tv With All Due Respect Bloomberg July 3, 2016 11:00am-12:01pm EDT
♪ mark: welcome to this edition of the "best of with all due respect." it was a week in which both of the presumptive presidential nominees responded to the international developments, the fallout from the britain vote to leave the european union and the deadly terror attack in turkey. john: at the same time, donald trump and hillary clinton laid out contrasting visions for the future of the u.s. economy. in the next hour, we will break down the style and substance of both candidates' approaches, but we begin with al hunt's take on the brexit. from the u.s. perspective, where you sit in washington, d.c., what is it that is most disconcerting and the biggest challenge that american policymakers are grappling with
right now as a result of brexit assuming that it actually , happens? al: john, the american economy is actually doing better than most other western economies, but we are very dependent on how they do. if china sneezes, we get a cold. europe, for all of its problems, is not unimportant. the fear is that this will cause some kind of a downturn, not just in great britain, but also on the continent. that affects the u.s. there is nothing we can do about it, but that is the fear. john: so, you think that the economics are more disconcerting to american policymakers than the potential security implications dealing with all of the various things that america has to deal with in terms of how europe confronts middle eastern challenges, terrorist challenges, etc., etc.? al: john, that is a good point. and also putin. putin is a real concern. i think the challenges are really equal. the feeling is, how strong can europe be?
great britain has been a great ally in most of these confrontations that we have had. they backed away a little bit in the middle east, but they really have been. if it is a weaker britain, i think that is a problem for us. particularly in the security area. mark: i want to switch to look at the macroeconomic policies of hillary clinton and donald trump, and their proposals. talk about the vagueness of trump's proposals, and where the big holes are. al: well, they both had big problems, mark. let me just go to clinton for a minute. one of her big problems is she has an obsession with saying i am paying for everything. she really isn't, but she tries to argue that. one example, infrastructure. she has a $275 billion infrastructure plan. nobody who has thought about what we need for bridges and highways and airports thanks -- thinks that is anywhere near adequate. she will have to double that, but she will not raise the gas tax or propose that ordeal with the carbon tax. how is she going to squeeze that together? it will be difficult in the months ahead. but, trump's problems are much,
as he would say, huger. it is not just that to get unemployment down to really add in jobs he relies on trade sanctions, protections, which no one believes. let's just take his tax plan. right now, it will cost about $10 trillion over the next 10 years. i talked to steve moore, one of 2 supply-siders he has charged with reforming to make it a bit more palatable. steve says, we will get it down to three children dollars, -- to $3 trillion, it will be supply-side, and it will be middle-class-oriented. do you know something, mark? you can't do that. it all doesn't fit. i think it is incumbent upon us, just as my pal says, we have to stay on him on this tax stuff. mark: to take a plan from 10 -- $10 trillion over 10 years to $3 trillion? al: that is what he says they want to do. cut it by 2/3. if you tries to do that, i have a feeling his principle is going to run away from it. you just can't do it. you can't make it a supply-side tax cut -- which certainly doesn't go and penalize the
wealthy, if you will -- and really have a big middle-class tax cut without raising any taxes elsewhere. it just isn't feasible. john: let me ask you about the politics of each of their economic proposals. within their parties. clinton has always been seen as a centrist democrat. new democrat. in that mold. now, she is the presumptive leader of a party that is much more, in terms of policy preferences, much closer to bernie sanders. does she have political problems with her proposals on the left of her own party? al: i think that donald trump assuages a lot of those fears. i think otherwise, she might. she has already thrown them some red meat on the transpacific trade pact, which she opposes -- or says she opposes. i don't really think she does. she will go halfway on higher education. she won't go as far as bernie sanders went. she will give them something on rhetoric on wall street. but, i think one of her biggest
