tv Meet the Press MSNBC September 28, 2015 1:00am-2:01am PDT
e-mail, those sinking poll numbers and questions about whether joe biden will jump in. my one on one with the former secretary of state. then, carly fiorina. her debate performance catapulted her into front-runner status. now how does she deal with the pressures of being a possible front-runner? carly fiorina joins me live. also our latest presidential poll numbers for both parties. where do the races stand this morning? plus, who saw this coming? >> i'd say they were shocked. >> john boehner's stunning
resignation may be the latest sign of the civil war that's raging inside the gop. and the pope does politics. >> god bless america. >> why this visit to the united states was like no other. joining me for insight and analysis are david brooks of the "new york times." andrea mitchell of nbc news. cnbc's andrew ross sorkin and eugene robinson of the "washington post." welcome to sunday. it's "meet the press." good sunday morning and what a show we have for you today. hillary clinton, carly fiorina, the speaker of the house resigning, scott walker dropped out, by the way, and we have our latest poll and, oh, yes, the pope's in america. the quote penny lane in the great movie "almost famous," it's all happening. let's start with our new poll, among democrats, hillary clinton's lead over bernie sanders is down to seven points, 42% to 35%.
that includes joe biden in the race at 17%. if you take him out of the mix, her lead stretches to 15 points. so you can see biden takes more from secretary clinton than sanders. but look at this. back in june, clinton's lead over sanders was 60 points. quite dramatic change. we'll have the republican numbers later in the show but let's get to our first guest in our meet the candidate interview with our democratic front-runner. hillary clinton, madam secretary, thank you for joining us. >> thank you very much. >> and a reminder, i know there's all conspiracy theories out there, there are no limitations to this interview. >> as far as i know that's true. >> so let's get that out of the way. let me start with a piece of sound, it's "meet the press," this is what you said on "meet the press" seven years ago about transparency. >> i want to have a much more transparent government and i think we have the tools to make that happen. i want to have as much information about the way our government operates on the internet. so the people who pay for it, the taxpayers of america, can see that. >> a year later, clintone-ma
clintone-mail.com, this government server. had every agency did what you did at the state department there would be a lot of information that wasn't in the public. do you see that now as a problem as far as the public is concerned? >> well, chuck, let me make a couple points. first of all, as i have said very often, all of the e-mails that i sent were intended to be in the government systems if they were work related. that's why i sent them people at their worked a dresses. the vast majority of them ended up there: so i have said also that if i had to do it all over again i would have used a separate e-mail account. i did it for convenience and it turned out not to be that at all. but the bottom line is my e-mails were predominantly in the state department system or other government servers and then i said i'm going to give them all after a very careful review and i did so. >> i want to unpack a couple of
thing there is but let me start with the news of this week. you had said in a written statement under oath that you turned over everything you believed you had for the federal words those 55,000 e-mails but we have now discovered an e-mail chain between then general petraeus and yourself that took place a couple of months before these records started. can you explain the discrepancy there? it was the same e-mail address while at state that you were using with general petraeus two months before you said everything was out there. >> well, everything we had access to was certainly out there and the reason we know about the e-mail chain with general petraeus is because it was on a government server. so from my perspective we have a very thorough review process that we conducted and my attorneys supervised it, they went through everything and what we had available at the time was turned over. >> i guess what i'm trying to figure out is if you said in march that the e-mail system
began in march of '09 but we have the same e-mail address popping up in january, explain that discrepancy. >> there was a transition period. i wasn't that focused on my e-mail account to be clear here. >> let me stop you there. you say you weren't focused on it but this seemed to be -- to put an e-mail server at your house is not a -- it's a complicated thing. >> yeah, but it was already there. it had been there for years. it is the system that my husband's personal office used when he got out of the white house so it was sitting there in the basement. it was not any trouble at all. i know there are a lot of people who are questioning that but the fact is that it was there.added took a little time to do that, so there was about a month where i didn't have everything on the server. we went back and tried to recover whatever we could recover. it's also fair to say that there are some things about that that i can't control. i can't control the team aspects
of it. i'm not a technical expert. i relied on people who were and we have done everything we could in response to the state department asking us to do this review because they asked all the former secretaries. the reason they asked is because they found gaps in their own recordkeeping. my assumption -- because this system was there before i became secretary, it was there when i left -- anything that i sent to a dot-gov account would be captured. >> but that's very difficult to capture your e-mails by going to perhaps thousands of people and their dot-gov accounts. it would have been easier if it was sent to your dot-gov account. >> but when you communicate with people in other parts of the government you're not sending to the state department dot-gov and that would have been true either way. i think i have done all thick to take responsibility to be as transparent in turning over
55,000 pages and to testify on october 22, which i've been dog do before the congress. >> you said just now in one of your explanations that you provided by these records because state asked of all secretaries of state. as you know there was a report earlier in the "washington post" that said that isn't quite how it happened in the summer of 2014 they discovered the discrepancy with your records and they wanted to make a request then it became a formal request of the last four secretaries of state. can you explain that discrepancy? >> we have explained that. the campaign has explained it. >> what is it? >> when the commit committee -- the eighth or ninth committee -- investigating benghazi asked for investigation from the state department, they were doing a survey and they found discrepancies in their recordkeeping not in my records per say but in their overall recordkeeping. there were gaps and that's why they sent the letter and that's why we did the overall comprehensive search for everything.
