john: i'm john heilemann. mark: and i'm mark halperin. "with all due respect" to donald trump, who called senator sanders "crazy bernie," i think that nickname is already taken. >> crazy donald. mark: on the show tonight, donald trump's data shrug and hillary clinton's email mug. and paul ryan's ryan's dilemma to hug or not to hug. the gop presumptive nominee has a series of meetings scheduled, but the focus will be trump's tête-à-tête with paul ryan, who held back his support.

the tension between the two top republicans has been toned down somewhat. a story by the new york times, trump is defiant in an interview about walking into their meetings. in a pregame capitol hill press conference, ryan was more conciliatory, saying he wanted to find common ground with his party's presumptive nominee. speaker ryan: to pretend we are unifying without unifying, we are going at half strength. we need a real unification of our party. after a tough primary, that will take effort. we are committed to putting effort in. i want to be a part of the unifying process so that we are at full strength this fall so that we can win the election. this is a big tent party. there is plenty of room for policy disputes.

we come from different wings of the party. the goal is to unify various wings around common principles. mark: obviously no matter how well the meetings go tomorrow, trump and ryan will have differences. what are the areas where they can come together and show a unified front? john: well, i think they can probably unify around the common goal of beating hillary clinton. let me see, what else? on policy, no. if you believe where donald trump is now, if ryan and trump have something in common on social policy. not on immigration. they might have common ground on foreign policy. when it comes to fiscal policy, i don't see a lot of overlap. mark: i agree. the main thing they say can say they must do everything to beat hillary clinton to get republicans reelected, and to

raise money for republicans. the main thing they can agree on tomorrow is to come out saying, they are working together. i don't think it will be ever easy for ryan to endorse trump in a full throated way. if he can convince ryan that he can win, i think that will put more pressure on ryan to endorse. you are seeing a lot more republican members of congress saying, this is our nominee, deal with it. all the controversy that has been swirling about donald trump's unreleased tax returns has swirled even more in the last 24 hours since an interview in which he said he doesn't expect to release his tax returns before the november election. then mitt romney to facebook, again called on trump to release his tax returns, warning the nation that "there is a bombshell in there."

trump used his preferred social media megaphone, twitter, and said "in interview, i told @ap that my taxes are under routine audit. i will releas them when audit is complete, not after election!" john, will trump pay a price if he doesn't release his taxes before election day? john: one thing, the clinton campaign will try really hard to make donald trump pay a price for not releasing his tax returns. the other is that it is our job, your job, my job, our job in the press to make sure that trump does pay a price. it is obscene given the president that he would not have something close to full financial disclosure for the voters to determine what is in there. we all need to keep the pressure

on him. this is something that matters a lot. mark: there is a rule in washington, when something is famous for not being released, eventually the person not releasing it must release it. donald trump's tax returns are about to get famous. she can say all you want about the audit. the pressure will be unrelenting. the conventional wisdom has been, democratic and critics of romney -- if the democratic and republican critics of romney a great, that puts pressure on him. i think the trump coalition looks at the politicians on both parties. trump is the outsider running up the middle. i am not sure that criticism is going to hurt. john: i think he meant the critics of trump. look, this is our job. i know the bell is going off, but when they divert from

standard practice, we must be the ones who hold his feet to the fire. not let him talk about the audit. the audit has nothing to do with this. he should release his taxes. we should keep pushing him to do that until he finally does. every day we learn a bit more about how donald trump's campaign is likely to operate. trump as on a handful of interviews with newspapers and tv outlets. the presumptive gop nominee does not plan to invest in the kind of sophisticated voter data operation that barack obama and other candidates have done over the past campaign cycles. trump told the associated press, "i always felt it was overrated." trump went on and said "i think

the same is going to be true of me." he said he will rely on the buzz made by his massive rallies. told the new york times "in a broadway theater, the best is called word-of-mouth. it's better than if you write a good review. word-of-mouth is the number one thing. word-of-mouth at my rallies is like, you have to go see it." mark, here is the real question. is donald trump a mad genius, or is he just plain mad? mark: it's not an either/or choice. if you are the smart campaign, you would do both. you would have big rallies also have a grand operation. i am not sure the trump campaign could build the kind of data-driven thing they needed to build.

