>> from our studios in new york, this is "charlie rose." good evening. with thethis evening latest development in the investigation into hillary clinton's e-mail use. in an announcement james comey recommended no charges be filed against hillary clinton. her practices as extremely careless. >> there is evidence that any reasonable person in her

position or any position of those with him she was corresponding should have known an unclassified system was no place for that conversation. there is evidence of potential violations, our judgment is that no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case. is glennning me now thrush. guest: hillary clinton is not being led away from her mansion in handcuffs. there will be no indictment. he said no reasonable prosecutor would bring a criminal case against her. aere was the potential for security sanction which if she were in the state department might in court -- involve her security clearance or an internal administrative sanction. then you set up a protocol of

procedures that she should have followed. clinton has said she was sorry for this and planned to deal with those in that manner anyway. hari: how important is the tongue lashing given in this? while there are any charges filed, extremely careless is something that trump campaigns will make. 6 careless careless hillary is better than crooked hillary. she was acting contrary to the rules of her own agency. the detrimental information has been out there. the real danger posed was the terminal part. i recall when the story was first broke in march the clinton push back on the notion

it was a criminal investigation. this was in fact a criminal investigation. , that's ared today possibility. it will not be a criminal prosecution. lashing,ey's tongue while it will find its way into ads, pales in comparison to the weapons clinton may have given the republicans have this become a criminal matter. loretta lynch has said she would go with the recommendation. will she stick with it? 6 it would be -- guest: it would be unusual for her to move beyond when fbi director had suggested. a very significant political occurred whens loretta lynch met with bill

clinton. a additionalwn element of political uncertainty into this. there was a story revealing the clinton people would consider reappointing when jeff linton was elected. lynch if clinton was elected. on one hand the republicans would have preferred to be running against somebody under criminal indictment. indictmentnce of an clinton has been damaged by this. cost's a huge opportunity of her having this hang over her head. two thirds of americans in the last poll i saw don't trust hillary clinton. she has paid a political price and will continue to. hari: what has been the

response? guest: donald trump put out his statement. there is a sense of tranquility and he is very message discipline today talking about the rig system, putting clinton in an establishment figure who has the system rigged. he has been relatively circumspect. paul ryan, a member of the , while he respects the process of the fbi and the results he doesn't understand how they could have come to this. that is the fine line they are washing -- watching. hari: all right. thank you. guest: great seeing you. ♪

of the sharing economy has reorganized how we live our lives. it is changing how we do business. have thriveders alongside advances in technology that empower individuals to share and turn a profit. this paradigm has widespread implications for the future of work and economic growth. joining me now is arun su

ndararajan. provide housing options for shared homes. fohoohar, i'm pleased to have them all at this table. let's get the bigger picture definitions. it is not really sharing if i'm charging you a fee for using something i own. guest: absolutely. we are traveling back to some version of the 18th century economy where individuals would provide goods and services to other individuals. modelt of rejected that in favor of building organizations and increasing complexity. some of those organizations are remaining and facilitating a crowd-based form of exchange where rather than accumulating the resources and organization

will draw them from the crowd if and when they need them. hari: crowd-based capitalism. arun: i call it crowd-based capitalism. except my book title. the shadow economy. it maximizes the number of people who know anything about it. hari: you run a cold living space. it is not the type of apartment most people are used to. is there something generational happening where people are open to the idea of sharing something as fundamental as the space they inhabit? i don't think you cannot talk about it over access. younger people, things such as houses and cars and even clothing they would previously purchase and own, they are now

accessing on-demand in a is able way that they say better overall experiments. hari: is there evidence happening on a large scale, not just specific to new york city or san francisco where they can jump in? rana: it is. if you look at co-ops, companies owned by the individuals, this has been a bit model -- big model and agriculture. economy this is crucial. as i talk about in my book, one of the reasons we've had this wealth gap in our economy is it has been dominated by complex institutions, created a bifurcated economy where workers have only gotten a 2% wage hike since the financial crisis.

