tv With All Due Respect Bloomberg August 1, 2016 8:00pm-9:01pm EDT
>> with all the respect to donald trump, the first rule of his miss is not what you know. it is who you know. >> i have no relationship with vladimir putin. >> i have never met him before. >> i do not know the president. >> charles krauthammer is overrated. i have never met him. >> they had a general and i never met him. knowshael bloomberg nothing about me. i do not know him.
>> happy national respect for parents day. this post-convention face and it could be a healthy boost in the polls. cnn has a poll that just came out. bouncenother seven point coming, as donald trump endures one of the worst news cycles. he grapples with the fallout from the comments this weekend in the interview with george on abc about the parents of captain khan, a fallen soldier of muslim
faith. there is now apologies demanded from the republican nominee, who tore into the appearance of the captain's mother and father. obama spoke about gold star families at a convention in atlanta today. trump and the team will try to .op up the mess he made no mention of this in ohio. mark, we can play sound on this. we have not. there is damage. how big? >> wasting three days is not insignificant. it is three days not talking about clinton on foreign policy and putting himself in a positive way. i believe that, if you look at
the groups impacted by this. there are the republicans, rents, i have been one who said this is the end of donald trump. i think this one is a lasting s are on more khan television and it does not appear that they will disappear any time soon. this is an opponent who is not afraid of him and they do not see a cost to fighting back. >> it is a disgrace what he said and the truth is that there is only one factor. the parents have a right to say whatever they want. this could have eliminated all of the problems. he could not resist getting into
a fight with anyone who hits him. it is a terrible quality for the candidate. i never say that anything is the end of donald trump, but, i think that this will go on for some time, in addition to the parents who you mentioned. who aree veterans today done with donald trump. >> you look at who he attacked, the judge did not fight back. if the judge was in the room with me, i would not recognize him. john mccain is a politician and a tough guy. kelly, other people he has chosen to fight with, they have chosen not to engage or they are less sympathetic than the parents. they chose to become politicized
and it is their right to do that. >> trump could have disagreed with this and he said that he disagreed. instead, they offered this criticism of the wife with a have subtext in it and you roger stone talking about how this man is a member of the muslim brotherhood or is behind the 9/11 attacks. they have not stopped and still cannot stop. >> donald trump has faced a range of outrage. again, they have been calling out the standardbearer. and mitch mcconnell focused on honoring the family. without comment, the office posted new photos on the
website. the first image is ryan holding khane constitution, like held up the constitution. meanwhile, the republicans who are up for reelection are distancing themselves from trump. ayotte said she was appalled at the remarks and john mccain put out a lengthy statement and said that he does not speak for all of the republicans and does not have unfettered license to defame those among us. >> the most extraordinary comment came from mike pence. and id that donald trump believe -- captain khan gave his life to defend our country in the global war on terror. trump himself at an event today
did not echo those remarks in any way and avoided the topic completely. how is the republican party handling what trump has said about khan? john: some of them with a little bit more honor than they have handle these rings in the past. -- handled these things in the past. republicans seem to have convinced themselves that this kind of thing isn't going to keep happening again. this is part of a pattern. we see this with trump with great regularity. we are not passed the point where anybody believes there is going to be a pivot. i think they have a huge political problem. the ones you pointed out, the ones running for reelection, has spoken out most strongly, but there is going to come a time -- i don't know if this is the moment -- where people will have to reconsider whether they can stand by their endorsements of trump and start to actively walk away. mark: no one else we have ever covered who has run for any office would say what trump says. john: no one ever has.
mark: trump is lucky that this happened in a summer weekend when there is other stuff going on as opposed to a weekday when congress is in session. paul ryan putting that picture on the website is cute. it's cute. it's not a condemnation. my hope is that everyone is going to have to own up to it on camera. we will look to find republicans reacting on videotape. there have been almost nine. they know how horrible it is politically. i'm certain knowing a lot of people that we just talked about, they are offended by what trump said, as offended by anyone in the press talking about it or the clinton campaign, and their silence about this speaks to the fact that the election is 100 days away, and trump is their nominee. they are damaging their souls by not speaking out more clearly. john: it raises this issue that goes beyond politics. i know we talk about politics on this show.
