mark: i'm mark halperin. john: i'm john heilemann. with all due respect to giuliani, you're not the world's best headline writer but you're not the worst. >> you see that on "the times," hillary clinton admitting she's a liar. subtext for $225,000. >> headline idea, it's the end of the world as they know it but pawny feels fine. a little long. jorf-shmorf. they spend a pleasant evening joining one of the finest parks. a little longer. let's go to the first one. john: welcome to "with all due respect." we begin with the aftermath of last sunday's presidential debate in st. louis but the

dominant reports would be reports of sexual allegations against the republican nominee donald trump and that's where we begin. since yesterday morning more than a dozen women have come forward with reports by more than half a dozen media organizations describing encounters with trump that are remarkably similar to each other and mirror the acts trump boasted about in the "access hollywood" video. getting the most notice is a story published by "the new york times" including two women who claim trump made advances on them a decade ago. a second first-person account by a former people magazine reporter claimed trump did the same to her in 2005.

trump's response to all these accusations has been swift and venomous. his campaign lashed out at "the new york times" threatening to sue the gray lady and we'll talk about that in a moment. this afternoon with a defiant trump looked visibly enraged while addressing the claims in a rally in west palm beach, florida. mr. trump: these lies come from outlets whose past stories and claims have already been discredited. the media outlets did not even attempt to confirm the most basic facts because even a simple investigation would have shown that these were nothing more than false smears. then there was a writer from "people" magazine who wrote a story on melania and myself on our first anniversary. the story was beautiful. it was beautiful. it was lovely. but last night we hear that after 12 years -- this took place 12 years ago, this story,

a new claim that i made inappropriate advances during the interview to this writer, and i ask a very simple question, why wasn't it part of the story that appeared 12 years ago? why wasn't it a part of the story? why didn't they make it part of the story? i was one of the biggest stars on television with "the apprentice" and it would have been one of the biggest stories of the year. think of it. she's doing her story on melania who is pregnant at the time and donald trump, our one-year anniversary. and she said, i made inappropriate advances. and by the way, the area was a public area, people all over the place. take a look. you take a look. look at her. look at her words. you tell me what you think. i don't think so. i don't think so. but it is amazing, doing a story, a love story on how great we are together.

by the way, we're stronger today than we ever were before, which is great. but it's a love story. it's a love story on our one year. and if i did that, she would have added that and it would have been the headline. and who would have done that if you're doing this and you're one of the top shows on television? these people are horrible

people. they are horrible, horrible liars. and interestingly, it happens to appear 26 days before our very important election. isn't that amazing? this invented account has already been debunked by eyewitnesses who were there. they were there. the very witness identified by the author has said the story is totally false. otherwise it's a room everybody can see and it's got glass walls at mir lago. can you believe this? why wasn't it in the story, the biggest story of the year? john: when the trump campaign sent out a transcript of the speech they suspiciously left out that part where trump seemed to ridicule the "people" magazine reporter for her looks. trump previously threatened to counterallegations by bringing up dirt on bill clinton's sexual past and hillary clinton's complicit in it, as he see it, being championed by steve bannon, reporting by bloomberg's business week josh green. that attack was noticeably absent from trump's peach earlier today. meanwhile on the nonscandal side, a poll shows hillary clinton leading donald trump by a wide margin in pennsylvania and a new nbc "wall street journal" in ohio and north carolina suggest the race is till pretty tight in those states. those polls have obviously been overshadowed by the crisis

raining down on donald trump's campaign. mark halperin, my friend, how do you think on the basis of this past 24 hours the trump campaign is handling this crazy moment? mark: we'll come back to the polls in greater detail but i've got to tell you, those who said, like joe scarborough, maybe donald trump would not collapse in the wake of the ""access hollywood"" report. but he is way down in pennsylvania but if those ohio and north carolina polls are right, it's too easy, as "the new york times" and others are saying and politico, this race is over and trump's electoral path is not there. he has a narrow path. he's still behind. the polls suggest there's more going on than the downward trajectory for trump. donald trump's play book right now is a lot like the clinton playbook in the 1990's when they were trying to discredit women making accusations about bill clinton and raised questions about their stories and timing and saying the forces for status