that doesn't work in an economy that is 70% consumer spending. these are going to be important helping labor capture a bigger share of the pie. arun: absolutely. i think a big shift we are seeing, a company in crowd-based capitalism is a shift in the role of the individual. for 100 years individuals have been a provider of labor. creating a wide friday of models allows thent, that individuals to ascend past that labor provider role. and take on some form of ownership. it may not look like him fleet ownership. and it were driver has less ownership than in airbnb host but it is the fundamental shift in the rule. the trouble is we have built all of the safety net things on the

stability, all of the benefits. it is wrapped around a full-time employment role. we are at the early stages of having to reinvent how we fund the things people really want. rana: portable benefits are so crucial. unless you have those safety nets this model doesn't work. hari: explain that. how would it work on a global scale. if i rented out my apartment, if i perform some task for task revenue, how do i accrue long-term benefits? rana: you think about that high-end, a portfolio career. at the low end the gig economy. people taking on different jobs. many of us are working at that already. many people around the table probably have other jobs.

what makes that stable socially is if you have health care that you can take with you as a freelancer. about are talking portable benefits. mark warner talked about this. elizabeth warren is big into this. that could beeak had and turn the sharing economy into a positive incentive some and that we are going to be uber-ized and end up losers in the economy. arun: we talk about the challenges that platforms like in what lyft have faced should their workers be categorized as. providers in the sharing economy don't necessarily want to be full-time. they don't want the work structure.

they want the good stuff that goes with full-time. they want the income stability. they want the benefits, they want the insurance. to think aboutus how we are going to create that infrastructure of protraction -- protection. class in many cases the companies want to provide things such as training, performance-based bonuses. but they are limited from doing that because they don't want the employees classified as full-time. they don't want to keep them as independent contractors. there is a gap between the independent contractor and the full-time employee where there is a lot of people existing in limbo. hari: we're probably going to have to rethink the area of labor law. the way in which the relationship between companies and employees is set up in a decades-old system that doesn't

work for the new economy. it will require legislative tweaking. hari: does this change where the wealth pools? look at airbnb or uber. these are companies with an enormous valuations. is -- there are not chairs they have in the company. arun: i think of course we have created a bunch of new tech billionaires. for every tech billionaire we have created we have also created close to a million micro-entrepreneurs supplementing their income or keeping their home or paying their mortgage by running what does resemble a genuine small business. they set prices. they build a brand. they have to manage inventory. the airbnb model and a good

template for what positive crowd-based capitalism might look like. there is a broader issue, we are weck in this world where loosened the boxes of labor categories. we have to do it fast. while companies are starting to see human beings as assets, while we are at that point where the focus might shift away from capital to respecting labor, it is a relatively short window. 20 years down the road automation will be at the point where that is going to become easier, more fluid. where we seeoint the equivalent of the labor unions.

would be good for its more favorable labor practices. in whetherterested or not the sharing economy could be an opportunity for a broader labor movement. thatly when you think of union you think of manufacturing , working people, the working class. the sharing economy goes all the way up the economic ladder. there could be an opportunity to bring workers together and impart new strength of labor which a lot feel is the way to create more sustainable growth. you're seeing a gulf of immunities were people might gather in nature. you have seen declining church

attendance. you've seen declining union membership area you don't even have a workforce. you don't even have a group of employees to go into the office. arun: it could be the place that you live, an important new community structure. as an employer, what is the correlation between loyalty and flexibility? people wereake sure working through your company have some semblance of loyalty toward some shared mission. i'm going to carry the flag for this rant. -- this brand. if everyone can run to the next project how do you say to your clients i can guarantee you this fantastic, talented individual i have recruited can stay on for you.

>> you have to be innovative. you have to think in a new way about how you see your workers incentivized. a way to shy away from contractors. they are employees. all of them have with the in the company as well. the sharing of equity is extraordinarily important. you are seeing other companies take even more extreme versions of this. the right sharing company that is actually owned by the drivers , an extremely promising development. arun: i have been using them. they bought the rights. comparable waite

times. if to be invited by a driver. the driver seemed a lot happier. hari: i bet. they take a 30% share. arun: it is still early days but maine's to be seen. uber drivers were happy as well. number.call a there is an office in one world trade center. there is a feeling of first back that the drivers seem to be reacting positively to. a tried andome ways tested competitive strategy. isr's a weakness its relationship with its drivers. they can target on that dimension. rana: he goes to the about human capital. they are competing for drivers.

