♪ from our studios in new york city, this is "charlie rose." charlie: we begin with an analysis of second presidential debate. hillary clinton and donald trump excuse -- exchanged character attacks for 90 minutes in st. louis. it was in a town hall format. donald trump entered the debate following criticism after a 2005 video surfaced wherein he made lewd comments about women. he expressed regrets, but many

thought he was bragging about sexual assault. dozens and lawmakers have revoked their support of donald trump and some have called on him to exit the race. paul ryan has said he would no longer campaigner defend donald trump with a phone call with gop leadership this morning. in a new poll, hillary clinton leave donald trump by 15 points. --ther paul found that 57% found thatle -- poll felt hillary clinton one thing debate. the debate. where are we with respect to donald trump and his campaign? at an extraordinary

point where the most powerful republican will not defend his party's nominee, will not endorse him. debatetrump had a performance that exceeded expectations, very low expectations. charlie: compared to the first debate, he was better. >> yes. you did not see an exodus of more republicans leading -- leaving him after the debate, but he did not do much for helping his campaign. charlie: bob, where do you think the races? bob: i think jonathan is spot on. there is a sense that the gop is boxed in because donald trump

roused the republican base that for 25 years have been looking for a certain kind of searing attack on the clintons, deeply personal. because donald trump did that, he excited a lot of the base, the party leadership is reluctant to have a mass exodus. at the same time, the donald trump campaign is almost running different from the republican party. he is the standardbearer but he isrunning an insurgency that different than anything we've seen in history. charlie: frank? the republicans that were the angry republicans, they moved toward him. charlie: was it because of what bob said? >> not in the personal way, it

sense that he was going to take on washington, d.c. i truly believe that he has undermined if not destroyed the american psychiatry and will yche and-- american ps it will take us decades to get out of it. there has been a whole series of in pennsylvania that show him down by double digits. pennsylvania is key to him securing the electoral votes. i think pennsylvania is a state that is virtually lost to donald trump, even if he put in a stellar performance. right now, if you talk to republican leaders, it is really about trying to keep this from being a catastrophic landslide loss.

charlie: most republican leaders now believe it is an unwinnable election for donald trump. they are focusing on the house and governors and mayors. >> there is a sense that you need to prop him up so that is not -- it is not a total disastrous loss. you believe there is a path for donald trump when? -- win? >> it has to include pennsylvania in a has to include a stellar performance without histrionics. he has never been able to do that, he is never have a discipline focus. i am not a donald trump apologist, but call him dead. he has had nine lives already.

>> i think the most telling scene i have covered in the last year came last night, it was around midnight, you had rudy giuliani and kellyanne conway and other advisors held into a black suv here in st. louis and they were actively talking about how the commission of debate that stop them from putting women who it accused president clinton of things in the past, including sexual assault and misconduct in the family box, and this was something they were about to have as a stunt on national tv up until three minutes before the broadcast went live. the plan was to have these women walkout and confront pressing clinton in that moment were usually this thousands shake shake canshe spouses thed this was at the top of

trump agenda. to donald trump on saturday, he said the republican party to him does not mean that much. he thinks they have lost in the past because they do not have the guts to challenge the status quo. this is a candidate in a campaign who are consumed with their own agenda, their own strategy, not really thinking about what paul ryan or mitch mcconnell wants. charlie: lenny go back to the plan that i think you wrote about today. they wanted to put those women part of the press conference in the bnp box. -- vip box. what was the purpose and who stopped it? understand in your piece, rudy giuliani was going to take them to the box.

guest: they were going to be escorted to the box, but they were also going to be the people who walkout instead of mrs. trump. there were going to be these for women to walkout and shake bill clinton's hand. the vip boxes were elevated near the stage, so they wanted the four women overlooking secretary clinton for the entire debate. this was not a fanciful idea, this is something that was almost executed in front of a record audience. guest: i was in the hall last night. seatsp box were the only on the stage, on the actual stage. you could basically reach over and tap anderson cooper on the shoulder. family,e set aside for

and they were going to put these four women, including one who accused clinton of rape there in that box on the stage in the eye line of hillary clinton for the entire debate. was where bill clinton was the -- was sitting? guest: they are separated, but not by much. charlie: whose brainchild was it? giuliani and, donald trump, trying to discover a way to rattle secretary clinton. they were trying to pull off a political stunt that would have enraged more than half the country. this is why he has such a high on favorability rating.

