>> from our studios in new york city this is charlie rose. charlie: we begin with a look at hillary clinton's speech in columbus, ohio. her remarks criticized the business record and economic proposals of donald trump. clinton employed his own quotes to destroy his economic ideas and warned of the potential to throw the country into recession. hillary clinton: liberal and conservative say trumps ideas would be disastrous.

the chamber of commerce and labor unions. --t romney and elizabeth mitt romney and elizabeth warren. trump would throw us back into recession. charlie: the speech comes at a moment for donald trump where he is suffering missteps. he fired his top aide and campaign manager. he will deliver his own speech tomorrow which announced the atwitter. he will discuss the failed policies of cricket hillary clinton. johnsonme now, jenna and jillian tett. we also have audio of susan glasser. with gillian. lay it out.

she has deuce what so many have been looking for, a memorable one line zinger. she said he would bankrupt the country like he has bankrupted his casinos. she came out and said he had written business looks that ended with chapter 11 and bankrupted his companies four times. she is coming out fighting and saying here is a candidate who is totally unreliable. suggesting a recession and global panic if elected. gillian: absolutely. he is someone who is irresponsible with the economy. saying they all fear what a trump presidency means. susan: trump is pushing back hard. it is not an accident. he rescheduled his attack for

tomorrow after this speech. this is her crucial case. she has to undercut trump on the economy. she is leaving him in polls. whereonomy is one area donald trump seems to have an advantage. unless she can undercut him on , she ise he is making not going to be able to close the deal. partnk this was a crucial of her pivots. gillian: one of the problems is if you ask about job growth that is one area they think that donald trump would do a better job than clinton. people don't believe hillary is going to create jobs. charlie: what did you think of the speech today? bothe responding, political and democrat -- republican and democrat. jenna: donald trump's case has

been that he is a successful businessman. he's going to run the country like he runs a business. .t was popular in the primary in the general election this is what hillary clinton is trying to go after him on. he is trying to brand her as a politician, as cricket. itare interested to see is going to be attack after attack after attack? or will he lay out a thoughtful critique of hillary clinton and layout some of his own policy ideas? republicans so far, are not going to like anything hillary clinton says. they don't often believe some of the attack she has made. at the higher levels, they are worried about these attacks on donald trump when it comes to things like trump university, which has been accused of defrauding working people out of

their money. charlie: we have talked about how donald trump has had a bad couple of weeks. tell me about how bad it has been for him in terms of how he reacted to what happened in orlando, what he said about the indiana who he said could not be fair because he had mexican heritage, and what he represents today or yesterday in firing his campaign manager. what does this say about where the trump campaign is? jenna: it was back in early may became the likely nominee. at that point people expected him to start working on a general election campaign strategy. he was off the road a lot. when he is on the road he has been campaigning in texas, a deep red state and arizona.

making all of these disaster comments one after another. he went after a judge who is assigned to a case involving trump university. this is from his private business life. he was angry enough to get up at , rally and go after this judge accused him of not being able to handle this case because the judge's parents are from mexico. that sent off shockwaves. instead of clarifying that comment or apologizing for the comment he doubled down on it. then there was the orlando shooting. which could have been an opportunity to say here are the policies i propose for preventing future attacks.

twitter takingn credit for having predicted something like this would happen. dayay was a monumental firing his campaign manager, someone who has had less and less power over the last few weeks. thing toill a symbolic cut him from the campaign. this is an opportunity to hit a reset button and start over again. he is donald trump. he is making these decisions. if there is going to being a or athat or a -- pivot reset it will have to come from him as the candidate. charlie: the democrats want to make this election and referendum on donald trump. even in how they are

using the attack on his business , she is turning it into a character issue. they try to pretrade him as a callous businessman. i expect all of their substantive critiques will come down to that. here in washington the attention-getting gaffe of the last couple weeks was the poorest day of the trump campaign organization and finances. was -- heashington only had $1 million in the bank of what is a major national campaign. ,t spoke to the judgment issues the lack of professional issues -- professionalism. whoparty has been hijacked has callous disregard for the rules.

