOKING FOR THE DECISIONS PRESIDENT-ELECT TRUMP MAKES. I ALSO THINK IT IS A POWERFUL MESSAGE WITHIN THE REPUBLICAN PARTY. WE CRITICIZED OUR NOMINEE. HILLARY CLINTON HAD ALL OF THESE SCANDALS. DEMOCRATS WOULD NEVER CRITICIZE HER. TO COME TOGETHER WITH SOMEONE WHO CRITICIZED HIM QUITE STRONGLY WOULD BE A POWERFUL MESSAGE, THE REPUBLICAN PARTY IS GOING TO LEAD THIS COUNTRY AND WILL HELP AMERICANS FIX SOME OF THESE PROBLEMS. DONNY: I WANT TO SHIFT GEARS TO YOUR PARTY. IT IS A 1-4 CHANCE RHEINGOLD IS UP AGAINST PELOSI. I WOULD GIVE IT TO HIM. DEMOCRATS NEED SOME FRESH FACES. THE COACH FROM YOU HAVE TO MOVE THE COACH OUT. I THINK SHE HAS DONE A GREAT JOB. ONE COULD ARGUE ON FRESHNESS ALONE THEY NEED FRESH FACES THERE. QUITE SHE HAS BEEN THE MOST TENACIOUS FIGHTER FOR OUR PARTY. I WOULD LISTEN TO WHAT THE PRESIDENT SAID HIMSELF. THAT WE WOULD NOT HAVE GOTTEN HEALTH CARE DONE WITHOUT NANCY PELOSI. WE NEED A LOT OF STRONG LEADERS TO CONTINUE THE FIGHT IN THE NEXT CONGRESS. THE HOUSE DEMOCRATIC CAUCUS IS GOING TO MAKE THEIR CHOICE. THERE CAN BE NO QUESTION ABOUT WHAT KIND OF A FIGHTER SHE HAS BEEN FOR OUR PARTY.>>THIS IS A GREAT EXAMPLE. HILLARY CLINTON HAD SCANDAL AFTER SCANDAL. SHE WAS A WEEK NOMINEE EVEN IN THE PRIMARY AND STOMACH — DEMOCRATS PUSHED EVERYONE OUT TO MAKE SURE THAT HILLARY CLINTON HAD TO BE THE NOMINEE. WHEN SCANDAL AFTER SCANDAL HIT HER IN THE GENERAL ELECTION NANCY PELOSI TO WAS THERE SAYING WE HAVE TO STAND BY HILLARY CLINTON. NO ONE CAN POSSIBLY CRITICIZE HER. THAT IS WHY THEY ARE IN THE POSITION THEY ARE IN AT THE WHITE HOUSE AND DOWN BALLOT WHERE REPUBLICANS HAVE THE CONGRESS, 31 STATES, AND DEMOCRATS ARE LEFT WITH FIVE.>>I WANT ADAM TO RESPOND. THERE IS THAT ARGUMENT.>>I THINK WHAT WE NEED IS AS MANY CHAMPIONS AND FIGHTERS AS WE CAN HAVE WITH US IN THE U.S. CONGRESS. I THINK NANCY PELOSI HAS BEEN THAT LEADER THROUGHOUT HER CAREER. I THINK I’D IS THE PEOPLE WE ARE GOING TO NEED STANDING UP TO MR. TRUMP IN THE NEXT ADMINISTRATION. DONNY: LET’S SWITCH BACK TO SECRETARY OF STATE. LET’S ASSUME MITT ROMNEY DOES NOT GET IT. GIVE HIM THREE GOOD PICKS.>>GOSH. MAYBE GENERAL PETRAEUS. LINDSEY GRAHAM. NIKKI HALEY. I THINK WE HAVE TO HAVE AN ADULT. HE ONLY HAS SO MANY PEOPLE IN THE INNER CIRCLE. HE LOOKS LIKE HE IS PUTTING PEOPLE IN JOBS ALREADY. YOU HAVE SESSIONS ALREADY LINED UP. HE IS GOING TO HAVE TO EXPAND OUTSIDE OF HIS CIRCLE. WE NEED SOME FRESH FACES A ROUTE MR. TRUMP — AROUND MR. TRUMP. HE IS CAPABLE OF BRINGING IN DIVERSE OPINIONS AND LISTENING. HE IS SHOWING HIMSELF AT THIS POINT TO