challenges, as i said, is infrastructure. that is something all democrats should agree on, but $275 billion, that is really small stuff. that is paltry. that will not get you many highways, bridges, or airports. mark: in context of the veep-stakes choices, the various trump campaign folks have said they will pick someone who is clearly seen as qualified to be president. clearly past that test. -- clearly passed that test. the people said to be under consideration, who do you think fits that bill? al: bob corker. i don't think he will take him, but bob corker, probably best fits the bill. on the democratic side, tim kaine. mark: do you think chris christie would meet that bar for most people? al: not as much as corker is a no foreign policy experience. he is an immensely unpopular governor of new jersey. there is still a little bit of a whiff of scandal hanging over him. he would be a harder sell. it would not be as hard as a few other people. john: what about newt gingrich,
al? last question. yes, or no? al: it is my wish. my dream. i have a gingrich file this big. imagine the family values party. six marriages. all the stuff that he has said over the years. we could turn this into a five-hour show every day, john. john: on your behalf, we will be praying for newt gingrich to be -- mark: thanks, al. still ahead, a pair supreme court rulings with big implications for the 2016 presidential race. we will get the breakdown from nbc news' pete williams. ♪
♪ mark: joining us from outside the supreme court in washington to talk more about the supreme court ruling today, nbc's justice correspondent --pete williams. thank you for joining us. i want to start with the abortion case out of texas. i erroneously suggested before that justice kennedy had never voted, or that he was reliably a pro-choice vote on the court. he is not for partial-birth abortion. he voted on the pro-life side. where does justice kennedy stand now, in terms of abortion and the role of the court?
pete: well, partial-birth abortion, remember the court struck down a nebraska law that stopped the so-called partial-birth abortions. then came the federal law, that is when justice kennedy wrote the decision, which alarmed advocates of abortion rights. i think that was a bridge too far for him. this gets back to the main holding of planned parenthood v. casey -- the big case 25 years ago, that today the supreme court picks up the language on. what they say is that these 2 restrictions in texas, saying that doctors have to have admitting privileges at nearby hospitals, and that clinics have to be built to the same standards as surgical centers -- in terms of equipment, staffing, construction standards, and so forth -- they add to the obstacles that make it harder to get an abortion, but they do not add any medical benefits. for that reason, he said it was an undue burden, echoing the language of casey. it is surprising that during the oral argument, kennedy seemed to not be willing to go that far.
he seemed to be concerned about the facts in the case. he suggested even at one point sending it back for more development. about -- ok, which law caused which clinics to close? so that we know how the 2 laws work differently, but clearly, he joined the 4 more liberal justices, and that gave us this 5-3 ruling that would have had the same outcome, even if antonin scalia had still been on the court. it would have been 5-4. john: talk about the implications for this for other states around the country. there are obviously a bunch of states that have similar provisions as the texas law in various regards. some have actually been modeled on the texas law. what happens now in all of those states? pete: immediately, nothing. this ruling today applies only to texas. what will happen is the opponents of those laws will take the ruling, go back into court, and say, look -- the same logic applies here in our state as applies to texas. we want these laws struck down. i suspect, for the most part, they will win. so, those laws will be in big trouble.