quo want to keep things the way they are and why they're bringing up these false negative stories. blame the press. right out of the clinton playbook. there are two differences that are pretty fundamental. one is donald trump is doing a lot of this himself. and that's a danger. and two, he's doing it in an angry way. you can search long and hard. you won't find too many cases where bill clinton personally attacked his accusers. i think those are two big differences that are potentially big problems for donald trump. john: there's another big difference. it's never been the case, though bill clinton has been accused by various people, again, i'll stress that bill clinton is not running in this campaign. though he's been attacked, he was accused by various women, he never faced anything like we saw last night, just the number of accusations all coming in, a giant wave, all of them, as i

said earlier, remarkably consistent in the stories they tell and remarkably consistent in terms of what trump boasted of in the ""access hollywood"" tape. and given those realities, it seems to me the burden of proof is not on these women. the burden of proof is on donald trump and right now he's saying the stories are ridiculous, they're lies. he's not disputing them in any detailed way or credible way. i think if he's getting past this he will have to do better than just yelling liar, liar, and ridiculing the looks of one of the women who wrote the most powerful first person accusations of all time. mark: we'll rate for rebuttal. every accuser deserve as chance to be heard and the strength of these accounts for the most part is they have contemporaneous people who they polled at the time and corroborating witnesses. but i will say if the democratic nominee for president had six or seven media organizations all on one night coming forward, people would say that's suspicious three weeks before the election is coming forward. \[bell rings] mark: the reason i think they came out at once is because these news organizations were jumping on it because they wanted to be a part of not being last. the timing can be explained by that and what trump said in the

debate. john: i know the bell went off. donald trump invited these women to come forward sunday night and denied ever doing this. for a lot of these women who this is a painful experience, most if not all of them, have no interest in being in the spotlight and reliving these experiences and being trashed by donald trump. he provoked this and it's actually sort of seems aapplicable we see the stories a few days later when the women saw him onstage sunday night and then came forward. coming up, we discuss our latest bloomberg politics battleground state poll and what it says about the state of the race for the white house so stay tuned. mark: brand-new politics poll.

mark: brand-new politics poll. not great news for donald trump. the survey shows republican nominee trails hillary clinton in the keystone state by nine

points, 41% to 52%. we keyed in on the suburban county in philadelphia, clinton expands to 59% to 31%, better than barack obama did against mitt romney. joining us to bring it down is our pollster in iowa as well as the strategist cornell belcher in our washington, d.c. bureau. why did we look at those four counties? what's your main takeaway from our survey overall. >> the four counties were too tempting to not take a dive if

we had the chance. the geography of elections is that pretty much urban areas are going to tilt more democratic as the state as a whole. rural areas will tilt more republican as a state as a whole but depends on the state which way they'll tilt in pennsylvania which is already a swing state you have these four collar counties that are so populated that they truly can be the difference in how the state goes. so we decided to take a look at those four counties and throw in some extra interviews and it gives quite a stark picture of how down in a ditch donald trump happens to be right now. john: cornell, let me ask you this question. if you look at hillary clinton's lead in those four counties around philadelphia, and it's not just better than how barack obama did but a lot better, way better, but if you took those results and projected them on a

lot of battleground states, is that not basically game over for donald trump? cornell: look, if you're the r.n.c., this is the scenario that should keep you up at night long past this coming november. you can project it to the suburbs in north carolina and the research triangle in north carolina. you can project that around what you're seeing in northern virginia and around the tidewater in virginia where you have these once reliably red states that are growing better and with more college educated voters. they are slipping away from the republican party. if you have the campaign pulling out of virginia right now and north carolina moving towards a democrat, it's time to hit the panic button at r.n.c. mark: if you look at the other polling, anything you can say about donald trump's standing with women as compared a month ago? ann: in these four counties, 67% are backing hillary clinton so the best donald trump can be is a 2-1 loss there. there's so much room to make up. 76% of the women in the county are unfavorable towards donald

