tv Smerconish CNN August 27, 2016 3:00pm-4:01pm PDT
49 minutes into the race, he stumbled and sprained his ankle. like he did years ago when he clawed his way back from surgery, he pushed through the pain. >> the only way i was not going to get that medal was if i couldn't finish but i would have been on my hands and knees if i had to to keep going. >> come on, miguel. >> i'm jim sciutto in one. i'll be back in one hour. "smerconish" starts right now. i'm michael smerconish coming to you live from the city of brotherly love. 72 days until the election and the first debate is just 30 days away. by now the commission on presidential debates should have cast its ballots about who will be moderating but the decision is delayed until after labor day.
what's going on behind the scenes? the clinton foundation again under fire for helping donors get access to hillary's state departme department. now we won't see her complete schedule until after election day. plus the real art of trump's dealings. a biography drills town on his character and business record. and the latest campus controversy as the university of chicago draws a line in the sand about safe spaces and trigger warnings. did it go too far? first, they're the most important events between now and election day. the debates. yet with just a month until the first presidential showdown between hillary clinton and donald trump, maybe gary johnson and jill stein if they get to 15% in the polls, there remains a great mystery. who will moderate? in 2012, the moderators for the presidential and vice presidential debates were announced on august 13th. we're two weeks past that day. cnn is reporting we won't learn until after labor day. for sure, on the commission on
presidential debates. they've got a tall order on their hands selecting someone perceived to be free of bias. and keep this in mind. the candidates do not have a veto over whomever is chosen. it's a tough and important job. and one that will be scrutinized by partisans on both sides. anybody who doesn't think a moderator makes a difference must not remember cnn's bernard shaw asking candidate michael dukakis in 1988 what he would do if kitty dukakis were raped. >> governor if kitty dukakis were raped or murdered would you favorthe death penalty for the killer? >> joining me, emmy award winning journalist who spent who decades at cnn and now the director of school of media and public affairs at george washington university. cnn senior media correspondent, host of sunday morning's "media
show, brian stelter. why the delay? you're knee deep in the story. >> it's no veto power but behind the scenes there are informal conversations happening and this year it's especially tricky because of the donald trump factor. obviously a moderator like meagmegyn kelly would be a nonstarter for donald trump. the commission is having a very hard time getting to the place where they can confirm the four moderators. i think after labor day we will hear the names. there are a number of journalists susceptible to both size but it's awfully tricky because of donald trump. >> what is the job description? >> this year the job description is to be both a journalist, a moderator and a circus navigator i think. the job -- the job involves doing many things which is why this is so different. you have to ask good questions. you have to listen fast and listen hard, know what you're talking about so you can refer to information. we hope there's actually going
to be substance in these deba debates. a good moderator candidates the kbt candidates engage with one another. not just parallel news conferences where sound bites are generated. because we have a reality show going on, the moderator has to be a reality show host not intimidated by cameras, maybe a billion people are watching this thing. so there's a great deal of pressure and great deal of sort of realtime thinking that goes into this job. not everybody can do it. very few can really. >> brian, can we drill down on the personalities? partisan times, you made reference to megyn kelly, are out as a parmatter of course? i think of the fox team of megyn kelly, bret baer and chris wallace. if megyn is out, maybe chriss
wallace has a shot. >> i think chris wallace is a possibility. first of all who's not in the running, george stephanopoulos, for example, because of his long ties to the clintons in the '90s. he wouldn't be out. many people at abc, cnn, that are options. look at anderson cooper this week having trump and clinton back to back, clinton and trump on consecutive nights. look at charlie rose, lester holt at nbc. a number of journalists i believe both candidates or all the candidates would find acceptab acceptable, would find fair and tough on that stage. >> so, with regard to msnbc, you can't see rachel maddow, right? you can't see chris matthews. >> that would be my dream. i would love to see maddow and amy goodman and bill o'reilly and, i don't know, megyn kelly, all in the same stage challenging these candidates from all sides, but no, i just don't think that's going to happen because the commission really prizes journalistic new
trail neutrality. >> this reminds me of the supreme court of the united states, insofar as to be on the supreme court of the united states, one need not be a lawyer. must someone necessarily come from the media realm to be a moderator of a presidential debate? >> no, they don't. >> now it's getting interesting. >> no, they don't, and they shouldn't only be looking at journalists. i know that they're not. however, i think this is an important point, just a brief moment going to disagree slightly i with my good friend, brian stelter, on this. there is so much that you're dealing with out there. okay? you've got cameras, you've got clocks, you've got people talking to you in your ears, you got two presidential candidates who are loud and may be angry and may be engaging one another. juggling all that is hard it do if this is the first time you're stepping in front of a camera or in front of a crowd like this. i can be a great professor and talk to 250 people in a lecture hall and be a presidential historian. can i manage that kind of realtime juggling?
