with all due respect to lindsey >> i am campbell brown. >> graham, we suggest you control-alt-delete your comment about never having sent an email. we are close to 100% certain that you do not know what that means. >> happy national meatball day sports fans. in our lineup tonight, ayatollahs, ay carambas, and iowa. first, start the official countdown clock. a source said hillary clinton might talk about email-gate, email-ghazi, email teapot dome within 48 hours. politico says it will probably

be at a gotham city press conference. president obama spoke about the controversy over the weekend and while he spoke kindly about his former secretary of state, he hardly gave her e-mail practices a ringing defense. campbell brown, my friend what , exactly when hillary does speak, what does she need to say or do to put this mess behind her? >> i do not think you can say anything. i don't see how a press conference solves the problem. i don't see how anything solves this problem except for releasing every single one of these e-mails and hoping that they do not create any new problems when you do release them. that is there not something there. >> how likely do you think that is? >> i mean, why hasn't she already done it? is it really because they are just vetting them, or is there something there? >> i think there has to be two things. it is say and do. i agree about the do part. there is no doubt -- >> what does she need to say? >> she has not met the press in so long, this reinforces all kinds of bad narratives. she needs to have the right attitude. she needs to get up and do press conference.

she needs to answer every question. one of those last dog dies press conferences. not where she takes four questions, one where she takes all the questions. she needs to answer them in a tone of humility and humor and forthrightness. if she looks paranoid or defensive that will compound her looks problems in addition to her substantive problems. >> can you recall when she has done that and it has been successful? going back to the idea that playing into the narrative of what people think about her which is that the clintons work best and they are happiest when they are in full blown bunker mentality. >> that is true. she goes back and forth. she has had moments with the press corps where she has been charming and funny. there are a lot of moments when she has not been. i think the stakes are very high with this press conference. this is the first press conference she will have done with hostile questioners since she left the state department. she didn't see very many hostile questioners there. everyone in the world will be paying attention to her style points and i hope she falls us

-- i hope she has been practicing a lot. the glare of everybody will be on her. >> and not much practice the way the republicans have because she has not had a reason to be out there. and, -- >> she has delayed starting this campaign, she has not held the -- build up a political infrastructure, she has not had a strong voice making arguments for her so the weight of the whole thing falls squarely on her shoulders. i cannot remember in this cycle so far that carries as much weight as this press conference. >> i hope she comes out and says i will put it out on the table , and reporters can decide. the e-mail scandal is just one more thing. the second is, in light of the e-mail controversy, senator chuck grassley is ramping an inquiry into her unusual hiring practices.

certain employees could work for her while at the same time working in the private sector. a new york times story says the clinton foundation accepted millions of dollars from middle eastern countries that are about as nice to women as frank underwood is to journalist. that issue came up over the weekend during an interview with bill clinton. >> there are more than 300,000 people who have country rated -- contributed money to the work we have done over the years. and i believe we have done a lot more good than harm. and i believe this is a good thing so i am going to tell you who gave us the money and you can make your decision. >> make up your mind after that. >> clinton's tenure as secretary of state once seen as one of her greatest assets it is now becoming a liability? >> no doubt. she was at her most popular when she was secretary of state, way more than that any other time in her career. she has been sucked back into the political fray.

we have not talked about the benghazi hearings that will go on and the subpoenas coming out of that. we could parse this a little bit. but boy, she has got a lot of problems that are going into the nexus of the foundation and the state department. >> i do not think the issue of taking donations from middle eastern countries that are not so great with women are going to hurt her when she makes acacia -- makes the case that she has been the champion of women. who else are the voters going to go to? not scott walker or jeb bush. foreign policy has reasserted itself and there are republicans who are out there arguing in light of the e-mail scandal what is she trying to hide? the world has gone crazy and it happened on her watch but i would argue that she still has the experience and she will be able to make that case and when she was running against junior senators and governors who do not have experience, that is a powerful case to make.

>> i agree with you about the donors thing, to a point. i think the women who love hillary will love her no matter what. but if you look at this list what she achieved as secretary of state, she did not do something big. she did not bring middle east peace. she said i was a champion for women and girls. you look at the donations and the uae and other countries, algeria, brunei these are brutally oppressive regimes to women and makes her seem like a phony. even if it doesn't cost or any belts it takes away the bragging , rights of being able to say she is a great champion of feminist causes around the world. >> the clinton foundation's donation in general will be an issue. a huge issue. >> it is a rat's nest. i totally agree with that. there will be a lot of digging. speaking of countries that have not so good rating on women's rights, unless the senate approves nuclear deal he could be voided once he is no longer president. the president and his people are outraged.

