♪ john: it is four days away from the first presidential debate, and one major story is dominating the national news. ult inme old -- the tum charlotte, north carolina, the second night of violent protests after the police shooting of an african-american man on tuesday. today, charlotte's chief of police said the video of the shooting supports the officer's version of events, but does not definitely show scott pointing a gun at police. the city refuses to release

footage to the public, but intends to show scott's family. all of this followed another chaotic night of gunfire and tear gas in charlotte's city center. north carolina governor patrick crory has declared a state of emergency, the national guard has been deployed, and loretta lynch is sending doj officers to help police. police-related shootings have been one of the most explosive issues in american society for the past few years, and it is an issue that both presidential candidates addressed on the campaign trail. here's donald trump speaking today in pittsburgh. mr. trump: many americans are watching the unrest in charlotte unfolding right before their eyes on the tv screens. others are witnessing the chaos and violence firsthand. our country looks bad to the world, especially when we are supposed to be the world leader. how can we lead when we can't even control our own cities?

we honor and recognize the right of all americans to peacefully assemble, protest, and demonstrate, but there is no right to engage in violent disruption. john: his messages were decidedly mixed today. at times, they displayed empathy for the african-american community, and in other times trump said he would get tough on crime, and suggested that drugs were a very big factor in the violence americans are seeing on their televisions every night. hillary clinton was on the campaign trail today, but yesterday called the recent police shootings, "unbearable and intolerable." mark, these issues are sure to come up in the debate on monday. in terms of politics and policy on this topic, where do the candidates stand at this point, and what do you think the debate between them is likely to look like? mark: first, late-breaking news today, the district attorney in

tulsa, oklahoma charged officer betty shelby with manslaughter. she is the officer who shot to death terence crutcher, which preceded the charlotte event, but supercharged the reaction there. that is an interesting development, and will be much discussed over the coming days. charlotte probably will remain the center of attention because that case is still playing out, and as he said there are still , some questions about what exactly happened, and the video being shown only to the family will create controversy. this is an issue that both campaigns have surrendered to, recognizing it as a moment of leadership they need to step up to, but if they don't talk about this, it will likely keep them out of the news. hillary clinton is down between now and the debate on tuesday. she does not plan any public events she did not comment , today, but she does have policies on this, mostly involving more washington spending to try to create programs on best practices and things like that.

donald trump is not been very specific. i think this will be less about who is proposing what specific, and more about who seems to be stepping up to be ready come january to deal with what is sure to be a lingering and persistent issue for the country. john: hillary clinton is relatively easy to explain where she is. she has made it clear, but because of the policy proposals and her rhetorical posture, which is focused to a large extent on endemic racism and racial bias in police forces, and her position on gun violence, she has a relatively consistent position. donald trump has been trying to walk a tightrope. he had talked about a spirit of togetherness, talked about the need to walk a mile in someone else's shoes and see things in their eyes and fix our wounded country. that is all soft talk. last night at one point, he talked about stop and frisk as a potential solution.

he says that is not just about -- that is just about chicago, then cleveland. this incendiary comment about drugs being a part of what is going on in these cities, he is trying to stay out of the racial minefield, but at the same time, he still wants to be the law and order candidate. it will be interesting to see them. hillary clinton is consistent. we know where she is. trump is right now trying to have it both ways, and that might not work that well for him on the debate stage. mark: the latest national focus on the tragedy of a police shooting of an african-american man is occurring in the midst of the endgame of this presidential contest. it is an event that happened in charlotte, north carolina. long after the national news crews pack up and go home, this shooting and the protests are sure to linger in that state from now until election day. north carolina is one of the big three battleground states that will play a big role in picking the next president.

