.john: i'm john heilemann. mark: and i'm mark halperin. "with all due respect" to those who thought they could come back late from the holiday weekend and be late for donald trump's press conference -- mr. trump: are you ready? do you have your pen? this sleazy guy. voter cycles? no. jeff sessions. crazy bernie. lebron. that adds up to 6 million -- well, let's say that adds up to $5 million. bob dole is a fan of mine. bob dole endorsed me. don't tell me about bob dole. bill kristol is a loser.

♪ mark: hello from los angeles, where the california primary is one week from today. but wait, everybody wants to know, who is the independent candidate who bill kristol has been touting? a conservative lawyer, writer, an iraqi war veteran named david french. you may not have heard of him. we hadn't either. krsitol tweeted this weekend that he had a candidate in mind that he said would be a strong candidate. john and i talked to both of them, who both declined to comment. french is a staff writer for the national review. he lives in tennessee with his wife and three kids. he was traveling. he declined to comment, but the two republican sources says while french has not made a final decision, that is indeed

who bill kristol was talking about. he wrote about french in the weekly standard, hiding him in plain sight. john: you have this piece by kristol basically making the case against trump and clinton, laying out a few of the more bandied about names that could be independent candidate. it doesn't have to be somebody famous. this is a guy that is a great servant to his country, an estimable resume. kristol's argument is, as more americans come to know this guy, they would realize he would be a better president than donald trump or hillary clinton. that is a huge "if." mark: a lot of people will look at this name and say, who cares? no one has heard of him. they are looking for people with

one or more of the following traits -- someone famous, wealthy, and someone who had been in public service. john: strike one, two and, three. mark: the guy never ran for anything. he was very pleasant on the phone, but from the sound of his voice, it doesn't sound like he wants to go head to head with donald trump. on a daily basis his resume is outstanding. he is a guy who has served the country, has been a lawyer. he has a lot of attributes that, if you were looking for someone to go up against these two new yorkers, he seems to fit. can he raise money? today, before the name david french was reported, donald trump said if an independent candidate runs of any sort, that hillary clinton will win. mr. trump: if they do an indie, assuming anybody with a reputation would do it, because they would look like fools -- but you lose the election for the republicans. therefore you lose the supreme court. therefore we will have a group of people put on the supreme court where this country will never ever recover.

it will never be the same. mark: so he said, assuming it is decent. we know the answer to the question who bill kristol was tweeting about. is he somebody decent enough to be a player? let's say he does the best that he can. could he be a player? john: this is a black swan year in a million ways. no one wants to say never about anyone. could he be like kevin kline and suddenly come forward and capture the imagination of millions of americans? it's not impossible. but we all underestimate the degree of skill and stamina and charisma that are required to be a serious national political figure in america. you can say what you want about donald trump or hillary clinton. they both are high-level professionals at this game. it will be hard for a guy with no skill running for anything before, going in front of

cameras -- mark: you would have to be one in 10 million to do well enough, to get into the debate to be a factor into this race. john: could this guy stand on the same stage? there are some talented baseball players in the single and aa's, but it's totally different at the major level. mark: people will start googling him now. if you are someone like mitt romney, you want someone you are proud to vote for. this guy, you could be proud to vote for him. you could say, this is a true conservative, a guy who served in the military with an outstanding resume. but is he someone that donald trump could be worried about?

john: we do not want to be dismissive of this person. but for never-trumpers who don't like the idea of sitting out the election and want to cast a vote for someone, you can imagine somebody like him. mark: if he can't raise money -- the chances he could get on the ballot. he is going to have to raise money. he has not lined up significantly financial support. that is who kristol was talking about. john: gary johnson and bill

wells are more likely to be a factor on the election. two guys who have run states. those guys are much more likely to have an effect on the race than this guy. mark: i don't want to prejudge it. but he had not made a full commitment to run. the attention he is about to get may make him can decide that it's not worth doing. john: his life is about to change a lot right about now. as megyn kelly would say, let's talk about us. [laughter] at trump tower today, donald trump repeatedly insulted the members of the fourth estate way more than usual. in this case, he objected to reporters that asked serious questions about how he raised and dispersed money for veterans. trump's tone was personal and occasionally caustic as he waged war on what he calls "the political press." mr. trump: the press should be ashamed of themselves. i think the media is, frankly, made up of people that in many cases are not good people. the press is so dishonest and so

unfair. i've watched you on television. the press is being very dishonest. i don't like dishonesty. like this sleazy guy over here from abc. he is a sleaze. >> [indiscernible] mr. trump: no, not all of you, just most of you. >> is this what it's going to be like covering you as president? mr. trump: yes, this is what it's going to be like. i find the press to be extremely dishonest. i find the political press to be unbelievably dishonest. john: here are two things that are true. the first is that trump has benefited by making the press a foil. he has mocked and belittled reporters, while at the same