and it got us to the same place -- we looked through everything, we gave them everything work-related. in fact, we gave them so much they told us they're sending back 1,200 because they were clearly personal and not work related. >> can you respond to an alternative explanation that has sort of -- >> another conspiracy theory? >> that perhaps the reason you wanted to have a private server and not a government server is that republicans have been coming after you for years, you might have -- may have been running for president in the future and you wanted to make it a little more difficult for congressional investigators to subpoena your government e-mails and more difficult for freedom of information act requests. is that a fair theory or no? >> it's totally ridiculous. that never crossed my mind. in fact, since more than 90% of my work-related e-mails were on the system they are subject to foia or any other request. that's how the benghazi committee got the e-mails even before we went through our
exhaustive process. now i have -- as you're rightly pointing out -- been involved from the receiving side in a lot of these accusations. in fact, as you might remember during the '90s, there was a bunch of them and, you know, all of them turned out to be not true that was the outcome. when i ran for the senate the voters of new york overlooked that, looked at my record, looked a what i would do for them and i was elected senator after going through years of this kind of back and forth and it is regrettable but it's part of the season. >> one of the things about this over the last six months that i've heard from supporters is there that there's an allegation about the e-mail server, you provide an explanation, there's a new allegation, you have to provide a new explanation, there's an addendum, it has the feel of a drip-drip-drip. can you reassure democrats there's nothing else here? >> well, it is like a drip-drip-drip and that's why i said there's only so much i can
control. but what i have tried to do in explaining this is to provide more transparency and more information than anybody i that i'm aware of has ever served in the government and i'm happy to do that. i can't predict to you what the republicans will come up with, what kind of charges or claims they might make. i have no control over that. i can only do the best i can to try to respond. the justice department has the e-mails, they have the server. they're conducting a security inquiry. they will take whatever necessary steps are required to get this matter resolved? >> can you say with 100% certain they the deleted e-mails that the fbi won't find anything there that will cause you to have to explain again? >> all i can tell you is that when my attorneys conducted this exhaustive process i do not participate. >> why? >> i didn't look at them. >> i would want to know what e-mails. why wouldn't you want to know? >> i wanted them the to be as clear in their process as possible. i didn't want to be looking over their shoulder. if they thought it was
work-related it would go to the state department. if not it would not. as i just said, over 1,200 of the e-mails we were overly inclusive in trying to be comprehensive the state department has said "we don't want these, these are personal, not work related." they're sending them back. so my attorney said "what do you want us to do with the personal e-mails?" i said "i don't need them or want them." so they talked to the it server, the technical people responsible for maintaining them and said "we don't need them." that's the limit of my knowledge and i know i was sarcastic in one exchange with the press for which i -- i'm sorry guys. i'm not a technical expert. i said i don't need them. whatever happened to them happened to them and i'm very sure my attorneys did the most meticulous job that could have been done. >> would anything having to do with the clinton foundation, that would have been personal or work? >> well, it would depend. i do not communicate with the foundation. other people in the state department did in accordance
with the rules that have been adopted? >> for any of these deleted e-mails, they won't be foundation related at all? >> well, there might be "there's going to be a meeting" but not anything related to the state department. that was handled by professionals and others in the state department. >> let me sort of move on from that a little bit. i say "sword of move on" because you've taken a hit in the polls. >> i have. >> do you believe you have explained this and there aren't any contradictions here? is the issue not truthfulness but the issue of how you've handled it? >> let me say this chuck. i have tried to the best of my ability to be able to respond and if people are uncertain, if they have concerns about these questions around the e-mails it's their choice to say that's going to influence how i think about the election. i understand that, i get it. but i also hope people will look at my life long advocacy for