it was raised most pointedly with ryan in the past. mark: he has said, i will speak out -- john: he has not today. many of these people are not merely offended. many of them believe that these kinds of comments, comments like this and those in the past -- render donald trump unsuitable for the oval office. they believe that in their hearts, and they are either leave -- either nominally endorsing him, trying to stay clear of the trouble. i don't know how as a human being you live with yourself if that is what you believe. if you believe he is fit for office, fine. mark: this is not insulting a federal judge. this is more, and a lot of people spoke out about that forcefully. i'm amazed at the relative lack of forcefulness. john: as if all of this wasn't enough trouble for donald trump, his campaign is also dealing with a different controversy from over the weekend or this
one, as it happens, also arose from trump's interview with "this week" in which the nominee fielded questions about russia and why the republican platform language showing solidarity with ukraine against russian aggression was softened at the party's convention. trump's response was -- you can see for yourself. >> he is not going into ukraine. he is not going to go into ukraine. you can lock it down. >> he's already there, isn't he? >> he is there in a certain way, but i'm not there. obama is. that whole part of the world is a mess under obama. john: with foreign-policy experts slamming trump for his unawareness that russia has been in ukraine since 2014, trunk tried to clarify or amend his statement. he tweeted -- what i said in an interview that putin is not going into ukraine, you can mark it down, i'm saying if i'm president. already in crimea! voters, obviously, not speaking
down to them, but they don't know generally a lot about crimea or ukraine, and they are not interested in the details of foreign-policy. given all of that, why does this matter? mark: because the filter is powerful. what trump has done about putin, talking about praising putin through the middle of last week, through the stories about paul manafort and ukraine, to trump's statements about what happened with the platform, it adds up to near universal condemnation of trump by not just foreign-policy elites but by a lot of members of congress. what this does, the combination of these two things, it plays into what the democrats are trying to do. our colleague did an interview with guy cecil who runs the super pac for hillary clinton, and guy told him they are going after trump on two things. other advertising, one is that trump is dangerous, that he can't be commander-in-chief, that he is too unhinged, and that is the dangerous lane, and
that speaks to the russia stuff. then there is the so-called jerk lane, the stuff related to the khans. trump has in the last week or so basically given them all sorts of new fodder, which they have turned into a new ad to go after trump on the two things they want to go after him on, too dangerous on foreign policy and that he acts like a jerk. john: one of trump's main political assets has been, when it comes to fighting terrorism, he's the strong man. he has correctly diagnosed that he has done well by adopting those postures. it is problematic for someone whom people have reasonable questions about in their capacity as commander-in-chief, to have that political asset, and then be in a situation where you are saying things where across the board, not just democrats or republicans, the echo chamber of all of them saying, this guy is clueless, he doesn't know what is going on. russia went into ukraine two
years ago. that was in the news. that's just bad for you. mark: it's not strong. how are you going to stand up to putin if you don't know where he is? john: it undercuts a key asset for him. we are in 100% agreement. mark: when we come back, we've got another debate about debates and what it means for your fantasy football league. ♪
challenge the commission on presidential debates' legitmacy and the proposed schedule to the nominee has been complaining that two of the debates involving the presidential candidates are up against nfl primetime games. the bipartisan commission that set the dates nearly a year ago says it took into account religious and federal holidays, as well as baseball playoff games, to maximize viewership, but team trump still says they want to discuss alternative nights. the clinton told reporters she plans to be at the debates as scheduled. john, what is trump up to? john: first of all, one of the things he is up to is he is telling a lie about the fact that the nfl wrote him a letter,
which is not true. more importantly, he's beginning the quadrennial ritual of the debate about debates. we see this every four years. we have had some question about whether he would want to do all three debates. that question has been lingering for months. i don't know what his endgame is, but again, to put this in the context of normal presidential campaigns, a debate about debates, scheduling, formats, we see that every four years. trump has made his opening bid. mark: the reality is coming the nomination debates, you see debates about debates. the commission has generally gotten their formats, their moderators. our folks did a look, and the reality is, there's not a day in october you can find that doesn't have some conflict with either a holiday for major sporting event. there are a couple days right around the time of the first debate that don't seem to have conflicts. i wouldn't be surprised if they moved the debate away from the monday to tuesday or wednesday. those seem to be the only days within a timeframe of these debates where you can go. i suspect that will happen. john: there aren't going to be three debates in a row.