trump. there's a lot to do to fight back. we asked a question about the ""access hollywood"" video people have been talking about ad nauseum. and people are bothered by it and not something that appears to be going away. while we were in the field we didn't see concern grow. there is normal variation from day to day. but since we finished the polling tuesday night, this has continued to be a big part of the conversation and when an issue like that has legs like that, we can expect to see people who are bothered, bothered even more. john: the flip side is it you're sitting in the trump campaign, pennsylvania, we're sort of screwed there and will be hard to win the state. we look at the polling out of north carolina where it's relatively close and in ohio where trump is ahead according to this most recent poll, it would seem if i'm the trump campaign and had the week they've had, i would be like those are two pretty good polls out of three for us. how do you respond to that? cornell: the north carolina poll

i think is interesting because it has clinton up in ohio as a tossup. but again, if you look at a reliable red state like north carolina where you have the pollings certainly moving in the wrong direction and you look at what some people are saying is actually happening in georgia and you look at what's happening in states like arizona, it is problematic long term. ohio is a tossup. i would argue ohio from a electoral standpoint looks a lot like america of the electoral of the past than of the future. if you're looking forward in this country, and again, i'm not a partisan hack here but if you're looking forward in this country and looking at the emerging electorate and look at what is happening in north carolina and virginia and what is happening in arizona and georgia where republicans are struggling and they shouldn't be. john: up next, two surrogates on the opposite side of the aisle as they see the race playing out the next couple weeks after these words from our sponsors.

>> what's schlapping in the political world? here to tell us is a trump supporter. matt, i did not write that joke so please, i apologize for saying it. john: he is loving it. alex: matt, we've been talking about the rift in the republican party, who can fix it? can one man fix it? matt: clearly not. no. i think this is a really interesting question because we are having -- you know that family that you look at that looks so perfect and everybody is perfectly dressed and look like they never yell at each other? that's what the democrats look like.

the republicans look at the family that's all discombobulated and shouting. we're not exactly putting our best foot forward right now. it's honest and with a happens in political parties in moments like this. i think we'll get through it ok but it will be choppy. john: it never happened before and not what happens in political parties. you never had a nominee waging war on his party from the precipice from the heights of being the party's nominee. donald trump is attacking some of the most esteemed figures in your party. tell me what way it's politically helpful to donald trump and the rest of the party? matt: i don't think it is helpful. it would be better if we talked about this -- i think donald trump is connecting with voters on the issues of the economy, lack of good paying jobs, what is our strategy against radical islamic terror. and i think he's got the right approach on taking on washington. the american people think that washington is completely broken. if we stay on this track, i worry about our chances. if we get back on the issues, i think we got a fighting shot here. john: you're a trump supporter, right? matt: i am. john: famously. what explains -- if it's obvious to you it's not the right thing for trump to be doing, attacking his party in the way that he is,

what explains what's going on in his mind that makes him think this is the right thing to do either for himself or the rest of the party below him? matt: let's face it, we all know that yes, he's running as the republican nominee but he's an independent guy as well. he's really occupying both those lanes. and when these republicans took out against him, after the aftermath of the tape on friday, i think it upset him. there was a herd mentality and people voted and some have come back like deb fisher from nebraska and the republican nominee in colorado. they realized when they bolted from trump, what did it mean? what were they going to do, vote for hillary? i think they're both realizing they need each other. and that's what i want the party to get back to, the down ballot candidates need a strong presidential candidate and that presidential candidate need those down battle candidate to help him in those states. in the end i hope this is a dustup that lasted a bit too long and we can get back to attacking hillary clinton and winning this race. john: compelling, persuasive, articulate presence and we decided we needed to balance you

out with someone who is more compelling and articulate and persuasive, that would be governor, former governor of michigan jennifer granholm who now appears next to you on our wall. governor, let me ask you this question. how much of a problem do you think it is politically for the clinton campaign now these three days of wikileaks emails that have been dropped out of the public and they're getting asked about them a lot and a lot of chatter around them and they're trying to swat it down. how big of a threat to you think this is to her? jennifer: from what we've seen there just isn't much there there. there's really not much to be worried about, it doesn't seem, certainly from what's been released. but i think the bigger concern, really, is why is wikileaks dripping this out so slowly?

