♪ gone back and forth between softening and not softening. >> what they perceive of trump's softening. >> softening. >> softening of his immigration stance, and now he is being blamed for not softening of. >> there was no softening. >> there was no pivot, no softening. ♪ on this semi-soft newsday,

team are trump and his still rifling through the reviews of his hyped up immigration speech last night. himself and his campaign have been hinting that he is on the precipice of moderating his stance on immigration to make it more congenial to a general audience. but his speech was moderate in both tone and substance. there was no softening, no pivoting, just vintage donald trump. the speech ended, trump was basically in the same place he was all along. ownurns out some of trump's hispanic advisory council thought that too. here is one of them on cnn today, explaining why he is one of the least free trump advisors who are now saying adios. >> he gave the impression until yesterday morning that he was

going to deal with the undocumented in a compassionate way. is basicallyh, he saying, we either deport you or self deport you. it is even worse than what he initially proposed. saying, not only am i considering withdrawing my support, i am telling you today i am withdrawing my support from donald trump. many like me think the same way. undeterred by criticisms of that kind, donald trump was back on the campaign trail this morning. at a rally in women -- in wilmington, ohio, he framed his immigration posture as a matter of putting america first. to build: we are going a wall. mexico is going to pay for the wall. we will treat everyone with dignity, respect, and compassion, but our greatest compassion will be for the american citizen. it will be, from now on, america first.

[applause] so nicole, my friend, the lovely nicole wallace here to guest host, after the big immigration speech last night, when it comes to that particular area, is trump better or worse he the lyrically today than was before? nicole: i think he is the exact same guy that he has been since she started this madcap adventure debt -- since he started this madcap adventure. on immigration, he has always been to the hard right of his party. i think it reflects how he sort of processes his choices. aviously, there was discussion in his campaign about whether it would benefit him to be seen within other countries leader. he said, yeah, i will do that. thelso doubled down in state of arizona on the toughest and harshest rhetoric on his

immigration policy. he chose all of the above. i think worse than a muddled message, it was almost a taunt that will set him back on the party back even further than they were ahead of the primary. he is actually worse off today than before, in this sense. having raised all these expectations that he would in a more humane having raised those expectations, he then went in the opposite direction. i think he feels that the to anic vote now is gone, large extent, for donald trump, and a lot of the people we are talking about, college-educated, suburban, republican women, they look at this and say, not only is he harsh ended humane, but he is -- harsh and inhumane, but he has been all over the place. not a good look. nicolle: and for the campaign,

it underscores this temperament argument that hillary has been making. the argument they are trying to make is a leadership argument, that you can't trust someone with the greatest decisions of the presidency if they don't know the remind. -- don't know their own mind. he gave them exhibit 33 yesterday. one thing that is clear about the speeches that he seemed to be giving up on broadening his base. he instead appears to be trickling down on the notion that white voters are all he needs. that runs to the heart of the anxious written folks in the industrial rust belt of the midwest. that is exactly where trump was this morning. he was giving a speech to the american legion in cincinnati, followed by the rally in women than -- in wilmington. joe biden will go to the buckeye state to play a little donald defense. listen to this. we all come from the

same neighborhood, whether it is toledo, pittsburgh. does notr guy, he i understand this any more than you understand what it's like to live in a 30,000 square foot penthouse 80 floors up in new york. you don't understand that, i don't. he doesn't have any idea what to sit at my dad's kitchen table and hear my mom need new tires on the car, and he says, honey, you've got to get 10,000 more miles on it very i just him have it right now. can trump when with this strategy, and why would he want to? reince cite

priebus, who in 2012 pointed out correctly that romney lost to a large extent because he did not do well with nonwhite voters, and republicans need to do better with nonwhite voters. donald trump seems doomed to do worse. i usually go to the table and put all my chips on red or black. he has put all his chips on white. only way it could work is if he was the overwhelming favorite of well-educated whites. there aren't enough blue-collar whites for him to win the presidency, and he is being crushed among white-collar whites by hillary clinton. nicolle: this is disastrous for the republican party. george w. bush won 44% of the hispanic vote. he is talking about winning with none, zero. i don't know how you start the rebuilding when you literally dropped 44% in your support. terrible. john: it is going to have a long-term effect on the party,