this wedge of laws, these dozen or so laws, like texas, was a new strategy for opponents of abortion. after years of going after the patients by restricting women's access by saying you have to have counseling, there is a waiting period, or reducing the period of time during pregnancy when abortion is legal, they said, that is not working. let's go after the clinics and the doctors. today, they lost. mark: how do you explain a unanimous ruling from the justices on the bob mcdonald case? different from the prosecutor making a decision, a federal prosecutor sees this as not only a good prosecution to bring, but errands a conviction. -- but earns a conviction. how can you reconcile that with the unanimous view of the court? pete: all you had to do was hear the oral argument. there was not a single justice that was a big cheerleader for the prosecution of bob mcdonnell. today, the chief justice who wrote the unanimous opinion said that it is pretty tawdry but the former governor did, but the essence of the case is "what is an official act?" the federal law says, you violate the law if you take something like what he got here, cash and gifts, in exchange for
a forming official acts. -- for performing official acts. that was the question "what is an official act?" the court had said today the kind of stuff that governor mcdonnell did setting up meetings, talking to staffers, a roasting lunches -- that is -- hosting lunches -- that is garden-variety staff that government officials do all the time. that is not an official act. an official act, they said, is when you have a decision pending, you vote on it, you influence that decision. so, as a technical matter, the case is sent back. the appeals court can look at it again to see if there's a point in a retrial. basically, they send the prosecution back severely handicapped. not only this case, but this will make it harder for prosecutors to bring corruption cases against other public officials. those 2 legislators in new york state -- there are cases are on hold waiting for the supreme court decision for their sentence. the lawyer for robert menendez, who faces a corruption charge from the federal government, that he did favors for an eye doctor from florida in return
for travel and so forth, that case could be affected by this. every time the supreme court rules to toughen the corruption laws, it takes a while for it to work through the courts before you really know how big of an effect it had. mark: pete williams at the court. thank you very much, pete. john: coming up, "with all due respect" meets the press. chuck todd joins us next. ♪
♪ mark: welcome back. on a very busy news day we are calling in some help to help us break down the dueling economic speeches we heard today from the 2 presumptive nominees. joining us from washington, and host of "meet the press" and "meet the press daily", chuck todd. chuck, i want to start with trade. take out, you cannot control for the variables, but take out the identities of the republican nominee and the democratic nominee -- just the notion of a presidential candidate, major
party nominee, running as a protectionist. is that on balance better or worse if you're trying to win 270 electoral votes? chuck: you know, i would have said it would have been worse. this feels like a throwback of the 1970's, the politics of the 1970's and 1980's that frankly didn't work back then. protectionist -- the democrats at that time were the party of protectionism. think back to walter mondale. the reason the democratic party eventually turned to a bill clinton, they were looking for a free trading, pro-business democrat because they thought they couldn't win. it is kind of -- we are in a new period of how americans view trade deals. obviously what is going on, the way that americans feel about the way the economy, the way that globalization works for them, or frankly, hasn't worked for them. it is more stunning to me to see the republican nominee be so anti-free trade. and, to have groups like the u.s. chamber of commerce, the national association of manufacturers, 2 big
pro-business, pro-free trade republican leaning organizations, having to trash the republican nominee. john: chuck, what struck you most about trump's speech today. i was certainly struck by how much he seemed to lift rhetorically from the brexit leave campaign. you noted that, i'm sure. what else struck you? chuck: well, i think -- this is the one issue that he has never wavered on. so, he has more credibility, rhetorically, on this issue. you can sort of -- he owns this in a way he does not own other issues. if you go back, the first time this guy jumped into politics, to criticize and administration was in the 1980's over japan. bad deals. bad trade deals for america. so, i feel like of all the issues that he has taken a position on, this is the one where he is the most consistent, and you can tell that this one, there is some genuineness behind
it if you have followed him over the decades. mark: hillary obviously felt pressured by bernie sanders in the nomination fight to be more skeptical of free trade. do you think that she will draw a line on this against trump, or will she try to basically go with what has been, as you pointed out, winning in presidential politics? which is more of the free trader? chuck: i think she is totally conflicted on this. i think you will see a very cautious -- when in doubt, when she is, or when any clinton is conflicted about that, there is certainly a cautiousness there. i just don't know how she credibly comes across as sort of an anti-trade nominee at this point. i think the brand name of "clinton" doesn't stand for that. the brand name of "obama" doesn't stand for that. so, -- mark: bernie sanders would agree with you. chuck: yeah. i think this is a real challenge for her. she does not want this fall campaign to be about trade deals