it is the only state barack obama won in 2008, but lost in 2012. he lost the tar heel state by about 100,000 votes to mitt romney. early voting in north carolina starts in less than one month. john, what are the political implications of the unrest in this important political presidential battleground? john: as you said, it will be very close. we all agree about that. there has been shifting demography that helps hillary clinton in north carolina, and some of the political climate there has helped her too. some of the things the state has done that have been very hard right have created a backlash in suburban counties and elsewhere. she seems to have a slight advantage. i think the question is, are there a bunch of generally republican-leaning voters who would be attracted to trump by his law and order message and seeing this unrest? on the other hand, will african-american voters, who clinton is trying to drive big turnout from in big cities in

north carolina -- will their turnout rise in the face of some of these events? it could go either way. it is clear it will have an effect. mark: this is a test of whether donald trump can simultaneously be the law and order candidate, and a candidate who can reach out to be a unifying figure. clearly, hillary clinton with her campaign slogan, "stronger together," has emphasized unity more than confrontation. i agree it is going to linger. and every time either candidate goes to north carolina for the duration they will have to win , back into this issue, no matter what happens. john: i think some people will assume that this is in some way a benefit to trump in that state. it is a republican state in a lot of ways, but it is increasingly purple. one of hillary clinton's biggest challenges right now is turnout challenges. her message is well-suited to african-american voters in north carolina, and if they perceive that the police are out of

control, if there is a sense of injustice in that community, hillary clinton's message might be the kind of thing that catalyzes the kind of turnout she needs in our community, if she is going to win in north carolina. they could really help her it is , a very volatile situation, politically in terms of public safety. one of the biggest unknowns about the upcoming debate is donald trump's tone. will we see the unpredictable, in temperate, hard edged trump, or are we more likely to see a kinder and gentler trump, something like this. mr. trump: to the african-american community, to the hispanic community, to all communities, i want to say we're going to make it right. we're going to make it great. you have to have a certain spirit and a certain unity. there is no unity. you look at the level of hatred, the rocks being thrown and everything happening. it is so sad to see that this is

the united states of america. it is so sad to see there's just , no unity. there has to be a unity message that has to get out. america desperately needs unity, and it needs the spirit of togetherness that has not really only got us through our toughest times, but which has lifted us up in the past to our greatest achievements as a nation. everyday i see people of different backgrounds, working together for a common good, and we need to bring that spirit to every part of our country. we all have to walk a mile in someone else's shoes, see things through their eyes, and get to work fixing our country. we have some real problems, and we do have a wounded country. john: that was donald trump over the past 48 hours, talking about the latest police-related

shootings. at times, he was a consistently trying to strike a softer tone. candidates often use the time leading up to a debate to practice the approach they plan to use on stage when the big game comes. mark, if we see a more subdued trump at hofstra on monday, the kind of trump we saw in that tape, how will it play out for him? mark: i think it's his best gambit. almost everyone i have talked to in both parties think that if trump can sustain that over 90 minutes, it will bring down hillary clinton a little bit. i think insiders in the media and politics overstate the extent to which voters pay that much attention. trump can leave a strong impression. people cite his performance in mexico. i always revert back to the town hall he did with anderson cooper and his family as another example of that kind of mode. if trump does that, it will be effective. sustaining it over 90 minutes is not as big a challenge as people make it out to be. trump has shown he is not always

the most disciplined. john: i can't believe that it will not be his goal to try to strike that tone. whether he will be able to sustain that tone when he starts getting hit and attacked by hillary clinton -- and you know she is going to, she is going to take him on. at a minimum, she will take him on in a hard-edged way on policy matters, as that will provoke him and may be the thing that keeps him from being able to maintain that kind of semi-angelic, non-trump tone. he is not good at staying calm in those situations. that is why i think it will be tough for him. mark: there is this consensus that this is what he should do. there is a consensus that it would put him in a strong position and make things tough for her. there is a disagreement about, can he do it or not? i have not seen these sort of circumstances. it will be fascinating to watch. john, i think hillary clinton

has her own stylistic choices to make in advance of monday's debate. there seem to be two general schools of thought on what clinton could do. one is that she should avoid sparring with trump at all costs, not get done in the mud with him and turn the other cheek and focus on policy. speaking to the country in a positive way. the other option she has, which some people believe she must do is to take trump down, forcefully and repeatedly. skeptics of the second approach say it would be political suicide. the evidence they point to, that all republican presidential candidates who tangled with trump and tried to take him down did not live to tell the tale. where do you stand on this? should clinton go after trump, or should she focus mostly on her own story and avoid confrontation? recall a 2012, we wrote about it in a book called "double down," that was the school of thought around president obama going into the first debate with mitt romney.