if this wikileaks is supposed to be the entity that releases everything to the public, what is going on with this slow drip? i mean, it certainly lends to the suspicion that wikileaks is doing some bidding on behalf of perhaps either trump through russia, russia through trump. you know, i'm not making a big deal about this because it's been said out there. we know the f.b.i. has been -- has confirmed, i think, or at least has been telling "the wall street journal" which just reported that in fact the russians are likely to be the source of the leak through wikileaks. but bottom line is the drip, drip, drip is frustrating from this perspective is that hillary clinton is out there talking today about the childcare tax credit. matt, we were just talking about this, she's going high. she wants to have people understand the policies. she was with al gore yesterday talking about climate change

which is really an important issue. alex: governor, having said that, though, there is stuff in those emails that confirms a lot of suspicions people have about hillary clinton. even in the best case scenario for the clinton team, what you learn in reading those emails, as my colleague said, russell berman, clinton is very much a politician, the idea she has a public facing position and a private facing position. the notion that the clinton foundation and taneo and some of the relationships bill clinton brokered or his deputies may have brokered, this is confirmation for people who have believed the clinton foundation is somewhat corrupt or does not play by the same rules that hillary clinton is not playing by the same rules as we hold perhaps other politicians, this would seem to be sort of a confirmation. do you think the campaign needs to address that head-on? jennifer: i think they have been addressing these suspicions ad naseum throughout the course of the campaign, alex, in what they really want to do. and i think what people want to do is to talk about what she's going to do for people once

she's elected. why is it going to be better for parents that she's doubling the childcare tax credit? why is it going to be better for millenials that we actually have a president who believes climate change is real and caused by humans and is going to, by the way, create jobs in the clean energy sector so that people can have them here as good paying jobs in america? she's got a superrobust plan to do that. this is my particular passion and so excited there was an opportunity to speak about that yesterday. and yet, you know, these wikileaks things which i know is very beneficial to the other side because they can keep holding it up. but the irony about it, alex, is that you see this report, for example, from "newsweek," from a reporter whose email appeared in this wikileaks batch which was in fact manipulated. so the email that comes out is not in fact accurate. so you can't even validate that these are true emails and it

gets back to the point about what the heck is russia doing, interfering in our elections. john: schlapp, you have the floor, respond, attack, go for it. take a little time and go for it. matt: the governor does a great job advocating for her candidate. really the candidate is her own worst enemy. much of what we learned over the course of the last several days was in the transcripts of these speeches and why didn't she release those transcripts? because those transcripts basically indict her for being the politician, john, you just described her to be. oh, i've got to have a public position which is actually different from my private position. my private position is very corporate and bank friendly and very wall street friendly, i'm one of you, wink, wink, nod, nod. oh, yeah, those refugees, we really can't vet them and we

have no idea who is coming here and that is an issue and then she talks about trade in the fact she's a complete free trader and wants open borders. this is insane. this woman for 25 years has flip-flopped between being a progressive and being a centrist. she can't decide which lane to occupy so she tries to occupy both lanes. she's a centrist for the corporations that pay her $200,000 a speech and these a progressive when she has to take on bernie sanders. i don't know which hillary clinton will show up for the general election but think she should start talking about policy instead of calling us all haters, saying we're deplorable, saying now i've learned i'm backwards as a catholic. she needs to stop the name-calling and start caring what people care about. jennifer: she does not say that. matt: her senior staff did. alex: unfortunately we have to leave it there. john: next up, not one or two but three bright minds who join our show to talk about where this presidential contest is headed next after this.

♪ john: we have gary bauer, former presidential candidate and a current donald trump supporter. from boston, we've got jeb bush's former campaign strategist dave kochel and in los angeles we're joined by a democratic strategist who was a senior advisor to the aforementioned al gore campaign robert schrum. gentlemen, what an incredible trio that you are. i'm going to go, you can't see us here. you're lined up ideologically in a odd way but i'm moving across here and ask gary and bob and dave. where is the race right now,

gary, is this race as many people think, republican and democrat alike, is this race basically over? gary: it ain't over until it's over. sports or politics, you get up every morning and fight as if you can win. and it's important for the ticket, for trump-pence to approach the rest of the campaign exactly that way. you go on and make your points. there's tremendous amount of vulnerabilities for hillary clinton. one of them being which has gotten buried in all this is a good bit of the industrial base of this country has been devastated and people that have been voting democrat for years feel that their party has abandoned them. those are new people for the republican party if it's got enough of a brain to accept them, and i think they need to keep making the case for those people and for clinton corruption and what that would mean for four more years in washington, d.c. john: gary bauer pro trump republican says the race is not over.