and maybe the answer is yes. brian, the one thing i would say about rachel maddow and the others, i agree that's sort of the dream scenario in one way. the other thing that's very important, the commission should be thinking about and the public should, the moderators should not be such overarching charact characters, themselves, that they overshadow the candidates. they should be there to ask the questions, get the candidates to engage then step back and let it happen so maybe, god forbid, the public actually sees an extemporaneous engagement of the two candidates and gets a little bit of light with all of the heat we've been seeing so far. >> i mostly -- >> respond, brian. >> even if the moderators try not to be players on stage, they still are players. you're right. it's all about this performance, about having to be able to manage this television stage that's being set up. some ways it's so artificial so you need the moderator have to television expertise, decades of it in order to know how to manage it. i think that makes sense. >> it does. and this year it's going to be even more so with donald trump
because he brings his reality show showmanship to it. when do you step in, when do you interrupt, when dough y you sto when is that appropriate, when is that disrespectful? that's a juggle. it's hard. >> this year they have to be more assertive. they should not be the story and not get in the way but we need realtime fact checking in the candidates say the things on stage they've been saying on twitter and at rallies. >> that's right. >> frank, when i asked you for the job description, a further answer you said to me, it's got to be someone with experience because this is no easy task. it would seem by definition that would preclude a number of millennials. i know online there's a lot of chatter nothing voters who say, hey, i hope it's someone representative of our generation, but frank, to your point, if it is, it means it's going to be a first go-round for somebody. >> yeah, and that's tough. again, you know, it's very intimidating. look, i've interviewed presidents of the united states with lots of years of experience. it doesn't mean when you walk in the room that isn't very, you know, that's a scary thing a little bit.
for this book that i'm working on, i interviewed bob schieffer about preparing for the presidential debates and talked about how nervous he was before he went out, years and years of experience in front of a camera, interviewing presidents and senators and all the rest and toing doing a weekly talk show. you feel the burden there. i think the point you mentioned, though, is important about millennials and others. one thing the commissioner needs to do, make sure there's no -- kaechb can't be a bunch of white guys. that's not the debate or where the country is coming from. >> i did ask jorge ramos -- >> both of you -- >> i was mentioning jorge ramos, best known spanish speaking anchorman in the country. he said he probably knows he's not going to be in contention because of his battles with donald trump but wants to see a hispanic anchorman on the stage. >> brian stelter, before you leave me, give me a name, someone who will be on the stage in one of the debates. >> huh, well, i think diversity is crucial.
going to look for someone like lester holt, martha radits, i think anderson cooper. >> frank says no. give me a name. >> those are exactly the names. i think those are very likely names and almost certainly the finalists among those that the commission is considering. >> all right. i'm throwing wolf into the list. thank you, brian. watch "reliable sources" tomorrow morning 11:00 a.m. eastern. what are your thoughts? tweet me @smerconnish. accusations about then-secretary of state hillary clinton taking meetings with donors to the clinton foundation. do those criticisms have merit? and a college dean sends a letter to incoming students that pushes back against political correctness and sets off a firestorm. ♪"all you need is love" plays my friends know me so well. they can tell what i'm thinking, just by looking in my eyes.
but what they didn't know was that i had dry, itchy eyes. i used artificial tears from the moment i woke up... ...to the moment i went to bed. so i finally decided to show my eyes some love,... ...some eyelove. eyelove means having a chat with your eye doctor about your dry eyes because if you're using artificial tears often and still have symptoms, it could be chronic dry eye. it's all about eyelove, my friends. i'm going to make this as simple as possible for you. you can go ahead and stick with that complicated credit card that limits where you earn bonus cash back. or... you can get the quicksilver card from capital one. quicksilver earns you unlimited 1.5% cash back on ev-e-ry purchase, ev-e-ry-where. i shouldn't have to ask. what's in your wallet? was always on my mind. so i asked a dermatologist about aczone dapsone gel 7.5%.