trump is still running a primary campaign. consolidated the republican party behind him. today he is meeting with evangelicals as if he was still meeting -- running against ted cruz. charlie: on economic questions, you know all the major people in the world of economics and what they think. gillian: i've known quite a few. charlie: what is their judgment of the truck business record and economic proposals? gillian: most grown-up economists are completely appalled and disbelieving by what comes out of his mouth. the one calculation everyone is trying to make is is he going to end up being a front man for the republican party and actually

the grown-ups will comment and take over? i sat down with senior republicans and one of the big powerbrokers was trying to tell everyone don't panic, trump will be the front man but people like paul ryan will be in charge. because he has no funding apparatus the republican funding policies will come in and take control. trump is thelly front man. but for him and you end up with ryan controlling it. charlie: the person who would object to that the most is donald trump. gillian: absolutely. now if he isis weak in his funding, and lack of time tos it going to be capitulate and let the republicans provide that for him?

will they be the plug-and-play machine? frankly we don't know. that iss like something a potential program. whether that when some the race, who knows. charlie: where do you think the trump ideas today? that makes them believe they can turn this around? primaries. the he wasn't expected to be the likely nominee. a few people a year ago believed in him. they feel they have the perfect candidate at a perfect time in the country where there is a lot of dissatisfaction with both parties, with politicians of all sorts. they have this magical rise to the nomination. there is a feeling he can do it again in the general. they are quickly realizing the

general is a different world. it's a different game, a different set of voters. you have the whole country. he didn't run many television ads. you relied on free publicity. now he's competing in all the states and this bare-bones campaign that he has is not going to hold up. charlie: there's this question -- why he has not released his tax returns. his potential lies about his wealth, maybe he hasn't paid taxes on his huge income. that happen for a few years. he paid nothing or close to it. or maybe he isn't as rich as he claims. gillian: here's the dirty secret about the tax code. most big real estate developers do not pay any tax.

charlie: because they have debt? because they were joking if you pay tax you are an idiot. there are so many loopholes in a developer can take advantage of. it's particularly egregious. it's likely he has paid little tax over his career. the key point it is it is legal. saylie: why not release and everything i did is legal. gillian: he is already said he will fight for every dollar of the american money because that is what he has done with his tax returns. it is going to make people angry. remember mitt romney. it did not do him good at all. charlie: one thing the affair and public likes to know is --

one thing the mac and public likes to know is fairness. if they think something is not fair that offends them. the thing that offends them is a sense that it was stacked against me or it is unfair. charlie: if he can neither so he has paid tax or paid lot to hard to seehen be that it has been fair. charlie: the brains of vote. gillian: it is a cliffhanger. 50-50 right now. the one thing that could drown that news about donald trump will be brings it. charlie: and if the people who want to leave our victorious it will mean what? gillian: many predictions we will end up with a recession. if you watch the alarmists you have = it will be worth my lehman brothers collapse.

not with a black monday, but a black friday this week if we have brexit. we have a story sign -- saying there will be a huge number of investment if we vote out. charlie: thank you. my thanks to susan glasser. we had trouble getting picture and sound. my apologies to her. we loved having her here. back in a moment. stay with us. ♪

charlie: the orlando shooting has brought the issue of gun control back to the forefront of national debate. the senate voted down than safety measures a week after a gunman who pledged allegiance to isis killed 49 people. the rejected amendment's would for bit people on the terrorism watch list from buying guns. they would close loopholes and background checks. the supreme court declined to hear a challenge to laws in connecticut and new york that ban assault weapons. joining me now from washington, carl hulse from the new york times. osnos writes for the new yorker. his article looks at the