this is why so many people cannot even consider voting for him. this is the problem with the system right now, it is so inherently broken. what happens on the day after the election? how will these people govern? how will they talk to each other? the republicans are so divided surehat paul ryan is not of being reelected speaker. guest: they are divided not just on donald trump and personal baggage in terms of where were you when, they are divided on the fundamental issues the party stands for. , ist a party of free trade it a party of immigration reform, is it a party of entitlement reform? what does the party stands for? charlie: you think there's anybody undecided at this point? guest: no, they are uncommitted

they are not undecided. they know who they will not vote for. charlie: has this become a referendum on donald trump? guest: yes it has, and donald trump hasn't the blame -- has himself to blame. the problem is, you cannot get over it. i cannot emphasize this enough, this is gone so deep into the public psyche that he will take years to rid ourselves of this poison. see theepublicans opportunity had with hillary clinton as perhaps the most -- you saw her apology on e-mails, it seems about as since the year of any of donald trump's apologies --

as sincere as any of donald trump's apologies. then there was the idea of a public persona and a private persona, that was perhaps donald trump's best moment in the debate. you have a situation where over care is facing a severe crisis and republicans are unable to make it an issue. charlie: go ahead,. was struck byng i was that the right-left dynamic is not happening right now. what we're seeing right now is ,onald trump in conversation the media, stand they cannot stand the republican party and they don't like the democratic party. they are disengaged all of those

institutions and think there is a conspiratorial collusion among the three groups. i think that is what frank has been referencing repeatedly, the psyche and a large group of voters that are disengaged from these institutions. that is something that is actively happening and being stoked by donald trump. not allow him to to use the phrase "this election was rigged." there will be tens of thousands of people who believe him. will not be that the loser accepts the loss. guest: he said he would put her in jail.

charlie: and called her a liar. russians,ct to the how does the intelligence community see the actions of the russians? guest: the intelligence community said that it had to be the russian government, the senior level of the russian government, the question is what to do about it. i don't think that is clear at all. we put this question to the white house -- charlie: they say? guest: we don't know. charlie: we have to retaliate in some way. , ift: but there is a risk they retaliate, the russians retaliate. what happens if they take out the electrical grid in new york city? war is a whole

new frontier. we have the ability to retaliate in kind, it would be interesting e-mails,adimir putin's but what is the retaliation to the retaliation? charlie: do you expect more disclosures to come out about what donald trump may or may not have said to howard stern or some other media outlet that will simply keep this pot stirred as people realize there is a lot of stuff out there because donald trump has been a celebrity and been in pursuit of attention for a long time? certainly, "the washington post" and other organizations are looking into it. the donald trump campaign is fully aware of other tapes out there that are possibly coming out. they are bracing this morning

and afternoon for more things to come out later this week, there is an expectation that it will happen. the goldmine is really "the apprentice." the producer of the series is the owner of many tapes, things that were never broadcast, featuring donald trump. he has not released those tapes, everyone is trying to get hold of those tapes. guest: 12 seasons of tapes. workedd to a guy who sound on that show, and he heard those things and some people do not destroy these things. if donald trump said it, they will come out. charlie: stay with us. ♪

♪ ck is here, hearra is the ceo of an investment firm. he is a close advisor to the donald trump campaign, serving on his economic and national s. urity council i'm pleased to have him back here.

tell me about last night, the debates. my personal view had been the same for a while, this idea of trying to show the rest of the world a piece of donald you had not seen, which is a more ned professional. it is not that he doesn't have it, that he can do it. excitedt he is not very for it. of political lack etiquette is the key to the door, but i think it was important for people to see that he was poised and intellectually up to the issues and he has the temperament to be presidential.

charlie: the question is whether he did better in the second debate than the first question -- first debate. that is a relative question. both candidates have had a large amount of disapproval, and is not -- it is not the first time in america. jefferson and hamilton, the fuse had.had -- feuds they but this seems to be a new level of internet -- bitterness. do you share that? guest: i do. i think donald shares it. -- if he had listened to people like me at

the beginning, he would still be a reality show host. he carried the day with? the constituency he has? guest: i would like to make one comment on women. i have known them for 40 years. i've known all of the women in his life, i'm close with two of his wives. women in his organization are critically important. he had one who was an elegant, unbelievable woman who came to him when he had three employees, as the secretary. she blossomed into controlling his entire entity. over that time, i watched him interact with her and the other women in the organization with unbelievable elegance and softness.

