stephanie: good evening. i'm stephanie ruhle. john: i am john heilemann. with all due respect to those who thought kanye west would be the one to take out donald trump, not going to happen. mr. trump: kanye west, i will never say bad about him you know why? he loves trump! john: do you like heilemann? stephanie: the h? john: happy bowling the day. the religious rollcall and scott walker's national anthem, but first, donald trump's pledge of

allegiance. after meeting with reince previous, he said he had signed a pledge not to run as a third-party candidate if he loses his republican nomination bid. our colleagues at "bloomberg businessweek" have a story about trump's business acumen. we have both read this timeless piece by max abelson. i want to know, after digging into trump's business background, are you more or less impressed with him as a capitalist? stephanie: i was not impressed with him as a capitalist to begin with. he is this extraordinary american story. he almost makes me think of "dynasty." the grandison opulence of the 1980's, i -- grandness and opulence of the 1980's, ivana, marla maples. but as a businessman, baloney. john: he is iconic for a lot of americans. if you talk to voters, a lot of them think of trump as an icon

of capitalism. he has not built a lot of stuff. trump was once trying to be a builder. he is no longer a builder. he is a brander, and i don't think the fcc will find me if i bullshitne me if i say artist. he is rich, but what he is not is a builder. stephanie: he is a licensing genius. people like him for that, good for him. but in terms of what this guy could do as president, yikes. so-and-sooften says has had one or two people work for him, i've created thousands of jobs. stephanie: baloney. john: after the bankruptcies -- he did not go personally bankrupt, but after his troubles financially --not a lot of employment. stephanie: he is not creating jobs. you know who has created his success in terms of the selection -- this election?

the republican party, who have done nothing. we need a guy who speaks his mind and clearly that is what this guy is doing. john: you hear the bell? time to read. stephanie: kim davis, the county clerk in kentucky who refused to issue marriage licenses for same-sex couples, was jailed -- indefinitely-- for contempt today. republican 2016 presidential candidates have been weighing in on both sides of this issue. some call her brief for standing up for her beliefs. -- brave first and enough for her beliefs. others say she should follow the law of the land. purely in terms of politics, we have had everybody come out with views on this trip has the most to gain from their response? john: there are two clear camps and they are not surprising. rand paul, alll, saying this is a disgrace and they are on her side. stephanie: hold on, not a disgrace for what she said. by disgrace she is in jail --

john: those people on the far right, the christian conservative sentiment they think she should be allowed to defy the supreme court. -- and thenabout orina, chrisich, fi christie, saying the supreme court is the law of the land and you work for the government and have to issue these licenses. for some of these people on the farther right, although i think they are wrong on the substance, they have something to gain politically in that everybody is tried to figure out how to gain the evangelical voters. this is an issue where a guy like huckabee can get a lot of airtime. he will go to kentucky and stand with kim. the question i have for you -- whatever you think of her stance on this, jail time? indefinitely? for life? stephanie: there you have it. maybe this person should lose her job. you should not put your political or religious police ahead of what your job is -- beliefs ahead of what your job is.

maybe you shouldn't have that job. but in jail indefinitely? isn't there something better for the state of kentucky to do that for this woman in jail? john: she is in contempt of court and there has to be punishment for that could let's fine her. stephanie: i would rather not have my tax dollars keeping her in jail. john: smart economic sense. stephanie: uh oh, ding ding ding. are you doing a show tune? oh, my god. john: doing my best! as scott walker tries to reboot his campaign can use getting a big boost from his super pac. a group unveiled a new ad that will be part of a $7 million buy in iowa next week and it highlights walker's most important credential. >> madison, wisconsin, 2011. big union bosses lead a liberal activists in protest of governor scott walker's reforms. they stormed the capital can

even try to recall him. but scott walker never backs down. on the other side of the political aisle, there is joe biden, the vice president, who is fueling chatter about his aspirations by marching in a labor day parade with afl-cio resident richard trumka. unions,ans bash democrats cozy up to unions. has more to gain politically and financially? stephanie: the whole thing is tiring because why americans are so frustrated is they want political leaders to stand up for what they believe in, not way -- hillary clinton-style, what makes people like me more? how about being a candidate who stands up for what you believe in? john: these people are doing with their ideology tells them to do. the unions have been a great bogey for republicans for a long time. this video, the scott walker ad,

they look like isis storming some of middle eastern city. but the republicans, the is more of bashing them politically and financially advantageous in this sense -- a lot of rich people, you know some of them -- stephanie: without a doubt. john: hate unions of any kind and will write a big check to someone like scott walker famous for crushing unions. stephanie: carl icahn did not rescue casinos singly because unions stood in his way could he says that if these employees are willing to step out of their union contracts, i will hire them. because they wouldn't, he says go fish. john: it is also ecumenical. stephanie: almost what? john: even the democratic rich people hate the unions. stephanie: it stands in their way. if you are a super rich person, you don't want anything or blocking you. john: she is awesome. next, the candidate who says he shet resign as soon as

reaches the white house.