>> that will even out the bargaining position. it may not be enough. brad: they have to move quickly. uber is bedding and is 5-10 years. if you look at driverless technology, it is clearly against removing the driver from the equation. they know that is their weakness. uber has said there will not be any drivers. hari: what role does the state play? if you are going to take over a building, what framework should there be? bare minimum? where is the line where it becomes an infringement on your ability to inundate? brad: when we think about regulations they look at the purpose of the regulations.

why were they conceived? in 99% of cases they were conceived in the right spirit, in the right manner and they are an incredibly important part of the ecosystem. why important to understand those regulations exist. on,thing i focus more sometimes they can be overly focused on specific regulations, more of user interface of government. is it easy to get someone on the phone? how long does it take when you apply for a permit to get a yes or no answer? i think there's too much emphasis on the regulations themselves and their needs to they exist for good reasons to protect people. to make sure people are safe and things are done in the best possible way.

it is much more about the user interface and the process that holds entrepreneurs back. arun: i will go a step further transitiont as we into this new world of capitalism the role of government is going to change in a way that makes it more of a rule setter. a lot of the execution of the regulations themselves and maybe even invention of new regulations is going to happen naturally to other stakeholders. there'll be a host of new regulatory issues that, -- that, come up. response is for the government to client down and say follow the rules and we are going to enforce them. the right approach is to treat the platform as a partner, to

say the role you're going to be playing in the future society is it just as a marketplace. it is more than that. it is someone who has better information about where the market is going. i think we should stop thinking of them as the entity to be regulated. -- they are ahe part of the regulatory ecosystem. they understand they have better information about this new opportunity. you have the detailed data trail and this great history of interaction between individuals. things like discrimination and safety. there's a host of opportunities for new regulatory models. we have to bring the platforms

into the regulatory fold rather than think of them as those who break the rules. 6 the sharing economy -- rana: the sharing economy can become a zero-sum game. you have more revenue were model where the actual worker is not getting a huge share of value and wealth is held in a small number of people's hand. you have a different model in touch it is more from a capitalism 2.0, most mainstream economist with say that is the path more sustainable growth. returns thatinto are going to be lower. if we can get the growth more broadly shared you will see faster economic growth overall. we've displace most of the wrist down to the individual level. they buy the cars. they are paying for that.

perhaps they are not computing that into the cost of actually doing this. they buildes, once the app, they get the drivers, the customers, they see the profits coming in. 6 this brings up this brings up an issue i raised, whether the technology sector will follow in the footsteps of the financial sector. of techhave a lot companies that are following the same paradigm. huge market cap at fewer number of jobs being created. a lot of value held up here. that is not a model for sustainable growth. inequality leads to more volatile growth and boom bust cycles. arun: and broader unhappiness in a society. challenge isn't so much -- part of the opportunity of the sharing economy, we have

a way of shifting away from that concentration of a tremendous amount of wealth into the hands of the few. if you look at the beneficiaries of facebook am a google, microsoft, it tended to be people who have skills associated with the new technology. with the sharing economy platforms you are touching people across the spectrum. there is a bunch of different people whether they are making in thewho now can share growth that comes from technological progress. the challenge here is going to that put in place policy make sure this collective of providers can get enough bargaining power to reduce the inherent imbalance between the

individual and the institutions. once that happens we will have you back at this table. the book is called makers and takers, the rise of finance and the fall of american business. thank you for joining us. ♪

♪ facebook connect over a

million people each day around the world. it has also become increasingly influential and how we stay informed about the world. the research study found that 44% of adults in the united states regularly read news content on the site. leslie facebook announced plans to make changes to its new our rhythm and were favorably promote content by the friends and family of users. ,oining me now is john herrman .ay rosen, and melissa bell i am pleased to have them all. how significant has the impact of facebook on journalism been? one per on the consumers and also on the storytellers. let's start with the consumers. inn: it is hard to overstate

the last five years especially, a huge number of people have while using facebook, and treating it as a primary news source. some is intentional, some is just happening. there's more to read, there are more organizations vying for your attention. that over has been 100 million people in america alone are actively checking a single news source composed of many other news sources. that is arguably the largest single outlet in the country and the world, and it is facebook's. hari: isn't that a good thing? more people getting information from perhaps friends saying read this article? advantages to consuming news through a social layer which facebook makes that youand that -- in are connected through your friends and family through the news so it will be more