business and politics of selling guns. i am pleased to have both of them on this program. what has happened so far? give me a sense of what has happened. guest: as you said the senate voted down these proposals yesterday. .t was fairly predictable even though everyone in the senate and most americans would agree people on terror watchlist shouldn't buy guns, nothing is easy in washington. there is a lot of politics at play. democrat it's best immigrants voted for their proposal, republicans whatever theirs. >> it was an embarrassing defeat. everyone walked out feelg a bit mortified they couldn't do anything. charlie: mortified because they have so come to lobbying? it seems like such a

straightforward proposition. you shouldn't be able to go in and easily buy a gun. even the most conservative able toay we should be get together on this, and they could not. i think that is weighing on people's minds. charlie: why could they not get together? -- they reactcans to the nra. they did support a republican plan. democrats know that they have an advantage. .ublic opinion is on their side they were trying to push for as much as they could get. the rest not a lot of talk about a compromise. that is where it got left. charlie: that brings up susan collins. carl: correct. that is the news today. susan collins is a centrist from maine, known for trying to get a compromise going.

she has been working for days with republicans and democrats including senator heitkamp who has been resistant to gun control measures given her state and the makeup of the voters. and republicans who include kelly ayotte who has a tough reelection. they have come up with a plan. mitch mcconnell has said he will give them a vote. between theromise republican and democrat proposals. it will get another chance to vote on this. is not sure that can pass. it will take all the democrats and 20 republicans. the nra has come out against it. there is pressure to do something, more than it has been recently. charlie: where do you think the future looks? carl: it's going to be close. i think that chris murphy said

today the gun-control advocate from connecticut, he sees some movement. even if this were to pass, it's a small thing. there's a sense in washington they need to break the deadlock on gun safety. they could do anything through the senate would be an accomplishment. the house would not take it out. the houston press are rallying. they don't want to have a big break if they do not get a vote on gun control. people see movement but it is glacial. it is so small. here families keep coming and pressing for some relief. it's frustrating for them. there does seem to be minuscule

progress. likeng having a vote seems an accomplishment. , theie: your article business and politics of selling guns, you look at the broader history and context of this. does anything surprise you about the decision? evan: no. what we saw in congress was no surprise. it's reflection of this broader phenomenon the last few months of work on this piece is made clear. we've never been farther apart, more polarized on the subject of guns than we are now. one donor -- one gun owner said to me i have friends who have no owners with 20 guns and no one in between. onee reached a point where side finds the other side

unimaginable. what is actually going on? what is at the heart of the gun industry? what is driving this? charlie: what did you find out? evan: the gun industry is in a unique position. on the day after the events in orlando, this tragic event which is a scar on the face of the nation, everyone agrees, shares of smith & wesson went out. shares went up 10% before trading had even open. something strange is going on. when one of these mass shootings happens it drives sales of the gun companies. people feel more insecure. what you find if you spend time among the literature of guns, if you go to the nra conventions in louisville, if you read the books, listen to the speakers, the people who are influential in gun culture, there is a

relentless discussion of the risks posed by things in society, by the idea that government is unable to protect you. truth is your risk of being killed in a mass shooting is smaller than your risk of being killed by lightning and yet the risk with taking a gun into your life radically increases the moment that comes into your house. i met people all over the place who have bought a gun because they feel genuinely unsafe because of isis or mass shootings. the solution they are adopting is in fact not one that public health experts say is anything close to making us safer. charlie: some say it is an opposition by gun companies and not by people who are hunters adherents.amendment >> there is a strong case to be made the gun industry occupies a

kind of political and economic never never land. in 2005s a law passed called the protection of law for commerce in arms act. it is almost unique. it immunizes gun companies against civil liability and criminal use of the product. all of the normal processes which would steer and industry to change the way it does things in some fundamental way or a small way to prevent guns from getting into the hands who may do harm to public, those pressure seven relieved. says it standsy up for the free market, the truest ideals of american commerce and yet it has been protected from all of the normal processes. take for example exxon mobil as an example of a case where it is a company that found itself as a

result of the exxon valdez crisis forced to change the ways it did its business. if you transform -- transpose those today, these kinds of mass shootings day in and day out, none of those have any kind of affect on shaping the company behavior. they can continue to do things exactly as the day before. charlie: when you hear that, i'm , whatou knew most of that dynamic could change? newtown, after orlando, the largest mass murder, everyone thinks at long last now. but it passes and goes back to business as normal. is there some combination of ontors, some effort to take those forces opposed to more effective gun-control laws?