mark: you have one with a conflict. john: two within three days? mark: one up against an alternative -- an nfl game. the reality is, the moderators will be hugely important, and that is what i think trump is trying to influence. i think he's fine doing three. john: the other possibility raised by someone, not me, that he might be trying to get joel stein and gary johnson on the stage and turn it into a multi-candidate debate. mark: i'm not sure if that is in his interest. up next, hillary clinton's fox news moment. a new club for billionaires lineup against donald j. trump, billionaire. all of that after these words by our sponsors. ♪
john: donald trump wasn't the only candidate who went to the sunday shows this weekend. hillary clinton sat down with chris wallace for a fox news sunday interview. for the most part, it was a strong performance for the democratic nominee, but clinton was confronted by a topic she should be used to talking about now, her e-mails. >> fbi director james comey said none of those things you told the american public were true. >> chris, that is not what i heard director komi say, and i thank you for giving me the opportunity to clarify. director komi said my answers were truthful and what i said is consistent with what i've told the american people, that there were decisions discussed and made to classify retroactively certain e-mails. i made a mistake not using two different e-mail addresses. i have said that, and i repeat it again today. it is certainly not anything i would ever do it again.
i take classification seriously. i relied on and had every reason to rely on the judgments of the professionals with whom i worked. john: a lot of people jumped on that, what some would say is a generous interpretation of the fbi director's findings. today, clinton campaign manager robby mook was pressed on his boss's answer. >> with the director of the fbi testified was that he did not see a basis to believe that she knew the information in question was classified when she received
it. important caveat, we can't see these e-mails. we don't know if they were marked. we don't know if they were marked properly. the fact of the matter is we are having to rely on what he is saying. included in what he said was, he did not believe that when she receive these e-mails she had any reason to believe they were classified. john: after the james comey press conference, the clinton campaign thought they had put the e-mail issue behind them, but here it is popping up again. how much of a political problem do you think this will be? mark: the trump campaign is right that the press is not as interested in old clinton controversies, and that is a problem for them. the press is not as interested in old clinton controversies as new trump. it's going to be hard. if this happened with the e-mails a month ago or two months ago, people would have been much more over it. we've been around this before. it's not necessarily fair to the trunk campaign, but it is what it is. i think she doesn't want to admit anymore, doesn't want to show any more weakness. the team is rallying around her, both robby mook and brian fallon taking heat on social media for
what they said, but they don't want to show anymore weakness, and they're hoping that the press is no longer interested in what is a rerun. john: i think it's just true in general the press is interested in new controversies rather than old controversies. it is the case that this female thing has taken a huge toll on hillary clinton. she has paid a political price. you see that in her honest and trustworthy numbers. it's the main thing holding her back from being much further ahead of donald trump than she is. i think the foundation, which has been in my view, for any year and a half, i thought the foundation was the place where there might be more controversy, and people are, partly driven by the trump campaign, are starting to turn their gaze towards the clinton foundation. if there's going to be blood, it's going to be on that, not so much on the e-mail thing.
