Skip to main content

tv   Charlie Rose  Bloomberg  August 9, 2016 7:00pm-8:01pm EDT

tv-commercial
7:00 pm
>> from our studios in new york city, this is charlie rose. charlie: we look at trump's economic plan. he delivered a major policy address in detroit, michigan. he stressed to bring new jobs and prosperity to those who have very least and casted hointhoint as the candidate of the past. >> in short, the city of detroit, is the living, breathing example of my opponents' failed economic agenda. i'm proposing an across the board income tax deduction for
7:01 pm
middle-income america. this will lead to new and good-paying jobs. the rich will pay their fair share but no one will pay much that undermines our ability as a nation to compete. charlie: it comes on the week after bruising steps. jim from the "washington post." welcome, jim. tell me about what you think trump did today at the economic club in detroit in terms of casting a sense of him and his economic views. >> he turned a vision and i think -- he did two important things sm the first was to reach back out to republicans, many of whom who have been turned off by the events of the last week and reassure them that he wants to cut taxes and cut regulations,
7:02 pm
that he has a plan for the economy. and at the same time, he reached out with that arm that we have seen him wield so well and hit on the pain that many americans have felt from free trade. he hit nafta and t.p.p. and tried to print hillary clinton on the wrong side and on the trade issue that he sees his reach out to the middle. charlie: is trade working for trump? >> it believes it can work in states like michigan and ohio. he believes, even if you aren't a factory worker who lost a job due to nafta or trade relations with china, it resonates with america that it speaks to the idea that we are losing on a global stage and only he can
7:03 pm
make us win again. charlie: he is casting himself as somebody very different. he suggested that in some cases that he may be to the left of hillary clinton. for example, on how much he would be prepared to spend on infrastructure. what do you make of that? >> i think it's fascinating. he is trying to outflank her. one is being infrastructure. half a trillion dollars in infrastructure. the other is child care, oddly enough. he said this is an issue that is important to his daughter and issue that republicans don't talk about but he talked about making it deductible. the average cost for the average family and that could be an expensive proposal that would be to the left of secretary clinton. charlie: how would he change it?
7:04 pm
>> you could deduct your child care expenses. you can't deduct all of them. there is no details yet, but what appears to be all the average cost as he put it in his speech of your child care costs would be deductible. there is one thing that democrats pounced on, the deduction and not a tax credit. low-income families who don't take itemized deductions, wouldn't benefit, this would help middle-class families than the poor. commearl charlie how do we create more growth? >> trump is a very supply-side for more growth, which is you reduce taxes, taxes for businesses and cut the corporate tax rate from one the highest rates in the developed world to
7:05 pm
15% as an actual rate, which is a huge cut and then deregulation and stop any new regulations from the d.o.d. frank -- dodd-frank bill. charlie: senior economic officials from previous republican officials and only one well known tax policy expert. here's a guy who wants to change things the way things are and listening to a new group of advisers. >> he has a very small inner circle. the advisers he has called upon has been he has done business with. fundraisers for him. a couple of the experts align with him. peter navarro from the university of california, irvin. this is an anti-establishment move.
7:06 pm
they don't want to be advising him. charlie: and remind me if this is accurate, the polls suggest that americans today trust trump running the economy more than hillary clinton. >> that has been true throughout the campaign but in the recent batch of polls is a narrowing, whether he is just up a little bit. he had a huge lead on the economy and one of the reasons to think he was well positioned for november and that huge lead s at best a small one. charlie: thank you, jim. jim from the "washington post."
7:07 pm
7:08 pm
7:09 pm
charlie: mike is a former and acting director of the c.i.a. and recently resigned to publicly endorse hillary clinton. on friday, he wrote an op ed in the "new york times" saying trump is dangerous. mike says he unqualified for the job and may pose a threat. 'm pleased to welcome mike morrel. tol me why you felt compeled
7:10 pm
change where you were, contributor to cbs on public boards, former acting director and deputy director of the c.i.a., a man who gained respect to say i'm going in a different direction? mike: this was not surprisingly a very difficult decision for me. you know, being nonpartisan, was in my ical d.n.a. it was put there by 3 years by an intelligence professional. charlie: you told people what the facts were. mike: and to be objective about it and any hint of politics would undercut the credibility of what you were saying.