kids and families and women and look at what i'm proposing, the vision i have for the country to move forward on everything from raising incomes to equal pay for equal work to getting the cost of college down to dealing with high prescription drug costs, that's what i hope people focus on and people get to make their minds up. that's the beauty of our process. people can decide on whatever basis they choose. >> your husband did an interview on cnn and he basically put it all on the republicans and a little bit of us on the press, this whole thing that has driven down your poll numbers. do you bear any responsibility? >> well, first of all, i love my husband and he does get upset when i am attacked. i totally get that. but we also get the fact that, look, this is a contest and it's fair game for people to raise whatever they choose to raise. as he said i think in that same interview, they're not giving this job away, you have to get out there and earn it and that's what i'm trying to do. and of course i take responsibility. it was my choice. it was a mistake back when i did it and i'm trying to do the best
i can to answer all of the questions that people have and as i said during the '90s i was subjected to the same kind of barrage and it was -- it seemed to be at the time endless. and then when i ran for the senate people said, hey, we are more concerned about what you'll do for us. and i trust the voters to make that decision this time around, too. >> i want to play a little comp we've put together of some of the positions where your positions have changed a little bit. take a look. >> so it is with conviction that i support this resolution as being in the best interest of our nation. i've made it very clear that i made a mistake, plain and simple. i believe that marriage is not just a bond but a sacred bond between a man and a woman. this morning love triumphed in the highest court in our land. [ cheers and applause ] we've not yet signed off on it but we are inclined to do so. we're either going to be dependent on dirty oille from
the gulf or dependent on dirty oil from canada. i oppose it. i oppose it because i don't think it's in the best interests of what we need to do to combat climate change. >> how do you respond to critics who say your positions have changed out of political expediency. whatever the majority is at that time, that's the position you have. >> well, i just don't think that reflects either my assessment of issues and i don't think it reflects how people who are thoughtful actually conduct their lives. if we don't learn, if we don't make decisions based on the best information we have available, well, you know, that's regrettable and what i've always tried to do is just say okay, what is the best decision that i can think about making? now, with those that you did number one on the iraq war vote, i've written about it, i've talked about it, i said it was a mistake. it certainly became a very clear mistake when you saw the way the bush administration conducted
that war and the decisions that they made. and so i have been very forthright in saying, you know, as i looked at what was happening, it was a mistake. on same-sex marriage, like a lot of people, including our president, i did evolve and i was not raised to even imagine this. and i'm thrilled now that it's the law of the land and i have a lot of good friends are who are now able to be married because of the changes we've made legally and constitutionally. when it comes to keystone, you know, i was at the beginning of the process of trying to ev evaluate what was the best outcome. i have did feel that i shouldn't jump in before the president and secretary kerry and make my views known because they here in the middle of that process. but it was uncomfortable to have so many people asking me and my saying i'm waiting and waiting and it still hasn't happened. i don't know when it will happen. it may have to happen when i'm president, i hope. so i've said i'm against it. on the total evaluation.
when i made that statement years ago. we did not have the kind of energy profile we have. we did not have the full understanding of how the particular oil that would have been extracted from those tar sands was of a different degree of dirtiness and polluting in terms of greenhouse gases. so i'm not going to sit here and tell people that i make up my mind -- that's the republicans. they make up their mind, they're never bothered by evidence. >> but bernie sanders has been where you are on these issues. bernie sanders was there when it came to marriage 20 years ago. do you think one of the reasons he's doing well right now is some progressives think, well, you know what? he was there when it wasn't popular. >> well he can speak for himself and i respect his views. i can just tell you that i am not someone who stakes out a position and holds it regardless of the evidence or regardless of the way that i perceive what's happening in the world around me.
as i was saying, that's where the republicans are. they're still believing in trickle down economics even though it was a disaster not once but twice for our country. so i want people -- because i think my experience on these issues is much more reflective of how people talk to me about how they, too, have evolved and moved in their understanding and i feel very comfortable saying that. >> i have a lot more questions and the good news is i have a part two interview we'll do for the new show, my new show mtv daily. we will get into foreign policy, domestic policy, a bunch of stuff. thank you for coming back to "meet the press." >> thank you, glad to be here. you can see part two tomorrow on "meet the press daily" on msnbc. daily" on msnbc. our latest poll numbers in the want to survive a crazy busy day? sfx: cell phone chimes start with a positive attitude... and positively radiant skin. aveeno® positively radiant moisturizer... with active naturals® soy. aveeno® naturally beautiful results®.