, let me just put it that way. john: chuck, today she went out and gave a speech where she basically said, this will be about the past versus the future. that should be familiar turf for clinton, right? she said donald trump wants to take us to the past. i'm going to talk about technology and innovation. i am going to take us to the future. that is what bill clinton did in 1996, too, when he tried to build the bridge to the 21st century. so, what -- is that the out? is that the way she gets out of this conundrum, by trying to pitch yourself as an avatar of the future? chuck: yeah. and also try to make trump a personally a throwback. not capable of this. i tell you, this gets at the heart of what is the big idea of a president clinton? what is she going to do? what is she going to tackle? she does not have that big economic idea that supporters can wrap their arms around and feel as if -- for better or for worse, trump is saying i'm going to throw away every trade deal that has ever happened. i am going to -- he doesn't want
to say "trade war" per se, but he is basically saying, yeah, so what if we start a trade war with china. we have to shake things up. what is she going to have him -- have in there on the economy? a big idea that she owns that she will tackle in her first 100 days? you know, right now, it is a lot of incremental policy proposals she is putting out there. it doesn't feel as though she has the big thing that these frustrated, middle-class, working-class voters can wrap their arms around. she has to come up with something by the fall. mark: that takes us to the trade and the wall street journal poll where she is leading, but behind on a number of traits, including better on the economy. obviously, her lack of definition is part of that. do you think, on balance, voters are familiar with trump's prescriptions and favor those? or they like the fact that he is a businessman and? why is he beating her on that? chuck: i think he has the businessman halo effect.
i've heard this from many a consultant over the years. it takes a long time, it takes a lot of work, to chip away at a voter perception that someone who has been successful in business is not the one that is best prepared to manage the economy. it takes a long time to chip away at that. even though trump himself, arguably, has chipped away at his persona sometimes. i think that is part of it. i think the other part of it is that the poll shows she still has trust issues. what is amazing about our nbc/wall street journal poll is that this is among the worst polls that hillary clinton has ever had. except, because it is comparison with trump, it looks like a good poll for her. if you extrapolate -- if you take out the head-to-head, there is not a good number in here for her. i'm trying to find it, there is not one. john: i want to shift to talk about the benghazi reports today. it has seemed to me for a long time like benghazi, at least since last october when she testified, that benghazi has been a dead issue, except for hard-core republican partisans.
as of today, can we officially say, given what is in this report, that politically this is no longer a problem for her, or are there some landmines again with movable voters in the electorate? generating outrage among far right conservatives? chuck: let's separate the 2 issues. benghazi, the conspiracy theory, dead. the idea that somehow there was a purposeful action made or not made around the failed rescue attempt of ambassador stephen, that door is shut. what is not shut for her is mismanagement of the middle east. why was benghazi unsafe? the initial libyan policy in the first place. that is where they're still -- there is still vulnerability for her. whether trump is capable of taking advantage of that, i don't know. i can tell you this. the republicans did not help themselves today when they had to put out 2 reports. trey gowdy puts out a report. then, they said no, no, he was not partisan enough.
we are going to put out a separate report. jim jordan and mike pompeo just trashes clinton. but we will separate it out. it only presents a republican party that just was not satisfied with its own conclusion. mark: is that because the speaker of the house basically let, as he often does, the chair handle it, and trey gowdy was not up to the task of doing this from the politics of it? or -- chuck: i don't know. i thought trey gowdy was more than capable of handling this. i think, what i'm trying to figure out, is why was it allowed to happen? why wasn't it done? perhaps jim jordan is somebody that a lot of leadership is always nervous about. he straddles the fence between the establishment and the freedom caucus, and those folks. i don't know what it was, but it strikes me as undermining their own report. when you are not speaking with one voice, then, you might as well not be selling anything at all. john: chuck, we had this