bob, is the race over? should we stick a fork in it? bob: i thought it was over on labor day, said it on your show and thought trump was in a demographic culdesac he couldn't get out of and made it worse and worse since then. none of his message, by the way, about the industrial basis coming through it at all. in any event, if you look at a state like pennsylvania, the latest poll shows him losing by 12%. if you go state by state in the battle grounds, she's ahead in virtually every one of them. i don't know what he'll do to recover. what he did in the debate was get himself a few more republicans who really dislike the clintons but he's stuck at 39% or 40%. he can't win the election with that 39% or 40%. john: bob shrum, said the race was over in labor day and you're being consistent. to the tiebreaker here, dave, republican but not a big fan of donald trump's. give us the clear, unbiased view, dave. is the race over?

dave: i'll be the tiebreaker. the race is over. time of death was about 10:00 the night of the first debate. it's been downhill ever since and you know, you can't bring one or two people into the front door of the party while you're pushing 20 or 30 out the back. so i think it's over and it's been long over and we're on the slide to see what happens in the next 30 days. mark: i want to ask you -- go ahead, gary. i will start with gary but want you to address this. you all have supported candidates who have done bad things in their personal lives, every one of you have. gary, you're supporting a candidate now who on friday was revealed to have done something that horrifies a lot of people, disgusts a lot of people. what would donald trump have to do for you to withdraw your support if it wasn't that tape? gary: look, i don't even think in those terms with all due respect. everybody -- i know this might be news to some folks, but

everybody that has ever run for any office in america and every voter that has voted for them, theologically, according to my beliefs as a christian, are sinners. they've all done things, said things, looked at things, violated various commandments, etc. it's policy that matters. and the fact of the matter is that donald trump has the right positions on growing the economy, shrinking government, lower taxes, pro-life, defending religious liberty, and hillary clinton is engaged in a cover-up of her corruption and an apologist for her husband. mark: gary, why don't you forgive that? if you personally and theologically -- gary: it's not for me to forgive. i don't oppose them because of their activities, i oppose them because they're wrong philosophically.

mark: many supporters of donald trump have been critical of president clinton, for instance, for his personal failings. why are you less forgiving personally and theologically for that. gary i don't speak for every values voter. mark: i'm trying to understand. gary: in an election the differences should be on policy between the candidates. it's night and day. by the way, al gore was down in florida campaigning for hillary clinton today. i seem to remember that al gore was publicly accused of being a sexual assaulter by multiple massagers in multiple cities and she campaign with him in florida today. mark: would you forgive him for that and say he's a sinner and you forgive him? gary: i'm pointing out the hypocrisy of the left acting like a 10-year-old tape is somehow horrifying when the left

in this country has been associated with radical social policies. mark: bob, let me ask you to critique gary's answers. bob: i think it's absurd and entirely unfair to bring up that charge against al gore, which was never substantiated. what donald trump did, what he said, has come out of his own mouth. gary: what he said, bob. bob: i didn't interrupt you, gary, don't interrupt me. gary, don't interrupt. you can't win the argument by interrupting. look, what donald trump said 10 or 11 years ago when he was, by the way, a 59-year-old man, not some college kid, was outrageous. john: how would you evaluate how speaker ryan handled the last 48 hours? dave: he's in a difficult situation. it's lose-lose. what are you doing at this point? the strategy they needed was a few months ago that mike kaufmann in colorado used which