meaningful to you. what is lost with that is and that judgment extra emphasis that journalists once added to the flow of news so that they could say to us, you may not initially think so but this is really important, or this may not be the sort of thing you normally the attention to what you really should hear it. i think that is one of the things being lost through the news system. we should also add that in many ways this change is being driven that peoplee fact love their mobile devices and other mobile devices they want pages load fast and they want a good user experience. has distinguished itself through that. we should talk about the choices it makes but we should also keep in mind that the underlying trend is users are making a choice to use their phones in on their phones to use the app facebook. hari: melissa, this is good news

for vox. facebook is pretty much a virtual paper boy. a good chunk of your audience not to your specific website but through facebook and other social platforms. melissa: we definitely see this platform and other platforms is a great opportunity to connect with audiences. facebook has a huge audience that is hungry and looking for information every day. it is one of many. sometimes we can get little distracted as facebook as the sole conversation topic. -- it is one of many access points where we can meet people. it is an opportunity in that there is a hungry audience waiting for us there, but we also need to remember there are a lot of different places for us to reach audiences in this day and age. hari: let's unpack the second

part, the storytellers. what is the relationship tween facebook and publishing companies? i think it is been at times happier and more strained. of the media story and the internet, facebook is kind of like a conclusion, feels like a conclusion the companies print to a jump from web and adult with google and search engines in getting readers to other companies like that. facebook is bigger than anything before, kind of more centralized and editorially curated. that is why there is a sense of urgency among publishers. hari: recently they announced the values behind what they see the algorithm is and how the outdoors him -- how the outdoors comes to itsthim

conclusions. that is good because we finally know some inkling of how the black box works. says iother sense, it want to give you what you want, not necessarily what i think you want and what i think you need. in your earlier answer it was interesting because you said there is the editorial decision-making process that editors have had. far-flungin some place in the world might not seem important but it really is, and as why we're going to use our precious 22 minutes to do this. facebook does not have to do that. jay: no they do not. what they said in their recent statement is at friends and family come first and your social graph, your social world's most important for facebook. and the public world is a distant second. i think this is an important

thing that they finally said it that way because prior to that, they had wanted to assure news publishers, it is ok, we love news and what you on our platform. -- want you on our platform. making noises about how key news was to their our rhythm. here i think there being more honest. the most important thing is because users tell us what they really want, is for my daughter's baby pictures to show up first on my feet. this is -- on my feed. this is important to understand because underlines this is the struggle between the strong and the week. facebook is in charge, they are the goliath. it is good to know what goliath is about to do because you might get crushed otherwise. the other thing i think is interesting is because facebook is such a data driven company and is so focused on what users

want, quote unquote, the wonder man at has trouble with is what if what users want is to be surprised? what if what users want is to know about what they do not know about yet? and that is where i think news publishers have an advantage because that is the desire that they cater to. for engineers, that is a tricky problem. for editors, that is where they come in and that is where they are good at. is this black box that is making these decisions, aren't you as a publisher at the mercy of where that black box decides, or at least the engineers and what they program in? whether or not the stories you are working hard to create ever reach people? a certain extent, yes, but i do not think that is what we should be focusing on. what we should be looking at with facebook is that they are a company who is very, very

committed to figuring out what their users want and building a product that serves its users. of anot think this is much dramatic shift. they're trying to create a platform for people to share information about themselves. what should -- which we should be doing is a publishing industry is using that as example for us. we need to create a service for our readers that we can excel at, that we have an advantage it. ourselves as at the end of the day are storytellers. we have a competitive advantage in that we are able to create and inform people through the value of telling their stories. that is something that facebook does not do. they are a distributor but not the originator of those stories. if you look at most of the major technological advances and major platforms that are out there, their aggregators of stories. youtube, snapchat, facebook. these people are building

products that aggregate stories but do not tell stories. so, what can we do as journalists to focus on those stories and be the best at that, rather than trying to constantly understand what a black box is doing. we should be aware of it and thoughtful about it, but i would rather us be focusing on being the best at what we can do and provide to readers, and as is where i think we can really be smart about this. hari: is also really important for vox do have a distinct way of telling stories. brand cannot be just news anymore, that is not good enough. eventually have to have your own way of giving getting people your information so that when i want vox story my feet, i that because i know how vox approaches things. that is a big change for news companies too. now they have to increasingly do it their way because it is not packaged in a big bright bow