BE OPEN TO TALKING TO A LOT OF PEOPLE HE HAS NOT TALKED TO THROUGHOUT THE PROCESS. IT WAS A TOUGH CAMPAIGN. IF HE CAN MOVE INTO A NEW DIRECTION, AND BRING IN SOME IDEAS AND DEBATE, WITH MAYBE A DIFFERENT WORLDVIEW, WE COULD HAVE A SUCCESSFUL FOREIGN POLICY GOING FORWARD. MORE SUCCESSFUL THAN WE HAVE HAD. MARK: WHY SHOULD SOMEONE LIKE JEFF SESSIONS WHO COULD NOT BE CONFIRMED BY THE SENATE BE MADE ATTORNEY GENERAL?>>THAT TALKING POINT HAS GOTTEN SO SILLY. THIS IS BACK ON THE DEMOCRATS WERE TESTING THEIR STRATEGY. THEY BLOCKED BORK. THIS IS WHAT DEMOCRATS HAVE BEEN DOING BACK THEN. CALLING THEM RACIST. NOT MUCH HAS CHANGED BY THE WAY. IT WAS NOT A GOOD STRATEGY THEN. JEFF SESSIONS IS A WELL-LIKED SENATOR. IT IS GOING TO BE HARD FOR THE SENATORS WHO HAVE WORKED FOR HIM FOR YEARS TO SUDDENLY SAY WE ARE NOT CONFIRMING HIM.>>I THINK YOU LOOK AT THE RECORD OF MR. SESSIONS, THAT WAS NOT BORKING. THERE WERE SERIOUS CONCERNS RAISED ABOUT HIS TEMPERAMENT AND THE THINGS QUITE FRANKLY — >>HE PROSECUTED THE LEADER OF THE KKK.>>HE ALSO SAID THE KKK, HE WAS OK WITH THEM UNTIL HE SAID THEY FOUND MARIJUANA.>>HE MADE A JOKE. SARCASM IS LOST. MARK: IS THE DNC GOING TO SPEND MONEY AND MOBILIZE IN THE GRASSROOTS BASE TO STOP SESSIONS FROM BEING CONFIRMED.>>YOU ARE GOING TO SEE US FIGHT AS AGGRESSIVELY AS WE CAN. WE CAN’T, AFTER THE PROGRESS WE HAVE MADE UNDER MR. OBAMA,, WE CANNOT AFFORD TO TURN BACK THE CLOCK TO MR. SESSIONS WHO WOULD GO BACK 50 YEARS. LOOK AT HIS RECORD AND THE THINGS HE HAS FOUGHT AGAINST. IT IS NO SURPRISE MR. TRUMP WOULD PAY CAM TO BE HIS ATTORNEY — PICK HIM TO BE HIS ATTORNEY GENERAL. HE IS NOT SOMEONE THE AMERICAN PEOPLE CAN TRUST TO BE THERE ATTORNEY GENERAL. MARK: THANK YOU.>>HE SHOULD NOT BE CONFIRMED. MARK: THANK YOU. THANK YOU. EMILY JANE FOX TALKS ABOUT DONALD TRUMP’S SON-IN-LAW NEXT. ♪ DONNY: ONE OF THE MOST INFLUENTIAL PEOPLE IN DONALD TRUMP’S CAMPAIGN IS MARRIED TO HIS DAUGHTER. WE ARE JOINED WITH A STAFF WRITER FROM VANITY FAIR, EMILY JANE FOX. THANK YOU FOR BEING HERE. YOU HAVE BEEN FOLLOWING JEROD AND IVANKA FOR A WHILE. YOUR PIECES WERE ABOUT THE WALL BREAKING DOWN AROUND IVANKA. DESCRIBE HIM AS A GUIDE. ALL WE HEAR — AS A GUY.>>I AM STRUGGLING TO UNDERSTAND WHO JEROD IS. HE IS MILD-MANNERED. VERY NICE. WELL BRED. I THINK THE ASSUMPTION IS HE IS NOT THE SHARPEST TOOL IN THE BOX. DONNY: THAT IS NOT THE ASSUMPTION.>>THAT IS WHAT I AM FINDING OUT. HIS FATHER GIVE A LARGE DONATION TO GET HIM INTO HARVARD. HIS GRADES WERE NOT STELLAR BEFORE THEN. HE TOOK OVER HIS FATHER’S BUSINESS WHEN HIS FATHER WAS BEHIND BARS. NOW HE WOUND UP — DONNY: THERE IS A 11 YEAR. PERIOD.