>> from our studios in new york city, this is "charlie rose." charlie: we look at trump's economic plan. he delivered a major policy address in detroit, michigan. he stressed to bring new jobs and prosperity to those who have the very least. in contrast he tested hillary clinton as the candidate of the past. mr. trump: in short, the city of detroit, is the living, breathing example of my opponents' failed economic agenda. [applause] i'm proposing an across the board income tax deduction for middle-income america.

this will lead to millions of new and really good paying jobs. the rich will pay their fair share but no one will pay much that it destroys jobs or undermines our ability as a nation to compete. charlie: it comes on the week after bruising steps. his poll numbers have dropped. joining me jim from the "washington post." welcome, jim. tell me about what you think trump did today at the economic club in detroit in terms of casting a sense of him and his economic views. jim: he did two important things sm the first was to reach back out to republicans, many of whom who have been turned off by the events of the last week and

reassure them that he wants to cut taxes and cut regulations, that he has a conservative plan for the economy. he reached out with the populist arm at the same time and hit on the pain that many americans have felt from free trade. he hit nafta and t.p.p. and try to paint hillary clinton on of the tax issue and the trade issue. charlie: is trade working for trump? jim: he obviously believes that it is. he believes they can work for him in primaries states like , michigan and ohio. he believes, even if you aren't a factory worker who lost a job due to nafta or trade relations with china, it resonates with america that it speaks to the idea that we are losing on a global stage and only he can make us win again.

charlie: on the one hand, he reached back to republican orthodoxy. on the other hand he is casting , himself as somebody very different. he suggested that in some cases that he may be to the left of hillary clinton. for example, on how much he would be prepared to spend on infrastructure. what do you make of that? jim: i think it's fascinating. he is trying to outflank her. one is being infrastructure. he might spend half a trillion dollars in infrastructure. the other is child care, oddly enough. he said this is an issue that is important to his daughter and a issue that republicans don't talk about but he talked about making it deductible. all childcare expenses deductible. that is a big outreach, and could be an expensive proposal that would put him to the left of hillary clinton. charlie: how would he change it? jim: you could deduct your child care expenses.

you can't deduct all of them. he would let you deduct what appears to be -- there are no details -- but what appears to be all, or the average cost, as he put it, over your childcare. that's one thing democrats have pounced on, the deduction and not a tax credit. that means low-income families who don't take itemized deductions, wouldn't benefit, which means this would help middle-class families than the poor. charlie: most people believe the economy needs a stimulating growth. how do we create more growth? economists across the steel would agree on that. --m is a very supply-side trump is a very supply-side for more growth, which is you reduce taxes, taxes for businesses and cut the corporate tax rate from one the highest rates in the developed world to 15% as an

actual rate, which is a huge cut . and then deregulation. he would stop any new regulations from the d.o.d. bill. -- dodd-frank bill. charlie: senior economic officials from previous republican officials and only one well known tax policy expert. what does the stadium -- what does this say to you? maybe this is the guy that is listening to a new group of advisors. jim: that is one way to look at it. another way he has a very small , inner circle. the advisers he has called upon has been he has done business with. they are fundraisers for him. a couple of the experts align with him ideologically. peter navarro from the university of california, irvin. e. but this is an anti-establishment move. the establishment economists do

not want to be advising him, and he does not particularly want their advice. charlie: and remind me if this is accurate, the polls suggest that americans today trust trump running the economy more than hillary clinton. jim: that has been true throughout the campaign. but in the recent batch of polls that gapa narrowing of . trump had a hugely on the economy. it was one of the reasons to think he was well positioned for november. and that huge lead is at best a small one. charlie: thank you, jim. jim from the "washington post." ♪

charlie: mike is a former acting director of the c.i.a. resigned to publicly endorse hillary clinton. on friday, he wrote a scathing op-ed where he called donald trump "a poor and dangerous commander-in-chief." "he may well pose a threat to our national security.' i am pleased to welcome like morel. mike: great to be here. charlie: tell me about why you

felt compelled to change where you were. a contributor to cbs on public boards. former acting director and deputy director of the cia, a man who has gained increasing respect for his voice, because of his access to media. to say that he is going in a different direction. was notarlie, this surprisingly difficult for me. an, being a political -- b apoliticartisan, being al is in part of my dna. charlie: your responsibility was to tell people what the facts were. mike: right, and to be objective about it. any hint of politics would