time soliciting to them behind-the-scenes more than any candidate that we have covered. donald trump in private actually loves the press and courts than constantly. he is like a one-man "good cop bad cop" routine. he's being both cops at the same time. do you think that will work in a general election? mark: i think he is now in a different phase. you saw it in the press conference. people are not treating him as a curiosity. there are a lot of people on the left and right who do not like the press. bernie sanders attacks the press almost as much as donald trump does. i think he will keep it up. it got him this far. i think that the clinton folks are hoping, and the press should agree with the clinton folks, that he is held to a normal standard. some of the things he criticized today, he might be right. the coverage of him is not always fair. we need to cover both the candidates, tough, fair, relentless, skeptical. and trump, if he behaves like this, will hurt his credibility with some and help with others. john: i think it is outlandish

the things he does. but republicans have done this for a long time, especially the liberal outlets at the new york times. i think it's ridiculous and outrageous some of the things he does, especially since he likes the press in private. the more important fact is that many people in our business have come to the conclusion that they gave trump a free ride through much of the republican nomination. they did not challenge him enough. you can argue whether they are right or not. they felt that they broke away from news time too often to cover his rallies, gave him billions of dollars in coverage. i think many members of the press have felt that they have gone too far and need to bring it back in line.

he will get tougher coverage now and get less of a free ride than he got in the nomination fight. but it has nothing to do what he says about individual reporters. mark: up next, hillary clinton and e-mails. more on bill kristol's favorite choice to run as an independent after this. ♪

john: today the biggest headline in the democratic race is still hillary clinton's e-mail server. usa today joined the new york times and washington post on clinton repeatedly ignoring warnings about her private server being a threat to national security. the clinton campaign continues to say that her unusual e-mail arrangements were a mistake. that if she had known how much of a fuss it would cause, she would not have done it. she talked to msnbc about that topic. mark, if the campaign thinks it can essentially continue to offer only the explanation and tough it out, do you think their current posture will solve the problem this has caused for her? mark: they put out a statement over the weekend that secretary clinton will talk more about it. they think that by not attacking the i.g. report, accepting its conclusions -- her spokesperson said today, you basically look at the things in the report, and they are not disputing them -- they think that is going further.

that they are showing more appreciation for the critics. that that should be enough. i think they are misunderstanding the degree to which there is unanimity amongst elites and voters that this was not handled well and that she has not owned up to what she did in as full a way as is required by most people. john: i appreciate the job that her campaign people have done. but basically, their initial responses is that the i.g. has exonerated us. it was a scathing criticism. i still think it is the case. i do not think that is the case that they have done anything to alter the perception that she has not gone as far as some would like her to go in acknowledging culpability, that she did something that was genuinely unique and may have

put sensitive documents in peril. mark: we will talk about that with our guest in a little bit. when we come back, we will talk to adam nagourney, los angeles chief bureau chief of the new york times right after this.

john: it is often our pleasure to talk to adam nagourney, the los angeles bureau chief of the new york times. but normally we have to do it via satellite, because he is here and we are in new york. but we are in the same time zone. adam, welcome to the show. david french, what do you know? adam: i can't tell you that i know a lot about him. he is, i guess, running for president. john: maybe. so you are saying that in all of your years of national politics coverage -- and your knowledge is encyclopedic -- this is not a household name. adam: no. i don't think they were referring to him when i heard the name french back in 2004. mark: do you think somebody who has never run for office, who is not famous, who is not a big personality -- do you think he could be some sort of perfect

storm player in this race? adam: nobody seems to like either the republican or presumptive democratic candidate. but no, he has enough problems as it is getting on these ballots. you could argue it's better to have no name recognition than any. when bill kristol was coming up with a name, i thought it would be someone that we all knew about. i can't say that i know him. i am disappointed. john: there was a lot of tension over gary johnson and bill wells last weekend. gary johnson is someone who has run for president before. running with another former governor of the state. why is that not the vehicle to disrupt, if you want to disrupt the two-party system? adam: i agree. they are already there.

and at least they have reputations, credibility. this is more like a sideshow. there is a third-party candidate that will probably get some support. mark: how long have you known donald trump? adam: my earliest memory was covering him when he first ran for president, i think in 2006. i flew out to california with him and flew back on his plane. mark: how do you think he will react to the potential presence of david french in this race? [laughter] i don't know if there is a wide enough shot for this. you don't think that will frighten donald trump? adam: he should be worried about the libertarian candidate. because that will take votes away from him and put states into play that were not before. whether or not it will be like that, i don't know.