i apply it once a day, any time. aczone gel 7.5% is fda approved for the topical treatment of acne for people 12 years and older. aczone gel is a once-a-day acne treatment with clinically proven results. in clinical trials, acne got better for people using aczone gel in just 12 weeks. aczone gel may cause the serious side effect of methemoglobinemia, which decreases oxygen in your blood. stop taking aczone gel and get medical help right away if your lips, mouth, or nails turn grey or blue. talk to your doctor if you have g6pd deficiency. using benzoyl peroxide with aczone gel may cause skin or facial hair to temporarily turn yellow or orange where applied. common side effects of aczone gel include dryness and itching of treated skin. now, i have less acne to think about because i use aczone gel. you could pay as little as $15 for aczone gel. learn more at aczone.com aczone. prescription treatment. proven results.
if you have moderate to severe plaque psoriasis, isn't it time to let the real you shine through? introducing otezla (apremilast). otezla is not an injection or a cream. it's a pill that treats plaque psoriasis differently. with otezla, 75% clearer skin is achievable after just 4 months, with reduced redness, thickness, and scaliness of plaques. and the otezla prescribing information has no requirement for routine lab monitoring. don't take otezla if you are allergic to any of its ingredients. otezla may increase the risk of depression. tell your doctor if you have a history of depression
or suicidal thoughts, or if these feelings develop. some people taking otezla reported weight loss. your doctor should monitor your weight and may stop treatment. side effects may include diarrhea, nausea, upper respiratory tract infection, and headache. tell your doctor about all the medicines you take, and if you're pregnant or planning to be. ask your dermatologist about otezla today. otezla. show more of you.
we just learned we will not see hillary clinton's full schedule at the state department until after the election. here's why that's potentially important. on wednesday the a.p. published what it called the first systemic effort to calculate the scope of intersecting interests of the clinton foundation donors and people who met with or spoke to secretary clinton about their needs. the a.p. concluded that more than half, at least 85 of 154 people from private interests who met with clinton, were donors who contributed as much as $185 million to the foundation. the a.p. story called this an extraordinary proportion indicating her possible ethics challenges if elected president. and that sure sounded nefarious. but the clinton campaign cried foul when they said the report was a distortion noting that the a.p. did not include in its calculations foreign diplomats or u.s. government officials. had they been included, the report would not have been that more than half of her
interactions were with donors but that a tiny fraction fit the description. and now we hear we won't be getting hillary's full schedule until after election day. so what, if anything, did we just learn? joining me now, democratic strategist julian epstein, he was democratic chief council of the house judiciary committee during bill clinton's impeachment hearings and he's a close associate and legal adviser to the clintons. peter schweitzer, he's the author of "the clinton cash: the untold story of how foreign governments and businesses helped make bill and hillary rich." peter, let me start with you. what is the significance in your eyes to this week's revelations? >> well, i think the a.p.'s story is hugely important. and i find the clinton defense kind of bizarre. the question is not who she meets with when the german chancellor requests a meeting. that's part of her official duty. the question is who does she choose to give access to, who
does she choose allow to have access to her ear? and it's pretty clear based on the a.p. evidence. when she has choices, she's choosing a high proportion of clinton foundation donors. the e-mails that have come out also reveal that we have now gone from the point where we had a strange pattern of behavior where people were donating money to the clintons and seemed to get favorable action. we now have e-mails that show the clinton foundation as the conduit. if you're a crown prince or a billionaire in nigeria and want access to the highest levels of the state department, you don't need to go through or can go through official channels, you simply go through the clinton foundation. that is hugely troubling because it shows that money provides access. and i think further evidence is going to show that it equated with favors. >> if the associated press did this type of analysis, this type of drill-down on any of the 435 members of congress or 100 members of the u.s. senate, would we not find the exact same thing? >> well, i think we would. i think money in politics is the
troubling issue. but here's the huge massive difference, federal law prevents a crown prince or a nigerian billionaire from donating to a political campaign or a super pac. the clinton foundation provides access for foreign entities, foreign interests, corporations, governments and oligarchs. so it's no longer money pay to play involving americans, involving wall street or oil companies or big labor. we're now talking about foreign interests influencing our national politics. and precisely the reason that we have financial restrictions on foreign access to campaign donations. the clinton foundation is a way around that. and that's what's so troubling. the people that now have the ear of our -- >> okay. >> sorry. >> but that's only if there's a quid pro quo, and i don't think that you can establish by virtue of what the a.p. revealed any such finding. >> no, but the a.p. is just one