undercut the credibility of what you are saying. intelligence officers have to be apolitical. number one stepping outside of that lifetime role. so that was a big deal. i was also concerned that i would damage the agency that i love so much. that i would not only become somebody who was attacked, and i knew i would be attacked, and i have been. but i feared that the agency would also be attacked. republicannce, the vice presidential nominee, attacked the cia in attacking me. he said, this is the same agency that told barack obama that told isis was the jv team. he attacked the thousands of men

and women that go to work with one goal to protect the country. i knew that was going to happen. but two things, i think, brought me to the decision to write the op-ed. one was a growing belief that -- id trump, mr. trump don't want to be disrespectful -- that mr. trump would be a threat to national security as commander-in-chief. he has said things on the campaign trail that have assisted our adversaries, have assisted vladimir putin, have assisted isis. we can talk about all of those if you like. he has said things that are as unnerved our allies. she has said things that has led our adversaries to endorse him. kim jong-un of north korea has formally endorsed the republican

nominee for president. that is one reason. growing increasingly concerned about this man being the president of the united states and being commander-in-chief. the second was, i have known hillary clinton a long time. the perceptions out there about her are not sure. putting both of those reasons together, i decided to speak out. one of the things that struck me as i was writing the op-ed and talking to people about my views, there were many people who shared my views. there were many people who share when i wrote in that op-ed, but were afraid to speak out. they were afraid of being attacked, of the republican party not being with them down the road. i felt afraid of not speaking

out. i felt afraid of the consequences of not speaking out. i think that serious republicans, of which there are many, need to think about the consequences of not speaking out. substantial consequences. -- the potential consequences. charlie: did you think that you would also be susceptible to attack, that you would have to resign, and thirdly, you contributed at cbs -- you will be perceived now as person. -- now as partisan. so what you say now will be measured differently. mike: two issues. unfortunately i needed to resign from cbs for obvious reasons. i took a leave of absence from the public court. i did not want this link to them in any way.

it's not linked to them in any way. those were sacrifices that i was willing to make to do this. cbs, absolutely loved it. hopefully i can go back to it someday. so that's one issue. those are sacrifices. the other that he said, i have been perceived straight down the ,iddle, call it like it is willing to criticize president bush, president obama. -- callto be supported it like i see it. charlie: you have endorsed her. will you be out working for her? really be part of the national security team advising hillary clinton? mike: yes. not only am i endorsing her, but i will do whatever it takes to ensure that she wins and he

loses. i will be open to anything that the campaign asks me to do. giving her advice. yes. charlie: the other question that comes up, is there in addition? ambition?e are you looking for a job in the clinton administration? mike: i love my time in government. i have been out for three years. i love my time outside a government. my focus right now is totally getting her elected and not getting him elected. might or -- what job that ist come of this, so far down the road are not focused on the title. charlie: was that at all a consideration? mike: no. in fact i may have hurt myself a little bit, right?

independentpletely intelligence officer responded on both sides of the aisle, and i have moved to one side of the aisle. i may have actually hurt myself. charlie: when you are considering this, i want to talk about the views expressed by trump. give us the indictment. obamay clinton and barack and you. what is it about donald trump that most specifically d isqualifies him to be president in your eyes? mike: here is the list in my mind, then i will get to what i think is the key issue. ego is larger than any that i have ever seen before. psychologists have called him narcissistic. i called him narcissistic in the op-ed. egothat narcissism, that

requires constant feeding. putin plays to. others in the world will use that against him. that ego becomes dangerous. he makes decisions not based on his intellect. keep week's decisions based on his intuition. and he is careless with the facts. and even when the facts are shown to be corrected, he doesn't correct them. he continues with the old facts. that is dangerous for a policy maker. .e has incredibly thin skin he reacts sharply to critiques. when you are the president of the united states, world leaders are critiquing you all the time. you have to react to those in a measured way, not the overreactions we see time and

time again. , this is a guy who encouraged nations to acquire nuclear weapons. this is a guy who said it was ok that putin went into ukraine and took crimea. this is a guy who said, i have to think about whether i come to the defense of the baltics if putin attacks them. i thought my god, this is the last person you want in the oval office making decisions. now we come to the absolute critical issue. he makes decisions with his gut. he is prone to overreact to attacks. he needs his ego fed. all of those can be dealt with

if you got the right advisers around you and if you listen to them. and i don't think he listens. i have seen absolutely no evidence, no indication that he listens to anybody. when he was asked, when he was asked, who do you listen to anybody on national security, he actually said himself. charlie: have you talked to anybody who interacts with him? mike: in all fairness, i have never met him. i spent a lot of time with hillary clinton, but have gone on my way to talk with people that know donald. charlie: people that advise him? mike: people who have known him for a long period of time. charlie: do nothing to allay your fears? mike: no. in fact they say that two of , their biggest concerns, right, is his narcissism and to feed it . and that he doesn't listen to anybody.