earlier we shared our new numbers on the democratic race from our new nbc news "wall street journal" poll, now to where the republican race stands this morning and, yes, things are getting tighter on that side of the aisle. donald trump and ben carson are tied at the top. trump at 21%, carson at 20. two more in double digits are marco rubio and carly fiorina tied at third with 11%. they're followed in high single digits by jeb bush, john kasich and ted cruz. no one else. if you don't see your candidate there, it means they didn't top 3%. and when you compare these numbers to where we were in july you can see carson, rubio and kasich have doubled their support. on the other hand, bush and cruz
saw their support cut in half. by the way there's a name you don't see on the board at all, it was scott walker in july. walker was in second place alone at 15% and he dropped out of the race a week ago. another big change is for carly fiorina. she came from nothing. she was at zero to where she is today, tied for we stop arthritis pain, so you don't have to stop. tylenol® 8hr arthritis pain has two layers of pain relief. the first is fast. the second lasts all day. we give you your day back. what you do with it is up to you. tylenol®.
welcome back. given her performance in the two republican debates that carly fiorina has participated in, her rise in our new poll should hot knot be a surprise. she joins me after campaigning in iowa this weekend. she's been in cedar rapids, iowa. welcome back to meet the press. >> good morning, chuck. thanks for having me. >> you got it. let me start right in with the planned parenthood situation. at the most recent debate, you described the following scene, claiming it was on a tape, a fully formed fetus on the table, its heart beat, its legs kicking while someone says we have to keep it alive to harvest its brain. since then, when asked about the claim, your campaign is claimed
to attack planned parenthood but there is no tape or evidence that the scene you describe exists. are you willing now to concede that you exaggerated that scene? >> no, not at all. that scene absolutely does exist, and that voice sang what i said they were saying, we're going to keep it alive to harvest its brain exists as well. here's the thing. yesterday -- >> you saw that moment on the tape? >> -- at a football game -- >> you saw that moment on the tape. >> yes, and i would challenge planned parenthood. here's the deal. yesterday i was protested by planned parenthood people who were throwing condoms at me. i don't know what that has to do with this. they're trying to distract the american people from the hideous reality that planned parenthood is aborting fetuses alive to harvest their brains and other body parts. that is a fact. planned parenthood will not and cannot deny this because it is happening. it is happening in this nation. taxpayers are paying for it. planned parenthood desperately
wants everyone to think this isn't going on because when americans realize it is going on, whether they are pro-life or pro-choice, they are horrified. this goes to the character of our nation, and it must be stopped. >> the footage you describe at best is a reenactment. the videos -- the people that made the videos admitted stock footage, yet you went right along and said it's planned parenthood. >> chuck, chuck, chuck, do you think this is not happening? does hillary clinton think this is not happening? so sad that you miss the opportunity to ask mrs. clinton why she said late-term abortions were only performed for medical purposes. that is patently false. this is happening in america today, and taxpayers are paying for it. that is a fact. it is a reality, and no one can run away from it. >> but you are ducking the specific of this question. and i guess i'm trying -- >> i'm not -- i am not -- i am not ducking -- >> a "washington post" et territorial is calling it a
full-fledged falsehood, miss fiorina. they're saying it doesn't excuse your mistruths. they say they understand you have a deeply held belief on abortion but that you're exaggerating this specific claim. >> no. well, first of all, "the washington post" also claims that i'm lying about being a secretary, so let's get real. i don't even know how to deal with that. i was a secretary part-time to put myself through college and full-time after i graduated. "the washington post" gave me three pinocchios for claiming that i was a secretary. so honestly, i don't think "the washington post" has a lot of credibility here. this is not about being pro-life or pro-choice. it is certainly not about birth control. it is not even about women's health. it is about the character of our nation. no one can deny this is happening because it is happening. >> do you believe this is still something that republicans in congress should force a government shutdown over and have this showdown with the president? >> i believe if the president of the united states and democrats are willing to stand up and
defend for what is roughly a $500 million to $ 00 million line item in the budget, if they are willing to stand up and defend this practice and shut down the government over it, then let them explain it to the american people. >> so you want this showdown. you think republican leaders in congress should force this showdown. >> i believe there are a variety of ways to deal with this, but i believe this is something we must stand up and fight for because it is about the character of our nation. taxpayers are funding this ak ti and not only that, not only are taxpayers having to fund this butchery, but planned parenthood doles out millions of dollars every single election cycle to democrat candidates. this is a political slush fund on top of being butchery that americans, again, whether they're pro-life or pro-choice, cannot support. >> do you believe any of the money planned parenthood uses is
for good from the federal government? >> i'm sure it is. i'm sure it is. but you know what i find amazing, the hypocrisy of democrats who stand up and oppose every time taxpayer funding for, say, pregnancy centers that are also very much focused on women's health, but, no, democrats don't want taxpayer funding for pregnancy centers. i just visited one in south carolina. they are all privately funded. this is hypocrisy on democrats' part. this is about a political slush fund. it is about the character of our nation. and, yes, we should stand up and fight on this issue. >> in 2010 in your senate race you called rowe v wade a decide issue and said you would fight to turn it over. what's changed? >> the american's people's views have evolved on this so let's just take one example. the majority of women, the majority of young people, the majority of americans now believe that abortion for any reason at all after five months