is don't give hillary clinton a blank check. they've known for a long time the direction this campaign was headed and gary bauer can twist himself into whatever kind of pretzel he wants to. the truth is we'll have to come up with a new definition of hypocrisy to talk about how the religious right is supporting a guy like donald trump even after what's come out. by the way, we haven't seen the last of it. there's plenty more. i would say run for your lives. what i can't -- i understand what donald trump is doing right now. i understand, you know, the situation, the campaign. what i can't understand is anybody defending him. he's go to napalm the whole village, and to try to win a battle that's lost already. the problem is, you know, nobody survives in the village when it's all over. i think we've got to get as far away from this thing as we possibly can as republicans and start to define what the party is, you know, on november 9. that will probably be the most important day of this election because it will be over and we

can start to assign what the -- gary: others felt betrayed by the republican party. dave: the truth is we can't win an election this way. we've never seen a candidate implode like this 28 days out from an election. at least not in modern time . mark: gary, i'm going to discuss a couple questions but please don't talk over the other guests, it's not helpful to our viewers. gary: i watched too much of the kaine debate. mark: i understand. a few minutes ago you were talking about how it should be about policy and then you launched the attack on al gore. i am trying to figure out whether you want to talk about policy or the alleged personal indiscretions of a former vice president who has done one campaign event in this campaign so far. which is it, policy or personality? what do you want to talk about? gary: i'm trying to figure out if the left is serious about sexual assault. john: i don't want to hear about the left, gary. you said you want to talk about policy and literally the next

words out of your mouth is al gore masseuses. what do you want to talk about, policies? gary: you want me to answer your questions or are you going to filibuster your own show? john: it is my show. gary: i'm trying to figure out whether these issues of personal conduct actually matter or not to the left. that's the only thing they're raising about donald trump. they're afraid to fight on the issues of open borders, trade deals that gut our economy, of appeasement of iran. go down the list. if the campaign were about those issues, hillary clinton wouldn't see the light of day. so all the left has with their republican friends is to try to smear the republican candidate. and by the way, i can't ever imagine harry reid or nancy pelosi bailing out on a democrat presidential candidate. in fact, they didn't say a word

when hillary clinton spent the last three years of obstructing justice and destroying evidence that was central to an investigation of her mishandling of classified information. john: bob, there's lots to work with there. i'm going to let you pick and choose what you'd like to respond to there. again, gary, if you'd just let bob speak, please. bob: these are completely baseless attacks on hillary clinton. she said using a private server was a mistake and she won't make excuses. there's no evidence anybody got ahold of any confidential information because of that. the f.b.i. director who is a republican said there's no basis to move forward here. that's number one. number two, the recipe that gary is offering for the republican party to go forward is a recipe that would doom that party for a long time. if you look at the polling data, it is absolutely clear that americans are far closer by a good majority to hillary clinton's positions on immigration reform than they are

to donald trump's. if the republican party is going to go out there and say we want to take away a woman's right to choose and want to restrict the rights of women, we don't respect women or believe in equal pay or we're taking away lbgt rights and their religious freedom is a euphemism for that, that republican party will lose with the rising american electorate, not only this year but years and years to come. finally, i just have to say al gore is one of the most honorable people i've ever met. those allegations are entirely unsubstantiated and gary is just throwing mud to try to make a case for somebody for whom you cannot make a case. it was donald trump who smeared himself. no one else smeared him. mark: let's finish with some metrics here and start with dave and bob and gary. tell me who is going to win and what percentage of the overall popular vote they're going to get. dave? dave: hillary clinton will win overall percentage of the

popular vote, going to be around 47%, 48% and electorally it will be, you know, over 100 electoral votes, although i'll say that there is a possibility donald trump could win a state or two, that governor romney did not win. there will be that many states or more he'll lose that governor romney did win. mark: bob, i know you think hillary will win, what percentage of the popular vote will she get? bob: i think dave is right, 46%, 47%, 48% of the vote. i think she's headed right now around 343, 345 electoral votes. mark: gary, tougher for you because your guy is currently behind. what number does he need to get, will he get to win? gary: i'm not even going down that process. i'm not a political prognosticator, but i do believe if hillary clinton wins it will

presidency because it will be the same policies of the last eight years that devastated our economy and weakened us abroad. john: with us momentarily, libertarian vice-presidential nominee bill weld. ♪