today some republicans are seeking to establish a back channel with hard-liners in iran. putting aside the rhetoric, you think this type of republican hardball will force obama, although he does not need to legally, seek congressional approval for deals with iran? >> it may have been republicans who signed the letter but this is a bipartisan concern. it is bob menendez who is trying to force presidential agreement. >> it is hard for me not to make a bob menendez joke. >> i can see it in your face. you have that issue on the table, which is that there is a lot of division in congress over this. public support is very much where congress is, and not where the president is. if you look at the polling, or was huge support for netanyahu after the speech. it was a fox news poll but there was a poll that said something like 60% of americans support

boots on the ground to do with isis. the president has not made a case for not bringing in much more. >> people are being sophistic when they bring in this argument. it isn't a treaty, so he does not need congressional approval. it may be legally true, but politically speaking this is a huge issue with global political, and strategic implications. the president has a split congress, a split senate. it will be a bad thing. i think he must go politically and seek, get their advice and consent. frankly, these hardball moves, you cannot ram this thing through if you do not have public and bipartisan support. >> this is not his strong suit. this is not what the president is good at. dealing with congress, he has a history of problems with congress. it is very hard to see how they will turn on a dime and say we will work to bring everybody around the table on this. >> i agree but he must.

i just think he must in this instance. it is one of these things were -- where he has benefited a lot through unilateral action. republicans are in the way and i will do what i am going to do. climate change, i will do what i'm going to do. this is not one of these issues. there will be too much opposition from israel. there are too many americans who are rightly concerned about a nuclear armed iran. you have to be able to build a case for this and have broad consensus. >> this is becoming a litmus test for republican candidates to say if you become the next president are you going to honor this deal are not and they are saying no. >> across the board. >> this weekend, speaking of republican candidates the guys who are probably running for president convened at the iowa ag summit that was so on the record that mark halperin streamed the whole thing. also, and aei summit which was so off the record that i was there. that is all i can say about that.

going into the weekend, jeb bush and scott walker were the front runners as of now. john are there any others who , qualified for that top-tier status? >> was the food good? can you see anything about the food? >> not saying. >> this woman has incredible journalistic credibility. scott walker and jeb bush were the front runners coming out. i do not think anyone else is in the top tier. there are some candidates who have the potential. i would say marco rubio is one of them. i think he is about to have his moment in the sun. i think rand paul because of the fact that he has the support the hard-core supportive not the majority but a real wing of the party, he pulls strong not , number one but he polls strong in iowa and he is pushing up against the candidates but they are the ones who are in the zone

of top-tier if not their area. -- there yet. >> let me ask you this about rand paul. foreign policy is asserting itself is a major issue. given where he is on foreign policy, this idea and the country was there, the fatigue from the iraq war, they are not there anymore. that will really hurt him in terms of reaching out to a broader coalition. >> no doubt that the country is not wary of war. i would argue the country is more weary of war than you might say. no doubt among neocons, people with hardline views, you will not win with those people. there is a part of the republican base he will appeal to. can he build on that? >> i agree with you about marco rubio and i would also argue chris christie. most of the donors have rallied around jeb bush and scott

walker, and they remain the front two. but in this age of the super pac all it takes is one or two big donors to give you the money to get yourself into the game, and then it takes a breakout moment, and maybe that happens on the debate stage. maybe summit he makes a mistake. but those two have talent in their ability to communicate. marco rubio on foreign policy has extraordinary knowledge. probably only next to hillary clinton. >> he has generational appeal. there is a cadre of republicans looking for their own barack obama. that can be marco rubio but chris christie, i am not ready to stick a fork in him. he is not right now at the edge of the top tier. >> why >> >> he has not raised enough money and the base does not like him, his staff is not strong, he is not their area. could he have that? if you months or now but not now. i am supposed to sing the theme. that is how it goes. americans have ideas about who

should replace jon stewart. a poll says tina fey is the top choice. dennis miller came in second, brian williams is down there with 7%. who you got? >> i cannot imagine dennis miller. hasn't he gone right wing? you are going to replace jon stewart -- that will never happen. tina fey. without question. she is by far the most talented, funniest on that list. >> i love tina fey she is , fantastic. i will watch any series she does. but not for this job. chelsea handler is the woman i wanted in this job. she is fantastic. she is vulgar she is smart, she

has done talk shows before, and she has handled political stuff. chelsea handler is my gal. coming up someone to defend , hillary clinton because he is an expert on defending the clintons. lenny davis is next. ♪

>> our guest tonight is a veteran defender of the clintons and that is why he is here with us. former white house special counsel lenny davis. when is the last time you spoke to hillary clinton? >> i spoke to her and president clinton at the wednesday night gala at the great foundation that does a lot of great works. wednesday night. >> so recently. various outlets are reporting

that secretary clinton will do a press conference, or do some kind of media availability, over the next couple days in new york to address the e-mail controversy. i'm curious, what is the work she needs to get done at the press conference? how should she do it? >> i have no direct confirmation of that. ima friend, and i have no official status. let me clear that up. she simply has to answer the question, why do you do it with both official and private messages on one blackberry. i'm guessing her answer will be nothing nefarious, because the facts do not support that nefarious interpretation. it will be purely convenience easier to do it that way knowing it would have to be separated and turned over to the department at some point between personal and business. and that is exactly what happened. >> she is not new to this. it makes you wonder why for the sake of convenience, she knows that she has an obligation to history and the role she is into to make sure that information is available. it is hard to imagine that you