is wrong, just as they believe that the butchery of live fetuses for body parts is wrong. so i think we ought to pass the pain capable unborn child protection about now. it is good politics. it is also good policy. and shame on democrats who stood and blocked it because the majority of americans now disagree with where democrats are. the democrat policy is it is not a life until it leaves the hospital. the vast majority of americans oppose that policy. >> let me play for you -- there's some concerns with some republicans, as excited as they are about your candidacy, that they're concerned your time at h.p. is going to be a liability a la mitt romney. let me play for you an ad barbara boxer used against you and ask you to respond on the other side. >> as the ceo of h.p. carly fiorina laid off 30,000 workers. >> when you're talking about massive layoffs, which we did, perhaps the work needs to be done somewhere else. >> and while californians lost their jobs, fiorina tripled her
salary, bought a million-dollar yacht and five corporate jets. >> can you reassure republicans who are still shell-shocked over what the obama campaign was effectively able to do to mitt romney on the issue of layoffs, that's what's going on around the country won't happen to you? when barbara boxer played that ad, her lead grew. >> yeah. you know, i find it very rich. barbara boxer, hillary clinton, all the democrats who are attacking me, they've never created a job. they've never saved a job. and their policies destroy jobs including mrs. clinton's latest position on keystone pipeline. look, i have run to problems all my life. it's how you go from secretary to ceo. and i think people are looking far president who will run to the problems that this nation faces. yes, i led h.p. through a very difficult time. the nasdaq dropped 80%. some of our strongest competitors went out of business all together, taking every job with them. we saved 80,000 jobs. we went on to grow to 150,000 jobs. we quadrupled the growth rate of
the company, quadrupled the cash flow of the company, tripled the rate of innovation of the company, and went from lagging behind to leading in every single product and every single market. i will run on that record all day long. >> you don't think it will be a liability. at the end of the day, the jobs you're talking about that grew and expanded were jobs overseas for -- after the h.p. -- >> that is false. that is false. that is false. >> there were no american jobs. no? >> that is false, chuck. that is false. here's the thing about business. politicians can spin words, but in business you actually have a record of results and, in fact, i had to stand up and report those results every single quarter. and if i misremitted our resupr results or projections in any way i could be hell criminally liable. imagine if any other candidate running for president was held to that same account. there were many jobs that left california, and you know where they went? to the state of texas because the state of texas had a set of policies in place that made job
creation and job salvation easier than the state of california. this is what democrats always want to talk about. they want to slam job creators. but the truth is democrat policies, the ones that bernie sanders, the ones that hillary clinton, and the ones that barbara boxer pursue destroy jobs all day long. >> steve ratner in an op-ed in "the new york times" noted that one of the things you have used to defend your time at h.p. and defend being fired is people like steve jobs had been fired in the past and there were other successful, eventual successful ceos. but he asked this question in there -- why didn't another company hire you as a ceo? why didn't you have another full-time job in the private sector after you left hp? >> well, steve ratner, you know, a political operative masquerading as a business analyst, we have a couple other of those as well. because i didn't want to go back to work as a ceo. that's why. because i had done that. because i had been in a very high-pressure chief executive
job -- >> had you been recruited? >> yes. i was offered many jobs as a ceo in the bush administration, i wanted a break, and then i wanted to give back. and so over time i became the chairman of two charities in this nation, work of which i am also very proud. i advised the cia as the chairman of the advisory board. i advised two secretaries of defense, a secretary of homeland security. i believed it was time for me to use my experience in other realms, whether it was policy or government or charity. >> what do you make of speaker boehner's decision? do you think he made the correct decision to step down? >> well, i do. i think every leader has a season, and i think john boehner's season was coming to an end and he understood that. and i hope now that we will move on and have leadership in both the house and the senate that will produce results. i think leaders produce results, and i think republicans are quite frustrated having worked very hard to restore historic majorities to the house and a majority to the senate that
there haven't been a lot of results. and so i've asked for three very specific things. one, pass a border security bill. two, pass the raines about, which would give congress the authority to oversee all of these rules that are rolling out of the administration. of course we talked about defunding planned parenthood and it would be great, actually, if the house and the senate would pass the bills that deny finally the special exemptions they get for obamacare. >> is mitch mcconnell leading in the right way on the senate side of things? >> we will see. he has been a leader for a very short period of time. not even one session. leaders produce results. >> is he producing results? >> well, we'll see. >> so i take it not yet or to be continued? >> well, i think we will see. >> fair enough. carly fiorina, stay safe on the campaign trail. thanks for coming back to "meet the press." >> thanks, chuck. >> coming up, reaction from our panel.