i think the rnc has done some of that. trump is right to continue to emphasize the reality that if he's going to win, it will be with a different kind of campaign. man, if he loses a close race, and the clinton people are able to build this, it will cost the republicans the white house. john: you are in the vicinity of the truth on this. i think he is making a virtue out of a necessity. there is no way he could build barack obama's data machine, which is the most sophisticated thing anyone has done in politics. he is trying to make a virtue out of necessity. he will be at a pronounced disadvantage without that kind of data operation. that will leave him

disadvantaged against hillary clinton. mark: if you go to single women and hispanics, where he has to improve his standing, those voters need to be targeted. they need to find issues where they have common ground. if you're not targeting, you are going to find them. john: you have to target them and turn them out. data is key to that. trump will be way behind on this, however he spends it. coming up, is hillary clinton winning the argument that a losing streak isn't going to hurt her campaign? more on that after a word from our sponsors. ♪

♪ john: last night bernie sanders clobbered hillary clinton in the west virginia primary, winning the state 51% to 35%. even before the polls closed, in dissipating defeat, clinton's campaign manager sent out an e-mail to campaign donors. that was obtained by bloomberg politics. the e-mail reassured them there is practically nothing that could stop hillary clinton from winning the nomination. it said "although a number of contests in may structurally favorite bernie sanders, the outcomes will not change the directory of the primary. even if sanders wins 9 of the rating states by 30 points, and redundant will have earned the majority of popular vote and pledged delegates." mark we have said, and i believe

correctly, that clinton can fight a two front war. did west virginia change the reality of what a possible losing streak can do? mark: i think it doesn't change it fundamentally now. if the exit polls continue to include data that is not helpful in fronting her support for the general election. it is past time when the campaign can say that it is structurally at that state. she is the front-runner. she is the certain nominee by almost every account. but she got lost in a state that she beat barack obama in badly eight years ago. it wasn't a great night for her symbolically. it is not a problem as long as she gets the circuit breaker going and wins decently in california and new jersey in june. john: in the end, it's probably doesn't matter that much. one way it matters, she is

clearly getting pulled to the left, as we have seen on health care. as he continues to have strength, she continues to feel that tug. setting contrast with these polls that show trump doing well against her in battleground states, it heightens sanders' determination to stay in. it would be a lot better for her to put this thing away. to shut it down, win some contests and tell him to stop and claim the nomination. mark: it's time, again, to start talking about hillary clinton's damn email. the fbi's investigation into the handling of lesser five materials has made more headlines. the state department said it was having trouble finding e-mails from the staffer that set up clinton's home server.

an aide abruptly left an fbi interview after investigators asked about a topic that they agreed would be off-limits. the fbi investigation is expected to be wrapped up in the next month. cindy blumenthal, the longtime clinton out light, and a frequent user of email, defended the former secretary on cable news. >> my understanding is that this is a security review. it is not a criminal investigation. >> it is an investigation. >> it is an inquiry into whether someone intentionally put classified information where it shouldn't be. i am sure that the department of justice is not a political investigation at all. it wants to resolve this as quickly as possible. when they do, they will issue a statement. mark: that phrase, security inquiry, has been used not just by blumenthal, but by a lot of

the clinton campaign officials. the head of the fbi is now saying that he is not even familiar with that term. john, knitting all these strands together, where do you think it stands now with hillary clinton and her darn e-mails? john: seeing cindy blumenthal on television is giving me a heavy 1990's lsd flashback. the clinton e-mail scandal is going to be a lot like benghazi. i know i will make people go crazy by saying that. people on the right that will never vote for clinton anyway will seize on this. they will always claim the investigation is never complete. no matter where we end up, they will call her "crooked hillary." for most voters, it won't matter when it comes down to the fall campaign. mark: most people i have talked to about the investigation are