>>THERE WASN’T THAT MUCH TIME BETWEEN WHEN HE STARTED RUNNING THE KUSHNER COMPANY. THE OBSERVER WAS A PLAY TO GET HIM IN NEW YORK SOCIETY AND TAKE OVER THE S THAT HAD — TAKE OVER THE PRESS AHEAD TAKEN DOWN HIS FAMILY. MARK: MOST OF HIS FRIENDS DID NOT VOTE FOR DONALD TRUMP.>>JARED KUSHNER WAS A DEMOCRAT. I THINK THEIR SOCIAL CIRCLE IS VERY SMALL. THEY ARE A VERY INSULAR COUPLE. THEY ARE NOT YOUR TYPICAL 30-YEAR-OLD COUPLE, OUT SOCIALIZING WITH OTHER 34-YEAR-OLDS. THEY ARE WITH THEIR FAMILY. THEY SPENT A LOT OF TIME TOGETHER. THEY HAVE THREE YOUNG CHILDREN. THIS IS NOT REALLY A SOCIAL SCENE COUPLE. THIS IS A FAMILY GOAL ORIENTED COUPLE. MARK: WITH YOUNG KIDS.>>THREE YOUNG KIDS. THEY JUST HAD A BABY IN THE SPRING. DONNY: THERE IS A GREAT TRAGEDY HEAR THAT A LOT OF THIS IS ABOUT HIM RETRIBUTION BE ON THE CHRISTIE’S TOUGH TO RECLAIM THAT NAME KUSHNER. HE WAS AFFECTED BY HIS DAD GOING TO PRISON. HOW MUCH BEHIND THIS — >>ONE PERSON I SPOKE TO SAID THE ULTIMATE GOAL HERE IS TO GET A PARDON FOR HIS FATHER. HE USED TO VISIT HIM EVERY SINGLE WEEKEND. THE FACT THAT HE OUSTED CHRISTIE AND ALL OF THE CHRISTIE ALLIES IN THE TRANSITION TELLS YOU A LITTLE BIT ABOUT HOW SERIOUS HE IS. MARK: PEOPLE HAVE TAKEN PAINS TO SAY THAT WAS IN HIS DOING. YOUR REPORTING SUGGESTS OTHERWISE.>>MY REPORTING DOES SUGGEST OTHERWISE. DONALD IS HIS OWN MAN AT THE END OF THE DAY. HE HAS A LOT OF PEOPLE IN HIS EAR. JARED KUSHNER IS A LOUD VOICE AND THAT HERE. YOU HEAR REPORTS OF A CIVIL WAR WITHIN THE CAMPAIGN. MARK: DOES HE WANT TO GO TO WASHINGTON BECAUSE HE IS AMBITIOUS, HE WANTS TO HELP HIS FATHER IN LAW?>>SOME PEOPLE SAY HE WANTS THE PROXIMITY TO POWER WHICH IS INTOXICATING. OTHER PEOPLE SAY HE IS JUST A LOYAL FAMILY GUY, AND HIS FATHER IN LAW — IT IS SO EARLY. WE WILL SEE. I DON’T THINK ANYONE IS CLEAR ON WHAT THE MOTIVATIONS ARE. DONNY: THANK YOU. WE WILL BE RIGHT BACK. ♪ DONNY: KEEP REFRESHING BLOOMBERG POLITICS.COM. THAT IS WHERE YOU WILL FIND ALL OF DONALD TRUMP’S WHITE HOUSE MOVES. MARK WAS BRAGGING HAVE YOU EVER BEEN ON ENTERTAINMENT TONIGHT. MARK HAS BEEN ON IT. MARK: MORE THAN ONCE. IT IS PART OF MY DEMO. DONNY: YOU ARE PUSHING BACK A LITTLE BACK ON THE CHRISTIE THING. I HAVE TO BELIEVE HE WAS THE GUY. MARK: THEY HAVE DENIED IT. IT IS A MYSTERY WHY HE WAS SO CLOSE TO THE TRANSITION. CHRISTIE AND GINGRICH ARE NOT GETTING JOBS. DONNY: OK. BLOOMBERG TECHNOLOGY IS NEXT. SAYONARA. ♪ . .>>LET’S BEGIN WITH A CHECK OF FIRST WORD NEWS. PRESIDENT-ELECT DONALD TRUMP HAS AGREED TO SETTLE FRAUD LAWSUITS OVER TRUMP UNIVERSITY FOR $25 MILLION. THE SUIT ALLEGED THE UNIVERSITY FAILED TO DELIVER THE EDUCATION IT HAD PROMISED. THE DEAL DOESN’T REQUIRE MR. TRUMP TO ACKNOWLEDGE WRONGDOING. PRESIDENT OBAMA IS BLOCKING THE SALE OF DRILLING RIGH