carl: you have to start in one place. there are republican lawmakers who believe the second amendment needs to be sacrosanct and protected against threats. those folks are not going to join this effort. you need to convince the people ,ho are not in that position you have to show them and they have to learn that the nra in some ways, they need to reduce their fear of the nra, that it can take them out. lindsey graham said he is part of the collins coalition. nraaid uneasily with the but i'm not going to be with them on this. this is common sense. if someone has to get inconvenienced to prevent a future mass killing i'm willing to take the risk. he has from south carolina.

there needs to be if you're going to get gun-control legislation seriously through, a recognition there. reported -- it is a super powerful force. almost mythical power. lawmakers do not want to cross them. that has happened over the years. the nra deftly don't want anything to pass that they are opposed to because that is going to show a weakening of their position. can people see that they make a move in opposition to you , that can build into thicker momentum. people's mindsets in terms of the politics does have to be changed. it is a huge political weapon. democrats are eager to take advantage of the situation.

they are going to go after the vulnerable republicans in the senate on this issue and already are. there's a lot of politics in play. we will see what happens. charlie: dear lando shooting was historic in some respects and commonplace in others. carl: by one count -- evan: this was the 130th mass shooting with had this year. , thei think is changing idea of moving this out of congress. congress and so many ways is frozen not just in gun politics but if you get into the state , some of these new organizations which have come into being since the sandy hook massacre, they have money behind them, but there are other

sources of funding. but they have begun to say is we're not going to get any help from congress. if we go state-by-state, they begun to use the gay marriage approach, the model of going state-by-state and finding younger voters, younger volunteers were willing to take this on, that we are going to be will to close what is in there -- their greatest obstacle. that you are fighting to hold onto something that you think is going to be taken away. if you are concerned about gun violence it's a more abstract issue. when there are 140 mass shootings between now and the beginning of the year and orlando this is no longer an abstract issue. this is direct relevance to voters whether they feel it personally are not. you have studied this.

michael bloomberg has made the point they are prepared to go where some people who are strong and supporters at the same time are allied with a portfolio of policy ideas. they are saying even though you are with us on these other things if you are against us on the issue of gun control we are going to support your opponent. that is the tactic the nra has used in the past. evan: they have used it very effectively in the past. we have a 98% success rate when it comes to candidates we endorse and the candidates we oppose. mayor bloomberg has said we are do the same thing. if you are not on the side that we are on with guns we are going to use our resources to run against you. that is a meaningful threat.

mood has been a change in among some on the left. the idea of the nra was this has begunable force to erode. actually, if you dig into those , often times they may be taking races they know they are going to win because that guarantees they keep their numbers hide. one of the points on this issue, the nra is a paper tiger. maybe not as strong as they think they are. i'm not going to go that far. what you are finding is there is a recognition that congress is incapable of moving on this. killed inhildren were 2012, hard to imagine what will move the congress today. charlie: on the go to interview with thewashington

vice president. why they: the reason because they blows when they strike someone. if we could get that across -- charlie: why can't you? some of the smartest people in the country have not been able to get it across. mr. biden: the reason is, as i -- i the opposition is will not mention his name, i put proposals proposal about executive and legislative actions to take. we came close to getting extended background checks. one senator called me and said even though my state agree with

me, there are 200 protesters outside of my office. whichthe intensity with the people who oppose and the funding that comes from the nra and other gun groups that is so well organized. charlie: are you convinced that if someone is intent on doing great violence they will find a gun. esther biden: that's assume that is true. dependsthey find guns on how much damage they can do. it is a quantum difference. you give me a nine millimeter glock and a 38 revolver. i'll kill more people quickly. weapon and its caliber. gun they'llt have a

get a baseball bat. while they are not going to kill as many people. if you have multiple rounds and shots, asthat had 19 shooter,o the old six you have to take it out. it matters. it matters the amount of carnage that can occur as a consequence of what type of weapon. charlie: this is what you wrote. the greatest questions are not what types of weapons people will be allowed to use but who can use them and why. evan: every time there is a mass shooting we focus on the instrument at hand. init wasn't ar-15 as it was newtown, that is what people talk about. we imposing a federal assault weapons ban. and orlando as well.