mark: of course, september, the clinton global initiative will be meeting, so it's the peg for everybody to do stories. she doesn't want to admit any more than she has already admitted. she wants to get some universal claim of, i shouldn't have done it, i regret doing it, but we will see. i think there's more to come on the e-mails. hillary clinton is hitting the end -- the campaign trail, but instead of a bus tour, the democratic nominee is taking a detour to cornhusker country. she is in omaha, nebraska for an event with billionaire investor warren buffett. the state has elect world votes that go by congressional district. this is not the first billionaire appearance. she appeared with another billionaire businessman, mark cuban. he made an endorsement cameo at clinton's rally in pittsburgh saturday, and of course, there was the scathing convention speech by billionaire michael bloomberg, the former new york
mayor and our boss. in an era of populist outrage, how potent a weapon are these anti-trump billionaires? john: they are potent in the sense that trump -- we talked about his asset in terms of foreign policy strength -- the other asset is he is a supposedly successful businessman. the people who have the most credibility to take him on our other billionaires. whether it is bloomberg were mark hugo and or warren buffett, and the constellation of other business people, it undercuts some of trump's claim. in a populist era, this is not a trump card, not to overuse the phrase, but it doesn't hurt. mark: i think they dominate a new cycle, particularly the local coverage, but even the national coverage. they get in there. 99 days to go. how many of those days will trump wins? you bring out a big name, whether it is bruce springsteen or mark cuban. you dominate the news cycle. you win the day. whoever wins more days is probably the president.
♪olympics 2016, let me get you on my level. ♪ so you never miss a moment, ♪ ♪miss a minute, miss a medal. ♪ ♪ why settle when you can have it all? ♪ ♪soccer to wrestling. track and field to basketball. ♪ fencing to cycling. diving to balance beam. ♪ ♪all you have to sa♪ ♪ is, "show me," and boom it's on the screen♪ ♪ from the bottom of the mat, ♪ ♪ to the couch where you at? ♪ ♪ show me the latest medal count♪ ♪xfinity's where it's at. ♪ welcome to it all. comcast nbcuniversal is proud to bring you coverage of the rio olympic games.
mark: time now to talk about donald trump's weekend, and today, trumps national campaign spokesman comes to us from dallas, and trumps surrogate, boris epstein. i want to ask you both the same question. thank you for joining us. we have wanted you on the show for a long time. how do you feel about the totality of what donald trump has said? how do you feel about what he has said about the khans? >> i feel that this is something i have been expecting just being on the grassroots side of the republican party for a long time. this particular election was going to be rough and tough, and i fully, expected the democrats to do what they do best and that is to politicize everything. mark: i'm sorry. if i could ask you to focus on what i asked you, how do you feel about what mr. trump -- >> i told you how i feel. mark: you commented on the media, not what he said. >> every time i go on a tv show, it's to correct the record or to explain something that a journalist or democrats have taken out of context. if you're asking me how i feel, i feel donald trump is not your
typical politician and does what he always does. he defends when attacked. i understand the media and democrats are not used to a republican who has a backbone. mark: i appreciate all you are saying. it is responsive not to what i am asking. how do you feel as a person about what mr. trump has said about the khans? >> i feel mr. trump has been defending himself like he always has. mark: how do you feel about what he said? >> i am fine with what he said. i was there at the dnc. i saw the speech. i myself, the trunk campaign, mr. trump, have utmost respect for captain khan, for their loss, for the supreme sacrifice. mark: would it have been better if he emphasized that in his initial comments? >> he is somebody who was attacked by mr. khan at the dnc. i've been asked this question today -- he was at the dnc.