it sounds a lot like the first option you just laid out, which was don't fight, don't engage, just talk about your vision for the country. that caused obama to be complacent, it caused him to be verbose, to not engage with romney and to get his clock cleaned in denver. i don't think that's the right approach for hillary clinton. i don't think she should attack trump personally, but i think on matters of substance, where she has a much greater command and grasp she would be foolish not , to try to press him in an aggressive way on matters of substance and policy. mark: i know everybody is excited about this debate, it will be fascinating no matter what. but say trump goes in and goes for genial grandpa and clinton goes for turn the other cheek, this could be a 90 minute snoozefest. both of them trying to avoid engagement. i think what she will do is try to talk about herself, get in little snide asides with trump and leave him with the choice about whether to respond in kind or not, delivered with humor.

from what i have been told, she gets the fact that her best bet is to do things the way george bush, bill clinton, and barack obama were masterful at doing, getting in your shots, but doing so in a way that seems lighthearted. rather than mean-spirited. john: that makes sense. what happens on the debate stage is how the candidates really feel about each other comes out. one of the things we agree about, she thinks trump does not know enough about the world, he doesn't really qualify. particularly with his temperament. i can't believe she is not going to try to draw out his -- what she sees as his ignorance on those matters. i just can't believe she won't do that. mark: when we come back, what wisconsin means for donald trump. ♪

♪ mark: everybody's talking about a slew of new battleground polls out the last 24 hours. a lot of numbers being discussed, but the most important ones come from the great state of new hampshire. we talked about donald trump's very narrow path to victory. there is a new poll that suggests a pretty big barrier to trump getting to 270 electoral votes. that survey shows clinton up nine points over trump. 47% to 30%. if she can keep that margin in new hampshire, trump's chances get lower. give trump a loss in pennsylvania, where polls show he is down outside the margin of error. ,hat means his path to victory

-- most public polls show trump leading, or close enough to be able to win in north carolina, florida, and ohio. say he wins those and keeps all the states mitt romney won four years ago, that gets into 253 electoral votes. from there, things get tough. he needs to win nevada, where he is up by five points, and iowa where polls have shown him with anything from a small edge to a larger edge. that gets him to 265. that is where he may be hitting a wall, even giving him all those battleground states. one way to get to 270 would be to win new hampshire's votes and the one congressional district in maine. that would get him to exactly 270. but clinton is doing well in new hampshire right now, according to most recent public polls, including the new ones. what state are people talking about today? wisconsin. that is where the marquette university survey, considered one of the best in the state could be another way for trump , to get over the top. that has clinton up only three

points in the badger state among likely voters, it is a state that president obama won by almost seven points when he was running for reelection. if trump could pull off the upset in wisconsin, that would give him 10 more electoral votes. that would give him enough to win. that would give him 275 electoral votes, and he would be the next president of the united states. john, is that wisconsin scenario a legit one? john: it's legit. it could happen. stranger things have happened. we know there are republicans in wisconsin. it is not a straight blue state, but at the presidential level it has been blue for quite a long time. you remember wisconsin in the republican primary, that is where ted cruz won because most of the republican establishment was anti-trump. if i were donald trump and the only way to get to 270 electoral votes was by winning wisconsin and doing all the other things

you said he had to do to make winning wisconsin the clincher, i would not be ready to give up entirely yet, but i would think i was probably in pretty serious trouble. a couple other polls show virginia closer, but clinton with a decently. colorado very close. all starts at the romney states, including north carolina, ohio, florida, and iowa and then after that, nevada. but after that, trump could be playing in the new hampshire and maine combination, in the colorado combination, in the wisconsin combination, but those are all states where you would bet on clinton. he is getting to the point where he is tantalizingly close for donald trump to be at 270, but it is still not clear how to identify his leading pass to 270. john: it is getting tantalizingly close to him having a path, but that path

still involves him winning ohio, north carolina, and florida. at least in two of those states, north carolina and florida, he is not even ahead. still involves him winning ohio, those are tossup states right now. he seems a little ahead in ohio, but he still has to run the table. it is tough no matter what you say. mark: i keep saying he needs a national push, or he will not be able to do it. he could get a national push as early as monday. up next, we bring in reverend al sharpton to talk about what is going on in north carolina, oklahoma, and nationally after this. ♪