for sure. there was a time when you could have imagined trump putting together a different kind of map, maybe being able to compete not just in the industrial midwest, but maybe as far as places like minnesota, illinois, wisconsin. right now, hemorrhaging all those college-educated white voters, there is not a map that works right now for donald trump . unless something changes in a serious way, there are an -- there are not enough white voters. again, as a republican, why would we want our national victories to be made up of just white people? the grimmest outlook ever for us. john: you can't win that way, and why would you want to? over the past 36 hours, we have seen two different donald trumps. there was the more statesmanlike, someone say sedated, donald trump yesterday phoenix,, and in

jekyll was replaced with mr. hyde area trump -- mr. hyde. trump was scripted, suggesting unrest despite the big staff shakeup a couple of weeks ago. you have been inside his presidential campaign, some functional, somewhat less functional. what of the last two days tell us about what is going on in trump world? my biggest window into trump world is kellyanne conway's role, because she is serving in a job i had. watch what she has had to say about immigration since she took control of that campaign. she started on the sunday show with dan abashed saying that -- esch saying the policy was to be determined. but her expertise is taking the more -- the most polarizing

figures on the right and making them palatable to female voters. it was apparent he was listening to her, but as with his vp selection process, he deliberated in public, he did that is our interview with anderson cooper where he kept calling it a hardening. to watch him sort of take advice from different members from his inner circle in public, grapple with it in public, and he came down hard-core on the right part right -- breitbart right with that speech yesterday. who thought he needed to look presidential won the fight on whether to go to mexico or not, and the people who wanted him to look like a badass won on the speech. it speaks to a more fundamental case on how he manages things, and his selling point is that he is a rich guy who manages a successful business. john: i saw someone tweeted yesterday that daytime donald -- for the daytime donald

trump, kellyanne conway is under control. the nighttime donald trump, however, is under the control of stephen bannon. we also saw in "the new york times" about chris christie having a role, rudy giuliani having a role. none of that is news necessarily, but at this kind of moment in the campaign, to have that much conflicting advice, not people singing out of the same songbook -- again, there are a lot of campaigns that are chaotic, but this is on version four of chaos, and it's not getting any better. nicolle: can i think candidates have to be able to take a lot of different information from different people. the problem is, he comes out on both sides of a two-sided debate. only come back, we will take a spin through battleground states. ♪

♪ fox news has a new poll out that shows the race tightening up a bit. in a two-way contest, hillary clinton is beating donald trump by six points, 48% to 42%, but that is down from her 10 point lead a month ago. in a four-way race, the two candidates are essentially tied. clinton at 41 percent, trump at 39%, and libertarian candidate gary johnson getting 9%, green party candidate jill stein getting 4%. larry sabato joins us now to make us smarter and talk about the state of the battleground states. larry, what should we be paying more attention to, these two-way numbers or the four-way polls?

the two-way is more the racee of the way will turn out, and the six point difference in the two-way is close to the polling average of about five points for hillary clinton. there is some research indicating, very good research, that the four-way race, just by introducing the names of the third-party candidates, you increase their support, especially in a race like this. their numbers are going to go down between now and november. john: i want to talk to you about battleground states. i know you say colorado, minnesota, wisconsin, pennsylvania, virginia, all likely democrat, but there are other traditional blue states that are closer than expected, nevada, ohio, north carolina, florida. among those states that barack obama won the last two cycles, where is hillary clinton most vulnerable now? iowa: she is vulnerable in

, because almost half the population of iowa is white noncollege, and that is trump's bill would. nevada has been through a terrible recession, much longer and deeper than the rest of the country. and we all know that north carolina is incredibly close and always is. i think it has a blue tint this year. florida and ohio, obvious to everybody, are highly competitive, but i still give clinton the edge. nicolle: what do you attribute the tightening this week to? hillary clinton's numbers now look a lot like what they looked pressfter the comey conference. it seems like she goes through a scandal, there is a tightening, when she gets a couple of good weeks, she widens the spread. is this a pattern we can expect if the contours of the race status same? larry: no, i think it is the

evaporation of the convention bounce. donald trump had a very brief convention ounce that was not very impressive, because to be blunt, the convention was not very perspective. the democratic convention was impressive from a lot of different perspectives. clinton bounce has declined as we approach labor day, and we are back to a lead that makes sense. remember how polarized we are. i think it is unlikely that hillary clinton is going to do much worse than obama did in 2012. were much better than he did in 2808, when everything was going the democrats' way. he won by seven points. let's go back to the map and look at these traditionally red states that people are talking about the possibility of the clinton campaign putting them in play. they are going on the air in arizona. there are five other normally