it was a partisan affair. it was an attack in speech. donald trump saw the speech and reactive. some of the comments were in direct response to george stephanopoulos. i am fine with what he said. john: when you hear the vfw, senator mccain, republican veterans, democratic veterans who come out and say, this guy paid the ultimate price defending the country, his parents have the right to say whatever they want, you say what to those veterans on both parties who are deeply and profoundly offended by what mr. trump said? >> day, just like mr. trump and like the khans, have a right to their opinion. i happen to disagree. parents deserve our utmost respect, but do they get to say whatever they want? john: are you saying they are wrong to be offended? >> who? john: the many veterans groups
who are outraged. >> they have every right to be offended, as mr. trump has his right to defend himself. to take the comments which every way they will. john: what mr. trump's close confidant -- one of mr. trump's close confidants is roger stone. he's accused mr. khan of being part of a radical muslim group. he has now tweeted that he is saying, that's not true, his association is with the saudi jihadi and a 9/11 thunder, according to mr. stone. do you want to associate yourself with those accusations, or do you have any other response to that? >> you will have to ask roger stone. roger stone is not a part of the campaign, and i don't represent him. john: you have no comment on someone who is a close confidant of mr. trump doing that? >> i don't know what roger stone
is talking about. you're going to have to talk to roger stone about. what i cannot do is sit here and try to tell you something. i do appreciate the effort to tie him to the campaign, but i will say again, roger stone is not a part of the campaign, and you will need to talk to him. mark: do you consider the matter with the khans to be over and done with? >> i do, absolutely. mr. trump responded after the speech, and it was mr. khan who went out and did all the tv shows. mr. trump responded again. i don't see that happening in the future. mr. trump said he had nothing to do with the death of mr. khan's son who is definitely a war hero. it's disconcerting on why this attack was even lunch at mr. trump considering mr. trump had nothing to do with the iraq war, whereas hillary clinton voted for it and she didn't support the troop surge.
then she wanted to go in afghanistan and libya. donald trump has nothing to do with that man's son. mark: what do you think is going on with mr. trump's comments about the debate schedule? >> if you look at the debate schedule, to debates are scheduled on nfl nights. i am a fan. it is worrying that certain folks may not be watching the debates. we want as many people as possible to watch the debates. you know what happened in the democratic primary. they tried purposefully to put the debates on christmas eve, new year's day -- i'm joking, but something to that effect. we want to make sure the same thing doesn't happen in the presidential debates. mark: do you think he is fully committed to doing three debates regardless of what the dates and up being? >> you would have to ask him personally. that is absolutely what i understand. i think the issue here is about the dates of the debates and making sure you maximize the amount of viewership and not
minimize it, as democrats did in their primary. john: we did an analysis of this in the month of october. there's not a date in october where there is not a baseball game, football game, or national holiday. what are you guys proposing to do about that problem? >> the debates are being negotiated this week. the negotiations are ongoing. the proposal from mr. trump is not to have them on nfl football days. if you look at tuesdays and wednesdays, i understand there are mlb playoffs, which are not as historically widely viewed as nfl games. mark: i know you have long been a critic of the press for being liberally biased. do you think right now hillary clinton is getting easier coverage than mr. trump, and what is your clearest example of that? >> i do think hillary clinton has gotten some passes. we do here occasionally, particularly when she goes on national television and lies about e-mails and benghazi, but
what we don't see with hillary clinton, which happens daily with mr. trump, is one sentenced pulled out of context and a headline created around that. to this day, i have not seen anyone in the media correct the record with regard to mr. trump's immigration ban for muslims. it was immigration. the media has gone out there and propose his band was for all muslims, including united states citizens. it was always in context with immigration, and it was in the context of being temporary until we could figure out who the individuals are coming into the country. mark: in the example you gave, initially it wasn't clear, but it seems to have shifted to
being a policy that has to do with countries rather than all muslims, and yet of the candidate himself has never enunciated that. is that unambiguously the policy of the campaign echo it's not a ban of muslim immigration but a ban on people from countries where there seemed to be problems? >> he's been pretty clear on that. >> it was a refined message. if you go to the website and look under his policies, you'll find that. he does talk about the clarifications and we because the media is not reporting the correct policy position. that is clarification to the public. mark: what was the reason for the change to go from a temporary ban on muslims to a ban on immigration from certain countries? why did he change? >> because the media never reported it as an immigration