part of the larger pattern. look, it's very, very clear. if you look at the former governor down in alabama, siegelman, senator menendez, there are people in jail or being prosecuted based on far less evidence. this notion that circumstantial evidence doesn't apply, it's not releva relevant, that is ridiculous. so i think the a.p. story is part of the larger pattern that exists. and that's why this demands an independent council to investigate the matters. someone appointed by president obama who could assess these issues and evaluate them fully and take them out of the political realm. >> a final question for you and one i've asked you on numerous occasions. is there a smoking gun here? and if so, what is it? >> i think the smoking gun is here. you see the flow of money, you see favors done and you now see the communication took place. i think if you put this in front of a jury as is done in political cases elsewhere, i think the clintons would face
serious legal jeopardy. i'm not necessarily calling for a trial, but i am saying there should be an independent counsel to evaluate these things that could put people under subpoena. >> peter schweizer, thank you. let's get the flip side, julian epstein, part of the council during bill clinton's impeachment hearings and a close associate and legal adviser to the clintons. julian, if we add in the number of meetings with foreign dignitaries and government officials and if, in fact, the number of meetings is now a universe of 1,700, the fact remains that 85 people who were big donors to the clinton foundation had their access to her facilitated by virtue of that relationship. isn't that, in and of itself, a problem? >> i don't think any of the facts show that, michael. i think that in all the a.p. reporting, there is no
suggestion whatsoever that any of the meetings that secretary clinton had with private interests, whether they were donors or not donors, were somehow inappropriate. and i think your previous guest mr. schweizer is clearly interested in selling a lot of books. but like a lot of critics of hillary clinton his arguments are very, very half-baked and he's unable to back any of them up with serious legal analysis whatsoever. he calls for independent counsel, says ethic violations. you know in all your discussion with him he was unable to cite a single example in which any particular favor was provided in exchange for a donation to the clinton foundation. he was unable to provide any kind of legal analysis. the fact of the matter is the a.p. reporting, regardless of what the data show, and the data and the a.p. story is very very incomplete. the amount of contributors that she met with, the clinton foundation contributors she met with were probably lets than 5% of the overall meetings. but regardless of the stats as you say, the 85 or so clinton foundation contributors that she did meet with, there's no suggestion whatsoever that any
of those meetings were in any way inappropriate, that any special favors were given. she was meeting with people like the melinda gates and her foundation, people that were doing, trying to find economic capital for underprivileged areas around the world. just no suggestion whatsoever there was any wrongdoing. and mr. schweizer comes on to make a lot of reckless allegations because he wants to sell books. his legal analysis is really very kind of amateurish. like the e-mail controversy. critics like mr. schweizer made months and years saying hillary clinton violated criminal laws and you have the head of the republican -- the republican head of the fbi, mr. comey, who came out to say there was no basis to say she violated criminal laws in the use of e-mails. again, here, there's just no there, there. you compare the attention that's being given to this t--
sure. >> so many of these are in the eye of the beholders. i don't want to lose cnn viewers in the weeds, but muhammad eunice, to the hillary supporters, here's a guy that was a 2006 nobel peace prize winner. of course, our secretary of state would meet with such an individual. but you delve a little deeper and find out he's a bangladeshi businessman being scrutinized by their government at a time when he's getting access to our secretary of state. and you say, geez, i wonder if that's connected? he writes a big check or has a big check written to the clinton foundation. and when he's jammed up in bangladesh, he's got the ear of our secretary of state. that sounds on the surface that it's deserving of more scrutiny. >> perhaps deserving of a little more scrutiny. as you point out, he's a nobel prize winner attempting to get financing into and hugely important work in terms of finding microfinancing into
underprivileged areas in bangladesh and elsewhere. the fact that he wouldn't have legitimate business to discuss with the state department on its face is just wrong. can somebody, can a skeptic come out to say, well, there was -- there may be some reason to explore this further? sure. they could make the point that you made. but let me just say that between the e-mail conversation and the schedule controversy, michael, the amount of attention given to hillary clinton on her schedule, e-mails, meetings, is unprecedented for a presidential candidate. you compare this with trdonald trump. donald trump won't release his tax returns or any personal information. why is that relevant? well, because according to numerous reports, he's gone from $300 million in debt, donald trump that is, to $650 million in debt. much of which is controlled, the debt, that is, controlled by interests sympathetic to the russians. and direct russia as well. >> i'm about to get to that. i'm getting to that in my next