7:11 pm
so intelligence officers, they have to be, they have to be apolitical. this was me, number one, stepping outside of that lifetime role. so that was a big deal. i was also concerned, charlie, that i would damage the agency that i love so much. that i would not only become somebody who was attacked -- and i knew i would be attacked and i have been -- but i feared the agency would also be attacked. governor pens, the republican vice presidential nominee actually attacked the c.i.a. the other day and said this is the same agency -- this guy ran the same agency that told barack ama that isis was the j.v. team. attacked the thousands of men
7:12 pm
and women that go to work every day to protect the country and i knew this was going to happen. and i knew this was a big, big deal. charlie, two things, two things, i think brought me to the decision to write the op ed. one was a growing belief that are donald trump, mr. trump, i don't want to be disrespectful, that mr. trump, would be a threat to our national security as commander in chief. he has said things on the campaign trail that have assisted our adverse sears and isisted vladimir putin and and said things that unnerved our allies and led our adverse sears to endorse.
7:13 pm
kim junk i will has endorsed him for president. that is one reason. this man being the president of the united states and being the commander in chief. and the second was, i have known hillary clinton a long time. and i felt that the perceptions that -- some of the perceptions that are out there about her are just not true. and so putting both of those reasons together, i decided to speak out. and one of the things, charlie, that struck me as i was going through this and i was actually writing the op ed and talking to people about my views, there are many people who share my views. there are many people who share what i wrote in the op ed but afraid to speak out, being afraid to speak out and afraid of the republican party not being with them down the road.
7:14 pm
i felt afraid of not speaking out. i felt afraid of the consequences of not speaking out. and i think that serious republicans, of which there are many, need to think of the consequences of not speaking out. charlie: did you consider beyond he fact that it might be beyond, that you would be open to attack and you were a contributor to cbs and you would be perceived now as partisan? >> i did. charlie: what you said will be measured differently. mike: i needed to resign from cbs for obvious and i took a leave of absence from the public board because i didn't want this linchinged to them in any way and it's not linked to them in
7:15 pm
any way and not linked to cbs in any way. those sacrifices that i was willing to do this, i loved cbs, absolutely loved it. and you know, i can go back to it someday. those are sacrifices. the other is what you said. i have been perceived as straight down the middle, call it like it is, you know, willing to criticize president bush, willing to criticize president obama and be supportive of them. charlie: raises two questions. you have endorsed her, will you be out working for her and part of the national security team advising hillary clinton? mike: yes, i said in the op ed, not only am i endorsing her but make sure she wins and he loses.
7:16 pm
i will be open to anything the campaign asks me to do. charlie: other question that comes up, is there ambition here? are you looking for a job in the clinton administration? mike: you know, you know, i loved my time in government. absolutely loved my time in government. i have berne out for three years and loved my time outside of government. my focus is totally, totally getting her elected and note getting him elected. what job may or may not of this because the secretary chooses not to or what i choose not to or my wife, it is so far down the road. charlie: was it a part of the consideration? ike: i may have hurt many my
7:17 pm
self. an intelligence officer who is respected on both sides of the aisle and i mave actually hurt myself. charlie: when you were considering this, i want to talk about views that are expressed by trump. give us the indictment, because i want to talk about hillary clinton and donald trump and barack obama and you. what is it about donald trump that most specifically disqualifies him to be president in your eyes, dangerous, unfit, to choose your terms. mike: these are my terms and then get to the key issue. his ego is larger than anything i have ever seen before. sychologists have called him narcissistic and that ego
7:18 pm
requires scants feeding, right? and that's what putin played to him. others in the world will use that against him, right? so that ego becomes dangerous. he makes decisions not based on his intellect, he makes decisions based on his intuition and he is careless with the facts. and even when the facts are shown to be corrected, he doesn't correct them. he continues with the old facts. that's dangerous for a policy maker. he has incredibly thin skin. d he reacts sharply to critiques. talking about re it all the time.