republican states that could be in play, georgia, arizona, and maybe utah, kansas, missouri, south carolina. which one of those normally-red states is one where trump might the most vulnerable? two,: there are only arizona and georgia. the others are fond of talk about, but in the end, they will go for trump. the margins for him as the republican nominee will be considerably lower than for other republican nominees, the popular vote, that is. but it doesn't matter as long as he gets one more vote than clinton in those states. but arizona and georgia are right for the picking, and yet -- on my polarized map, i have still kept them light red because in the end, i think the partisans will come home, but if i am wrong, it will be about arizona and georgia. nicolle: let's shift to the state of the senate races. you say democrats are now the

slight favorite to walk back the chamber. walk us through that path of victory. larry: sure. democrats have to win cointreau seats,assuming -- four assuming tim kaine becomes vice president and breaks the time. incumbents in illinois and wisconsin are likely to lose. the question comes from, where did the other two seats come from? the most likely sieges indiana, where the senator is trying to reclaim his own seat. and i think pennsylvania and new hampshire are both leaning to democrats, which are incumbents. democrats only have to worry about nevada. nicolle: i am glad my friend rob portman is not on your list of people you are worried about. thank you very much for giving us a look into your crystal ball. when we come back, we will talk about the man behind trump's campaign finances. ♪

♪ it's a fairytale about a wealthy businessman with no political experience who went for making deals in new york to working on the national presidential campaign. no, we are not talking about donald trump, we are talking , the suspectation of a new bloomberg businessweek story, called trumping's top fundraiser. joining us is one of the reporters, bloomberg's max abelson. tell us about stephen nugent. who is this guy? sen. graham: that was -- was the question my cowriter and i had. no one really knew about him. -- the jobs had that he had are things that trump fans are not crazy about.

we are told he drove a porsche. he worked at goldman sachs. he ran hedge fund money for george soros. he became a hollywood guy, he bought a bank. during all this, by the way, he was giving money to democrats, including hillary clinton and barack obama, so people were surprised that he got this job. nicolle: that his role is much broader than just dialing for dollars. talk about his role in trump's spear of influence. is he close to the family? stevter: it's not like en mnuchin is just rising money for trump. the economic advisory council, which by the way, there , theike 17 on the council other guys told us that they see him as a guy with donald trump's here. -- ear. time doingt a lot of

campaign finance guys don't normally do. he traveled to scotland. there are not a lot of american citizens who are allowed to donate. i think he is part of the inner circle. john: so what is steve nation's in game -- end game? reporter: that is one of the questions we have. in new york and l.a. is is that this is a guy who can spot an opportunity. there is a downside. people think of wall street as conservative. they are pretty liberal. and a lot of them are suspicious about his ties to trump. it will be hard work for a few months. the bright side, if donald trump -- andnd dog is the guy is the kind of

guy. nicolle: finance chairs are usually in charge of the bundling process, and it seems to me that trump is doing better with the small donations. how successful has he been in his actual job on the trunk campaign? we found out that the actual operation that steve mnuchin is a chart of, -- he is in charge of -- these guys spent decades building of these kinds of networks. what trump has looks like a classic donald trump business. you know when he has cologne like success, which i have back in my desk. nicolle: do you seriously? does it smell good? are you wearing it? reporter: not right now. colognes are made by other people. these are businesses where trump licenses his name. in a funny way, that's what's

happening right now with the fund-raising operation. the work,ng a lot of because donald trump did not have networks of people and ways of making money, and neither did steve mnuchin. john: i want you to give us a picture of, what is this guy like? first of all, i can smell you here in los angeles. i'm sure you smell really good. is he charming, is he scheming, is he tough? just give us a quick personality sketch. reporter: i will say it was a little intimidating to write about him, because he comes across as a little bit bland. he does not seem super into donald trump. he seems like a businessman kind of on the verge of a business deal that he does not want to get into. you can say to him, stephen, why are you doing this? he said it is a very unique opportunity at a very unique time. he is very goldman sachs.