evan: it was a variant. it was a slightly different done. it was a semiautomatic military style rifle. these technical distinctions is -- it becomes a footnote. is what manyay people agree to study this issue closely is, the next big legal frontier for guns is not going aree whether or not ar-15's going to be on store shelves. it's going to be this question of who in fact is entitled to have a gun and how can they carry it? two decades a while -- ago it was controlled in 22 states. that you could walk out of your house with a concealed gun. it is now legal in 50 states. case when they said

there is an individual right to self-defense within the home, it did not do to say what happens when you get out of the home? that question is where in fact were people be able to use guns? campuses? to daycare, to bars, to churches. there have been laws that have removed any obstacles to that. it's the beginning of the heart conversation about is the public prepared to have guns and all kinds of areas where public life where it had been off-limits? ar-15 thano uses what purpose? evan: when you talk to people who buy them, you will hear people say they use it for sport. it will go to the gun range. a few people use it for hunting but it is not a good hunting rifle. some say they use it for home defense.

there is another element here. they worry about survivalists who worry about the breakdown of survive -- society. there is something else. the ar-15 has become a political totem. saying i have an ar-15 and i own it is a way of saying you subscribe to a set of ideas and you are fighting against what you consider to be an encroachment on your values and your political identity. there was a congressman who posted that he was proposing a series of bills that would make it easier to get a gun and have a gun in washington dc after the orlando massacre. he posted a picture of himself holding in ar-15. he says he is a defender of the second amendment. it has almost become disassociated from what you use it for and has become more of a political symbol. carl: it seems to be the gun most often auctioned off at

republican fundraisers. you see that a lot. you see the ar-15. this point.c at charlie: thank you so much. the piece that evan wrote, and carl fromng, the new york times covering this and many other important issues. ♪

benn is here, he he announced he plans to run against him. liebermanlaced by this year. he wrote the lead essay in foreign affairs magazine. he called the end of the old israel, netanyahu has transform the nation. i have pleased to have him at this table. welcome. aluf: thank you, charlie. charlie: what has changed? what has benjamin netanyahu done for israel? aluf: he has been around for many years in israeli politics. it is kind of center-right,

conservative. most of his energy was focused on lecturing the world against that -- he wonal the election and an uphill battle. he won a decisive victory. charlie: a surprising victory. aluf: according to those working the campaign to that extent. the base of the smaller far right wing parties and convince them to vote for him. he won decisively. then he had to choose, building a centrist coalition with the labour party. more homogenous right wing coalition. that was the dream of many

people. take out the leftists, kick the two state solution off the table, work towards making ,srael occupation permanent hope that the rest of the world will get used to that because of what is happening in syria and america and europe. process, his dream of many years which was unfulfilled , to change the public discourse, to stop the defeatist ideas of giving away land, once it appeared achievable in the built this right-wing coalition, that is kind of radical governments. elites, peopl to

criticize anyone thinking about forcracy or quality minorities in israel, to treat them as foreign ideas that need to be criticized. judicial review by the supreme court, to show it as an alien concept against the rule of the majority. , day after day you see more and more of that. the country is changing. charlie: we had an engaging conversation. longer in favor of a two state solution. and a range of other arguments. i thought he comes from the true right of israeli politics.