confident that she will not be charged with a crime. no one will probably be charged with a crime. there might not even be a grand jury. but that what is dangerous is that the investigation leading beyond the e-mail server, or perhaps fbi agents leaking things that don't amount to crimes, but political problems. that would fall far short of what the republicans who are banking on this are counting on. john: coming up, what a trump or clinton administration would mean for the world as we know it. david sanger from the new york times joins us right after this. ♪

john: this morning we were in washington where we hosted a discussion with former presidential candidate lindsey graham. he has been one of trump's toughest critics. tonight he said some not-100% mean things about the donald. that is not to say that he laid off totally. to start off, we have graham warming to trump on a specific issue, raising the minimum wage. sen. graham: i think trump is onto something. raising the minimum wage would be bad now for the economy because it is pretty shaky. it is hard to do business. the concept of raising the

minimum wage i would put on the table as part of the bigger deal. i would tell any democrat that if you get a yes on raising the minimum wage in a rational and logical way -- i think donald is onto something talking about minimum wage differently. he is onto something saying that it should be ordinary income versus capital gains rates. the goal for the republicans to say that i am for the working man, not just for the rich man -- woman, working woman. i think he is instinctively onto something, trying to broaden the party's appeal to working folks. john: those may be the nicest words you have used about donald trump, at least in my memory. sen. graham: yeah, and you got a long memory. john: what you think about this? mark: it is an indicator of a

guy that is just dealing with the reality. if he wins, let's have him win and govern the right way. graham is looking for opportunities to identify areas where he agrees with trump. john: i also think lindsey graham -- there are not many republicans that are as acute as lindsey graham, that raising the minimum wage is a political winner. more republicans would be smart if they embraced it. graham was notably more pointed when talking about trump's standing with hispanic voters. john: what is more dangerous to the future of your party, donald trump winning or losing? sen. graham: it depends on how he loses, and what he did if he won. the demographic problems we have in 2012, he has made worse. we did an analysis of the 2012 campaign.

how did obama win, when every indicator was that he should lose? we did well with young white women, with hispanics. what happened? when you ask hispanics, what don't you like about the republican party? it's not conservatism, it's just this illogical impractical solution to immigration. if you told me in 2013 that 2016 would be running on forced deportation, we've got problems. to this hispanic community, i get it why you don't like us. who is going to vote for someone that is going to deport your grandmother?

mark: i think this is the area that paul ryan will certainly raise as well. they must change trump's tone to have a fighting chance to win the election and to not set the party's image back against nonwhite voters. john: lindsey graham has been on this issue for a long time. he is mortified by the turn that the party has taken. i am not sure that damage is fixable, given the tone trump has taken. forced deportation, which is still trump's policy posture, is a huge political killer for the republican party. one more piece of tape here. we were surprised that lindsey graham took a page from donald trump's playbook and gave him a nickname. mark: if you took the party

labels off the candidates and looked at their records, which do you think would be more likely to bring about more robust economic growth? sen. graham: i think donald trump would think outside the box. hillary clinton is more of a traditional politician. donald trump can look at old problems anew, to talk about the minimum wage being on the table. taxing people at higher rates in hedge funds. things that most republicans would be reluctant to talk about. the energy about taking the system and turning it upside down it's the moment. that is what i think. crazy loses to crooked. if he's new and different, i think he can win. new in different is better than

being crazy, if that makes sense. that is his challenge. to show that he is capable of handling the stress. and her challenge is to show that she's got leadership skills. john: the formulation that crooked hillary beats crazy donald. but a possibility that trump can change himself from crazy donald to new and different donald. mark: to put this in the context of what we talked about, lindsey graham spent as much time as any other republican trying to strategize. is there a way to stop donald trump from being the nominee? he has switched his political thinking to, how can trump win in a way that will be good for the republican party? that is the apparent shift of one man.