you can tell that he really grew up around goldman sachs partners. mnuchinnberg new steve when he was 10 years old. he told me steve was a very cute 10-year-old. john: max, i imagine you were a very cute 10-year-old, too. coming up, wall-to-wall coverage of the trump wall. we will talk immigration, after this. ♪

to talk joining us now more about donald trump's

immigration speech, we have the executive director of americans voice, and a legal analyst at the center for american studies. joined byt, we are said coupler. thank you for being here with me. i want you to start hearing from all of you on just a policy level. there is plenty of time to get into the politics, but can you both tell me your take on the substance of what he proposed in his policy address last night? the media has been demanding a of detail for the past couple of weeks. this was a very long speech with a variety of provisions in it that, if enforced, what have an effect on reducing our problem of illegal immigration and open borders. it is quite different from what we have been sold by politicians on both sides from the past few years.

the idea is that we can only have some sort of massive conference of bill that -- massive, comprehensive bill that few people will breed, but trump -- few people will read, but trump said he will put measures in place first, we will get a hold of our immigration system, and we will deal with those who are here after that. i think that gets us closer to an actual fix on the immigration problem. nicolle: frank, i would like you to weigh in, because i know you have a very different view on the actual policy. let me hear from you of what you think of the policy proposals. >> sure, this is one of the most hard-line proposals we have ever seen from a nominee in modern political history. up toe steps at up -- add a mass deportation strategy that would drive millions of undocumented immigrants, most of whom have lived in the country for more than 10 years come out

of the country, either through government deportation where they are picked up by agents or local police and detained or deported, or they are forced out because life is so miserable. this is a real far right, hard-line proposal aimed at driving 11 million people out of the country. obviously we won't get into the politics in a second with john, but do we know what is in his mind on where he comes on immigration once and for all? was that achieved? sen. graham: yes, -- reporter: yes, i don't think that would have been clearer. this is the donald trump we know from the primaries, all the things that works so well with republican voters -- deportation is on the cable for everybody. -- on the table for everybody. legal status and citizenship are off the table. he is going to do e-verify to make it very hard for people who

are here to find jobs. this is the donald trump anti-immigration vision that took hold in the republican primary, not only with donald trump, but ted cruz. this is something republicans have to deal with. there are a lot of strategists who are extremely nervous about what this means to the future of their party. i think our guest would agree that one candidate on the democratic side is running on the most pro-immigration platform we have seen in modern times, and one candidate on the most anti-immigration platform we have seen in modern times. this is a very stark choice. frank, last night when he gave his speech, there was something fusion among my colleagues on whether he had moderated in all and terms of had moderated atoll in terms of substance. he did not call for the mass deportation of a million -- of workers in the united

states. did he's often? is is harder than ever, or even harder? in the matter of policy, i don't think you soft and at all. he got a few headlines from kellyanne conway saying, let's the law we will enforce aggressively. let's not call it a deportation force, let's say we will triple the number of ice agents. i think it was an attempt to some were reasonable, but frankly, i expected it to have more rhetorical flourishes. moveer expected he would from his hard-line policy. it ended up being much more of a stephen bannon speech than a kellyanne conway speech. john: let me ask you the same question. is your view now -- is this a cover set of proposals that he offered during the nomination about theit basically same, or would you see any sign that he has moderated atoll? -- at all? is what heways, it

has said is his immigration platform. what he made clear last night is that the interests of the american worker will come first. in washington, the people driving the debate on immigration are primarily cheap labor lobbyists who want more immigration at all costs. calle way, i would not this anti-immigration. this is anti-illegal immigration. we have a country made up of people who are very generous. we have the most permanent residency of any other country by a long shot. at the same time, it does not mean we have to tolerate illegal immigration. on the other hand, i would agree with you that it is a stark choice, because i don't know where hillary clinton stands on any of these issues. does you think the border in its current state is fine? i don't know. does she think e-verify should be mandated? i don't know. wouldher plan, i think we have some mass legalization in the first 100 days, and then we would have more illegal immigration. that's not fixing the problem.

>> john, you mentioned that this is not anti-immigration, just about illegal immigration. anti-illegalre immigration components in there, but it is absolutely about illegal immigration too. the plan -- absolutely about legal immigration, too. it raises the h-1b standard to the green card standard, so this is an attack from all angles. i would agree with you, welcoming a greater conversation the illegal immigration angle. all these comprehensive measures , there was a gallup poll that came out last week, nobody, not liberals, non-hispanics, only 15% of mexican immigrants from mexico want unlimited