segment. >> fair enough. >> let me just say because we are short on time, sometimes i believe she's her own worst enemy. i mine, why should the public not have before the election access to her calendar as she was secretary of state? i don't think she's well served by recent events where the government says we can't turn it around quickly enough. that entire brooklyn operation right now ought to be pitching in, going through a page at a time and putting it out for public inspection. you get the final quick word. >> well, that's a fair question, michael, but it's not the brooklyn operation's decision. this is a decision by the state department and a negotiation with the judge and a negotiation with a.p. the judge has ordered 600 pages per month to be released. the state department has been doing that. the question now is whether the judge will speed up that schedule. if the judge wants to speed up that schedule, it may. the bottom line again is that what your viewers must understand. nobody, nobody, nobody has made a persuasive case whatsoever that any of hillary clinton's meetings, whether they were with
public officials or private officials were any way inappropriate, that any wrongdoing occurred, that any quid pro quo occurred. >> okay, julian. >> pay to play. anything close to an ethical violation. >> thank you for that. >> the critics are so far away from serious analysis it's not funny. >> i've got to move. >> thanks. >> thank you, julian. the reporter who literally wrote the book on donald trump after covering his business dealings for 230 years is here with amazing details of how trump operates. and a letter to the freshmen at the university of chicago from the dean of students criticizing safe spaces and trigger warnings sparks a national debate. ein street-legal form.g lexus performance get great offers at the lexus golden opportunity sales event.
hillary clinton: i'm hillary clinton and i approve this message. vo: in times of crisis america depends on steady leadership. donald trump:
"knock the crap out of them, would you? seriously..."vo: clear thinking... donald trump: "i know more about isis than the generals do, believe me." vo: and calm judgment. donald trump: "and you can tell them to go fu_k themselves." vo: because all it takes is one wrong move. donald trump audio only: "i would bomb the sh_t out of them." vo: just one. ♪ every time a pga tour professional sinks a hole-in-one, quicken loans is giving one lucky winner reason to celebrate. one shot from them. one mortgage-free year for you. it's the quicken loans hole in one sweepstakes and you could be the next winner.
lepe's foods is a locally owned here in santa rosa. as a small business, we're always looking to save money, and pg&e was able to help us. i help the small businesses save money and energy. it feels great. we looked at their lighting, their refrigeration system, and with just those two small measures, they were able to save a good amount of money. i was shocked. i couldn't believe that i could save $1,500 a month. with the savings that we get from pg&e, we're able to pass it on to our customers. it's pretty awesome. learn how your business can save at pge.com/businessenergycheckup. together, we're building a better california. okay. just talk about hillary saying e-mail and the issues at the state department and schedule and so forth. now i want to focus on donald trump. donald trump the businessman. this week trump softened his
hardline anti-immigrant stance, labeled his opponent a bigot. he still hasn't released his tax returns. we feel like we are often distracted from the fundamental question, does donald trump's business background make him waffled to be president? joining me now david k. johnston, pulitzer prize winning journalist. he's covered donald trump for 28 years. he's author of the brand new book "the making of donald trump" and teaches at syracuse university college of law. and betsy mccoy, a constitutional scholar with a ph.d. from columbia, former lieutenant governor of the great state of new york. she was invited to be part of donald trump's economic advisers. i've read your book, david. in the book, you say, if i landed in arkansas i'd have written about hillary but i landed in atlantic city so i wrote about donald. and you say, i wrote this book to tell people things about his background that he won't tell them, himself. take your best shot. >> well, donald got his helicopter, his personal helicopters and the ones for his
casinos from a convicted felon who turned out to be a major drug trafficker. and instead of cutting ties with this guy, he kept him on, he rented him an apartment under very unusual circumstances i describe in the book. he wrote a letter pleading for mercy for him saying he was a standup guy. the guy got 18 months while the people who actually delivered the drugs for him got 20 years. and by the way, the case came before maryann trump barry, donald's older sister. so here we are worried about the e-mails and connections and we should investigate that and write about it, but there's been virtually nothing outside of my book about donald's lifelong business dealings with russian mobsters, con artists, violent offenders, swindlers and this big-time cocaine traffic. >> lieutenant governor mccoy, respond, please. i know you're eager to. >> yes, i would like to. voters have a choice.