♪ john: we're joined by the reverend al sharpton, the host of, "politics nation" on msnbc, sundays at 8:00 a.m.

it is good to see you. the breaking news is that the police officer betty shelby is getting charged by the da in tulsa with manslaughter in the terence crutcher shooting. what is your reaction? reverend sharpton: it is a swift step in the right direction in the pursuit of justice, and i think that when you look at the videotape, there is clearly enough probable cause where we will see what happens at trial. the family came to the headquarters of national action network and had a press conference. we said we would be rallying this weekend, calling for justice. i will be going to tulsa, to join the family next week. i talked with one of the lawyers a few minutes ago. i want to see an examination of the officers that were with the policewoman that has been charged, whether there is any disciplinary or legal exposure there. you contrast this with the slow pace of the release of tapes in

charlotte, and the fact that we still have no release of tapes to the public. we have seen the families going in, and the family attorneys say let's see what is there. when you contrast also moving and in less than a week charging the police officer and it is not , happening in charlotte, that exacerbates a lot of the tension. it makes people feel that if you are not showing something, you might be hiding something. i think that that is the problem. they are in is that it is a , black officer and some black leadership in the police department in charlotte. it is an institutional problem, as well as a race problem with policing. mark: what can be done to lower the level of violence in the protests in north carolina? reverand sharpton: i think transparency. i think that when people feel they are getting the facts, no matter what they may be, that the level of anxiety is lowered.

i think when they see today what has happened in tulsa and what is not happening in charlotte, with even officers of their own kind, but they are clearly institutionally reacting differently in black neighborhoods than white. even when you are black. i think it increases the frustration and anxiety. mark: when one of these horrible shootings occurs, it is a tragedy and we focus on the victims. but since we have been dealing with this for months, what do you see happening at the federal, state, or local level that encourages you to try to deal with these situations before they occur? reverand sharpton: i think when i look at the president's commission on policing, he has met with many of the civil rights leaders and activists, and formed this commission. if those recommendations are to be followed, i think we can make progress.

i hope it is at the center of one of the segments of the debate monday night, to see if mrs. clinton or mr. trump will commit that they will uphold those recommendations, and they will recommend it to law enforcement around the country, and translate it into law. we have not seen a movement in this area. even ryan has been stalling on bringing about the sentencing reform bill, which is bipartisan. john: we will continue this conversation, when we come back. ♪

♪ john: we're back with reverend al sharpton, talking about the terrible events of this week.

i went to pick up about something we were talking about in the last block, which relates to the videotape. you think the videotape in the charlotte shooting should be released. reverend sharpton: i think it should be released. i think it should have been released immediately, and i think this is the case around the country. i know the attorneys for the family in charlotte is taking a more cautious view. i think when the public feels there is transparency, that is the idea of saying we want body cameras, so the public will be able to see. it protects the police, if in fact the police have done nothing that is questionable. john: i think it removes the element of volatility and suspicions you were talking about before. the suspicions breed of the volatility we saw last night on the street. even if the video is damning, having it out there lessens the chances of things happening.

chances of things happening. reverend sharpton: i don't condone violence, but we understand the frustration, which may also now reach a different kind of conversation. with the tulsa charging, i can see people in charlotte saying wait a minute, what is the problem? john: if the tape were released, and it were to show mr. scott holding a gun as police have claimed, how would that change the narrative? reverend sharpton: i think it changes the narrative that a lot of people will say fine, there is nothing here, but there is still an institutional problem, but this is not the first case in charlotte. some will, no matter what happens, be angry because of the delay, but i also think they put themselves in a very precarious position by not coming forward quickly because now, everyone will always question why it took so long to release the tape. i think these are the things that we want to hear the candidates talk about, particularly when you have