and that scares the heck out of me. you aren't going to change the when you become president of the united states. i didn't see the entire speech today, but i did see were references to isolation, references, that we take care of ourselves rather than the rest of the world, references to bad trade deals. that all concerns me. this is what i would like to see him do, i would like him to stand up tomorrow and denounce putin's military incursion into ukraine. i would like to see him denounce putin's annexation of crimea. i like to see him denounce putin's rebels that resulted in the shootdown of a malaysian airliner.

i would like to see him stand up and denounce putin and i'll tell you at the end of the day, putin would have more respect for him than he does now. charlie: why do you think he doesn't do that? for example, why he does not denounce putin in ukraine. do you think that's because he believes he did the right thing? or that he believes it's ok for them to take over crimea? or because he just doesn't understand the consequences of providing leadership of the country that is the world's greatest power? mike: the single thing in my op-ed in the got the most attention was, i said this guy has been recruited. charlie: you say he was an unwitting agent of the russian federation. mike: that is why he has taken the positions he has taken. charlie: suggest he's recorded by the way that playing played -- that putin played to his ego? mike: putin is a trained and

talented kgb officer. he is trained to look at an individual and played to them and get what he wants them to do. that is what an agent is. charlie: you think vladimir putin watched american politics and thought, i would be off better with my objectives for russia is donald trump was elected. therefore i will do everything that i can to make him an agent of my wishes. if i support him, he will become an agent of my wishes. mike: i think there are two things. charlie: you are not talking about speculation, you do not know what putin thinks or is trying to do. mike: i do not know. i happen to know something about how you recruit people. i have a lot of experience about that. it is my professional assessment that this is what putin has done. charlie: those are the skills

they learned that the cia. mike: yes. i think was thinking two things. one, putin does not like secretary clinton. charlie: i have talked to people that say it's more that. mike: i think it's both. we've had'vmike: conversations about russia and the. you said there is one thing about all the that vladimir putin fears. that is an arab spring green revolution style uprising in the streets of moscow. and that is what happened after the parliamentary elections during barack obama's first term. the russian middle class was in the streets. he blamed that on secretary clinton. he believes secretary clinton was behind the. charlie: it's part of his overall view of that chaos and the strong state he thinks is necessary. that you cannot allow people in

the streets. mike: part of it is, he is afraid of her. charlie: it's so much more than secretary clinton. wise of an intelligent agent it seems to say that all about hillary clinton. a lot of his foreign policy comes from the white house and the state department. she was a representative and implementer of foreign policy. mike: there's a lot of things that he believes that simply are not true. he really believes that the united states was behind the democratic movement in ukraine. he believes that. deep in his heart. he is not making it up. he believes this. charlie: he thinks the cia was engaged. mike: the other thing i do , believe absolutely that he looked at trump and said this is a guy that i can play, right? all i have to do is compliment him and tell him how great he is and he will come to my side of

the fence. charlie: what's your best exhibit of where he has done that and once again doing it again? mike: my best exhibit is give me another reason why donald trump would have said all of the incredibly positive things he has said about putin as a person and russian policy that is at odds with the united states of america in a campaign where no one is focused on russia? why would he have done that? charlie: one example that is , donald trump being donald trump. people say certain things, and he responds to it and by intuition and instinct without putting it in an international conflict context. you see what i mean? mike: yes. yes. but you are making my point. charlie: he spends time on tweet and watching television. doesn't mean he doesn't get the

job done on the campaign trail. he won the republican nomination. mike: you are making my point that his personality reacts that are inconsistent to american interests. charlie: but to react -- i'm now arguing the other side. i don't want to use the term devil's advocate, but to react that way does not make him -- it makes him -- it doesn't make him a tool of the russian federation and doesn't make him an unwitting agent. he has not done anything other than offer some words up responding to a guy that says nice things about him. mike: i disagree. charlie: what has he done other than say some things? mike: he has undermined u.s. policy, western policy, with regard to russia, right. he has told all of those people

who follow him, the the low 48% who believe his every word that putin is a good guy and good leader. that undermines what the united states is trying to do. putin has his intelligence agencies, right, trying to get that kind of propaganda. this has been free propaganda for putin in the united states of america. and charlie, putin would never ever say this, of course, but i believe putin sees trump as a tool of his now. that is why that i said what i said. charlie: he thinks he can elect trump? mike: he wants trump to be elected. and there is some evidence that he trying to help that along. charlie: president obama says i don't trust vladimir putin. that is an opinion. donald trump says, he likes him. mike: he says he is a great leader. a guy i can work with. charlie: hold on a second on