totally different from what we are perceiving from personal banter. technology makes it difficult. if we all had technology intervening in personal conversations, it would probably not be great thing. it,differences, and he did saying i did it and it was the wrong thing. charlie: he said it was locker room talk, it is not a locker room i've ever been. guest: that started a tsunami. charlie: what you mean? wast: to say locker room inferring and a nice way that this is the kind of conversation that man to man in a private setting, you might engage in. it was a misnomer because in every word you say gets transmuted. reflected in his

own use of language a way that causes that to take place. he is responsible for the emphasis on it. you seem to be saying, and you know him and are his friend and you have been a business partner. you have been there. you still are, you sit on two important councils. you seem to say that whatever he does is ok because he's eating a disruptor and he believes -- he is being a disruptor and he believes that the end justifies the means. people believe the presidency is different, it is about character, about something other than just finding the deepest, darkest place to try to disrupt. clear, i'm note

making a value decision that anything is ok. i'm portraying what i see as context. takeaway is that i deal with an environment where have to deal with constituencies , and i may deal with them differently, that at the end of the day, take my track record good and bad. made businesses, i have lost businesses, i have capital gains, all of this is an issue. at the end of the day, let us separate words from actions. guest: he is cast aspersions on a whole range of people, and that becomes the issue of the day. charlie: again, i don't think --

--st: again, i don't think he did not need to go after the muslim mother, he did not need to go after miss universe. charlie: why does he do it? why does he feel he has to do that rather than talking about changing the country? himt: i think in his mind what he's is doing is communicating to what the saying, your is fight for what you believe in and accept consequences. even if the consequence is that the media and three fourths of the population will think it is absurd, i know i am right. charlie: not a single chief executive of a fortune 500 country -- company has endorsed him. endorse somebody

as lightning bolt as him when you're associated with company, that is not a good thing. wono rket is deciding the debate. the peso. the market is looking for consistency and logic, and we know there is not any. , disruption ine every form is frightening to everyone in the establishment, including these -- big business. they cannot support these positions- outlandish for the reasons you are saying, there's something wrong in the consistency. instead of there being something wrong with the consistency of the man delivering it?

the dialogue we've been and is very confusing. at this point, if i was advising him, it would be -- charlie: he doesn't listen to anybody, that is the point. guest: he listens, but he believes the track he is on is correct. he could come and sit with you for an hour and a half and let you drill on him on real substantive issues, i promise you would be more impressed you think. charlie: well happen in here tomorrow. guest: i will try. charlie: thanks for being here. ♪

♪ ruth bader ginsburg is an associate justice of the united states supreme court. she was nominated by bill clinton in 1993. she had been serving as a judge on the d.c. court of appeals since 1980 when president jimmy carter appointed her. defined byareer was advocacy in gender discrimination cases, earning her a reputation of the thurgood marshall of the women's rights movement. she has written a book, i met with her on the occasion of the

publication. charlie: thank you so much for this opportunity to talk to you. justice ginsberg: it is a pleasure to talk to you. is the first book you have written since being a justice of the supreme court. justice ginsberg: yes, not the first book ever. the first book was a bestseller about civil procedure in sweden. [laughter] charlie: i missed that one. but you have always been about procedure. justice ginsberg: yes, i taught procedure at rutgers and columbia. charlie: this is a collection of speeches and writings about you and the law. when did the love affair with the law begin?

justice ginsberg: my interest in becoming a lawyer started in the 1950's when i was a student, and undergraduate student at cornell. it was the heyday of senator joe mccarthy. not a good time for a country. there was a huge red scare. people were being called before the house on un-american activities committee. they were being interrogated about some group they belong to at the height of the depression 1930's.0's -- charlie: and lost their jobs. justice ginsberg: there was a blacklist in the entertainment industry. professor brought to my attention the lawyers that were appearing before the people,

called before the committees. they were reminding congress we and thatrst amendment they were straying very far from those fundamental precepts of our system. justice ginsberg: -- charlie: you saw the law as a protector of our liberties. justice ginsberg: yes, i wanted to do something that would make conditions better. me to takewhat led the lsat when i was a junior. that is the law school aptitude test. charlie: you were at cornell 54.m 1950-19 there was another student there. justice ginsberg: my dear husband.

we decided that whatever we do, we do it together. he started out as a chemistry major, but his true major was golf. was for business school or law school. 1950's, for some reason he determined that harvard was the place for us, but harvard at that time did not admit women. so the law school. i was very pleased because that was my number one choice. charlie: so you set out for harvard law school. justice ginsberg: not immediately. we were married, and we had a gap. .- cap period

were on a base. justice ginsberg: he became -- .harlie: he became a great chefg he cooked until he died. was he cooking then? was he a great chef then? justice ginsberg: he was learning then. i had a cousin who sent him a translation english , and he treated it like a chemistry text. he started with page one, the basic stocks and moved on to sauces. in the course of two years, he became an excellent cook. i still have the cookbook that he used.