incident in turkey, in istanbul. at this hour, we don't know that much. do you have any sense of the politics of that at this early stage? chuck: i wouldn't. there is just no more important and challenging country for the president, for any president to deal with, then turkey. the challenges turkey faces. their own domestic terrorism issues. plus isis. plus syria. it is sometimes no wonder that this is not a weekly occurrence that we are in turkey wondering about a terrorist attack. mark: terror somewhere almost every day around the world. chuck todd, thanks a lot. coming up we hear from the , former chairman of the publican party, mike duncan, and democratic strategist penny lee. ♪
capital to talk about how things might go down in that fine city is former republican party chairman mike duncan. also with us from d.c., the democratic strategist peggy lee, the former executive director director of the democratic governors association. chairman duncan, let's start with you. what do you think, at this moment, on the basis of your finely honed political instincts and understanding of the rules, what you think the likelihood is that there could be some -- something that could significantly disrupt the preferred flow of the republican convention on the part of the trump campaign? mike: the preferred flow will be disrupted. i don't think there's any question about that. that is why we are having the business session in 2 parts on monday. you will see all of the sausage made then. you will have the credentials committee. we only had 5 contests compared to 21 contests in 2012. we will have the rules committee. you will have the platform committee, and the permanent organization. we will get most of those things out of the way. the next big moment will be when we call the roll and nominate people for president and vice
president. john: peggy, what do you think about the democratic convention in philadelphia? everyone has expected for a long time the republican convention to be chaotic and the democratic convention to be peaceful. it seems like there might be a chance for some kind of chaos in philadelphia. what is your thought about that? penny: well, it would not be unusual. we saw that even in 2008. we did have some of the very loyal hillary clinton supporters hold out until the very end when the vote was on the floor. it will be interesting going forward. you are starting to see what elizabeth warren and other progressives coming in starting to unite and get behind hillary clinton. i think that will alleviate some of the tension that might be out there. it is still bernie. bernie is still running. we are waiting to see. mark: penny first, and then chairman duncan. do you all think that having a good convention is still vitally important, or, given that they are back to back and we are in a different age of social media, it doesn't really matter as much as it used to? penny: i still think it has an impact.
i mean, people will be able to tune in, and sometimes for the very first time start to see what the choreography of it is, and how mrs. clinton would relate. how she is presenting. what her speeches are going to be. i think it does affect some people. but, this is also a race in which both of the candidates are very, very well known. so, there is not a lot of second guessing that is out there. it is still important, the choreography. what you are also watching far is to make sure there is not a gaffe or mistake. something that can be blown up on social media more than you want it to and take you off of your message. mark: mr. chairman? mike: my number one goal for john mccain 2012 was to give him a bump coming out of the convention. we did that. that is because there are four times the people that really are paying attention. one, when you consolidate the nomination. 2, when you are at the convention defining yourself with the convention. 3, is the debates. those are critical. they will be more critical this time. 4, your organization. get out the vote during the voting season. john: mr. chairman, are you going to be going to the convention in cleveland? mike: absolutely. this is my 12th convention.
10th as a delegate. big plans. john: so, there are a lot of your fellow republicans that are big players in the party who are not going to be in cleveland, for one reason or the other. how big of a problem is it for donald trump that, for instance, the governor of the home state of ohio might not show up at the convention. john mccain will not be there. the bushes will not be there. mitt romney won't be there. how big of a problem is that for donald trump? mike: i really don't think it is a problem. as a political operative over the years, i have advised candidates not to go to the convention. the choice is to stand on the stage on monday and give your two-minute speech, or you can be back in your district working. in many instances, they need to be in their districts working. i don't see that as a problem. the party is coming together. you're seeing it in the polling numbers. we are coalescing. you will see it on thursday night when the nominee stands before the convention and gives his view and a vision for america. john: mr. chairman, i'm going to stick with you. i understand you said you have given the advice to candidates to stay in their districts, because it would be better for them. that is not the question i'm asking. i'm asking if for mr. trump it is a problem that the past