with a newsprint on it. it comes in an atomized form. increasingly that is not enough. john, what you said above the business side of things, i want to point out that facebook has entered into relationship with different companies including the times and vox, where there are encouraging publishers to create video for facebook live. when you look at it sometimes you say wow, they built an entire tv network without paying for a satellite. how important is that relationship affect the possible storytelling you might do? john: in one way -- you just -- this is an amazing time to reach a lot of people in new ways and are a lot of challenges we do not

intuitively know or know for experienced with the best way to reach people is on facebook or snapchat. these are new platforms and they change a lot. what is the story look like on snapchat on twitter? what does it look like told to a messaging app? the answers often result in millions of new readers or viewers or whatever. the problem is, let's say we figure out facebook live. let's say a reporter figures out a format for telling a story on facebook live or producer figures out a novel way to do a life event that is like tv but like facebook and somehow new and exciting. that solves a really interesting problem for the publisher, for facebook. it does not tell us in the long-term how media companies whatmake money doing this, a media company that specializes in these kinds of things will look like. the big existential questions our business questions. understand -- if

a hundred thousand people show up to your page and a bunch click on this ad, i get how you make money. if 100,000 people show up on facebook or twitter, how do you make money? melissa: website as a certain amount of money spent on advertising for that page. podcast have a different revenue model for advertising. newsletters have a different model. each one is distinct. facebook has their own as well. facebook has been slower to monetize its pages and they are now working with publishers really aggressively to figure out ways to monetize the content they are putting on facebook. in my mind, i think it is a really positive turn because what we are seeing not just on facebook but from google, twitter, these technology companies, is that there is value for them as well as for us to have good quality content on their pages. -- they want to have

informative, entertaining, or personal stories told on their platform. relyknow they cannot just on day-to-day users for that of a they also need to turn to publishers as well. in my mind i think this is a great evolution for journalists, to see that there is a tilt towards quality happening. i think we can sometimes get caught up in the fact that it feels like we have been doing this for a long time in the digital age. it has been 20 years publishers have been online. going through google's cycles, but the truth is that is a short amount of time. particularly a medium that has been disrupted by mobile. we have to realize that not only are publishers trying to figure this out, not just the storytelling but the revenue, technology platforms are as well. we are experimenting in this space right now. that is why i feel really

optimistic about this, i'm excited about it here just as much -- about it. just as much innovative storytelling happening. they control access to an audience. the publisher publicist these things. they so that audience it has to advertisers, which is something we have taken for granted for so long that we forget the problems inherent in an arrangement like that. but in a situation where a media company like vox is publishing to snapchat, to facebook, then would argue they are less a publisher that something new. facebook and snapchat on the publisher there. for're providing the means the story, the video, the reporting to be distributed. what a media company has to do

in an environment like that feels not just like a little different like an adjustment, but totally different. you're almost like an agency, in the background feeling these different distribution chains that you do not quite have control over. that is like a fundamental change in what we do company is. i do not think it would square with our previous definitions of a publisher. melissa: you are coming from a newspaper mindset. this is something we have talked about internally a lot, perhaps publishing is the wrong term. we have thought of ourselves as programmers. your programming stories two different platforms. it is not so much -- one of the things that i think is wonderful for vox media that is not have to be thinking about the medium that they were born within. they can be much more agile and adapting to different mediums. before, a place like the new york times was so tied to the

medium it was graded in. i think they're doing a good job but that is a move they have to step away from. you're right, publishing might be wrong term for it. we do think about, how can we program are stories -- our stories? their audiences and their audiences. immediate user just look at who was accessing and that was the audience. now we have to recognize that 50 million people were consuming but disconnected from one another may not be as valuable as 5 million people consuming your content who are interconnected with one another, talking, liking, chairing, able to produce their own content back. it is not just how many people you're reaching, reach is one dimension. it is how interconnected are those people to one another, and an interconnected audience is more valuable and if you are the

platform through which they connect to one another, that is even more viable. so, that is what we are beginning to understand it now. is not just how many people you reach, it is how are they configured? if you are the configure or that is the strong position to be in. those 5 million people talking about your stories in one place are doing on facebook. so, that is a fantastic thing for facebook. a part ofting to be that and it feels like it is very much yours, but the amount of money you get from that and the amount of control you ultimately have over what happens next is up to them. hari: sour grapes of what used to begin to peers. meaning, i got to decide once upon a time what was above the fold. a1, the top story in the newscast tonight. right now, whatever you see when you flip your phone open into

open any number of these platform apps, i do not have this power anymore. but even if you do see my work, you might see a story published 15 days ago and it was in c3. long ago, the journalism profession in the united states took for granted its power as a gatekeeper and confused it with was a veryt, which limited channel immediate universe that happened to prevail at that time, which was just an historical era which ran for a long time, almost 100 years. it is over now. limitedho confused a channel immediate universe with their own authority and brilliance as journalists, are having a hard time. the lost gatekeeper syndrome occurs over and over for that group of people. but i teach young journalists and the kind of people who go to work for melissa's company, they do not have that. they did not grow up in a world.