on the one hand, racial demagoguery and class warfare from hillary clinton. or on the other hand, real economic growth and higher take-home pay offered by donald trump. right now our economy is limping along. at 1.2% growth. and the reason, declining business investment. three quarters of declining business investment. donald trump's program to lower corporate tax rates and produce unfettered energy development and release the economy from the burdensome regulations imposed by barack obama will mean 4% growth. and that means higher take-home pay for americans. that is the key here. hillary clinton is telling americans that she's going to force corporations and is wagging her finger, force corporations to pay their fair share. what she's not telling them is that corporations in this country already pay the highest
tax rates in the world even after all the loopholes and deductions. and her program to force corporations to pay more and to slap them with an exit tax when they leave this country will mean even lower growth, no growth at all. more people laid off. and lower wages. americans can't afford that. they need more money in their pockets. >> let me put this -- let me put this question to david, because david, she's responding with substance and substance is a good thing. but your book talks about donald trump the man, donald trump the businessman. and you raise questions about the way in which he's run his own business that you say are reflective of the type of leader he would be. did i get it right according to your book? >> that's exactly correct. and donald's business record is very clear. there are profitable casinos today in atlantic city. donald's were among the first to fold because they were badly managed. i wrote about it in my book now, "the making of donald trump" and
my 1992, "temples of chance." he was a terrible manager. "fortune" magazine declared several of his companies when he was in charge came in dead last or almost last in every category "fortune" magazine measured. he cheated workers. illegal immigranterse out of $4 an hour pay. and a federal judge found he engaged in a conspiracy to cheat these workers out of pay. donald says wages are too high which totally undercuts betsy's argument. by the way, betsy seems to be unaware of the fact that as i have shown and nobody has disputed who's a tax expert that many american corporations literally turn a profit off the income tax. when i first reported that, congress did an 1,800 page study to show everything i'd written was exactly correct and worse than i said. >> let me ask her to respond. lieutenant governor, you wish to respond.
please do. >> i'd like to respond. americans have a chance to look at much more about hillary clinton and donald trump than what's been revealed so far here. both of these candidates have submitted financial disclosure forms. donald trump's 104 pages long for listing 185 profit-producing ventures. golf courses, commercial buildings, residential buildings, and huge management fees paid to him by owners of other properties who want him to manage them because he does such a good job. now compare that with hillary clinton's little 11 page financial disclosure form. it's all speaking fees and book royalties -- >> governor, wait a minute. >> let me finish. >> wait a minute. time-out. time-out. wait a minute. >> no, no, no time-out. i'll finish what i'm saying. >> we have seen all of the clinton -- governor, come on. you're giving me sound bites. i must jump into this. hold it. we have seen all of the
clintons' tax returns. decades of the tax returns. are you not troubled by the idea of lending -- ma'am, let me finish and i'll give you the final word. are you not troubled by the prospect of laying whatever credibility you have on the line for a candidate whose tax returns you and the public have not seen? >> well, first of all, tax shaming is the democratic way of suggesting that somebody who doesn't pay the highest rate is morally deficient. as long as donald trump is following the law -- >> answer my question. >> i assume he is, right? >> michael, can i jump in here? >> i answered your question. >> answer my question, governor. then david, you'll get a word. quickly answer my question. are you not troubled that you haven't seen the man's tax returns? >> no, no. i am far more troubled that i
haven't seen what hillary clinton told her private audiences to earn speaking fees. >> i want to see that, too! that's not an answer. we should see everything. >> everybody knows what could she have possibly said to people to get half a million dollars per hour? >> i'm getting nowhere. thank you to both of my guests. let me give you -- thank you, both. thank you, both. let me say something. we ought to see everything she said to goldman sachs and we ought to see all of this tax returns. that's the right answer. more campus correctness in the news. a dean's letter to students at the university of -- sorry about that, but every once in a while i'm entitled to my own opinion, too, right? where was i? oh, yeah, the university of chicago. a dean's letter criticizing safe spaces and trigger warnings and protests against controversial speakers has, itself, proved to be controversial. i'll talk to the professor who chaired the committee on whose work that letter was based. ibile was almost always on my mind.
thinking about what to avoid, where to go... and how to deal with my uc. to me, that was normal. until i talked to my doctor. she told me that humira helps people like me get uc under control and keep it under control when certain medications haven't worked well enough. humira can lower your ability to fight infections, including tuberculosis. serious, sometimes fatal infections and cancers, including lymphoma, have happened; as have blood, liver, and nervous system problems, serious allergic reactions, and new or worsening heart failure. before treatment, get tested for tb. tell your doctor if you've been to areas where certain fungal infections are common, and if you've had tb, hepatitis b, are prone to infections, or have flu-like symptoms or sores. don't start humira if you have an infection. raise your expectations. ask your gastroenterologist about humira. with humira, control is possible.