so much to get to on this busy sunday. it's been a busy week. we'll have reaction to the big interviews with hillary clinton and carly fiorina, plus what in any other week would have been our lead story, speaker boehner my cut hurt. >>mine hurt more. >>mine stopped hurting faster! neosporin plus pain relief starts relieving pain faster and kills more types of infectious bacteria
we are back. lots to discuss. hillary clinton, carly fiorina and the news that john boehner is stepping down as speaker. david brooks, andrea mitchell nbc's chief foreign affairs correspondent, andrew ross sorkin of the "new york times" and co-host of cnbc's "squawk box" celebrating 20 years. you have not been there 20 years and eugene robbins at the "washington post" who i think has been at the post for 20 years. >> a little more than that but let's not -- >> all right, i've done enough talking. let's start with the hillary clinton interview. your first reactions, andrea?
>> she is carefully saying that i'm not an i.t. person, i'm not technical. we know that about her. it was the i.t. people, it was the lawyers who decided which e-mails to delete, which to turn over. so she's building in deniability here. her affect, her lack of an adversarial contentious interview striking a different tone from hillary clinton. but she's basically not dealing with the question that there is this continued drip-drip-drip and she can not get to the policies that she wants to talk about. she tries to pivot to it, she does in your interview later and tomorrow but she can't -- this is all -- you know, shadowing -- overshadowing what she wants to be talking about and that is the reason why she is hurting in the polls. >> david, we have these poll numbers, it's down 16 points in new hampshire, her favorable ratings continue to slide. >> well, she's having more fun today. sometimes she's campaigning like she's in napoleon's march on moscow. this was a little more upbeat, a little more fun but she's still
in her own bubble, not where the country is but sort of in the clinton bubble and finally as andrea said, she spent her entire political career on the defensive whether it was the rose law firm, whether it was benghazi, whether it was her husband's shenanigans. she's basically -- she has a defensive posture and she's erecting wall, not trusting people and there's no romance. people, especially this year, want a little romance, they want ideological action going outward but she's on the defensive. that's the core problem. it's not the e-mails. nobody will disqualify her as president because she used one server versus another, that's not the scandal. it's her attitude. >> gene, you want to pick up on. >> that i kind of agree with you david but i see in the a -- somewhat differently. i think if i were with the clinton campaign i would be very pleased with that appearance because she asked her very tough questions, you stayed on the e-mail scandal, you kind of took her through it and i thought that was her best presentation on that subject by far so far because of her affect, because of the way she smilingly went
through it. she was able to be -- she seemed less defensive crouchish to me today, more open, more willing just as long as you want to talk about it, chuck. let's talk about it. that was the best she's done on that issue. >> let's pivot to carly fiorina. you've been a tough critic of hers yourself. can she let elected president with her hp record. >> the question is if the public cares about her hp record. but if you do care about her record, it's a bad record. she talks about in the this this very relative way, relative to where things were at the time but even relatively it was relatively terrible and she talks about it'm peer al empiri. she lost $60 billion of investors' money. in business there's a report card, that is her report card and even if we were to look at it and say, okay, so what about
to ibm? what about to dell? by orders of magnitude worse and even more so, when you think about politics, she's selling something. when she was the ceo of hp she told investors targets, what she was going to do and she missed them repeatedly to the score, by the way of $2.4 million in missed targets. now, whether the public scares about those numbers, that's a different question. >> david, where she showed passion, she is not accepting any of the fact checks on this planned parenthood thing and she really doesn't want to -- she's basically saying details don't matter, you should be outraged. >> to andrew's point, it's not clear that reality matters to the electorate right now and i think that's true with trump, it's true with her. some people are great campaigners and some people are good in reality. so far the good in reality people are not doing so well in the polls. i think jeb bush falls into that category. he's a bad campaigner. she's aggressive. it was interesting to watch the clinton interview and the fiorina interview. clinton i agree with gene, she was very -- she answered every