♪ john: to my right former governor of massachusetts and now the libertarian candidate for vice president. bill weld joins us. i have to start by asking you, what are your thoughts as an intelligent, educated, and civil man on the events of the past 24 hours of presidential politics? bill: i'm somewhat stirred by the last two days because i think gary johnson and i, governor johnson and i can do a service to the united states and maybe a service to the republican party by putting ourselves forward as a fiscally responsible and free trade promoting ticket, which neither of the other two tickets is. and that would help the country by giving voters an alternative.

it might even help the republican party by giving the republican voters a place to go on the presidential ballot and then they could stay and vote for the down ballot republicans. john: that was a odd answer, getting out the vote for the libertarian ticket. i'll ask you something more humanlike. have you seen anything like this? it feels like this whole campaign had a lot of unprecedented moments and crazy stuff but seems particularly dirty and everyone feels, like i talked to, feels like they need to take a shower right now. bill: i'm not believing what mr. trump says about how i didn't really do all those things i said i did because i just don't believe it. and i spent a lot of time in the courtroom and seen witnesses and circumstantial evidence and you know, there's one, two, three, there's 11 and sound like donald doing it, that is. so i don't believe it. so he's staking everything on what appears to be a lie, but it's not the first time. you know. john: you're firmly in the he's lying, he's obviously guilty

camp. bill: he's obviously lying, yeah. to know the guy is to know that he loves women, he loves hitting on women. so why he would deny -- i'll tell you why he's going to deny it. he's trying to make this issue "the new york times" and not him. he spent an hour and a half talking about "the new york times." so joe the ragman can say oh, this is about "the new york times." i don't like "the new york times." they're way up there in new york. so i'm going to be with donald. so he's just trying to associate himself with the opposite of "the new york times." mark: governor, i want to ask you about a complicated debate that's not being had by the country because there's all this stuff going on that involves national security and espionage and first amendment and privacy. should news organizations be reporting on these documents which are allegedly, according to wikileaks, john podesta's emails, they haven't been authenticate sod should the news organizations be reporting on them or not?

john: he's not hearing mark but i'll ask the question. mark is asking the question about wikileaks. the question is given that we in a brave new world of leaks, a lot of news organizations are trying to figure out whether they should be reporting on purloined material, things broken in by a computer and things taken out of the clinton campaign and personally and the d.n.c. files. how do you answer the question? bill: the fourth estate is not the government. i think they can report it and say we don't know whether this is authentic or not and give the campaign in question a chance to deny it. i don't see not using the stuff. it's important stuff. i think the stuff that snowden did on n.s.a. was important, and this wikileaks stuff is the goldman sachs speeches i think for wikileaks was important to

have them out there that mrs. clinton did. john: of all the things you've seen reported from inside the clinton campaign, which of them do you think rise to the level of genuine importance? bill: i think not turning over the huma abedin email and it didn't come from the clinton side and why not? lawyers brushed them and that was an ouch. maybe it's good to have a private and public opinion, maybe that's an ouch. maybe the people who really understand what regulations would be best in the financial sector are those who work in the financial sector. those are ouches. those are three -- the first one is a substantial ouch. the second two are p.r. ouches. but you want to know something, nobody's going to jail. she's not going to jail. she's not going close to jail. john: let's try mark again and see it you can hear him. mark: what does the weld-johnson ticket have planned between the remaining balance to election day? bill: well, in view of recent events, it does occur to us that

we could be a place for republican voters to come who just feel now that they cannot vote for mr. trump. so we're emphasizing that we're an experienced ticket. you know, we were two-term republican governors. we not only had two terms of experience but we, by definition, worked across the isle because we had democratic states and we were a place they could go. it's not going to be a hard sale you have to do it, it's just hey, would you consider us? and obviously that's going to go down best in red states where there are more republican voters. and that may be a little bit of a shift from, you know, i had a lot of blue states on my calendar until recently and i'm beginning to rethink that a little bit. mark: tell us about your campaign activities that are pending, not your message but do you plan to do mostly tv interviews, a lot of retail campaigning, rallies, how do you plan to close it out? bill: rallies, retail, out west, as much new york and d.c. we can do, maybe l.a. for national