(announcer vo) all your phones can work together on one number. you can move calls between phones, so conversations can go where you go. take your time. i'm not going anywhere. (announcer vo) and when you're not available, one talk helps find the right person who is. hi, john. (announcer vo) so wherever work takes you, you can put your customers first. introducing one talk-- another way verizon connects your business better. learn how at onetalk.com. juswho own them,ople every business is different. but every one of those businesses will need legal help as they age and grow. whether it be help starting your business, vendor contracts or employment agreements. legalzoom's network of attorneys can help you every step of the way so you can focus on what you do. we'll handle the legal stuff that comes up along the way. legalzoom. legal help is here.
hey, it's back to college season. we just dropped off our college son for his freshman year. given on what happened on campuses last year, i felt obliged to have a chat with him about the political environment. already it looks to be another year of campus controversies. to recap just a few of last year's dust-ups, some students felt threatened by chalk graffiti supporting donald trump. at yale students lobbied against halloween costumes they deemed offensive. and the teacher who criticized them ended up resigning. at elan, students tried to get newspaper columnist kathleen parker removed as a speaker because of her, quote, radically conservative politics. and a letter from the dean of students at the university of chicago, economic freedom and thus does not support, quote,
so-called trigger warnings, canceling speakers, or allowing stave space that would allow students to retreat from perspectives and odds against their own. this created heated debate on and off campus. and joining me now is university of chicago law professor jeffrey stone. he chaired the faculty committee whose work led to the dean's letter. professor, this is big news. front page today. page one of "the new york times." is the message being communicated from the university of chicago the way you would like? you have the opportunity now to speak for your committee's work. >> no, to be perfectly honest, the university of chicago is deeply committed to academic freedom and to a robust and wide open freedom of expression. but the letter which was sent out by the dean of students in one sentence is basically, i think, been misconstrued. the letter says that the university doesn't approve of trigger warnings and that's been
interpreted as meaning the university forbids trigger warnings and that's not true. all it means is that the university doesn't require individual faculty members to do that, but faculty members in their own academic freedom are perfectly free when they think it appropriate to warn students in advance if there is material they think individual students would find particularly sensitive. and similarly on the language about safe spaces, what the dean of students i think meant to say is university of chicago, itself, is not a safe space. it is a place where people are expected to confront difficult challenging ideas. not to say that students could not get together themselves and form organizations where they speak with other students with similar backgrounds and experiences. that's not what the university's policy is. i think the problem here is largely one of misinterpretation. >> so, quickly, we suit up in this country in our usual
jerseys. liberal and conservative. you know this gets put into the confines of that kind of a debate. is it a liberal versus conservative issue? >> well, it poses the kind of interesting division. traditionally in the united states, it has been political conservatives who have been advocates for restricting free speech on campus, whether that be opposing darwinism or whether that be opposing the speech that criticize wealthy donors and benefactors or during world war i, mccarthy era, the vietnam era, calling on suppression of various kinds of speech. and traditionally it has been liberals advocates of free speech. in this situation it's a bit more complicated. conservatives have taken on the mantle of defending free speech and liberals, traditional liberals are kind of divided. some liberals like myself believe strongly in free speech. and are committed to the principle that even with respect to ideas that people find offensive, universities have to guarantee the freedom to advocate those ideas and to
encourage students to address those ideas and to combat them intellectually. other liberals have taken the view that, well, certain types of speech seen as demeaning and humiliating to racial groups, religious groups, women, gays, lesbi lesbians, immigrants, so son, should be -- students should be subjected to that. and those have come out of liberal traditions. so you have seen division among liberals on this question and most conservatives are aligned with the free speech liberals in this context. >> you know that you're earning cheers. the wrufrt university of chicago is earning cheers in some corners from people who say at last someone has stood up to coddled millennials. if that is their interpretation, professor stone would say what? >> well, i would say there are lots of -- one of the questions is why over the last several years we have seen this demand