i don't think this will bother him very much. john: tell me where we are in the california democratic race. adam: it is a difficult race to poll. it's hard to tell not only how many independents can vote, but it's hard to vote if you are an independent. the independents are supporting bernie sanders by 3 to 1. we have some polls showing it close, some not so close. the best thing is to watch what the candidates do. bernie sanders will be campaigning here until tuesday. he had a heavy campaign day today, 3-4 rallies. clinton will be spending most of her time here. they are putting some money into the state. my sense is that it is close. the biggest thing is that this has been hillary clinton's problem all along. everybody assumes that she has won and are not particularly enthusiastic. that is her challenge.

mark: you have been a longtime student of the governor. today he endorsed hillary clinton in a scheme of endorsements. does that matter much in the primary? adam: i normally don't think endorsement matter. i think it does matter. i think with undecided voters, it will get the effort to go out. he doesn't endorse very often. i think he endorses when he thinks they have a good chance of winning. mark: it would seem, as your piece suggested, he is part for bernie sanders, part for hillary clinton. why do you think he decided to get into the contest the way that he did? adam: i think for him, he is on climate change. my gut says that is an issue that he cares about. donald trump is saying that the drought does not exist.

saying that climate change does not exist. that, more than anything else, is what gets him. i don't think there is any kind of trade-off. it is that simple for him. john: sanders was asked about being as a vice presidential ticket with hillary clinton. they have some issues in terms of putting the party back together. why doesn't sanders make sense to put on the ticket if you are hillary clinton? adam: you got all these jokes about the two older people on a ticket. you want somebody fresh and unexpected. if i was inside brooklyn with the rest of the crowd, i would

certainly be considering him. i don't think it is a crazy idea, but it wouldn't be my first choice. he does not seem to represent the new generation. mark: a poll in new jersey shows trump was within four points of hillary clinton. some will say that it is an unpredictable year, never assume anything. but others will say, the blue states are going to be blue. there is no chance that california or new jersey will be in play. do you think that trump could make hillary clinton work for new jersey and california? adam: i think that he can. i think that at some point sanders will drop out of the race. he will start sending his supporters over to her. it is no longer a theoretical thing. even though a lot of people, sanders supporters, have real problems with hillary clinton on immigration and climate change, they will start seeing democrats coalesced behind hillary clinton

as republicans do with trump. california in particular, i do not think so. latinos, women -- i cannot imagine her having trouble here in a general election. new jersey, even with that chris christie endorsement, i would not doubt that she would be strong there. john: who do you think has more at stake in terms of picking a running mate politically? adam: probably hillary clinton. she needs to get the party united behind her. not only in terms of personality, but issues. she needs to reassure the progressive left that she will be there for them. it is hard to figure out who the perfect choice would be for her. with trump, he's such an unusual candidate that has a lot of

advantages. maybe a former president? john: if i were a presidential nominee, i would put you on my ticket. can bernie sanders pull out a win in california? the strategists weigh in right after a word from our sponsors. ♪ john: joining us now are too

legendary, ethic, stratospheric lead really in democratic strategists. good to see you here in the flesh, gentlemen, how are you?

tell us -- we know you are democratic strategist and we have to ask you about this -- the independent challenger to donald trump and hillary clinton? guest: i thought republicans were allergic to all things french. i said he could change his name to david freedom. i don't think this goes anywhere. it may take a few votes from trump in a few places but i don't think it's a big deal. guest: it is so hard to do structurally and so impossible a task. if you are unknown, it's unbelievable and if you are not a self under -- the secret to

ross perot as he was able to put his own money in the game. mark: they were looking for some combination of rich, famous and electable. i know you are skeptical, but what would have to happen within the realm of the possible -- say he is sin. we are told he's not only decided. let's say he gets then, what would have to happen to make you say maybe there is something to this? guest: i don't know. the threshold is its 15% to get in the national debate. mark: let's say he went to the national press club or washington monument or gave a fantastic speech -- guest: a speech is not going to do it. [crosstalk] guest: $100 million could get on almost every ballot in the

country and then he could become a serious force and that would the an amicable to donald trump. mark: so a guy who spent a lot of money on paid media, that we take seriously? guest: why aren't the koch brothers going to do this for the libertarians? mark: there is some talk about that. john: here in california, we have hillary clinton, who i think both of you believe is going to be the democratic nominee. why does it matter for hillary clinton to win california? why should she spend money or time here? would you advise her to come in right out here like it matters? guest: she's doing it for one of two reasons. either the polls are right and they show it close and she does not want to lose and take the risk of limping to the nomination because she needs the momentum. she needs the sense that she is taking over and, kratz should come home and she would like bernie sanders to get out and endorser. -- democrats should come home. second, they think they could win by a substantial margin. i, myself, think it is very close. if you look at the body language