but not an insignificant player in the party, both as an actor that was dead set against trump, but also representative of a lot of republicans -- he might not be our choice, but he is our nominee. john: we talked to him for about 20-25 minutes. it was interesting. he said some critical things, and also thanks that were not so critical. his tone is really 180 degrees from where it was, unrelentingly harsh just a few days ago. our thanks to lindsey graham for sitting with us this morning. we will be back with the new york times news man, david sanger, right after this. ♪ [ soft music ]

e.t. phone home. when you find something you love,

you can never get enough of it. change the way you experience tv with xfinity x1. mark: joining us now is new york times national security correspondent, david sanger. we are going to talk about two big stories in asia -- president

obama's trip later this month to hiroshima. most americans will say what does that mean even if they know what happened. what's the symbolic importance of this visit? david: it's fascinating because there's different expectations on each side. americans don't think that much about hiroshima. my father was the flight director on a destroyer at iwo jima and okinawa. the bomb is viewed by his generation as something that saves tens of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands of american lives. in hiroshima, the view is entirely different. they were walking around and suddenly out of the sky drops this device that kills 100,000 people, more after the radiation. and that it was an unnecessary

brutal use of a new weapon. so the president will have to navigate the minefield of these two completely different narratives. the white house says he's not going to make an apology, and yet at the same time, he has to further what he talked about in the 2008 campaign -- this vision of a world without nuclear weapons. something many of his critics have argued he has not made much progress to and may have taken a few steps back. mark: so the message is not that using nuclear weapons against the japanese was wrong, but we should show that they should never be used again and that's a message that plays in both countries? david: it is. many veterans groups say this is a continuation of an obama apology tour. many in japan will view the absence of an apology as a problem. so even for a man of a phenomenal rhetorical skills,

this is going to be a hard speech to write. john: you mentioned president obama's nuclear nonproliferation objective. one area where it seems he failed notably was north korea. i think it is incredibly important it seems like the u.s. has concluded north korea has the capacity to launch nuclear weapons. tell us about the significance of this moment. david: the big success for obama was the iran nuclear agreement. he cap it ran for the next 10 or 15 years from gathering material for a nuclear weapon. the great failure would he north korea, but it's a failure that had many fathers, going back to george h.w. bush, bill clinton,

george w. bush, all of whom view this as too complex to deal with because the north koreans have had capacity to attack soul and do great damage before they would ultimately lose. as you kick things down the can, they north koreans gain more capability. and it's interesting that you have not heard a word of dissent from the intelligence community -- they now have the capacity to put that weapon on a short range missile which could hit troops in south korea or japan and of course the japanese islands. you have heard that downplayed to some degree. they don't want to panic their populations, understandably. john: if your story is correct, it would seem north korean proliferation would be right at the top of the foreign-policy

agenda as they get ready to run for president. talk about hillary clinton and donald trump. do they have stances on nonproliferation? do they talk about this particular threat? david: mr. trump in his interview a month and a half ago talks about pulling back from japan and pulling troops back if those countries to. make a greater contribution to their own defense. japan probably pays more than anybody for the presence of americans, about $2 billion year. if japan and south korea and that going nuclear, which he said he had no problem with, you could see this arms race taking off. i'm not sure that is a fully thought out position yet. when he gave his foreign-policy speech, he did not repeat that

decision about japan and south korea. we have not heard much other than the threat that if they ever used a weapon, they would come to regret it. for secretary clinton, the hard part is the fundamental decision to focus on iran and try what they call strategic patience with the north koreans. she was very tuned in to the north korean issue, especially as a senator. she was pretty focused on that as secretary of state, she's part of an administration that decided to push the issue off while dealing with a treaty with russia and with the iran issue. mark: thank you very much. coming up, a republican and democrat and margaret talib walk into a tv studio. you won't believe what happened next. john: you can listen to us on the radio. we will be right back. ♪

mark: do you find yourself confused about the upcoming general election? do you questions about the candidates in this race? have you been injured by donald trump's comments? ginsburg and don may sound like the name of a law firm but it happens to be the names of our next guest. my colleague is also with us on board. guest: we have so much to talk about. can we start with donald trump? can he get away with not