7:19 pm
this is a guy -- i want to come back to the most important -- this is a guy who encouraged nations to acquire nuclear weapons. this is a guy who said it is ok that putin went into ukraine and took crimea. this is a guy who said, i have to think about whether i come to the defense of the battleics if putin attacks them. all of those things that said, my god, this is the last person you want in the oval office making decisions. we come to the slum critical issue. -- to the absolute critical issue. he makes decisions with his gut. he is proned to jofrle react to attacks and needs his ego fed. and all those can be dealt with,
7:20 pm
right, if you got the right advisers around you and if you listen to them. and i don't think he listens. i have seen absolutely no evidence, no indication that he listens to anybody. when he was asked, when he was asked, who do you listen to anybody on national security, he said himself. charlie: have you talked to anybody who interacts with him? mike: i have never met with donald trump. charlie: people who advise him snr mike: people who have known him for a long period of time. charlie: do nothing to allay your fears? mike: no. they say that two of their iggest concerns, right, is his narcissism and to feed it and he
7:21 pm
doesn't listen to anybody and don't listen to anybody scares me. you aren't going to change the president of the united states. i didn't see the entire speech today, but i did see were references to isolation, references, that we take care of ourselves rather than the rest of the world, references to bad trade deals. that all concerns me. this is what i would like to see him do, i would like him to and up tomorrow and denounce putin's military incursion into ukraine. i would like to see him denounce putin's and exation of crimea and denounce putin's rebels that resulted in the shootdown of the airliner.ah
7:22 pm
i would like to see him stand up and denounce putin and i'll tell you at the end of the day, putin would have more respect for him than he does now. charlie: why don't you think he does do that now? does he believe that putin did the right thing and it's ok or it's ok for them to take crimea or he doesn't understand the consequences of providing leadership of a country that is the world's greatest power? mike: the single thing in my op evidence that got the biggest attention is he is unwitnessing agent and recruited by putin and that's why he is taking the positions. charlie: he is recruited the way that putin played to his ego.
7:23 pm
ke: putin is a very talented k.g.b. officer and trained to look at an officer and get them to do what he wants to do. charlie: you think putin watched american politics and i said i will be better off for russia if donald trump is elected and therefore, what i will do is everything i can to make him an gent of my wishes, i support him to become an agent? mike: one thing i wrote about and one i didn't. charlie: you do not know. mike: i do not know this. charlie: you don't know this. mike: i happen to know how you recruit people. it's my experience. it is my troffingsal assessment and what putin has done. charlie: skills you learned at
7:24 pm
the c.i.a. mike: i think putin was thinking two things. putin does not secretary clinton. charlie: people i talked to it is more that than it is donald trump. mike: i think it's both. you and i have had many conversations about russia and putin and sat around this table that there is one thing above all else that putin fears and hat is an arab spring, green revolution-style uprising in the treets of moss cow and that is -- moscow and that is what happened in barack obama's first term. he blamed that on secretary clinton. he believes that secretary clinton was behind it. she wasn't. charlie: and the strong state and necessary to have a strong state and cannot allow people in
7:25 pm
the streets. mike: he is afraid of her. charlie: that is much more than secretary clinton. that isn't smart to say it is all about secretary clinton. mike: there are a lot of things that he believes that aren't true. charlie: she was a representative and implementer of foreign policy of adviser of barack obama. mike: he really believes that the united states was behind the democratic movement in ukraine. he believes that. deep in his heart. he is not making it up. he believes this. he thinks the c.i.a. and i do believe absolutely that he looked at trump and said this is a guy that i can play, right? all i have to do is compliment him and tell him how great he is and come to my side of the
7:26 pm
fence. charlie: what's your best exhibit of where he has done that and once again doing it again? mike: my best exhibit is give me another reason yes donald trump would have said all of the incredibly positive things he has said about putin as a person and russian policy that is at odds with the united states of america in a campaign where no one is focused on russia? charlie: that is donald trump being donald trumpp. he responds to it and by intuition and instinct without putting it in an international conflict context. you see what i mean? mike: yes. yes. but you are making my point. charlie: he spends time on tweet and watches television, doesn't mean he doesn't get the job done.
7:27 pm
he won the republican nomination. mike: you are making my point that his personality reacts that are inconsistent to american interests. charlie: i'm now arguing the other side. but to react that way does not make him -- it makes him -- it doesn't make him a tool of the russian federation and doesn't make him an unwitnessing agent - unwitting agent. mike: i disagree. i disagree. charlie: what has he done other than say some things? mike: he has undermined u.s. policy, western policy, with regard to russia, right. he has told all of those people who follow him, right, the the low 48% who believe his every
7:28 pm
word that putin is a good guy and good leader that undermines what the united states is trying to do. putin, you know has his intelligence agencies, right, trying to get that kind of propaganda. this has been free propaganda for putin in the united states of america. and charlie, putin would never ever say this, of course, but i believe putin sees trump as a tool of his now. charlie: he thinks he can elect trump? mike: he wants trump to be elected and there is some evidence that he trying to help that along. charlie: president obama says i don't trust vladimir putin. that is and opinion. donald trump says, he likes him. mike: he says he is a great leader. a guy i can work with.