"great leader." take a look at what he has done with respect to russia as president, has he been a terrible leader, a good leader? mike: terrible. charlie: made russia more of a player in the world more than it was earlier? mike: so this is the conversation you had with the vice president. so, yes, he has made russia more of a player, but i will tell you that i believe at significant costs to russia. think about it this way, charlie. just think about ukraine and we'll come back to syria. if you look at ukraine and you ask who is the big loser with ukraine, right? well, first of all, the ukranian people who had their

aspirations crushed. second, the united states and the west, which were shown to be unable to stop putin, right, so we lost something. but the biggest loser in my view, the absolute biggest loser in my view was the russian economy, the rush russian middle class and the future, not only sanctions, not only sanctions, which have crippled the economy, but russia's only future is to be integrated with the west. and because of what putin did in ukraine, he made sure that's not going to happen for a decade. russia is a loser. he is a horrible leader. he is undermining the future of his own country by trying to be seen as a great power. russia is not benefit from being seen as a great power, it's being undermined. i tell you the first thing that struck me in the situation room

and this is going to sound small but it's not, it's not small at all compared to trump. she was always prepared. big thick books that people have to go through and i would spend hours going through these books for these meetings and clear to me that she had read for these books and was prepared and knew what she was talking about. that is unusual for principals. and i don't see donald trump doing that. she asked good questions and not looked into her view. she would change her view if somebody made a compelling argument. she was one of the few cabinet members who came into the situation room and didn't automatically take the bureaucratic view of her department. i mean, leon panetta was this way and bob gates. charlie: they were different. mike: yes.

yes. incredibly impressed me they would go to what they thought was the best thing even though it was at odds with the bureaucratic views of their own department. charlie: bob gates said one of the best qualities was a temperment and b, they listened. he said every good president he knew was a good listener. mike: the questions she asked and how carefully she answered them and how the answers were reflected in her views as the conversation moved forward. and she was calm and she was collected and she was tough. i thought she was the toughest person in the room in terms of -- charlie: in terms of what she advocated? mike: toughest in terms of -- toughest in terms of

understanding that for diplomacy to be effective that there had to be a belief on the part of the adversary that you were willing and able to use force if necessary. she understands that. she understands that diplomacy, without that, cannot be effective. charlie: he uses force with

charlie: he uses force with drones and against osama bin laden and used force a number of times but people make a sharp distinction when she is prepared to use force, whether it's syria or libya or somewhere else, then the president is and one way you try to understand where she stappeds and how she's different. you know how they talked and argued. what you argued is not necessarily what you believe. you can make an argument to try to understand the problem. mike: so, she was pushing aggressively, quite frankly with leon panetta and david petraeus

to be more supportive of the modern opposition in syria in late 2012 and 2013 when assaad was on his heels and there were many people thought he was ready to go and not only to push him, right, but to give diplomacy some leverage. charlie: 51 diplomats who argued that they need leverage from the military on the ground to be able to negotiate what is in the best interest of the country they represent. mike: i think based on the conversations that she thought that significant assistance to the moderate opposition that you can do that will without going down a slippery slope to u.s. military involvement, which is what the president feared. and that was the difference between the two at the end of the day. i believe she understands that you can -- that you can go a

certain distance, right, without having to go the rest of the way, that each step in the process can be a specific decision and just because you take one step doesn't mean you have to take all of them. charlie: this conversation is why you wouldn't trust donald trump but admire hillary clinton that she would be an effective source. how would she be different? what is her position on isis and what is it about that recommends itself to you that has not been done? mike: so, so, she's very supportive of what the president has done. she will go a little bit further. so she would more special forces and considering no fly-zone. charlie: the president has been doing it gradly. mike: he has been moving down the line and you said something more important earlier which is