aluf: he is a right-winger in terms of this. the vision was about the future of the west bank. on this he belongs to the right. trueblue all the way. but he found himself isolated because he was also in favor of civil rights of the rule of law, of independent judiciary. more and more he found himself a representative not of the present day right wing but of the old guard that goes all the way to the labour party and founders of israel. gan is an interesting case. he was the founder of the right wing. being in opposition for so many

,ears, 29 years in opposition he had a lot of respect for debate, for an independent judiciary. replace the senior leadership of the civil service or the intelligence community. he cap them in office. either because he wanted to legitimize his own rule through the civil servants or because they believed in their professionalism and so on. many people criticize him for that because they say the left wing has lost the election but they remain in power through there and florence in the media and the courts, and the military. netanyahu and his coalition would like to change that.

they cannot do it overnight. they would like to create an atmosphere that would facilitate that change faster. charlie: is there no more left that has any sense of strength or numbers or possibilities? is.: apparently there the israeli channel one has the newd showing that if the the labour party, election were held today they would win a single digit number of seats which never happened before. israel lacks an leader. charlie: less than 10. aluf: now they have 24. the centerleft, they lack a

leader that would energize the country, the voters and lack a narrative. still point with the idea of joining. charlie: the debate is about the far right and the right. aluf: it is about the far right and the center-right. is democracy the rule of the majority or does it include judicial review, protection of minorities and more equality. that is growing in numbers but also in political awareness and demands. those people who are now in argue thathose who are not to be a two state solution, will they be some version of apartheid? aluf: they say anyone who says

that is an anti-semite or self hating jew or simply ignorant. that somehow the world would get used to that. wanted, netanyahu said they support a two state solution. few people believe them when they say that. they never show any practical moves that would facilitate it. when there is any hand of external ideas like the new friendship initiative, he says is the wrong idea, it should get off the table. certainly expansion is going on. now there is a debate about the soul of the military and the rule of law within the military. which the right wing is against the military to be more

conservative. charlie: they are constantly these full-page ads that have all these former israeli , and theyce officers this was going the wrong way and we have to stand out. do they represent a minority of individuals or it decided opinion among the national security people in israel? aluf: a least among the higher echelons. i'm not sure if the platoon commanders would think that. we saw the revolt of the generals. he lashed out at netanyahu but no one else has done in the past year. he called the government -- he

warmed of fascism. he warned of netanyahu thronged the country off the cliff and being hijacked by an extreme right minority. leading the country to disaster. runaid he was not going to but the alternative is between running to be the prime minister or sitting at home. for the first time you could see alternative counter narrative to the government. charlie: a lot of israeli politics has been built on fear of external forces. no existential threat to israel. aluf: arab spring revolutions and civil war in syria destroyed the potential threat of arab state in israel.

.here is an imbalance the more recent terrorist attacks we saw in israel were done by individuals with no organization. people carried knives and try to attack soldiers at checkpoints. the most recent was a shooting attack by a couple of terrorists who use makeshift guns. even they were not affiliated or led. clearly these attacks that have been going on for several months now but the government to a test because the right wing government is supposedly supposed to scare off terrorists. and it couldn't.

i believe netanyahu was trying to make them into the scapegoat of that. struggle fors the israel. how will that play itself out? who is likely to win? what will be the determining factor? politicaltest of the system in israel, not only on the left side, on the right side there is no clear alternative. bennett lead small parties. they don't appeal to the wider audience. findild a narrative and to a new leader that would turn back the country into a more peaceful, more engaging relationship with the rest of

the world, and rebuild democracy from within. charlie: is he the influence? .luf: we hope we are the voice of liberals in israel. we were along for most of the past year. now we see more people raising that flag of standing up to demolishing of democracy coalitions. ♪

♪ mark: i am mark halperin. john: and i'm john heilemann. and with all due respect to donald trump, america is plenty great. buster. >> new products, called mac and cheetos. ♪ john: i know you do, i know you want a mac and cheetos. come on. happy national teleprompter day, sports fans. today, in gotham city, donald trump stepped up to the teleprompters and delivered his long-awaited, thorough roast of