immigration. people are unemployed at high levels, and the idea of drastically increasing illegal immigration is flawed. look, hillary clinton is in favor of comprehensive immigration reform. a fox news poll came out and said that 77% of the american people think that undocumented immigrants should be given a chance to get legal, rather than rounding up as many as we can. only 19% say, let's get rid of the undocumented population. donald trump is speaking to the 19%, but not to be a more -- not to the majority of americans who say, can't we figure out how to be a nation of immigrants and outlaws? can't we figure out a way -- and of laws? can't we figure out a way to make sure that people come here

legally? there is broad support for that. unfortunately, the republican party is the tale wagon of the dog. >> if it were happening -- if it were popular, it would have passed under bush and obama, but it hasn't because the american people are saying no. nicolle: i am going to get the last word on all you guys. fox news has a pullout saying that 77% of registered voters are in favor of setting up a system to legalize immigrants in the united states illegally. -- presidents from both parties have tried and fallen short, but the popular support is behind setting up some system for dealing people already here. all forank, thank you being with us. when we come back, we will check in with our friends on the campaign trail. if you are watching us in washington, d.c., you can listen to us on the radio at 99.1 fm. we will be right back. ♪

♪ john: our next guest is "washington post" political correspondent and aaron. we have talked a lot about donald trump. it is now time to talk about hillary clinton. i have noticed, ever since the events yesterday in mexico city, the clinton campaign seems to be .aunting donald trump have you noticed that, and what is that about? i think it is not by coincidence. for sure, they are taunting him, trying to poke a little fun at what they see as a debacle for him, going to mexico to begin

with, and then having two different messages in the same day. but what i thought was most interesting was john podesta issuing not one, but two troll-like taunts yesterday to trump that used kind of wall , toet negotiator language say that trump was a poor negotiator, that he did not close the deal in the room, that he got each in the room. -- beat in the room. john: they call him a choker, which is one of trump's favorite adjectives. he likes to call people a choker or a choke artist. i think they are trying to get in his head a little bit. guest: yeah, get under his skin a little bit. the clinton campaign has long seen as their best weapon against trump trump himself and

thin-skinned, with acs is thin-skinned. a lot of people think hillary clinton as a thin-skinned too, thin skin too, but it seems she has done a better job of getting under his skin than he is getting under hers. was on the trail. do they view him as a secret weapon in states where she is close to trump. wisconsin came close to trump this week in the margin of error. they need -- do they need biden and places where he can shore up those kinds of voters? i think biden is a not so secret weapon, really. his chief utility will be useful in going at trump with very strongly much.

he is more comfortable than atma and clinton sometimes letting the other side have it. also, talking to white, working-class, traditional democrats, many of whom have been disaffected and for whom trump has pulled some appeal. that so far has been the main way they have tried to use widen, and ice -- biden, and i expect they will continue to do so. nicolle: his story today of sitting around the table talking about not having the money to buy tires, i think -- i can't think of anyone in the democratic all-star lineup that could deliver that message with the kind of credibility that item. -- joe biden could. e-zines like a league of his own as a surrogate that can speak to the five -- he seems like a league of his own as a surrogate that can speak to the voters like that. guest: yeah, i am trying to give

everybody a path to the middle class, and sort of renewed the promises of what the middle class meant, that is a foundational argument for hillary clinton's campaign, and it is one that she tries to apply her own family experience to. as you just pointed out, there is a greater sense of authenticity and personal experience when you hear it come from joe biden. always happy to have you on the show. we will see you next time, and we will be back. ♪

summer, i gotthis the chance to sit down with the author of "grace without god"

for a wide-ranging discussion about two topics that people typically avoid, religion and politics. i started out by asking her exactly what compels her to write this book. when -- ted this book ,y husband was raised jewish and we both left our faith. what my faith was, i said nothing. i felt terrible. i spent three years going around the country, interviewing people about what they are doing to fill the vacuum that is often left when they leave their religious traditions behind. john: so what are they doing? >> they are doing all kinds of things. they are seeking community, ritual, and ways to get out and do work in their wider neighborhood, and they are basically creating a diy experience to replace religion,

because they got tired of the institutions, and the institutions were no longer serving them. so they are taking back into their own control the things they miss about it. john: i think it is some of the most interesting -- one of the most intricate -- one of the most interesting things in our society that there is not really a discussion about this. not one presidential candidate has said, i'm sorry, i'm an atheist. it would be politically dead. given that that is true and it isues to be the case, a growing phenomenon, right? we have more people without faith than there used to be. can you give us a sense of why that is? what is driving the growth? >> for decades, for as long as people have studied religious affiliation, the number of americans who said they were nothing was 7%. starting in the 1990's, it started to go up. it is now nearly 25%.