to say for this to end, this -- russia and the united states and iranians have come to the table, there has to be an agreement on a transition to a new government, right? i think she understands for us to have leverage in that conversation that we got to have more skin in the game from the u.s. military. not more boots but skin in the game. that's why she is talking about more special forces and understands that that is necessary for the leverage you need in those political discussions. charlie: is its possible because it looks like russia is moving away from that kind of agreement? mike: i don't know if it's possible. now we switch to michael morrel's view. given where we are -- i think it's possible to squeeze isis

down to nothing in iraq and syria. but i fear without a resolution to the civil war that other groups will pop up. al news ra, the al qaeda group in syria is growing in strength as a result of the lack of resolution. charlie: redefining itself. mike: that civil war has to be resolved. and you have to convince that it is in their interest. here's what i would recommend. i would recommend that we that -- so, the outcome we want is a transition from assaad to a government that can represent all the syrian people, but we want to do it without destroying the institutions of the syrian government.

charlie: what we did in iraq. mike: and what happened on its own in libya. and we want to make that transition, keeping the syrian military and security services keeping them intact. charlie: essentially what putin wants. mike: you don't want to destroy those things. here's what i think you want to do. i think you want to cowvertly, not openly, but cowvertly but want them to know, you want to tell the moderate opposition that you supporting to go after -- this is a big deal -- to go after the iranians and they have to pay a price, just like we made the russians pay a price. we have to make them pay a price. we have to make them want to go home. we have to make them want to have a deal. that's number one.

charlie: how do we do that? mike: give the moderate opposition weapons. charlie: what is it they want that they don't have? mike: i'm not a military guy. i give them the things they need to go after the assaad government but also to have the iranians and russians pay a little price. when we were in iraq, the iranians were giving weapons to the shia militia who were killing american soldiers. we need to make the iranians pay a price in syria and make the russians pay the price. charlie: by killing russians? and killing iranians? mike: yes. cowvertly. you don't tell the world. i want to go after -- i want to go after those things that assaad sees as his personal power base, right?

i want to scare assaad. so i want to -- i want to go after his presidential guard. i want to bomb his offices in the middle of the night. charlie: that happened two years ago when his brother-in-law -- mike: i want to destroy his presidential aircraft and make him think we are coming after him. i'm not advocating assassinating him but going after his power base and what he needs to survive. this isn't going to end well for me. i want to put pressure on him and put pressure on the iranians and the russians to come to that. charlie: if they feel like they are hurting. mike: only me talking. charlie: do you think hillary

clinton believes as you do? mike: i don't know. i haven't talked to her. charlie: why did you come to this conclusion because there was a failure of everything else and wasn't happening and not moving towards that kind of agreement but moving away from it. mike: that is what i believe. charlie: the saudis stopped supplying weapons to the opposition forces, too. let me talk about people in the region. mike: this is a good one. charlie: what do we need to do? mike: our allies in the region believe a couple of things. they believe the united states of america and the obama administration is not listening to them. that they've got points of view,

that they feel strongly about -- another thing they believe is that the united states doesn't have their back particularly with regard to iran. they believe that we don't understand that they see iran as their soviet union, right? so there's two things say about secretary clinton. one they believe that secretary clinton listens and where secretary clinton is on iran based on what i heard her say and read, she thinks that and at the same time, i think she believes and i know based on what she said she believes we need to push back harder against iranian-maligned behavior in the region. charlie: what should we be doing? mike: let me give you an example. they provide -- they provide

money and assistance to terrorist groups, hamas and hezbollah. they supply money and weapons to shia groups in the region that are trying to overthrow groups. yemen. and they overthrough the government there. charlie: were tche competing with the saudis? mike: very simple example. ships leave iran filled with weapons and i believe the u.s. navy should board those ships and if there are weapons on them they should turn them around and send them back. that is pushing back. charlie: is that what secretary clinton believes to be more aggressive in terms of iranian behavior, which is not part of the deal? mike: use the nuclear agreement and at the same time push back

against their bad behavior. charlie: north korea said it is a real risk. what do you think hillary clinton should do? mike: donald trump said he would talk him and invite him to come to the united states of america. charlie: let me stop there. is it it a mistake to talk to him? mike: yes. charlie: because you give him credibility? mike: what he wants is united states of america to acknowledge he is a nuclear power and will remain a nuclear power and it is the policy and i don't think that donald trump understands this and it is the policy of the united states of america for north korea to get rid of its nuclear weapons. that is our policy. charlie: as a condition of talking get rid of your weapons? mike: yes.