john: there is only one person in the oval office would make campaign finance reform is only issue on the trail. harvardlawrence lessig, professor and political activist who announced he is exploring a bid for the democratic nomination. he says he will jump in the she can raise $1 million by labor day, and he's getting close. recentlyn with lessig and asked him what he is doing what he is doing good explain the nature of the kind of campaign you are going to run. you said you would be a referendum resident. what does that mean? know from a one million different sources that if this were the issue we would win. john: this issue being? the corruption of

the system, the way we defile the foundations of the basic democracy. we don't have equal citizens anymore. in any sense we are not a for representative democracy. if we had a referendum on that, we would win. have it at the federal level. we have it in some states but not the federal level. why don't we passed a referendum resident, some of you says i am the referendum? if i am elected, i would do everything i could to pass that law and once it is passed him i would step down and my vice president would become president. two for the price of one candidate. john: that makes your running mate important. how early would you make that decision? mr. lessig: i have people i would love as a running mate for the decision has to be made based on who could make it .ertain this ticket could win

people who have been articulating the values of the democratic party in a really clear and consistent way has been inspiring the base of the democratic party. bernie has clearly done that. elizabeth warren has clearly done that. these other people who could rally the party enough to win and with a mandate enough to do since you have told me since the beginning of the time i have no you is impossible, to take on the power of washington, the corrupted power, and reform it. john: how do you explain your love affair with barack obama when he was doing the very thing you find so corrupting and immoral? mr. lessig: i don't see anything wrong with living by the rules of the game to get to office and change the rules of the game. i don't believe in unilateral disarmament, but i believe in barack obama. i was excited about barack obama because he went all across the country talking about the corrupting influence of money inside the system. the lobbyists were the problem with the system. if we don't change the way washington works, none of the reforms will matter. he was right about that. the problem is when he got to

washington, i imagine there was a conversation with rahm emanuel where he says i want to take on this corrupt system and rahm says "it can't happen." let's get onto to the other issues. so he gave up the moral mandate i think he had that would have been extraordinarily powerful to bring about this change. john: if a candidate like barack obama ran while collecting a vast amount of money and promising to change the system and doing nothing to change the system -- if that candidate, who you invested so much hope in, turned out to be untrustworthy on this issue, why is any candidate going to be trustworthy on this issue, including you? mr. lessig: well, because, barack obama and any other candidate can get elected and after having a number of important successes defined his and administration in terms of his successes. i think obama, in terms of turning the administration to the best it could possibly be, has been a brilliant president from that standpoint. i will only succeed if i succeed.

there is nothing else to measure me against except if i got this legislation passed in a speedy time so that a referendum presidency. there is no wiggle room for me. it is not like i can say i pardoned a bunch of people or went to afghanistan as a president. this for nothing. john: let me ask you a totally practical question. if you find yourself onstage with martin o'malley and jim webb and certainly bernie sanders and hillary clinton, your tactic will be what? you will turn every single question into a question about this, or will you debate policy towards iran, debate about health care? will you become a sufficient expert on that wide array of policy areas that you will take on this issues and develop a full-blown platform? mr. lessig: you know i am an expert on all those issues. john: ok, fair enough. mr. lessig: no, absolutely, i will take on those issues. john: you will be a full spectrum candidate. mr. lessig: absolutely.

it is incredibly important to try every one of those issues to this in quality point. some of them are just outside the scope. i've got to be able to acknowledge it and talk about it on the merits and recognize that people are electing people on the basis of what they expect is going to happen in the context of an emergency and that is totally appropriate, exactly the right kind of question. but if i were the referendum president, i would be a trustee for two different interests. one, i would be a trustee for the people to get this bill passed and as soon as we get it passed, i will step down. second, i would be a trustee for the vice president, because that person then has some job to make sure the administration reflects his or her judgment about the way things ought to be. thei am come in the end, president. i'm the person who needs to make the judgments and the calls. john: my very last question for you. i believe many people who are your friends, and your foes, will describe this endeavor with

one word, quixotic. do you reject that label or embrace it? mr. lessig: i don't think this will be quixotic. but i will say even if it were quixotic, if there were a one out of one million chance, if you believe this is the most important moral issue of the time, and the only price i pay is people make fun of me and maybe for zeb eckert see, but ok, -- personal bankru ptcy, but ok, if i have a chance of moving the needle on the most important moral issue of the day, absolutely. i'm happy to increase whatever chance it takes. i actually think that people are so frustrated that this is not quixotic, that people will rally in a way they rallied in another context. but if they don't and it turns out to be just moving the needle and getting this issue in the center of the debate, that is enough for me. john: our thanks to lawrence lessig.

when we come back monday film about the black panthers, the party, the movement. my conversation with the director after this.