policy. the media reported it as a flat-out ban on muslims. mark: eventually, it was reported as a temporary ban on muslims, all muslims immigrating to the country. it was then switched apparently to a ban on people from particular countries. what was the rationale for the change? >> it's a matter of national security, and again, the original ban was temporary until we could figure out what is going on. fbi director james comey has come out and said we could not vet these individuals for certain areas. the cia has confirmed isis is infiltrating refugees. it's going to be from those nations were potential terrorists can come into the country. mark: great to have you on the program. we hope to have you back. boris, thank you for coming in. coming up, we are going to talk to retired admiral and a supporter of secretary clinton's to get his take on donald trump. if you are watching us in washington, listen to us on the radio radio at bloomberg 91.1 fm. we will be right back. ♪
john: welcome back. we are joined by retired rear admiral jamie burnett who spent more than three decades in the u.s. navy and naval reserve. he is a clinton campaign circuit and joins us from washington, d.c. thanks for coming on the show. we just heard a couple of representatives of the trunk campaign say donald trump was well within his rights to attack mr. and this is khan because they started it. what do you think about that? >> i think what donald trump did is despicable and reprehensible. the fact of the matter is, all he had to do was think them for the service of their son and the sacrifice of this family, and instead, he just keeps doubling down on going back against them. it's alarming to me just from a decency standpoint, but from the standpoint of wanting a commander-in-chief who has empathy with our gold star
families who have already lost someone, it gives me some concern about his ability to make decisions, of committing american troops in the future, for those blue star families who have loved ones currently serving. mark: admiral, i want to ask you this question in a sensitive way. now that the khans have entered the political arena, obviously, we mourn their loss and respect and cherish their first amendment rights, but are they now, having spoken at a clinical event, fair game to be criticized, to be attacked even in the arena of politics? >> mr. and misses khan made the decision to speak out against what they thought was outrageous comments by donald trump indicating that their son would not have been allowed into the united states. there is certainly a rough and tumble in politics, but the fact of the matter is, gold star families should be treated with respect, and we have not seen that. all of our services have core values. for the navy, it's honor,
courage, and commitment. one includes integrity and respect. if the commander-in-chief cannot exhibit any of the core values of our military, should he be commander-in-chief? john: we saw donald trump over the weekend make a statement that seemed to suggest he did not know that russia was in ukraine and has been for a couple of years. this is part of a constellation of comments he has made about when mayor putin, postures towards nato. what is your view of what trump's posture is and what it means in how he deals with russia? >> which country is he running for president for? it's alarming the way he has defended vladimir putin, seems
unknowledgeable about world events, defense putin when he's accused of killing journalists, and does not seem to understand the importance of our nato alliance khan khan. the kind of paraphrase mr. khan, i would pull it out and say, mr. trump, have you read article 5 of the north atlantic treaty? this is common defense of our nations, and we have russia that is obviously in an expansionist mode, and he seems to be a sympathizer more with them than he seems to be with the khans. mark: you know so many people in the navy. i'm wondering what your sense is the breakdown of what percentage are supporting secretary clinton and what are supporting donald trump? >> we are very fortunate to have a nonpolitical military. people currently serving in uniform -- when i was in uniform, we did not express political beliefs -- from the people i have talked to who have retired or left the military, whereas a lot of them are generally considered to tend toward republicans, there are a lot who do not say anything or are actively coming forward, and
it is things just like this that raise concerns. i don't think in the history of our democracy that we ever had someone who's actually a threat to our men and women in uniform. i'm afraid that his lack of knowledge and his lack of temperament will get us into a war we do not to be -- do not need to begin. this lack of empathy plays into that. john: admiral barnett, we appreciate your time. we will now call in a pair of doing strategists when we come back. ♪
mark: talking strategy, joining us from washington, d.c., democratic strategist steve mcmahon. here with us, a republican strategist who served as the indication director for marco rubio's campaign and now works at firehouse strategies. thanks for joining us. how bad is this trump confrontation with the khans? what can he do now to fix it? >> it's bad, but in the moment, we've only got 99 days to go, and i don't think people will remember this moment three months from now. my concern is it is endemic of the larger messaging problems out of the trump campaign. they don't need to be talking about this or russia. they need to talk about how gdp numbers on friday were awful, how in the states that matter, ohio and pennsylvania, unemployment is not where it should be. they need to be talking about the economy.