releasing his tax returns? there may be an irs component. he has set a couple of different things. one is when the audit is over, he might be willing to do it. it appears he has told the associated press not until after the election. what kind of ground would it break and how big a deal would it be? guest: i think tax returns are one of those wonderful things the press likes a lot. having to work for a candidate that has tried to delay it, it builds up the pressure for when the taxes do come out and you do have to release them as part of the due diligence voters are going to do before the election. i think he probably will on his timetable. guest: if you recall the release of his so-called medical records, it was a release from doctors that sounded like his

cousin -- they talked about the greatest health ever. donald trump doesn't actually play by anyone else's rule. he may decide he doesn't have to do this and we will see how the voters feel about it. guest: mitt romney said it would disqualify him not to do it. guest: he should know. she and her husband hadn't released returns for 30 years -- i could almost see the steam rising. guest: her not releasing her speeches is becoming the equivalent rhetorically with not doing tax returns. we can argue about the substantive values that because this is the keeping of secrets by candidates when the media and political opponents believe information should come out. mark: if you did a public opinion poll, do you think the american public would demand

this? guest: demand that he releases tax returns? i think if you ask in a certain way, the american public would believe he should do it. that is it a voting issue? for candidates like former governor romney, it can issue that became damaging because of the suspicion he had not paid any taxes. donald trump loves to talk about how he has gamed the system and uses the rules in his favored of have the same problems there. i feel you can probably get that answer from a pole. it's not clear -- i think we have a way to go in this campaign before becomes an issue that hurts them. guest: speaking of issues that could or might not hurt candidates, let's talk about where the investigation of hillary clinton's e-mails is going. the fbi director today talking

to reporters, saying he is staying close to the investigations and making sure it is handled the right way. the candidate herself as not been asked to come in but aides are bringing in the issues. do you think it's going to have any impact on the convention or the nominating process and mark -- on this nominating process? guest: i think it is a shadow over the campaign, not unlike the argument you were making about donald trump's taxes. this is a large piece of information which there is a demand to know about which stays silent. that she hasn't been asked to come in yet confirms she's the target of the investigation. that builds the suspense even more. guest: is she the target of the investigation? guest: i don't know that and the people who do know are not talking. i think is fair to say the

interest of this political process and in the interest of the american people, everyone has a belief this should get wrapped up one way or another quickly and i think the director made it clear he is moving as expeditiously as possible because you don't want to have this happen postconvention. whatever the disposition is, let people know what it is. guest: do you see bernie sanders using this? mark: i don't think a concrete thing has come out that he could warn voters about. i think we are a million miles away from that. guest: he has made it clear what his campaign is about and how he is going to wage this campaign, which is on the issue of the democratic party and how powers exercise, who he gets exercised for and who it gets exercised by. mark: but he has shifted, talking about electability.

that cricket hillary was not just donald trump boston u, but the justice department policy view. guest: if you were scripting out this convention you would probably not say let's add to the suspense by letting the e-mails hang out. guest: i'm in the camp that thinks expeditiously is a good thing. guest: the latest polls -- it's may, who cares anyway -- one national online poll today, if this is between donald trump and hillary clinton it looks awfully close. how much stock do you put in and even if you say not that much, democrats have been talking that he is a million miles behind her. is he? guest: first of all, it is may and there's a whole campaign to be run here. one set of polls that could or

could not be outliers should not have too much read into them. it is a closely divided country. are these races always close? yes. is this likely to be closer than conventional wisdom? republicans do tend to solidify, democrats will solidify, and there will be a small group of voters at decide the election, which is kind of the way it goes. guest: that you are asking the question albeit in may shows that these polls have shifted the perception of the race. democrats are trying hard to make the argument that it was out of control and there's a huge gap between the candidates and would lead to the down ballot disasters of republicans using the house and senate. if nothing else, these polls have shifted that discussion. guest: i have to jump in here

because what you are seeing is you are seeing extremely close senate races. those same polls show incumbents in ohio and pennsylvania in dead heat, one point behind their challengers at an early stage. that's a bad thing and when you talk and it totally with people doing pulling in house races, you see very different patterns than what you have seen in the last eight years. both realities can be true, but it is a closely divided country. guest: a fund-raising letter from the sanders campaign -- we are going to have a contested election were the democratic party must decide if they want the candidate with the momentum or are willing to roll the dice on court disaster to protect the status quo for the political and financial establishment. is that fair game in the closing weeks of a contest?