donald trump entering stop and so long to release the tape. frisk into the dialogue, which was found not only by those of us that led the protests and marches in new york to get rid of stop and frisk, a federal judge said it was discriminatory and unconstitutional in his hometown, and this becomes his criminal justice police position. john: i want to go back to a comment you made, about is this the case where you have a black officer and a black victim. you made a point that this is an institutional problem. this is not clearly a racial problem. at least, the racial problem is subsumed. say more about that. reverend sharpton: i think the institutional problem is you set up where police are seeing to operate, where they are outside of the transparency and scrutiny that gives the community confidence that they are there, not there as some occupied

force, black or white. they have this blue wall of silence that we are going to protect each other, rather than uphold the law. that is an institutional problem. black cops operate in black communities differently than they do in white communities. you have to ask yourself if that same black officer that killed scott, if he was in a white area in north carolina -- i don't know if scott had a gun or not, but let's say he did, would he not say to a white guy, do you have a permit? because you can carry guns in north carolina. why would he shoot? i think those are the questions that lead to a lot of the protests, and unfortunately to violence. john: in terms of the terrorist instances that have happened here in new jersey and new york, people have talked about the notion that there is a shoot to wound, as opposed to shoot to kill in certain circumstances.

you see a dichotomy between those two. talk about that, and how police approach being quick on the trigger, and how they use their guns in certain circumstances. reverend sharpton: when you look inside of one week that you have a terrorist attack in new york and new jersey. this guy shot at police, and they wounded him and took him in. you have a guy whose car broke down in tulsa, hands up, and he is killed after being tasered. you have to ask yourself, what is the police policy? what is being done in training? why is it different strokes for different folks, as we like to say? clearly, the man brought in on attacks in new york, chelsea, and new jersey, was a danger. he was shooting at policemen, and they found a way to bring him in alive. you couldn't find a way to bring

a man alive whose car broke down, and you have a policeman in a helicopter, looking down on a guy saying he looks like a bad dude? how does he look like a bad dude with his hands up, but was not a bad dude that was shooting with police in new york? many of us see that as a graphic example of the difference of how people treat situations differently in law enforcement. john: donald trump has talked with a softer tone about some of these things, but in some cases he has talked with a less soft tone. you mentioned the stop and frisk point. and in pittsburgh, that drugs have been a big factor in what you are seeing on television. how do you react to the notion that drugs have been a big factor? reverend sharpton: i think that when you bring up stop and frisk, that has been proven to be discriminatory by even the courts. a white male named bill de blasio beat a black man in a

primary in new york because bill de blasio came out against stop at frisk, and the black candidate didn't. how mr. trump, who lives in new york and i assume votes here, didn't know the difference, is beyond me. when you look at the fact that he brings up drugs, drugs were a factor where? there is the allegation that the tulsa victim had drugs in the car. unless the policeman had x-ray vision, that had nothing to do with him being tasered or shot. john: i think he is suggesting that drugs are fueling the rioting. i'm not validating. reverend sharpton: by what evidence is he bringing this up? is this not fitting into the stereotyping of drugs and blacks, and supporting why we have to frisk them? the irony is if he brings in stop and frisk in the middle of the shootings, when there were

no stop and frisk issues at all. in charlotte, they stopped this guy with a bullet and frisked him after he was dead. so i don't know where he got stopped and frisked. that has been proven in new york, stop and frisk has gone down from almost 700,000 to 220,000, and crime has gone down. it doesn't even answer the gun violence question. john: it is always a pleasure to see you, and thank you for the words of wisdom. check out, "politics nation," on msnbc on sunday at 8:00 a.m. up next, we will preview the presidential debate. if you have been watching us in washington dc, you can listen to us on the radio at bloomberg, 99.1 fm. ♪