of these campaigns, they think it is close and either of them could win. guest: the truth is that bernie has dug in here deep. i never imagined candidates going to santa maria and cities that are not actually media markets. he's going and drawing huge crowds. 7000 people for a political rally in stockton is unheard of. he has advertising on the air and it is very california specific still -- california specific, and she is reacting to it. some polls suggest it is close and some don't. what we don't know is who is going to vote. it's not just the structural problem of independence. the ones who vote on election day don't have a structural problem, it's the one to actually show up. and then all of the millennials and latino voters, are they going to wait until november or are they going to vote on june 7? guest: i think a lot will vote on june 7 and a lot of latinos will probably vote for hillary clinton. bill is right, sanders has a

great california centric ad and has already seen like 130 8000 or 140,000 people. he will see about 250,000, is at about a 10th of the vote he needs? no one has done that. mark: dianne feinstein was as aggressive as almost anyone has been trying to nudge bernie sanders out of the race. would you expect more people to be aggressive and saying you can't spend the rest of june and into july campaigning? you need to start coalescing? guest: one thing is if senator feinstein is on your side, you've got him fight going toward you. she thinks this race ought to be over. she is a numbers person and

thinks enough already. and she is willing to say that. she doesn't care about the consequences. john: do you think it more or less likely bernie sanders gets out? guest: i think it makes it less likely. you have to give room and respect to sanders supporters. if he loses california, the pressure internally, even from himself may be to move toward ending the race. there are lots of ways to do this -- accommodations in the platform and reform the nominating process. i think trying to push him out and i know diane has strong feelings, the pressure to push him out is counterproductive. guest: i don't think he's going to be pushed out. in the old days, if you ran out of the money, you are out of the race. he's not going to run out of money. senator kennedy stayed in, gary hart did in 1984 and we sought

with jesse jackson two times. people have stayed in to the convention. jerry brown stayed in to the convention. we have then through these things before and they and that not being all that consequential in most instances. mark: although in some historic instances, you could say it hurt the party. guest: people talk about 1980 -- jimmy carter was going to lose in 1980. there were hostages in iran and the economy was in terrible shape. john: would you consider putting bernie sanders on the ticket? guest: i think if she is moving that direction, she should go with elizabeth orin. guest: i think other people would be better. tim kaine or somebody like that who has some appeal in specific younger fee. guest: that's a safer choice and i think she's more likely to go

there. john: both great men. up next, we will talk about trump. and if you are watching us in washington dc, you can listen to us on the radio radio. we will be right back. ♪

mark: joining us now, nbc correspondent katie turner who covers donald trump. we are talking about david french, who will crystal was touting over the weekend. you like us trying to figure it out. does david french match your expectations? katie: no. and i was speaking to sources over the weekend and they that bill kristol knows how to play the game a did not expect him to play anything big. and the social media manager or donald trump tweeted pretty much the encapsulation of the trump campaign response which was who? john: your basic assumption is this will not increase his estimation of ill crystal as a serious faux? katie: i think if he's able to take any support a way, it's probably not that diehard trump to begin with and is not going to necessarily effective much.

john: trump reacted to crystal over the weekend on twitter and said other things that suggest if you have a decent third-party candidate on the right that he would lose on the basis of that. why doesn't he look at the libertarian ticket as being that? why is the libertarian ticket not a huge problem? katie: i'm not sure. maybe he hasn't had that much exposure to the libertarian ticket. but if you look at the convention over the weekend, it's hard to take the libertarian candidate serious because their convention becomes such a sideshow. and the reality is the libertarian candidate hasn't in

that important since ross perot. i don't think they see it as an imminent threat. i think they see the race very much as a republican and democratic race and the real threat would another conservative rising out of nowhere. somebody with more recognizability -- recognition -- i'm losing my words. mark: you have watched as long and as closely as any reporter how donald trump treats the

media. was today differ in the way he behaved or just more of how it goes? katie: we haven't seen a press conference that contentious for six months -- back in the days when i was being called little katie. he's being backed off a little bit, but the press conference today, he was angry you is

forced to -- he was angry he was being questioned and what is those of rising here is that it is such a surprising dory. it's not a negative story. it's i need -- i raise this money and there were a few hiccups along the way. it's good for the campaign and good for my appearance of supporting veterans. instead, it was very hostile and made it up and delete clear that a donald trump white house would be something where he would not feel like he would need to be held accountable. but this is also very much part of his strategy. make sure the press is not trustworthy, take away their credibility and once they're not criminal to my supporters, any mark: previously, he got away with trying to take out revenge on reporters who story he did not like and doing that as the

presumptive nominee is a lot harder to do. there's just a lot more scrutiny. katie: absolutely. mark: we will be right back as we turn the program into our variety hour. ♪

mark: here now, the host of pop politics, our pal ted johnson. thank you for coming by. traditionally, democrats do better in hollywood than republicans. donald trump has a history of your.