7:29 pm
charlie: is he -- take a look at what he has done with respect to russia as president, has he been a terrible leader, a good leader? mike: terrible. charlie: made russia more of a player in the world more than it was earlier? mike: so this is the conversation you had with the vice president. so, yes, he has made russia more of a player, but i will tell you that i believe at significant costs to russia, think about it this way. think about it this way, charlie. who is -- just think about ukraine and we'll come back to syria. if you look at ukraine and you ask who is the big loser with ukraine, right? well, first of all, the ukranian people who had their aspirations
7:30 pm
crushed. second, the united states and the west, which were shown to be unable to stop putin, right, so we lost something. but the biggest loser in my view, the absolute biggest loser in my view was the russian economy, the rush russian middle class and the future, not only sanctions, not only sanctions, which have crippled the economy, but russia's only future is to be integrated with the west. and because of what putin did in ukraine, he made sure that's not going to happen for a decade. russia is a loser. he is a horrible leader. he is undermining the future of his own country by trying to be seen as a great power. russia is not benefit from being seen as a great power, it's being undermined. i tell you the first thing that struck me in the situation room
7:31 pm
and this is going to sound small but it's not, it's not small at all compared to trump. she was always prepared. big thick books that people have to go through and i would spend hours going through these books for these meetings and clear to me that she had read for these books and was prepared and knew what she was talking about. that is unusual for principals. and i don't see donald trump doing that. she asked good questions and not looked into her view. she would change her view if somebody made a compelling argument. she was one of the few cabinet members who came into the situation room and didn't automatically take the bureaucratic view of her department. i mean, leon panetta was this
7:32 pm
way and bob gates. charlie: they were different. mike: yes. yes. incredibly impressed me they would go to what they thought was the best thing even though it was at odds with the bureaucratic views of their own department. charlie: bob gates said one of the best qualities was a temperment and b, they listened. he said every good president he knew was a good listener. mike: the questions she asked and how carefully she answered them and how the answers were reflected in her views as the conversation moved forward. and she was calm and she was collected and she was tough. i thought she was the toughest person in the room in terms of -- charlie: in terms of what she advocated? mike: toughest in terms of --
7:33 pm
toughest in terms of for diplomacythat to be effective that there had to be a belief on the part of the adversary that you were willing and able to use force if necessary. she understands that. she understands that diplomacy, without that, cannot be effective. ♪
7:34 pm
7:35 pm
7:36 pm
charlie: he uses force with drones and against osama bin laden and used force a number of times but people make a sharp distinction when she is prepared to use force, whether it's syria or libya or somewhere else, then the president is and one way you try to understand where she stappeds and how she's different . you know how they talked and argued. what you argued is not necessarily what you believe. you can make an argument to try to understand the problem. mike: so, she was pushing aggressively, quite frankly with leon panetta and david petraeus to be more supportive of the
7:37 pm
modern opposition in syria in late 2012 and 2013 when assaad was on his heels and there were many people thought he was ready to go and not only to push him, right, but to give diplomacy some leverage. charlie: 51 diplomats who argued that they need leverage from the military on the ground to be able to negotiate what is in the best interest of the country they represent. mike: i think based on the conversations that she thought that significant assistance to the moderate opposition that you can do that will without going down a slippery slope to u.s. military involvement, which is what the president feared. and that was the difference between the two at the end of the day. i believe she understands that
7:38 pm
you can -- that you can go a certain distance, right, without having to go the rest of the way, that each step in the process can be a specific decision and just because you take one step doesn't mean you have to take all of them. charlie: this conversation is why you wouldn't trust donald trump but admire hillary clinton that she would be an effective source. how would she be different? what is her position on isis and what is it about that recommends itself to you that has not been done? mike: so, so, she's very supportive of what the president has done. she will go a little bit further. so she would more special forces and considering no fly-zone. charlie: the president has been doing it gradly. mike: he has been moving down the line and you said something
7:39 pm
more important earlier which is to say for this to end, this -- russia and the united states and iranians have come to the table, there has to be an agreement on a transition to a new government, right? i think she understands for us to have leverage in that conversation that we got to have more skin in the game from the u.s. military. not more boots but skin in the game. that's why she is talking about more special forces and understands that that is necessary for the leverage you eed in those political discussions. charlie: is its possible because it looks like russia is moving away from that kind of depreement? mike: i don't know if it's possible. w we switch to michael
7:40 pm
morrel's view. given where we are -- i think it's possible to squeeze isis down to nothing in iraq and syria. but i fear without a resolution to the civil war that other groups will pop up. al news ra, the al qaeda group in syria is growing in strength as a result of the lack of resolution. charlie: redefining itself. mike: that civil war has to be resolved. and you have to convince that it is in their interest. here's what i would recommend. i would recommend that we that -- so, the outcome we want is a transition from assaad to a government that can represent all the syrian people, but we want to do it without destroying the institutions of the syrian
7:41 pm
government. charlie: what we did in iraq. mike: and what happened on its own in libya. and we want to make that transition, keeping the syrian military and security services keeping them intact. charlie: essentially what putin wants. mike: you don't want to destroy those things. here's what i think you want to do. i think you want to cowvertly, not openly, but cowvertly but want them to know, you want to tell the moderate opposition that you supporting to go after -- this is a big deal -- to go after the iranians and they have to pay a price, just like we made the russians pay a price. we have to make them pay a price. we have to make them want to go home. we have to make them want to have a deal. that's number one. charlie: how do we do that?