Did George W. Bush Keep Us Safe On 9/11? Trump Thinks Not


FOX DOES NOT THINK
THAT GEORGE W. BUSH WAS RESPONSIBLE FOR THE
TERRORIST ATTACKS OF 9/11. THEY THINK YOU SHOULD GO ONE
PRESIDENT EARLIER, BILL CLINTON. IF YOU REALLY WANT TO STOP
BIN LADEN, YOU WOULD’VE TAKEN IT SERIOUS
AND KILLED HIM. WE HAD MULTIPLE CHANCES FROM 96
TO 2000, WE DIDN’T TAKE IT. SINCE BIN LADEN WAS DETERMINED,
IT DIDN’T SAY WHERE OR WHO, ñ THEN YOU GO BACK FURTHER AND
ADVANCED IT. WHY DID WE ATTACK IRAQ? WHEN THIS HAPPENED, THERE WERE
NO WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION. LET ME GET IN FOR ONE SECOND ñ THERE ARE MANY OTHER THINGS,
BUT WHEN THE TERRORISTS DROPPED OFF THEIR FAMILIES,
THOSE FAMILIES A COUPLE OF DAYS BEFORE WENT BACK
TO SAUDI ARABIA. THEY DIDN’T GO BACK TO IRAQ,
THEY WENT BACK TO SAUDI ARABIA. IF YOU GO BACK TO 2003 AND 2004, I WASN’T A POLITICIAN SO I
DIDN’T GET THAT KIND OF PUBLICITY ñ I HAD A HUGE ARTICLE IN
REUTERS SAYING DON’T ATTACK IRAQ BECAUSE IT WILL DESTABILIZE THE
MIDDLE EAST. I GOT A LOT OF CREDIT
FOR THAT LATER ON. BUT I WAS VERY MUCH OPPOSED. WHY WOULD YOU PICK THIS
ARGUMENT BECAUSE THIS IS A MICHAEL MOORE LEFTIST, I HATE
EVERYTHING REPUBLICAN ARGUMENT? WHY WOULD YOU TAKE THIS? I DIDN’T TAKE THIS ARGUMENT.
I AM NOT BLAMING ANYONE. I LIKE TO LOOK TO THE FUTURE,
AND NOT BLAME ANYONE. THE ONLY THING I SAID WAS
WELL, HE SAID WE WERE SAFE. THE FACT IS WE HAVE THE WORST
ATTACK IN THE HISTORY OF OUR COUNTRY DURING HIS REIGN. JEB SAID WE WERE SAFE DURING
HIS REIGN, THAT ISN’T TRUE. I AM NOT BLAMING ANYBODY, AND I
AM NOT BLAMING GEORGE BUSH. WITH ALL OF THAT BEING SAID I
AM NOT BLAMING ANYBODY. BUT THE STATEMENT WAS MADE THAT
DURING THE DEBATE, DURING MY BROTHERS REIGN, WE WERE SAFE. WELL, WE WEREN’T SAFE BECAUSE
THE WORLD TRADE CENTER CAME DOWN AND LOTS OF OTHER BAD
THINGS HAPPENED. MANY AMERICANS WOULD
SAY THAT GEORGE W. BUSH DID EVERYTHING IN HIS
POWER TO KEEP US SAFE. YOU WOULD NOT DENY
THAT, WOULD YOU? WELL, WE ATTACKED A DIFFERENT
COUNTRY WHICH I THINK WAS THE WRONG COUNTRY. HE DID KEEP US SAFE AT HOME. DID HE KEEP US SAFE AT HOME? I AGREE WITH THAT. I WOULD
NEVER DISAGREE WITH THAT. BUT WE ATTACKED A COUNTRY. WE SPENT 2 TRILLION DOLLARS
ATTACKING A COUNTRY. YOU KNOW WHAT WE HAVE FOR IT?