across the university -- across the nation in colleges and universities for restrictions on speech that previously were not subject to any restrictions? and it's coming from students. and what's interesting about that is throughout american history, there's been no real serious movements in which students have been the moving force in an effort to create censorship on campuses. so this is unique in that sense. and the interesting question is why? and the truth is there's lots of different possible explanations. one of them that you just mentioned is the notion that some members of this generation were raised by parents, so-called helicopter parents, who shielded them and protected them from controversy, from challenge, from defeat. in a way their predecessors were not shielded and they, therefore, are kind of thin skinned and more sensitivsensit being criticized, hearing ideas they don't like. a more positive view of it, they are sensitive in a positive way
to injustice and they're determined to take a strong stance against what they see as actions and speech that are unfair to and damaging to various minority groups in the community. so there are different theories about what's going on here. >> professor stone, we dropped ours off this past wednesday, i'm hoping he'll have a robust discussion and debate on a whole variety of different issues. that's what we're looking for in his education. and i like what i hear from the university of chicago for what it's worth. thank you, sir, for being here. >> well i -- up next, political discourse on social media has gotten ugly and divisive. some liken it to a shark frenzy and npr decided not to have comments on its website anymore. my thoughts on that and some of your tweets, which are hopefully not ugly or divisive, like this one. was i? geez, i hope not. if you have a typical airline credit card, you only earn double miles when you buy stuff from that airline.
wait...is this where you typically shop? you should be getting double miles on every purchase! switch...to the capital one venture card. with venture, you earn unlimited double miles on every purchase, everywhere, every day. not just ...(dismissively) airline purchases. seriously... double miles... everywhere. what's in your wallet? ♪my friends know me so well.s they can tell what i'm thinking, just by looking in my eyes. they can tell when i'm really excited and thrilled. and they know when i'm not so excited and thrilled. but what they didn't know was that i had dry, itchy eyes. but i knew. so i finally decided to show my eyes some love. some eyelove. when is it chronic dry eye? to find out more, chat with your eye doctor and go to myeyelove.com. it's all about eyelove, my friends.
increasingly fractious. a piece in new york magazine likens comments to torch wielding mobs and sharks in a feeding frenzy. that's a part of why npr recently discontinued comments on any of its news stories at npr.org. the other reason? npr discovered what i've always suspected about such forums. only a tiny percentage of their users were doing most of the posting. .06% of their 33 million viewers. i applaud npr. it's been years since i read any of the comments on my own sunday column in "the philadelphia inquirier." i found them to be largely angry, uncivil, and unresponsive to the merits of whatever i was arguing and not worthy of a response, especially when commenters hide behind
pseudonyms. the internet has made our lives exponentially easier, but the use of technology is not without its drawbacks. one liability, the beer muscles that some people grow when given the opportunity to express themselves anonymously. just like the drunk who has an inflated measure of his power by closing time, many bloggers adopt a tone and say things online that they would never offer if their faces could be seen and their names unknown. nasty anonymous comments are a significant part of a much bigger problem. but it's one aspect that we can easily control. just like npr just did. having said that, what tweets have just come in on this program? smerconish, you should wear a referee jersey instead of a suit, my goodness. paul, i have felt that way this entire election season. you're right. hit me with another one. that was civil. that was nice. that was okay. we don't have it? how about if i say this?
keep your tweets coming @smerconish. i read them all week long. i appreciate your watching. i'll see you the week after next. uth on the label. when we say real meat is the first ingredient, it is number one. and we leave out corn, wheat and soy. for your pet, we go beyond. experience ♪ore confidence regardless of the conditions. get great offers at the lexus golden opportunity sales event. get up to $5,000 customer cash on select 2016 models. ends september 5th. see your lexus dealer.
7:00 in the evening here in washington. it is 4:00 out west. you are in the cnn newsroom and i'm jim sciutto in today for poppy harlow. donald trump is facing a social media backlash over his controversial tweet about the fatal shooting of the cousin of nba star dwayne wade. nykea aldridge was pushing her baby stroller down a chicago street when several men started shooting at each other. aldridge was caught in the crossfire. to be clear, police say she was not the intended target. early this morning, trump tweeted,