guest: it is not over the top. it is a tremendous relief to republicans to have our race resolved and have the democrats fighting in this particular way, talking about contested conventions and who wants the momentum. guest: i have heard a sigh of relief from the republican party after nomination has been resolved behind the nominee, so i'm not quite sure i would buy that. they have to this thing was somehow and start shaking superdelegates loose. the fear tactic, that she can't win tactic is one they think appeals most to superdelegates. mark: thank you both. always a pleasure. coming up, a new grant from will mcavoy. we will be right back. ♪

john: a couple of days ago, friend of the show, just daniels, star of "blackbird" on broadway. daniels was review sleep star of many things, including "the newsroom" in which he played cable anchor will not voice. if you haven't seen that show, you have probably seen the famous scene from the first episode where he launches into an impromptu tirade about whether america is the greatest country in the world. we asked jess if he would be able to reprise that in the context of the 2016 presidential race. before we show you the reprisal, let's take a quick look at the original. >> can you say in one sentence or less -- or less -- you know what i mean -- and you say why

america is the greatest country in the world? >> the new york jets. [laughter] no, and going to hold you to an answer on that. what makes america the greatest country in the world? i'm not letting you go back to the airport without answering the question. it's not the greatest country in the world. that's my answer. john: that's how it starts. let's take a look at our special version scripted by -- mark: can you say in one sentence or less why donald trump is the best case scenario for hillary clinton? >> i think for the first time in election history, her opponent might donate to her campaign.

>> what makes donald trump the best answer for hillary clinton? i'm not going to let you go back to the airport. >> because he's not the best case scenario. that's my answer. he's a fact bending loose cannon that alienates mainstream voters but he gets constant media attention for free. there will be a day from now until november when trump is in on every tv channel and with a straight a's, you're going to tell me electing a woman is unprecedented. germany elected a female president, denmark, poland, norway liberia, they are run by women. 22 sovereign states in the world have already beat us on that. ok, game change guy, just think case you accidentally find yourself running -- writing a

third look is there's no evidence to support the statement that trump is the best case scenario for hillary clinton. 38% of the people gave her a favorable rating. 30% of the people said she's trustworthy. just 22% of democrats say they are enthusiastic. sure, she beats trump in some categories like millennials where they don't show up to vote and she's leading in who has deleted the most e-mails from her private e-mail server. when you say what makes trump the best for hillary, i don't know what the "bleep" you are talking about. his tiny hands? ♪

mark: thanks again to jeff daniels. one thing i did not get a chance to talk about is donald trump and his new sparring partner for him he has a nickname -- guzy elizabeth warren. -- goofy elizabeth warren. trump has decided to call her goofy. what does donald trump get out of fighting with elizabeth warren? john: i don't get the nickname and i don't fight. trump has had some the names that have release stuck to people. but i think even those who don't like elizabeth warren don't think she's busy. i don't think trump has found the real hook yet. mark: i think fighting with elizabeth warren is great. if there's anyone who the right hates more than elizabeth warren moran, i don't know who it is. great symbolic politics for him to continue to do what he needs to do, which is consolidating

his base. and he's not going to pay a price because he's not going to win over elizabeth warren supporters. john: it's probably good for her, too. probably guaranteeing her reelection if she gets into a fight with donald trump for the people who love her in massachusetts. time to head over to bloomberg politics.com and check out our latest story outlining king trump's power struggle over picking a running mate, coming up, we have emily chang speaking to the president of m.i.t.. that will be great. sayonara. ♪

this is trending business. here is a look at what we are watching. mitsubishi confirming talks with nissan. several mitsubishi models may be affected by rico wallace. ta