it is falling apart, it has food stains to show how well used it was. charlie: you said that what happened in your life was that you were the weekday cook and he cooked on weekends and special occasions. justice ginsberg: for any visitors, i was not allowed to cook for gas. -- guests. charlie: at some point your daughter said they do not want to cook anymore. justice ginsberg: i had seven things that i made, we would get to number seven and i would go back to number one. the only cookbook i used was for 60 minute meals. from thehan 18 hour houren to the table -- one from the kitchen to the table. charlie: you transfer to columbia. why transfer?

marty was wheng: you're ahead of me, he had his first year at harvard. in my second year, his third cancer, aad testicular tumor. , it was most uncertain whether he would liv e. no chemotherapy, massive surgery and massive radiation. we wanted to be together for as long as he would live. as it turned out, he lived many years after that. he was one of the first survivors of that form of cancer.

old, and iree years did not want to be a single mother. asked if iarvard and could have a harvard degree if i successfully completed my legal education at columbia. dean wasr from the absolutely not, you have to spend her third year here. i said, but you accept transfers until the second year. they say the third year is the most important. that doesn't make sense. i was told a rule is a rule. i went to columbia, contemplating three years of law school and no degree from either institution was too much.

but columbia gave me a degree. they transferred me to the columbia law review and they were very good to me. charlie: harvard did not give you a degree. but marty comes to you and says, do not go back and accept anything from harvard in less they will give you an honorary degree. justice ginsberg: when my colleague became the dean of harvard, every year, she said we you as ae to have graduate. marty said, hold out for an honorary degree. which i eventually received. charlie: there is a picture of you and placita domingo. he is singing to you, and your title is what?

justice ginsberg: woman in ecstasy. it was a thrill enough to know that we would be seeded -- seated next to each other because we were in alphabetical order. just wonderful. when they called me to receive my honorary degree and he stood up and went to the microphone studentss words the had written, to the tune of one of the most famous arias in the world, it was a thrilling moment. being so close to that great voice was like having an electric shock run through me. charlie: we are talking about three great loves of your life, marty, the law and opera. you teach their wreckers and

rutgers andat columbia. why teach? justice ginsberg: my plan was that i would work at a law firm for about five years and then going to teaching. forhing is a very good life someone who likes to read, who likes to think -- charlie: and likes to write. justice ginsberg: i had an offer from rutgers in 1963 at a time when they were perhaps -- there were perhaps women teaching in tenured positions in law school from coast-to-coast. there was a burden then, what i get another offer if i went to a law firm and waited? 1963 and the offer in remained there until 1972.

that was the year of the woman. every faculty in the country was looking for women. charlie: and columbia came looking for you. justice ginsberg: yes. charlie: when did you get drawn into the women's movement? justice ginsberg: the late 1960's. i begin to think about it when i was in sweden in the early 1960's. sweden was already much further than the united states in opening opportunities for women. so i've served how people were living, but i put it on the back burner. in the late 1960's, the women's movement can alive again -- came alive again, and my students propelled me into this line of inquiry. charlie: asking for legal

advice? justice ginsberg: asking for a course on women and the law. so i went into the library and inside a month i had read every article and federal decision that had to do with gender-based differentials. it was no mean feat, there was precious little and all of it was bad. genderr lines based on the law draws is ok with the court. my students wanted to have a course on women in the law. i prepared for that. at the same time, new kinds of complaints were coming into the new jersey affiliate of the aclu. women who were schoolteachers and pregnant and were being forced onto so-called maternity leave as soon as they began to

show in the fourth or fifth month. pay -- thes without leave was without pay and there was no guarantee of return. pleasedachers were not with the arrangement, they thought they were ready, willing and able to work and there was no reason why they should have to leave the classroom just because they were pregnant. another group of blue-collar work hadse place of good insurance company -- health insurance coverage. these women wanted health insurance coverage for their families. rule was that family coverage was only available for a male worker because a woman was not considered the head of the pin moneye was a

earner. she can get money for herself and her family. those new complaints were coming in, complaints that women finally have the courage to voice. it was the new clients and my students that propelled me into -- charlie: you also started a -- it seemst became to have become the driving purpose and driving cause of your life. justice ginsberg: i had a fantastic opportunity. there was a real possibility that there would be change in the laws. feminists have been saying the same thing that we set in the 1970's generations before, that