♪ >> are you down with tpp? >> i'm not down with tpp. >> you're supposed to say, yeah, you know me, like the hip-hop group. >> do not tell me what to say. >> when you see how well it works for donald trump, do you ever think to yourself, maybe i should be more racist? we should stay in touch. what is the best way to reach you? e-mail? >> you've got mail. john: we are days away from the first presidential debate, and hillary clinton is taking some days off. that brilliant piece of tape with zach galifianakis was recorded last week. here to talk about what we should be prepared for is the

former strategist for chris christie's campaign and former democratic governor of michigan. granholm, who also played sarah palin during joe biden's debate prep. she is coming to us live from oakland, california. governor granholm, we were just discussing earlier on the show, hillary clinton, should she go after donald trump, or should she talk about herself? >> she should start talking about herself, but she can't let him get away with attacks that are untrue, or statements that are complete blatant falsehoods. if the moderator doesn't step up to the plate, she has to correct the record. but she has to do it in a way -- she can do it with humor, she can do it with a lighter touch, she can point out to the

audience, but i do think that you cannot let a falsehood stand. john: what do you think about that, mike? if you were advising hillary clinton, what advice would you give? >> i agree with the governor completely. donald trump was effective when he went at jeb bush and ted cruz. they had a hard time responding, because he breaks the debate rules, they are unpredictable. i think that will be the difficult part for secretary clinton. i agree that she should stand up and be aggressive back. >> i think the moderator is going to ask some of the tough questions against each of them, so the real question you are asking is should she allow a falsehood to stand? or should she affirmatively go after him, which might be

territory that the moderator might be going after. such as the trump foundation. she has to gauge who she will allow to do the actual direct attacks on him. john: i think the notion that if trump decides to go after her in a head on way, whether that is on her character, ethics, or personal ground, no one would dispute the right tactic at that point is to fight back. she can just get beat up by him. the question is, if trump decides to go be presidential and try to be a softer, gentler donald trump -- >> which he did. john: right. what should she do then? >> she should try to let people know her a little bit. that sounds ought to say for somebody who is been in the public eye for three decades, but while she is winning right now she is winning based on , people who don't like her and don't trust her. i think if she can continue to show the command of the issues, if she can show her human side a

little bit more and get people to like her more and take the edge off, i think that will help a lot. >> i cannot believe, we are both agreeing. i am thinking, am i saying something wrong? because i agree with you on that. people don't have any doubts that she knows the issues. you saw in the polls today, people see her as commander-in-chief. she does not have to prove that. what an opportunity for her to show that lighter side. i have so glad you showed that "between two ferns" interview because she has game. she is totally good. she had a great sense of humor. it would be nice to have her enjoy it, be a happy warrior. >> i do not think people see that. outside of you and others who know her, i don't know if people get it. john: is there a way in the context of the debate, which is inherently a gladiatorial enterprise, is there a way for her to do good for herself in terms of what is a problem, which is the perception that she is not honest and trustworthy, --le polling, trump find

polls find trump more honest and trustworthy. is there something she could do to help repair her negatives in this context? >> absolutely. the interesting thing is, if you watch or read the right websites, the echo chambers that are on both the right and the left. people on the right who are not in favor of or have an image of her as this demon. she will be able to have them watching her, and she will be able to present herself in a way that they might be surprised at. a way that allows her to be human like that. this idea of her showing her heart, her soul about why she is running, who she is running for. she is running for them. it is not just about the details of her policies, it is why she is there, to show the real her. i think there is a huge opportunity for that. john: what is your advice for donald trump about how he should conduct himself and what his main goal should be? >> i would say to show he has

some chops on the policy side. that is where people have doubts. people will assume she should have a great advantage on that. that is where the question will be on donald trump. this will be the first opportunity where he has to answer some tough questions in long format. and, show depth on policy will strengthen him and allow people to see him as more presidential. >> can i just say on that, you have said before, and mark has said before that the bar for him is low, so her challenge -- he is a tv star, but he doesn't know policy that well, or at least he has not shown that. i just hope as you review this that you do not allow that low bar to exist for him. they should be dealt with evenly. they should be held to the same standard. do not just to give it to them. we always have a high bar for guests, and you have clear

that today. do you think moderators should be fact checkers? we don't have time for that. >> yes. >> yes. john: we have a lovefest here. up, we will talk with two reporters about what they are hearing about how the candidates are preparing for the big debate as opposed to how they should prepare. we will be right back. ♪