we aren't going to normalize relations with you and war donald trump said, he would give them incredible credibility. charlie: south china sea. what should we be doing. potentially building bases there? mike: so, can i back up a second and take the 25,000 foot view and come back to the south china sea. and i think president obama and secretary clinton understand this perfectly. the most important bilateral relationship for the future of east asia yeah and the future of the world is the relationship between united states and beijing and there are two

things, two things that are pulling us together in a good way and two things that are pulling us apart. the two things that are pulling us together are one, we both have an interest in the success of the chinese economy, particularly reforming the chinese economy. charlie: because of the impact of the chinese economy. mike: absolutely. two, and i base this on my own conversations with chinese officials, my counterparts, conversations with my counterparts in china, i believe there are a growing number of places in the world where our national security interests overlap than where they are in conflict and i believe there is potential for us -- charlie: do the chinese believe that? mike: yes and they are coming to

understand it would be in their interests. two positive things. what are the two negative things? the two negative things, we both have large militaries on the same place on the planet. the pacific. so that means -- what does that mean? you have to plan for war against each other and you have to equip yourselves for war systems and exercise those systems. both sides see all three of those things. that leads to tensions and pulls you apart. charlie: they are upset about the fact that we seem to be increasing our relationship with india, vietnam and phillipines. mike: that comes us to the final point. and the final thing that is pulling us apart, we are the power in east asian we are a

status quo power. they are a rising power and don't have a lot of power and they want more say. they want more say, we have it. how does that get resolved, right? there is an answer that president obama understands and secretary clinton understands and that is that we will give china more room to exercise influence if they play by the rules of the international order. so what does that mean? what does that mean? it means, for example, that i think it was a mistake for the united states of america to push back when china wanted to create a regional development. charlie: europe broke ranks right away. mike: so you don't push back on stuff like that where they are trying to play by the rules and push back on the south china sea stuff where they are breaking

down the rules. charlie: tear down those islands. mike: that is the right approach and president obama has taken us down the road towards a big, better solution to this relationship long-term and i think she will continue in that direction. charlie: is it fair to say that since you were there and osama bin laden and all of that, but the two changes that are so apparent to decision makers today, one is cyber and the other is in a sense the rise of nonstate actors. mike: agree 100%. agree 100%. but i'd still list -- well, put it this way. terrorist attacks against the united states of america including the homeland is the number one threat. charlie: with that, the potential that they might acquire or buy some weapons of mass destruction.

mike: yes. that is a serious issue. and the fastest growing threat and number two on the list is cyber, in all of its dimon shons from nation states to criminal ups groups to activists and all these people doing all these different things. charlie: what you have written about is the rise of pop you -- populism. mike: and in the united states. i was asked, charlie, i was asked by an australian think tank, they came to me and said, you know, you have analyzed the politics of or countries for 30 years, would you analyze your own and write something for us and i did. and in this piece i wrote, which was published a couple of weeks ago, i said there are three big

dynamics here in the united states. one is what i call income insecurity. there has been a whole bunch of people left behind by globalization and technology. charlie: they are attracted to the candidacy of donald trump. mike: bernie sanders said i will fix it with income distribution and donald trump who says i will fix it. charlie: or all about trade. mike: and carry out trade deals and tell ford motor company you can't move to mexico. how do you do that? that's one. second, right, is a belief -- and that first one is not a small percentage of the population, because real incomes for american house holed for the majority has been going down.

so this is real. this is a failure of our education system not to keep up with the changes. it's a whole different issue. the belief among a lot of people that establishment candidates, establishment politicians can't get anything done. charlie: because of the gridlock in washington? mike: those people went to nonestablishment candidates on both sides. 65% of the votes cast during the primaries were for nonestablishment candidates. and the third and this is sad for me to say, i believe there is some number of uneducated white americans who fear the browning of america, who fear the number and the influence of minorities in america manifested by the election of barack obama to the president and they are

attracted to donald trump's xenophobia and those are the three dynamics that launched him. and the first one, all three of them need to be addressed. all three of those things need to be addressed. she will do a much better job addressing those issues than he will. great to be with you, charlie. ♪

mark: i am mark crumpton and you are watching "bloomberg list. hillary clinton campaign officials are reacting strongly to the comments made in north carolina by donald trump. he spoke at a rally in wilmington. >> hillary wants to essentially abolish the second amendment. pick her judges, nothing you can do, folks. although the second amendment people, maybe there is. mark: the trump campaign said he was referring of the power