7:42 pm
mike: give the moderate opposition weapons. charlie: what is it they want that they don't have? mike: i'm not a military guy. i give them the things they need to go after the assaad government but also to have the iranians and russians pay a little price. when we were in iraq, the iranians were giving weapons to the shia militia who were killing american soldiers. we need to make the iranians pay a price in syria and make the russians pay the price. charlie: by killing russians? and killing iranians? mike: yes. cowvertly. you don't tell the world. i want to go after -- i want to go after those things that
7:43 pm
assaad sees as his personal power base, right? i want to scare assaad. so i want to -- i want to go after his presidential guard. i want to bomb his offices in the middle of the night. charlie: that happened two years o when his brother-in-law -- mike: i want to destroy his presidential hell continue rs and make him think we are coming after him. i'm not advocating assassinating him but going after his power base and what he needs to survive. this isn't going to end well for me. i want to put pressure on him and put pressure on the iranians and the russians to come to that. charlie: if they feel like they are hurting. mike: only me talking.
7:44 pm
charlie: do you think hillary clinton believes as you do? mike: i don't know. i haven't talked to her. charlie: why did you come to this conclusion because there was a failure of everything else and wasn't happening and not moving towards that kind of agreement but moving away from it. mike: that is what i believe. charlie: the saudis stopped supplying weapons to the opposition forces, too. let me talk about people in the region. mike: this is a good one. charlie: what do we need to do? mike: our allies in the region believe a couple of things. they believe the united states of america and the obama administration is not listening to them. that they've got points of view,
7:45 pm
that they feel strongly about -- another thing they believe is that the united states doesn't have their back particularly with regard to iran. they believe that we don't understand that they see iran as their soviet union, right? so there's two things say about secretary clinton. one they believe that secretary clinton listens and where secretary clinton is on iran based on what i heard her say and read, she thinks that and at the same time, i think she believes and i know based on what she said she believes we need to push back harder against iranian-maligned behavior in the region. charlie: what should we be doing? mike: let me give you an example.
7:46 pm
they provide -- they provide money and assistance to errorist groups, hamas and hezbollah. they supply money and weapons to shia groups in the region that groups. g to overthrow yemen. and they overthrough the government there. charlie: were tche competing with the saudis? mike: very simple example. ships leave iran filled with weapons and i believe the u.s. navy should board those ships and if there are weapons on them they should turn them around and send them back. that is pushing back. charlie: is that what secretary clinton believes to be more aggressive in terms of iranian behavior, which is not part of the deal? mike: use the nuclear agreement
7:47 pm
and at the same time push back against their bad behavior. charlie: north korea said it is a real risk. what do you think hillary clinton should do? mike: donald trump said he would talk him and invite him to come to the united states of america. charlie: let me stop there. is is it a mistake to talk to him? mike: yes. charlie: because you give him credibility? mike: what he wants is united states of america to acknowledge he is a nuclear power and will remain a nuclear power and it is the policy and i don't think that donald trump understands this and it is the policy of the united states of america for north korea to get rid of its nuclear weapons. that is our policy. charlie: as a condition of
7:48 pm
talking get rid of your weapons? mike: yes. aren't going to normalize relations with you and war donald trump said, he would give them incredible credibility. charlie: south china sea. what should we be doing. potentially building bases there? mike: so, can i back up a second and take the 25,000 foot view and come back to the south china sea. and i think president obama and secretary clinton understand this perfectly. the most important bilateral relationship for the future of east asia yeah and the future of the world is the relationship between united states and beijing and there are two
7:49 pm
things, two things that are pulling us together in a good way and two things that are pulling us apart. the two things that are pulling us together are one, we both have an interest in the success of the chinese economy, particularly reforming the chinese economy. charlie: because of the impabblet of the chinese economy. mike: absolutely. two, and i base this on my own conversations with chinese officials, my counterparts, conversations with my counterparts in china, i believe there are a growing number of places in the world where our national security interests over lap than where they are in conflict and i believe there is potential for us -- charlie: do the chinese believe that?