they do not necessarily have an attitude of entitlement about their gatekeeping power or their audience and they are much more willing to go out and seek users for what they do. i think that is really healthy. but for the people who thought they had cultural authority and they now see taken by these tech companies, there is deeply offensive to them about this. this is where he sort of meld critiques of facebook with changes of business a little bit. there are certainly critics who are nostalgic for a time when maybe they personally had more say over what people saw or thought. -- that runsrt of in parallel to a very clear business problem for any sort of media company that made its money from distribution. which virtually all newspapers and magazines did.

which most of the media as we know it does, to some degree. is not justhat away about nostalgia or feeling like here are some young, arrogant tech companies that are taking things over. it is like, this is the destruction of one version of advertising in for video, for writing. this is one industry kind of just eating another one. so, we will just have to note that when we talk about who is right and wrong in these critiques and who is appealing to the good old days that were never that great. i resist that a little bit , sorte it leaves us to of, dismiss the source of all the anxiety, which is just collapsing businesses everywhere. before whateriod people know comes next, that is

apocalyptic. a few years later things are to come together. vox has its portfolio of companies -- a portfolio of publications that in internet years are not brand-new, they are pretty well-established. people know what the verge is, can do very is, you deliberate, good work on those sites. through facebook, through snapchat, through the sites able to putvox is together some version of a new type of media company. but, i do not think you would become herbal turning to another publisher and saying, here is the roadmap. no one knows us yet, that is why everyone is so tense all the time. is asa: i agree there stressor behind the revenue model. i think we are talking specifically about the journalism model, i want to posit that we have a slightly

different problem from the gatekeeper issue. i think that is something that also is a little bit of a smoke and mirrors for the real problem. the real problem is we are inundating people with information at such a huge rate that we are not providing clarity anymore. i think this goes back to the idea reason to have a limited means of publications distribution so we could present a number of stories, people could follow the stories and they were well informed. that has shifted the cousin of the internet and television and 24 hour news channels. even the facebook update mentioned this. if you ago, facebook never imagined a news feed so overrun with information that they were toing to provide some ways help people be guided through the information. i think that his release something we have yet to fall for. we think about that a lot at vox vox.com was built on the

premise that we want to provide explanation to readers behind the news. but it is a challenge. it is a challenge and we set of technology, anyway we set up websites with reverse chronology feeds, it is a challenge me when we set up television. concern is my journalism heart more than whether we have the right gatekeepers in place or not. hari: there was a recent hubbub with gizmodo where human editors for facebook -- was concerned or putting their own bias into the placing of stories in the trending topics section when he opened the facebook page. they said we do not allow for any sort of suppression. if 44% of americans are reading this and i think 170 million americans spend 50 million -- 50 facebook ory on whatsapp, do we have a tendency to walk back into those filter bubbles, things you relate and

see -- things we like and seek affirmation? button andess this see how someone who would be far more progressive than you would see the world or someone more conservative with you the world. are you concerned that over time that as these different most of -- different social media reflect what we like, that we might not hear that thing that was so important to an editor -- serendipitous, you might like this other thing? think filters i bubbles are talking to one another. but raises a really important issue to meet which is if people are going to be informed citizens in the world we are in a publice want to have engaged with the news, it is probably going to be because those people intentionally chose opposed to it flowing to

them through the structure of the media world they were in. that to me is the big question want toericans actually elect to be informed? hari: thank you so much for joining us. ♪

mark: i am mark halperin. john: and i am john heilemann. but with all due respect to hillary, james comey had better material. mrs. clinton: his campaign is, selloff america's assets. we sell the statue of liberty? he wants to make america great again, maybe he should start by actually making things in america again. [crickets] mrs. clinton: we need to write a new chapter for america, but it should not be chapter 11. ♪