question clearly. fiorina does not accept the concept that she should answer these questions. she's on the offensive, she's throwing blows. no matter what you ask her she's throwing blows at democrats and on permanent offense. >> which may explain why she's getting -- >> and that's where the country is. that's the ethos of the country. >> certainly the republican primary voters. >> let's face facts here. the facts are also that that fetus was from a pennsylvania miscarriage. that fetus had nothing to do with planned parenthood and planned parenthood does not get federal money for abortions period. abortions are 3% of their work, the rest is women's health care. that said, you're right, carly fiorina is in tune with the mood of the electorate. the electorate in both political parties. >> is hillary clinton in tune with the mood? >> not so far. she's not angry enough. and it's hard for her to be angry because then you've got donald trump saying she's shrill which is a sexist word, let's face it, but she has to get around that.
but the anger, the passion is all on people going on the attack. whether it's donald trump, whether it's carly fiorina, or whether it eeit's bernie sander >> and this is the mood, this is the electorate that just forced john boehner out of his job. >> but i was floored by that because she simply would not deal with the factual issue. she would not deal with the issue that she has misrepresented the facts about that video and you correctly told her what the facts are and she simply wouldn't deal with it. i don't think you can continue to do that on a specific issue time after time after time because people are going to keep bringing it up until you acknowledge that, yes, these the facts. she wouldn't acknowledge that. >> you seem to think the laws of gravity are applying this year but so far they haven't applied. >> can i just tell you, bill kristal wrote this great column where he said everybody has predicted things will revert to norm. hillary clinton will be the nominee, biden won't run, jeb bush will probably end up as the nominee and these outsiders will go away. yet who three weeks ago, as he
writes, would have predicted that scott walker would drop out and speaker boehner would resign in the same weeks. >> i think the laws of gravity will come back. i'll step on the scale and say the same thing, i'm afraid of that scale. >> the headline out of our poll today is marco rubio. marco rubio is now tied with carly fiorina and he's moving up. >> i would say the two things in the poll is he's not inherenting anything from trump. >> he's not the outsider candidate. fiorina grabbed. >> it and rubio is grabbing the plausible candidate mantra right now. >> but gravity is money and at some point even though we never thought trump or fiorina or rubio would be where they are today, the money will follow them because there are people who are -- jeb bush people who at some point will say the train is leaving the station. >> very quickly, last word. >> the time is important and so is rubio peaking too early? i think cruz might be in a better position. >> who knows? >> head down. >> we'll find out next week.
thanks for the round table. we'll have more in a bit. i want to show you these pictures. people are gathering in philadelphia where pope francis will celebrate mass this evening. a million people are expected in the city of brotherly love. we'll be back in less than a minute with our "end game" segment and a papal visit unlike any other.
look at this scene right now of folks gathering in philadelphia where people are ready for a mass from pope francis that he'll be giving later this afternoon. the pope, of course, has asked many to pray for him as he's delivered a political message of social justice and the need to help those in poverty. during his speech before congress, he mentioned two americans whose names you may not have been familiar with -- thomas merton and dorothy day. some to say, neither were perfect catholics. merton was a monk, a prolific writer and a supporter of the non-violent civil rights movement. dorothy day some called a radical journalist. after converting to catholicism, she helped create the catholic worker movement that still exists to help those in need. i want to bring in george weigel, our senior vatican analyst. george, let me ask you how much does dorothy day and thomas
merton and the pope's decision to use those names along with abraham lincoln and martin luther king, what does that tell us about his own politics? >> it tells us that he's basically a christian radical, chuck, and a pastor. lots of us who don't necessarily share dorothy day's pacifism during world war ii or thomas merton's views of the vietnam war still find these entirely admirable people because of the dean, deep quality of their faith. and the struggles they went through. dorothy day called her autobiography "the long loneliness." this was someone who knew that christianity was very demanding and did her darnedest for decades to live that radical gospel both in her own spiritual life and in her service to others. thomas merton was deeply steeped in traditional monofast i c ala traditions around the world.