3, 4 republican nominees -- basically everyone who has been nominated -- maybe bob dole will be there -- but pretty much all of them are staying home, as are a lot of others. is that not an optics problem, that the leadership of the party is boycotting the convention? mike: i think not. i think in trump's instance, because he is such a nontraditional candidate, he is the businessman candidate. it does not matter as much as it would for others. in some instances, it would be better for trump if the establishment boycotted him. he benefits from being the outsider. people want change in this election. you are seeing it in europe. you're seeing it around the world. you're going to see it in the united states. mark: penny, is there a degree to which you all are watching the republican convention in your party and thinking "trump is a showman. this could be a huge an incredibly impressive convention." or, are you betting on a first-time candidate not pulling it all together? penny: well, you never want to root against someone. you always want to make sure your candidate is well prepared
doing what they need to do proactively. but, absolutely, we will be watching this convention. look, this has been a completely untraditional campaign to date. whether it be conducted in 141 characters on twitter -- you will see a dynamic platform, or a dynamic convention. one that can go either way. is he going to stay scripted? is he going to start tearing into his own fellow republicans for not showing up? all of these different kinds of personalities which could take over. it is going to be fascinating and interesting to watch. this is something that is in his control. it is a highly scripted event, if he wants it to be. that is what everybody is going to be seeing whether or not the , scripted donald trump, the person who is pivoted -- or will this be the off-the-cuff, uncontrollable donald trump that many of the american people find unsavory? mark: we plan to have a discussion with you about some of the dynamics and rules of
your convention. the breaking news of the terror attack in turkey has interfered. i want to close by asking you about one aspect of that. if you were paul manafort or another high command on the trump side, what are your biggest worry is about minimizing the disruptions? the biggest unknowns? mike: you have to make sure people understand what the game is, and what the goals are. i think paul has gone a long way. he has a good team in place. they will be on the floor helping the whip. the uncontrollable is the timing of the convention. you have to make sure you hit the marks. i don't know what marks trump wants. i do not know if he wants an hour of prime time, or if you wants three hours. i do not know who he wants the main speakers to be. those are the things that you think about if you are putting a program together. john: penny, how big of a deal will this be for hillary clinton? she is a very well known the -- very well-known figure amongst most americans. almost everyone has an opinion. her speech is going to matter. what does she have to do in that speech, and how important is that? penny: i think she needs to
continue to not only reassure the american people that she has a vision for how the country should be led forward, but she needs to be human. she needs to show her own personality and express empathy. i think some of the tone in which she has been criticized for is that there is a distance and a disconnect between her and the american people. so, she needs to show compassion. she needs to show empathy. i also think in this day, when you have a contrast with republicans, she needs to show competency and steadiness. when you have a republican candidate who has been as reckless as he has, and as careless with his words, and is quick to react, i think her steadiness will be a strength in that convention. john: next, we will talk about donald trump and dragons on rollerskates. political superstar nicole wallace and her dreams and demons, next. ♪
>> trump, clearly needs to change, in my opinion, to win the general election. i have said to him publicly and privately, you are a great entertainer. you're good for a crowd. you have a lot of twitter followers. that worked fine for you in the primaries. now that you are in the general, people are looking for a level of seriousness that is typically conveyed by having a prepared text and teleprompter. staying on message. my hope is that he is beginning to pivot and become what i would call a more serious and credible candidate for the highest office in the land. mark: that was republican senator mitch mcconnell. the gop leader of the senate speaking to new york one about his party's presumptive nominee. joining us to talk about the state of the race, former bush communications director, nicole wallace, also an msnbc political analyst. she wrote an op-ed for today's "new york times" entitled the gop waits, and waits, for donald
trump to grow up. and reads in part: party leaders have watched the last eight weeks of the trump candidacy the way you experience a chase scene in a dream where your legs never move fast enough to out run the three headed dragon on rollerskates. which, we have pictures. nicole: i just noticed that. that is incredible. yeah. mark: mitch mcconnell seems to be exhibit a, not listening to the wallace doctrine encouraging the guy to change or waiting for him to change. nicole: well, it is a tractable. everyone is waiting for someone who is never going to happen. donald trump on the other hand, is waiting for respect that he feels he is entitled to for what is undeniably a massive political accomplishment. after losing in wisconsin he went on to win every primary after that by massive margins. he thinks he can transform the republican party. leaders are not impressed. leaders, for their part, wind caused to rebuke him about every -- find cause to rebuke him about every seven days.