7:50 pm
mike: yes and they are coming to understand it would be in their interests. two positive things. what are the two negative things? the two negative things, we both have large militaries on the same place on the planet. the pacific. so that means -- what does that mean? you have to plan for war against each other and you have to equip yourselves for war systems and exercise those systems. both sides see all three of those things. that leads to tensions and pulls you apart. charlie: they are upset about the fact that we seem to be increasing our relationship with india, vietnam and phillipines. mike: that comes us to the final point. and the final thing that is pulling us apart, we are the power in east asian we are a
7:51 pm
status quo power. they are a rising power and don't have a lot of power and they want more say. they want more say, we have it. how does that get resolved, right? there is an answer that president obama understands and secretary clinton understands and that is that we will give china more room to exercise influence if they play by the rules of the international order. so what does that mean? what does that mean? it means, for example, that i think it was a mistake for the united states of america to push back when china wanted to create a regional development. charlie: europe broke ranks right away. mike: so you don't push back on stuff like that where they are trying to play by the rules and push back on the south china sea
7:52 pm
stuff where they are breaking down the rules. charlie: tear down those islands. mike: that is the right approach and president obama has taken us down the road towards a big, better solution to this relationship long-term and i think she will continue in that direction. charlie: is it fair to say that since you were there and osama bin laden and all of that, but the two changes that are so apparent to decision makers today, one is cyber and the other is in a sense the rise of nonstate actors. mike: agree 100%. agree 100%. but i'd still list -- well, put it this way. terrorist attacks against the united states of america including the homeland is the number one threat. charlie: with that, the potential that they might
7:53 pm
acquire or buy some weapons of mass destruction. mike: yes. that is a serious issue. and the fastest growing threat and number two on the list is cyber, in all of its dimon shons from nation states to criminal ups groups to activists and all these people doing all these different things. charlie: what you have written about is the rise of pop you lism. mike: and in the united states. i was asked, charlie, i was asked by an australian think tank, they came to me and said, you know, you have analyzed the politics of or countries for 30 years, would you analyze your own and write something for us and i did. and in this piece i wrote, which was published a couple of weeks ago, i said there are three big
7:54 pm
dynamics here in the united states. ne is what i call income insecurity. there has been a whole bunch of people left behind by globalization and technology. charlie: they are attracted to the candidacy of donald trump. mike: bernie sanders said i will fix it with income distribution and donald trump who says i will fix it. charlie: or all billion trade. mike: and carry out trade deals and tell ford motor company you can't move to mexico. how do you do that? that's one. second, right, is a belief -- and that first one is not a small percentage of the population, because real incomes for american house holed for the
7:55 pm
majority has been going down. so this is real. this is a failure of our education system not to keep up with the changes. it's a whole different issue. the belief among a lot of people that establishment candidates, establishment politicians can't get anything done. charlie: because of the gridlock in washington? mike: those people went to nonestablishment candidates on both sides. 65% of the votes cast during the primaries were for nonestablishment candidates. and the third and this is sad for me to say, i believe there is some number of uneducated white americans who fear the browning of america, who fear the number and the influence of minorities in america manifested by the election of barack obama
7:56 pm
to the president and they are attracted to donald trump's zeen phobia and those are the three dynamics that launched him. and the first one, all three of them need to be addressed. all three of those things need to be addressed. she will do a much better job addressing those issues than he will. great to be with you, charlie. ♪ ♪
7:57 pm
7:58 pm
7:59 pm
8:00 pm
mark: good evening. we were going to bring you tonight's program, new polls, battleground states, donald trump attempts to avoid personal attacks. late today, the republican nominee scrambled our plans and created another firestorm. watch for yourself what donald trump said this afternoon at a rally. >> hillary wants to essentially abolish the second amendment.

127 Views

info Stream Only

Uploaded by TV Archive on