society was not ready to listen. adams, shef abigail told john to remember the ladies and he did not. , the women's70's movement was coming alive all over the world, not just in the united states. the united nations had declared international women's year. we had just had the experience of the civil rights movement of it was possible in the 19th emmys to move the court away from -- it was possible in the 1970's to move the court away from the lines drawn based on gender. warren courts one

contribution was a woman, today we would call her battered. she had a husband who was ve and whong, abusi had humiliated her to the breaking point. she spied her young sons baseball bat and took it and hit him over the head. he fell against a hard floor. into their fight, beginning of her murder prosecution. florida at that time did not put women on a jury rolls. her point of view was, if there , theyomen on the jury might better understand what was in my mind, my rage at that

moment. charlie: but she was convicted by 12 men. justice ginsberg: yes, she did not necessarily think women would acquit her, that she thought they might come in for a lesser crime of manslaughter. but she was convicted by murder -- of murder by an all-male jury. her case came before the supreme court, and the court said, we don't understand the complaint. women have the best of all possible worlds. women can go to the post office ,nd sign up for the jury rolls but if they do not sign up, they are not there. how many men would sign up if they were not obliged to serve? and what does a lot like that say to people? it says, men are essential to administer justice, women are

expendable and we do not need them to be part of the system of justice. warrent is where the court was, they did not get it. you can imagine her when she was told that women have the best of all possible worlds. it was exactly 10 years later in 1971 that the burger court moved in a new direction. that wasin the case the first gender discrimination brief i wrote in the supreme court. i had written such brief forecourts of appeal -- for courts of appeal. sally was an everyday woman. she made her living taking care of the elderly. she had a young son and she and

her husband had divorced. sally got custody when the boy was what the law calls "of tender years." teens,e boy reached his the father said he needs cap custody so that he can be aware of a man's world. sally fought that, she thought he would be a bad influence. she was right, the boy became severely depressed and one day he took out one of his father's guns and committed suicide. sally wanted to be administrator of his estate and she applied. not for economic reasons, there was very little there. the father perhaps out of spite applied a few weeks later and , sally,ate court said

the law controls what i must do. it reads, as between persons be entitled to administer a decedent's estate, males must be preferred to females. sally took that case on her own dime to three levels of the idaho courts. and then someone on the aclu board spotted it when it was on the idaho supreme court, and said this is the case that will turn the supreme court in a new direction. and it did. ,he supreme court took her case and in a very low-key opinion saying malestatute

must be preferred to females is a violation of the equal protection law. charlie: who wrote the brief for sally? justice ginsberg: i did. ir lawyer obviously did, but wrote her brief. charlie: when people say that you are to the woman's movement what thurgood marshall was to the civil rights movement? justice ginsberg: i feel uncomfortable with that comparison. charlie: because? justice ginsberg: we definitely copied thurgood marshall's message. he proceeded step-by-step all the way up to run versus ford -- brown versus ford. you have to declare separate but equal unconstitutional in all circumstances.

but there is an enormous difference. when i was1970's dealing with these discrimination cases -- charlie: most of them successful. justice ginsberg: my life was never in danger. marshall when he got up in the morning did not know. my life was never in danger. charlie: so courage for him. justice ginsberg: enormous courage. , he headed the legal defense fund, it was the only show in town. if african-americans wanted to be represented, it was the naacp. when the women's movement was underway, it was more dispersed. going toe more cases

private lawyers, sometimes groups other than the aclu. charlie: when they talk about the women's movement and they talk about the legal argument in the architecture that helped prevail in the courts, they put you in front of the parade. and you know that. justice ginsberg: i was fortunate to have that position. when i was a teacher at rutgers and deciding where i should affiliate, with what group should i affiliate, i picked the aclu because it is not women's people's writes. -- right. i call it the struggle for each are -- equal citizenship stature for men and women. there were cases brought on behalf of men who were

disadvantaged sibling because they were men. the log reflected this pattern -- the law reflected this pattern. men worthy breadwinners and represented the family outside of the home. women took care of the home and children. the common-law rule and civil rule were identical in this respect. the man was the head of the household and could choose any mode of living and she was obliged to conform. , the states in the united states that have their inheritance based on french law, it was called the hidden master rule -- head and master will. ♪

john: i am john heilemann. mark: and i am mark halperin, with regards to his surrogate ben carson, we will say it again, you had one job. dr. carson: as i was growing up, people are talking about their sexual conquests and try to make themselves appear like they are casanova. i am surprised you have not heard that, i really am. >> i have not heard it and i know a lot of people who have not heard it. dr. carson: maybe that is the problem. ♪