one of the primary theories about that is the counterculture of the 1960's creating a boomerang effect, the moral majority, which hardens the religious right. once that happens, politics started coming into religion, and it affected it in such a way that people said, if christianity is about gay rights and a woman's right to choose, that's not me. i'm out of here. i can't identify with that area -- with that. john: do you think that politics have co-opted religion to some extent, and religion has co-opted politics, and is that part of the reason that people have drifted away from religion, towards the status of being unaffiliated with organized religion? >> exactly. most of the is affiliated still believe in god. what they are leaving is not god, they are leaving the institution. i met a woman in california in her 60's, and she was raised catholic and treasure those

memories of being in the catholic church with her family. she said once the priests started talking about those social issues instead of charity , good work, how we can help others, she felt lost and disillusioned and she left. recently we saw donald trump attack hillary clinton, saying she has no religion, we don't know anything about her. it was kind of an attack on her for not having any clear religious affiliation. of course, she has been a methodist all her life. but when i hear those kinds of political attacks in the presidential campaign, how do they react to that? the religiously unaffiliated would prefer not to know about hillary clinton's religion, and they do primarily vote democratic. john: interestingly, we talked to our pollster before we set down for this interview. she pointed out that in our last poll, 18% of likely 2016 voters ones, no religion,

and among the nones, 60% were for clinton, and 20% were for trump. which is interesting, because if you take your thesis, it is clear that the place where religion and politics most intersect is on the right, rather than on the left, and a kind of makes sense that that would still be the case. >> exactly. i would say this election is one where religion is not as relevant. when you have donald trump trying to align with evangelicals, i think most of us know they are not connecting over matters of faith. it connecting over a sense of nationalism, other things that they connect and agree on. bernie sanders, the first major presidential candidate who is not very religious, the way he describes himself he sounds like a secular humanist, and hillary clinton is really the one who is the most religious, and she does not wear that on her sleeve. i think in this particular

election, religion is not as important. are asked to advise a presidential candidate, democratic or republican, how to talk about faith in the context of this phenomenon you have written about, how would you advise them to talk about it? would you say you don't talk about it at all, or would you advise them to talk about it in a way that would appeal to both affiliated and unaffiliated? obama did something interesting in his first state of the union address. he was the first president to welcome nonbelievers. he said we welcome juice, catholics, people of faith, and people of no faith. to bring me and affiliated to the table and a growing presence is very important. unaffiliated to the table as a growing presence is very important. earlier, i asserted something which i believed to be true, which is bad it would be -- which is that it would be

very hard to run for president and be unaffiliated or actively be an atheist or agnostic. it would be a huge liability. do you think that will be the case 20 years from now, if you think about the trends you are observing? do you think that is a taboo that will eventually start to go away? >> it is happening so quickly. when i started this, about 20% of people were unaffiliated. in just three years, it is almost 25%. it is happening so fast, and these groups are becoming more local, and they are becoming more accepted. sort of like with the gay community, people are starting to say, oh, hey, i have a friend who was an atheist and they are not so bad. speaking as one, we are not that bad, the unaffiliated. your grade. >> thanks for happening -- thanks for having me. john: the book is called "race without god -- "grace without

god. ♪

toolle: head bloombergpolitics.com right now for a look at florida's fight against zika. coming up on "bloomberg west," emily chang talks about a former project manager on his latest adventure. and as for tomorrow -- don't say sayonara yet. you've got to let me say thank you for guest hosting. it is great to have you. now we say sayonara. nicolle: sayonara. ♪

mark: let's begin with a check of your first word news. residents and businesses along florida's gulf coast are bracing for hermin, upgraded to a

hurricane. low lying communities have been evacuated and government offices closed at noon today. governor rick scott calls the storm potentially life threatening. new zealand issued a tsunami warning for the east coast of the north island after a magnitude 7.1 earthquake. the warning extends to auckland, their most populous city. turkey is threatening to suspend a deal with the european union if visa rezrixes for turkish nationals aren't lifted. e.u. representatives urged turkey to amend their anti-terrorism laws so the e.u. can lift the restrictions, a key incentive to stopping migrants crossing the aegean sea. florida officials say they found the zika virus in three trapped mosquitos in miami beach. that's the first time it's happened in the continental