monofast i can and introduced america to this classic notion of meditation contemplative life. so the pope was not sending a political signal. >> a lot of people are trying to read tea leaves into what the pope said in front of congress. it seems as if he emphasized issues like climate change and the economy and he de-emphasized issues like abortion and marriage. is that a fair take away or do you think the media is overhyping it? >> no, i don't think it's a fair take away. the connecting thread through the four big speeches here -- congress, the u.n., independence hall in philadelphia and i expect we'll hear it at mass this evening -- is religious freedom. and that concern of the pope's, religious freedom in full, the ability of the church's institutions to be themselves.
according to their own conviction of faith and conscious was dramatically underscored on wednesday night when he paid an unexpected visit to the home for indigent elderly run by the little sisters of the poor near catholic university in washington. the little sisters of the poor are suing the obama administration on the famous obamacare -- >> basically a not so subtle message is what you are saying? >> there was nothing subtle about that and for a guy who's not supposed to be judgmental he was making judgments. >> fair enough. george weigel, we are always indebted to you when we cover anything having to do with the papacy. we appreciate it here at nbc news. george, what a week you've had. thank you, sir. >> thanks, chuck. let me bring in the panel. david brooks, the thing that caught me the most on congress is here's somebody who lives in italy. obviously not italy, technically, the vatican is its own country but lives on another continent and when he spoke before congress he knew the
first thing he had to talk about was polarization and he lectured them in a very nice way. what does that say about congress? >> well, the catholic has a history of that, too. he's operating on a different axis than the rest of us. we're on a horizontal axis, he's up and down. what he did was to defeat polarization the right way by lifting hearts and uplifting souls. whether you're republican or democrats, i think everyone felt uplifted. what he said this week is that hundreds of thousands of people will have their hearts open by his presence and some percentage of their life will be alter bid this week. today in philadelphia thereby alrea -- there will be tens of thousands of people who have had their life change. >> is francis and obama going to be bonded together generation from now the way john paul and reagan were? >> yes, on -- particularly on cuba and iran. we were up there, i was up there at congress and the most incredible uplifting spirit and then 24 hours later exactly 24 hours later we are in a world
war up there with boehner resigning and now you'll have a huge fight over who will be majority leader. we assume kevin mccarthy will rise up. >> not assuming anything anymore in this race. >> i have to tell you as boehner was resigning, i was in new york and the most moving experience that i had was watching the pope at ground zero in the interfaith prayer. go online and watch that because that was profound. >> go ahead, very quickly. >> speaker boehner was one of the people most profoundly affected by the pope's presence. he was deeply moved, he's a devout catholic. one wonder what is that had to do with his timing and how it will affect his next month and his last month as speaker. >> very quickly, i have to show you this. we've been discussing the huge crowds that the pope's visit is attracted. plenty of emotion shone by john boehner but look at this, pennsylvania democratic congressman bob brady decided he wanted a unique memento of the papal visit. after the pope finished his speech to congress, brady helped himself to that very glass of
water that the pontiff had been zipping from as he made his address. brady, who said he believes the water in the glass is holy, shared some of it with members of his family and staffers in his office. he intends to sprinkle the rest on his grandchildren and get this, this is not the he swiped president obama's glass after the inauguration in '09 though he says he hasn't drank it. that's an interesting fireplace collection. >> he physically keeps the glasses? >> physically keeps the glasses. >> wafers and wine. >> i don't think the pontiff makes holy water. i don't think that's how you make holy water. >> you got to give him credit. he was throwing himself in there. i'll be back tomorrow on msnbc at 5:00 p.m. eastern "mtp daily" the second part of my interview with hillary clinton, we talk a lot about syria and libya in particular, so tune in for that. it's monday, tuesday, wednesday, thursday or friday it's "mtp
daily" and we'll be back next week because if it's sunday, it's "meet the press." it's monday, september 28th, right now on "first look" the leaders will unite blocks from where i'm stabbing and obama and putin and others come together. hillary clinton faces tough questions on e-mails on "meet the press." the francis effect was strong as the pontiff celebrated mass for over 800,000 on his final day in the u.s. plus tom brady is thrust into the record books while others with high expectations fall to the frustrations of the season. "first look" starts right now. happy monday to you. hope you had a great weekend. i'm betty nguyen. thanks for joining us today.