♪ byn: we're joined now jennifer epstein, who has been following hillary clinton's campaign, and nbc correspondent kelly o'donnell. she knows everything about everything. kelly, i will start with you right now.

we have been talking debate. hillary clinton is off the trail. what do you know? >> this is a workday about debate prep. she is off the trail and doing her debate prep at home. one of the things we heard from the governor gives us an idea of what the clinton team wants, they want to set the conditions before the debate, to encourage voters and those analyzing this to grade this not on a trump curve. they argue he gets one dimensional questions, he gets easy questions when he is interviewed or participates in debates. he is not held to the same policy standards and the same fact standards. there is a small group of clinton officials who are with her, who are a part of this. she has done reading and studying prep, as well as real-time mock debate dress rehearsal prep. it is a closely guarded secret how all of that is going. some of her close friends of the party don't know what is

happening inside the room, or at least say they don't in terms of who they have found to play donald trump. i am told a number of people stepped forward, offering to play donald trump for her, but we don't know who the identity is about who is playing that and acting as the moderator. part of the process has been going through things they anticipate, and preparing for different trumps. will it be the bombastic trump, will it be the cutting, crooked hillary trump, will it be trump trying to be more statesmanlike? they have watched his debate performances, none of which have been one-on-one. they say he tends to hang back and pick his moments. john: i think it will be charlie chaplin trump. you don't know who is playing trump, do you? >> i wish i did. that is the biggest scoop that there is.

a full cone of ice cream. this is a moment where there is obviously a lot of expectation on both sides. the clinton people acknowledge that she is going to -- they believe that she will perform well. jennifer palmeri said that on the plane with the press yesterday. they cannot hide that fact. but they do want this to be judged fairly. they do want a moderator to step in and be tough on trump, and not just tough on her because she has more of a record, which -- serving in the senate and secretary of state, which is what happened during the veterans townhall a couple weeks ago. that is a concern that they have, and gave them a chance to say we need to make sure trump is asked the same kinds of questions as secretary clinton. at the same time, i think there is a dynamic of who is going to do the fact checking? will it be lester holt as a moderator, or will it be secretary clinton saying to trump, you just said something

that is wrong, here is what is right. if they get into a factual back-and-forth. john: they have been trying to do this for a little while, which is to try to say to us as reporters, there have been a double standard, you need to raise the bar on trump. do they think they have been somewhat successful in trying to do that in the last couple weeks? >> i think they do. i think they think reporters will be embarrassed if they say that trump won just because he didn't fall on his face, which i don't think he will. when they look back on the policy speeches, there have been reviews from pundits saying he did well, just because he didn't go off script. i talked to mike mccurry last night in washington dc, and he was very up front.

he said i don't think that moderators should be fact checkers. i think they should be up to the standard that chris wallace has set. each candidate should be fact checking the other. do you think hillary clinton can play that role onstage? fact-checking trump in real-time? >> i think she is ready for that, but she would like some help from the moderator. traditionally, moderators have been keeping time, asking questions, because often the fact checking is open to interpretation. it is not just adding up the math, it is about how people view the facts. that is where it can be very thorny for moderators to step in. trump was doing a very trump-like pregame. he was in philly and went to gino's and said everything is going fine. he is not practicing, he is doing sunday that bedminster with his close circle, throwing questions around over fast food.

a different approach. john: and having a cheesesteak. who can criticize a man for having a cheesesteak. jennifer epstein, kelly o'donnell, thank you. ♪

♪ i have two big announcements look up dalai lama , and trump. the we are partnering with second, twitter for special coverage of the presidential debates this monday. our pre-game and post-game interviews will start at 8:30 p.m. on twitter. bloomberg west has linkedin. until tomorrow, sayonara. ♪

♪ it is friday, the 23rd of september. i am haidi lun. this is "trending business". ♪ haidi: we will be live in sydney and singapore later this hour. , warnings of government intervention after the yen's rise, some say the currency is out of control. oil on the slide ahead of next week's opec talks. chinese