>> second amendment guarantees the right to bear arms on public property. >> we are going to maintain a legal distance ready to throw down if necessary. >> anyone who would approve this kind of demonstration must be out of their minds. john: that is a clip from "the black panthers: vanguard of the revolution," which premiered yesterday and go. i sat down with the director, stanley nelson, and asked him what led him to chronicle the rise and fall of the black panther party. stanley: i saw this different way of looking, different way of being, and i was fascinated about it. as i got into film making, i thought it was incredible story that hadn't been told him with great, larger-than-life characters, a story that wasn't

known. there was great footage and .usic it seemed like a perfect topic to make a film on. john: right. when you think about that moment -to-late-1960s, the transpiration of the civil rights movement, the splintering of it, you know have -- now have the black power movement, stokely carmichael, giving rise to a more radicalized view. talk about what was going on in oakland when the black panthers started, how the movement started. it's of particular relevance to the discussions we are having today in america. stanley: sure. the panthers started in 1966 in oakland, california. the police were notoriously brutal to the african-american community. the panthers were a group of guys who were in college and said we have to do something about this that they formed a group, they call themselves the black panthers. what they did was they decided they would police the police.

in california at that time, you could carry a loaded weapon as long as you carried it in the open. they would follow the police, when the police would jump out to do a traffic stop or to confront summary on the street. -- confront somebody on the street. the panthers would stay 10, 20 feet away, and make sure there was no violence that occurred in the stop. john: there was a period from 1966 to 1970, 1971, when the group was probably at its peak, in 60 or 70 cities around the country from where many people of authority in america consider them a great threat. j edgar hoover said they were the greatest threat to internal security in america. what was it that was so threatening, given the inspiration of the group, which was to monitor police and make sure police brutality didn't take place? what happened in those four years that caused so much of white law enforcement and the white power structure to freak out about the black panthers? stanley: the panthers were in

some ways a victim of their own success. the image that first came to the public was these black men with guns. they had in oakland. but that really didn't last long . very quickly after that, they changed the law in california and said ok, you can carry a gun. john: perhaps there was some relationship between those two things. stanley: after that, the panthers changed in a lot of ways. but that was the image that was in people's minds. even worse, that was the image that was in j gruber's -- j edgar hoover's mind, the director of the fbi, who went ballistic and went all out to do anything he could do destroy the panthers. john: you talk about the great characters in this movie. let's talk quickly about some of these characters, who were incredibly glamorous in some ways. he we knew it in, bobby seal, newton,e cleaver -- huey bobby seale, eldridge cleaver could talk about those

characters and how they were received by the pop-culture consciousness. newton and bobby seale were the founders of the party in college. huey newton was a real intellectual he was beautiful, and credibly prismatic incredibly good-looking -- and credibly prismatic, credibly good-looking. after ato jail early on shootout with an oakland police officer and he was in jail. nobody saw huey. there was this huge "free huey" movement. huey"ody knew "free even though many didn't know who he was. bobby seale had been an entertainer, something you like and love and was a great spokesperson. aldridge cleaver joins the party and eldridge cleaver had just gotten out of jail. but aldridge cleaver had written ," whilek, "soul on ice in prison, and the book was in

the top 10 of the "new york times" best sellers. you have this guy who is this literary star who says i will join this group. that helps to increase the mystique of the black panthers. john: you talk about how the group changed and they started doing other things it like a lot of groups on the left and they started caring about community health and education and other things in inner city areas. but again, the image of them was for a lotful, right, of people come one of the most social-literary journalism is one tom wolfe chic, andt radical the leonard bernstein fundraiser for the black panthers in new york city in 1970 or so. what was it about the black panthers that was so seductive, in your view, to certain segments of the white left? stanley: i think the panthers were seductive to everybody.

they were great and using the media. they had this look we had never seen before. rightsditional civil movement was martin luther king, ralph abernathy. very church-based. but these men and women with afros and berets and sunglasses, they looked very cool. nobody had ever seen a black man with his finger pointed in a white man's face. "look, you've got to do this!" we had never seen that in the history of the country. you could be killed for that. but that is who the panthers were. it was a whole different, aggressive attitude that people hadn't seen. it was seductive for a lot of different groups. john: one of the most striking things of this summer to me has been the double success, kind of unexpected success, of the movie "straight outta compton." what is the through line for you between this movie and where we are right now in terms of the very same issues that the black

panthers were confronting in the late 1960's and the african-american committees are facing now with the police? stanley: the black panthers started 50 years ago, most of his equity 50 years ago this year, and they started as a result of police brutality, as a way to confront this police brutality, that was going on in the african-american community. we are 50 years later and we are still in the same place. part of the reason why we are in the same place is that has never been healed. it was still in the same place. it was never rectified. here we are in the exact same place and we have groups again saying that this is something we have to do for ourselves. we can't wait. black lives -- we are losing e and how do we correct that ourselvess. john: when we come back, deflategate.

john: of federal judges sided with new england patriot quarterback tom brady today. brady, lying, cheating scumbag, or american hero? stephanie: who has lost here,

seriously? roger goodell. was it worth it to go to the mat over this? john: bloombergjohn: politics.com. until tomorrow, for me and stephanie, sayonara.

alix: we are moments away from the closing bell. i'm alix steel. david: and i'm in for joe weisenthal. [closing bell ringing] alix: u.s. stocks closing mixed after the erasing an earlier rally. investors are looking to tomorrow morning's jobs report. david: the question is "what'd you miss?" alix: could september be the best time to raise rates? why one top economist thinks this month is the charm. david: plus jobs, jobs, jobs. we will have the top charts you must see before the numbers cross.