i wrote the piece before i saw today that john mccain rebuked him for his position on waterboarding. he made it exactly seven days. mark: let me push back on your thesis. it seems to me that paul ryan, for instance, he has been a critic of trump and trump has changed his ways. not every time, but some of the criticism, some of the critiques, some of the private advice, does on the margins make him more in the mold up with they want. nicole: he wants to win. i think when he stumbles, after wisconsin is a good example, after the last month which has been roundly criticized as a wasted period of time when he could have been sort of beefing up his campaign, raising money. he had racism scandal after racism scandal. he called a judge a mexican who was born in america because he thought he was biased against him. he got himself tangled up in all sorts of sort of trouble from his unscripted moments. mostly on morning talk shows. i don't think they are mutually exclusive.
growing a little bit as a candidate is normal when you go from being a reality tv star to the nominee of a party, but this idea that everyone is waiting for him to be normal is a fantasy. mark: john? john: nicole, i want to ask you about what we saw from donald trump in the last 24 hours since the istanbul attack. he says basically we have to fight the way the terrorists fight if we are going to win. we have to be super violent, and we have to be not so constrained by those laws that we have on the books. is that helping him to clear the commander and chief threshold, or is it hurting him? nicolle: it is helping him clear a different threshold. as you know, and i saw your comments this morning, it is an obvious problem in his point of view that we are not them. that is the very point. we cannot engage in their tactics. his numbers on the question of terrorism are about the only ones that held up during what was most the abysmal month for any candidate for the presidency that i can remember.
the only place where he still had an advantage over hillary clinton was on this question of who do you trust to protect us from terrorists, or who do you trust on the question of terrorism? he is on solid political ground. the question, when it is asked about who was most qualified to be the commander-in-chief, who is the steadiest leader, she still has the advantage. in some ways, he has the public behind him when he talks about being tough on terrorists. people view a terrorist who would kill innocent people in an airport -- children and families going on vacation, which were the targets of yesterday's attacks -- they view them as animals. for most people, even while a debate embroiled congress, john mccain came out firmly against enhanced interrogation methods, but many members of the public remained supportive of doing whatever we have to do to defeat them.
donald trump is on solid political ground, but it is not the kind of ground do stand on -- you stand on if you are trying to pass a credible commander-in-chief. it is why you see some national security leaders, people whoever it for republican presidents, coming out in recent weeks to endorse hillary clinton. john: nicole, you have laid out the conundrum that there is a political advantage and how he is addressing these issues. there is a more fundamental test. if you were advising trump. if you called you and said "how should i talk about this? how much should i moderate?" what would your advice be to him in terms of how to balance those 2 objectives? nicolle: listen, mike hayden said in a great piece called "spy masters" which was on showtime -- the next president who wants to waterboard will have to bring his own bucket. i would advise donald trump to get on the phone with mike hayden, who is pretty accessible, and find out what experts think on this question. that is the very point of the piece today. why isn't he on the phone with policy experts if terrorism is
an opportunity for donald trump to fix his political problem, which is that he needs to close the gender gap. he needs to get more married women to trust him on national security more than they trust hillary clinton. why isn't he spending the same amount of time he spends on twitter and on tv talking to really smart policy people, like mike hayden? mark: what do you think of ted cruz's posture towards trump at this point -- in terms is it smart for him and if there is a down side? nicole: the largest growing group of voters is republicans in the senate. their group is undecided. mike said yesterday on morning joe he is not sure he is going to endorse. cruz hasn't endorsed. kasich hasn't endorsed. i think that the question -- when jeb bush said he wasn't going to vote in the presidential contest, he got a lot of flack. it is now a position. it is sort of a --