trumps seems to be talking about everything but the economy. as a republican strategist who wants to see republicans do well, we need the top of the ticket talking about the economy. what he's been talking about isn't working. mark: i'm guessing you don't agree that this will not be on voters minds in november? >> one of the things that the trunk campaign is good at is extending a bad story that could be a one-day story into three or four or five days. when you have 99 days left in the election, every day you lose is an opportunity. this is a campaign that seems to have no message, no message discipline, and a candidate who doesn't know that the russians are in crimea. it's not a very good day to be a trump supporter. john: let me ask you from a democratic perspective -- we
have been very hard on trump for all the hard reasons over this khan thing. if this goes on for days and days, it's going to look like some people -- to some people that the democrats are trying to milk to this controversy. how does the clinton campaign get over that? donald trump caused all this by politicizing it to themselves. if there is a risk, how do they avoid it? >> there's always a risk. i don't see evidence that the clinton campaign is ginning this up. you have the khans going out there very humbly saying donald trump should get his facts straight and chill out. the trunk campaign and donald trump himself are continuing to attack. they are working themselves into this hole, and they are complaining they are in the hole that they are in. i don't see any involvement or participation from the clinton campaign. you are right if that were evident that it could be a problem at some point, but right
now, it's the trump campaign manager itself. >> it's also the difference between the primary and the general election. the general election started last thursday night when hillary clinton took the nomination were accepted the nomination. in the primary, trump could bulldoze through these controversies because there wasn't enough opposition to sustain the conversation, to sustain the spotlight on this. now that we are in the general, you do see the dnc and the clinton campaign and every senate candidate coming under pressure to comment on this from reporters, from their opposition, from democratic operatives, from people like yourself. that is the difference now. >> here is my question, if i could. i think alex is right or there is one other element. it was easy for donald trump when it was only 20 or 25 reporters to bamboozle through. you now have everybody in the world, every reporter and journalist in the world, paying attention to this, and you
cannot bully every reporter in the world. john: that leads to my question. having seen trump say controversial things through the nomination fight and judge curiel and this, we have said, maybe this won't be the thing that kills him. as we get closer to election day and more available voters start to focus, is there a chance that something like this, whether it is this were something that follows this, will be a moment where suddenly it is the thing that does him in? >> one of the things that is remarkable to me is how stable trump's numbers are. he is right around 40%, and he has been for months. the good news for him is that 40% isn't likely to go. he could shoot somebody in the middle of fifth avenue, and that 40% is likely not going anywhere. 40% is not going to beat hillary clinton. how does he grow to the 45% that he needs, at least needs, if he's going to be competitive and
win. these statements taken off message. message.mark: should trump want one debates, two debates, three debates? >> my boss went up against and 15 times, and he won every time. mark: should hillary clinton want other candidates, libertarian and green, on the stage, or does she want one-on-one? >> i think she wants one on one with trump. unless some of those candidates get up to 15%, 16%, where ross perot was, they deserve to be on stage. otherwise, it should be a one-on-one. she will excel at it. >> the single biggest mistake he made was skipping the debate on the eve of the iowa caucuses. he should let the debates play out. >> the tape will be running regardless of when it happens. mark: thank you both for joining us. we will be right back. john: a little billionaire smack
john: a little billionaire smack talk in omaha. warren buffett, challenging donald trump to a tax return-off. he said he will meet him anywhere, and if trump shows his tax returns, buffett will show his. on bloomberg.com, check out our articles. coming up, cory johnson speaks to an uber board member on "bloomberg west." until tomorrow, for me and mark, sayonara. ♪