ZERO. THEY SAY THAT TOO,
THAT WE WON THAT WAR. WE GET IT WRONG IN THE
BEGINNING, WE GET IT RIGHT AT THE END. IT WAS THROWN IN THE STREET. SO, THAT WAS WONDERFUL
BECAUSE NORMALLY WHEN TRUMP IS ON AND THEY HAVE AN
AGREEMENT AWARD. FOX AND FRIENDS IS THE MOST
FRIENDLY TO DONALD TRUMP, SPECIFICALLY WITHIN FOX.
HE CALLS IN ALL THE TIME. THEY LOVE EACH OTHER. IN THIS CASE YOU CAN SEE ON
THEIR FACES, THEY HAVE A DISCONCERTED LOOK. HE WON’T GET
BACK ON THE TALKING POINTS. SO THEY POUNDED HIM ON HIM
KEEPING US SAFE. I LOVE THE CONSISTENCY OF
THE MESSAGE. HOW DO YOU SAY IT WAS GEORGE W.
BUSH THAT CAUSED THIS? IT WAS AL QAEDA. TWO SECONDS LATER, IT WAS BILL
CLINTON WHO CAUSED IT. IT’S SAYING THE PRESIDENT WHO
WOULD’VE BEEN IN OFFICE FOR NINE MONTHS ISN’T RESPONSIBLE,
TO SAY THE PRESIDENT BEFORE THERE WAS THE INDICATION, HOW IS
THAT NOT MORE MICHAEL MOORIAN AND THEN SAYING BUSH WAS
RESPONSIBLE? IT DOESN’T MAKE ANY SENSE. THEY JUST DON’T LIKE THE IDEA
THAT A REPUBLICAN WOULD BE GIVEN THE BLAME FOR ANY OF THIS. I LOVE THE WHOLE CLINTON
SHOULD HAVE DONE SOMETHING BETWEEN 96 AND 2000. BUT IF CLINTON KNEW THAT BIN
LADEN WAS SUCH A DANGER, BUSH ALSO KNEW IT. BUSH AT A MINIMUM ALSO
DIDN’T DO ANYTHING. WELL, WE WERE WORRIED ABOUT Y2K. FIRST OF ALL, THE TITLE IS
INCREDIBLY CLEAR, THE TEXT IS CLEAR, AND HE SAYS
IT DOESN’T SAY WHO. THE LAST POINT I WANT TO
MAKE, TRUMP GETS A LOT OF FALSE CREDIT FOR BRINGING
UP AND PUSHING ISSUES. IN THIS CASE, IT IS RIGHT. FOR SOME REASON THE MEDIA HAS
DECIDED HE GETS TO SAY BUSH WAS RESPONSIBLE. NO ONE ELSE
WOULD BE ABLE TO SAY THAT. BUT THEY HAVE DECIDED FOR SOME
REASON TO GIVE A PASS TO DONALD TRUMP, WHICH IS GOOD IN
THIS CASE, BECAUSE DONALD TRUMP IS RIGHT IN THIS ONE CASE. I JUST DON’T UNDERSTAND WHY HE
IS GIVEN A COMPLETE PASS. NOT EVEN TO TALK ABOUT IT IN A
SOPHISTICATED FASHION. I KNOW WHY. BECAUSE THE MAINSTREAM MEDIA
IS THE PROTECTOR OF THE ESTABLISHMENT. THEIR JOB IS NOT TO BE WATCHDOGS
AGAINST THE GOVERNMENT. THEIR JOB IS TO BE WATCHDOGS ON
BEHALF OF THE GOVERNMENT TO MAKE SURE THAT WE NEVER
QUESTION WHAT GOES WRONG. THAT IS WHY IF YOU ARE AN
AMERICAN WHO HAS SOME DEGREE OF INTELLIGENCE, IT DOES
SEEM LIKE BUSH DESERVES RESPONSABILITY, HOW DO
THEY SAY HOW DARE YOU. WHY IS TRUMP ALLOWED TO DO IT? WELL, BECAUSE HE IS A
BILLIONAIRE. IN AMERICA BILLIONAIRE TRUMPS
EVERYTHING, LITERALLY. WHAT DOES THE MEDIA DO?
THEY BOW DOWN. YOU AT LEAST HAVE A LEGITIMATE
POINT THAT WE CAN DISCUSS, VERSUS THE RIFFRAFF