media as well. but, you know, getting out there, showing the flag in the west and to some extent in the east and then trying to raise our name recognition so the fact that governor johnson doesn't have the high negatives of the other two candidates could pay dividends, if we get his name recognition to 70 and his poll position would probably go to 25 because he doesn't have 60% negatives. if we're at 25 -- i've said this before. 25 points any time in the month of october, we're dangerous because we have momentum. john: i'll ask you for a one-word answer, yes or no, ask you what to do about aleppo, would you have had an answer, yes or no? bill: yeah, i would have had an answer but now i'm so pessimistic i've almost given up and i think putin will have his way because he's willing to bomb anything. john: more of the best with "all due respect" after these words from our response majors. ♪

♪ alex: we have jim rutenberg in the house. good to see you. so here's my question. >> hey-o. >> i read the teleprompter. here's what i'm going to discuss, jim. we've been talking about wikileaks and through the show there's been consternation whether or not the leaked material that hasn't been vetted through normal channel is safe for discussion, especially given wikileaks track record. as a media guru, what's your thinking? jim: the material is out there and we have to use it, right? it doesn't matter where it comes from if it's true. that said, it's uncomfortable if it's a foreign government hacking into these emails and unearthing them and that's a huge story. it's like an incredible propaganda story on the russian's behalf but what do you do? you ignore this stuff? john: let me ask you a cross question, what's the press' view at this moment about the burglared material.

what if someone broke in and put it out. what do they say about it? jim: we've increasingly been using it when it's in the public interest. it started with the sony hack. the sony hack was stolen emails and we ended up going there and i think there was squeamishness but it's the wikileaks era. so you know, people expect this will be out and we're going to use it. that said i'm not saying it's comfortable. alex: doesn't it inevitably have a chilling effect and won't campaigns and all political operatives stop using emails as correspondence, and that's gone after this? jim: they may but don't know how they'll communicate. someone will figure something else out and they'll tap into the phones. john: are you not on signal? jim: i'm get on it right away. [laughter] alex: a deep tease for later. john: you said if it's true and in the public interest, the

inclination is to publish, right? but again, there's some question, the eichenwald story says there's been manipulation of the documents. do you think right now going on in newsrooms and broadcast operations a higher degree of scrutiny being given to these things than normally would be given, just to say is this really what they wrote, is this language that is sounds like who this person is? how do we verify the emails are the actual emails. and we have someone saying they impugned the catholic church. i don't recognize these emails. she's saying i don't recognize the emails. what's a news organization to come in that situation? jim: with any story you have to verify it and nail it. what would be unhelpful and i get it to where it's not pleasant and maybe it's not fair to the clinton campaign but if they play games about what is valid and what isn't and we learn this email is legitimate, then we've broken the trust and hopefully they're being honest about what is fabricated. i get it where they feel like

why do very to help the russians undermine our campaign? i do get it and don't have a good answer. it's happening and we have to deal with it. alex: how does that standard apply to a hot mic moment? jim: same deal. corporate siblings of nbc had to deal with that and they obviously concluded after cautious lawyering that they could use the hot mic. alex: or "the washington post" who was the first to release it. jim: that made it easier. "the washington post" had a much easier decision because it wasn't "the washington post's" hot mic and to them that was public interest. now everybody is talking about let's get these "apprentice" tapes and go through them to find more hot mic moments which is a wikileaks mentality. why are they asking, why can't we search it, how will you search thousands of issues of tape and we'll find it if it gets to that. john: thanks for watching this edition of "with all due respect." stream our show live on twitter at 5:00 p.m. eastern by going to the moment section on twitter

and clicking on our program. follow our handle at the politics. if you're watching us from washington, d.c., listen to us as 99.1 f.m. see you soon. sayonara. ♪

♪ from our studios in new york city, this is "charlie rose." charlie: zanny minton beddoes, editor in chief of the economist. she is here. she became editor in chief of the economist last year. she began working at the magazine in 1994 as a correspondent. she is the first female editor in chief since it was founded in 1843. this edition includes a guest essay written by president obama. i am pleased to have you at the table. welcome. zanny: thank you. charlie: first, the u.s. election. how does it look from london?