in terms of endorsements and fundraising, will he do better than your typical republican? ted: he could do a little better. it could depend on who he has picked's his finance chairman. he's a private equity guy but he has financed quite a few films in hollywood. a big film financier -- batman versus superman, the lego movie, mad max, really in connection with warner bros. right now. he may be able to tap some money out here that another republican was not able to but i don't think you are going to change the dynamics or change the split. it's about 75% democrats and 25% republicans. i just don't see it. i think even traditional republican donors are kind of waiting and seeing whether they are going to write a check to donald trump. the question is you are a ilion air, why do you need my money? but number two is the question

of do i want to go public with my support for donald trump or do i want to wait until the fall when it is less risky? mark: do some of them feel closer to him? he was the star of a prime time television show. just based on that image, does that help him with local support? ted: he has relationships all over the entertainment industry. but i don't think that's going

to be quite enough to convince long time democratic donors. mark: you see republicans look at the democrats and envy their star power to bring people to the tens. president obama had every night big stars out there. will donald trump be able to do better? ted: he has promised he would like a more show business convention. that is what you think of, but it's going to be a challenge to get a list to liberties to show up at the convention. it's one thing to get traditional republicans like john voight, but to get someone who is totally unexpected, i think there will be a lot of skittishness in the entertainment industry, even if you are privately supporting donald trump.

you are looking at his rallies out here in tell of you and every angle one of them is met by these big protests else side. a lot of celebrities like to play it safe. mark: shy away from someone where you could eliminate half your potential ticket buyers. ted: you mentioned clint eastwood -- the last major to -- last major celebrity to show up at a convention and look what happened. that was at much -- mitch -- that romney did not generate much protest. mark: any reason to believe

shorts never won't be for trump? ted: i suspect he's waiting and seeing how this all transpired. trump looks like a winner and there is no reason for him to endorse right now. maybe he's waiting for the convention to make a surprise appearance at the republican convention but i would be surprised if schwarzenegger crossed party lines and supported hillary clinton. i think he's probably just timing it. that was certainly his indication to maximize the exposure and maybe get in a little plug for him hosting the apprentice. mark: on the democratic side, bernie sanders has done

surprisingly well getting hollywood endorsements. he doesn't do fundraisers, so we don't know how to compete in those great living rooms in beverly hills, but is there a difference between the kind of celebrities for sanders and the kind of celebrity for clinton? ted: yes. i think a lot of the names for sanders have been associated with the hard left, people like mark ruffalo or susan sarandon. susan strand and was a big supporter of ralph nader, so i don't think you are going to look at the names of evil who endorse bernie sanders and think i can't believe they are supporting him over hillary clinton. i also think it's funny you have people like dick van dyke who have come out and appearing at rallies, older than the candidate. i think it shows the kind of breath of support -- older celebrities, younger celebrities, sanders loves to tell the fact that he has vampire weekend backing him. it's probably hitting all these demographic groups -- a group of them are going out by bus, traveling the state as celebrity surrogates. they have had a -- mark: if you were here at the california primary, all anyone would talk about is obama and clinton in that race. is that going on in that

hollywood community? are people more focused on other things or what? ted: there's a lot of acrimony right now. the clinton people are very worried about the damage sanders can do and the sanders people are defensive. he has every right to stay in this race but it's not at the level that it was with clinton and obama. probably because back then, clinton and obama were splitting establishment support. sanders doesn't have any big studio executives backing him. clinton and obama kind of split that in half. mark: ted johnson, thank you so much. rate to see you. we will be right back. ♪

mark: you can read more about david wrench to bill kristol is touting as an independent candidate. while you are there, check out our brand-new, jenny white, bona fide trump unity tracker. it tells you who is for him and who is against them. coming up, emily chang beats to a former google executive about gender diversity in the boardrooms in silicon valley. we will back tomorrow. see you then. sayonara. ♪

♪ wednesday, the first of june, i am rishaad salamat. this is "trending business". ♪ getting straight to mayking news, numbers from crossing the bloomberg. we were expecting flatness. same.1 is the result, the as april for china may manufacturing pmi.