mark: does cruz pay any price with anybody for saying i don't really know what i'm going to do about trump? nicolle: well, i don't think anyone assumes that ted cruz is going to vote for hillary clinton, but if you can't pull the lever for donald trump that's a powerful statement. and whether or not he will pay a price with the huge swath of republicans -- i think trump has an 80% approval rating among republicans? republican voters want to see republican leaders get behind trump. it is very possible he pays a price for not doing that. wild, trump never had all sorts of oxygen. now, it is significantly less. nicolle: never had all that much -- it never had any viability. mark: is there going to be more pressure on republicans to get in line? nicolle: they will have to stake out a position. there are 2 doors. you can vote for hillary clinton or donald trump. the idea that they will sit it out, the idea -- mark: what will you do? nicolle: i am an undecided voter. i find it inexplicable that he
cannot read the looming tower and have anything more intelligent to say about the nature of the enemy we face and how to fight them. mark: i'm getting on the internet and sending the looming tower to trump tower. we will come back and talk about the attack with the former director of the cia after this. ♪
♪ mark: welcome back. the world is still wrestling with yesterday's suicide attacks in turkey. dozens of travelers at the istanbul airport. we are joined by the central intelligence agency. james woolsey. what could the u.s. government be doing that would be more aggressive than president obama is doing to fight against isis and other terrorists around the world? james: now, we are playing a
game like we are the hockey goalie. any shot on net gets through our catching it, we lose everything. we have to do a better job of getting inside of the heads of our enemy. one thing is to call them what they are. jihadi islamic terrorists, and not mince words like the president does. you cannot work effectively on something you cannot talk about. the other is to take notice of the fact we will have to make serious compromises. we all want our privacy and we also want security. a normal average, pleasant day in the united states and other parts of the world -- security and privacy do not clash of that much. when you get attacked, particularly by an institution as ruthless as isis, they do begin clash. what we have to do is
essentially developed a public/private partnership so that the people in the government, nsa is, but other parts that are real experts on data and what one can do with it -- and people from essentially the data industry that are very good at pulling together information on people from publicly available, non-owned data, and helping figure out from that data where an individual group is going to be going the next day. whether they have bought some kind of new material, weapons, whatever. one has to be able to untangle what they are doing. some people say that might affect my privacy. it conceivably could, but we have to make choices. we will have to compromise a bit on both privacy and security. mark: a question from nicole wallace.
nicolle: is there anything disqualifying about the things donald trump has said about the nature of the enemy or the things we should do to protect ourselves. does the muslim ban disqualify him from talking about waterboarding? has he staked out ground on counterterrorism that disqualifies him from the presidency? james: there are things i disagree with and agree with that he says. i do not think anything is disqualifying. one can say all sorts of things. it is a free country. the first amendment. trying to keep muslims out as muslims was a bad decision. nicolle: he has walked it back and describes it as a ban against people from certain terror regions. james: that could be legal to ban people, to say, from syria for a time. but you run into the first amendment if you ban muslims.
nicolle: is there fair case to be made by conservatives that when the president refuses to enforce the red line based on assad using chemical weapons on his own people in syria, is there a fair argument that that put into motion a weakening of american credibility, and emboldening of the enemy and russia? is there a conservative case, a thoughtful, positive case that , our problems are rooted in that single action? james: there is a conservative, medium, and liberal case. it was one of the 2 worst decisions on foreign policy in the obama administration. it made us look weak. it enhanced the stature of the russians in the middle east. it has made america's word look like it wasn't worth anything. it was a very bad decision, whatever your politics. john: think all of you so much for watching this edition of "best of with all due respect." we will see you right back here
♪ emily: imagine a global classroom where anyone can learn anything, anywhere. all built by one man. he got his start as a hedge fu he posted a few tutorials on ubatam par he made it his life's work. the khan academy now serves 26 million students, with over 1 million teachers, teaching everything from chemistry to computer programming, from kindergarten to calculus. and the best part is, it is all free. joining me today on "studio 1.0," khan academy founder and education reinventor