make a decision like that for the sake of convenience. >> if she knows at the time which i believe she did, that nothing is deletable and all is recoverable, and that she intended to turn everything over, and she did. the only secretary of state asked by the state department to do so is hillary clinton. she has said make them all public. they have to be preserve double and recoverable. there is no delete argument or fact here. i do not think she did anything illegal. we have the top lawyer of the archives administration quoted by "the new york times" and he said on cnn last saturday he did -- she did nothing illegal. >> putting aside the legality question it is not convenient to go and get an i.t. department to build a server at your home where you can establish a parallel e-mail operation. the government has the e-mail operation that is there in that is secure. the convenient thing would be

to take the state department e-mail. she built a separate thing for i am not sure what reason. she is not turned over all of her e-mails. she has turned over 55,000 pages but not all of them. why should she be in the position of determining which she should retain when she currently has all control and no one has any idea what is in them. why should she be the one to make that determination? >> you said a few things i would like to take issue with. why should she be the only one? like anybody else whether it is: colin powell or any other secretary of state they will be , asked what was private, was official. everyone is in the same boat. as to whether she will be second-guessed on 55,000, 90% of the e-mails, she has already said, went to state department people using her e-mail address.

everyone who receive the e-mails not only knew she was using it but has it on the servers. i think she would say, i have turned everything over, i am ready to make them public. i have not done anything wrong or nothing illegal according to the top lawyer of the archives administration. >> if you were advising her, what would you have said to her? would you have advised her to go forward the way she has? >> to put on my crisis manager hat with the wisdom of hindsight , and i know both of you and you know that i am always get it out early yourself. that was a book i wrote. in this case with the wisdom of , hindsight, immediately let everybody know you are doing this and get every possible e-mail out and then, in answer to john's question if the state department looks at the 55000 and they say we would like to see the 10% that we did not see she has to say yes to that. if a congressional subpoena asks for the 10%, she has to respond

to that in an appropriate fashion. i do not see any illegality cover-up. i'm sorry to go on, can i address the issue of security? i do not think i accept that her server was less secure than the state department's and if you are not convinced of that, let me use one word, wikileaks or another name, snowden. security is probably equal, or less, in either place. >> you have a phd in clinton scandalology. you have seen it all. whitewater, the billing records all of them. where at this point he thinks in -- in terms of severity political not legal, where does this rank compared to the other scandals from years past? >> my opinion, definitely down

about where the travel office was, which is much a do about nothing. we remind you of a major scandal, thousands of column inches, headlines, and the possibility of a criminal indictment called whitewater. that was so serious that after $70 million, kenneth starr's successor said, no wrongdoing. this is after three years of near hysteria. >> i appreciate your time. thank you. we will take a short break and then we will help senator lindsey graham set up his e-mail account. we will be right back. ♪

>> on meet the press on sunday senator lindsey graham shocked the world. it wasn't about iran are running for president. it is that he does not know how to use e-mail, today, in 2015. so we called up our tech

support to see if he could give senator graham eight tutorial. >> you have reached congressional tech support. how can i help you? >> i don't e-mail. >> you don't e-mail? >> i don't need e-mail. i never sent one. >> i am happy to set that up for you. i am accessing your screen. have you thought about a username? >> here is what i worry about. >> a username is nothing to worry about. typing what you would like your e-mail address to be. i see you have typed presin16@senate.gov. does this mean you are a presidential candidate? everyone else just uses their name. don't you think lindsey graham might be most appropriate? >> i do not agree with that at all. >> let's try sending an e-mail. it's really easy. type in any name. like hillary clinton. >> did they have a private

e-mail account? >> you are right. as a senator you should stay away from personal e-mails. how about we send a test to help@senate.gov. >> i don't e-mail. >> senator, you will have to try. everybody uses e-mail. >> i have never sent one. >> sir, it is it is the only way 2015. to effectively communicate with people in real time. sure, bcc and reply all are confusing. you have to do this. >> no. >> campbell? >> i am not sure he is telling the truth. >> the internet is not a giant set of tubes. that is what he has to know. >> have a good one. we will be right back. ♪

>> we're live 24/7 on bloombergpolitics.com. campbell, what are you looking at on the site? >> a martin o'malley story and

more about hillary. >> up next, we have "taking stock." it is time for both of us

>> i am pimm fox and this is what i am "taking stock" of on monday, march 9, 2015. euro finance ministers are demanding more from greece. ministers met in brussels and told greek officials they must act quickly in following through with reforms in order to receive more money. greek officials say the country will come through. >> it would never be completed in one day. but it will come to fruition day by day and way before the deadline. >> the apple watch's time has come. today in san francisco, chief executive tim cook showed off the latest product.