mark: i'm mark halperin. john: i'm john heilemann. with all due respect to all those people stressing out about the election, a word of advice dan harris. from meditation expert >> namaste. ♪ john: all right. on the show tonight, clinton foundation in cold stations, vladimir putin's cyber deprivations soothing powers of meditation. but first, the politics of feminization. high-profile women on both sides were out in full force today. in winston-salem, north carolina this afternoon, hillary clinton made her first campaign appearance with another

soon-to-be former first lady michelle obama. it was a buddy picture unlike we , have ever seen. seriously, is there anyone more inspiring than michelle obama? she and the president have been such wonderful friends to me and my family. it has meant the world, the world to me. ms. obama: if people wonder, yes, hillary clinton is my friend. i admire and respect hillary. she has been a lawyer, and law professor, first lady of arkansas, first lady of the united states, a u.s. senator, secretary of state. [cheers] ms. obama: that's right. hillary does not play. [applause] ms. obama: she has more experience and exposure to the presidency than any other candidate in our lifetime. yes, more than barack, more than bill. she is absolutely ready to be

commander-in-chief on day one, and yes, she happens to be a woman. [cheers] john: meanwhile, in springfield, ohio, donald trump held his own rally back dropped by several "women for trump" signs. it was his wife melania who , stole the show this morning with two interviews that aired this morning. on good morning america, melania husband and dismissed the women who accused him of sexual assault. >> they are lies. as i said before, all the accusations should be handled in a court of law. to accuse somebody without evidence is very hurtful and very damaging and unfair. honestly, do we still need to talk about that? i think american people want to hear the problems we have in america. mr. trump: she is so right about

that. >> they want to hear what we wanted to make america better. let's talk about jobs, secure our border. that is when american people want to talk about. >> what do you need prayer for, if you will? that's what we say and evangelical world. >> health is the most important, because if you have health, you can keep going, keep fighting, and do the best for the people of america. john: mark, we have been saying that donald trump has to improve his standing with women to have a chance at winning. at this moment, given all things, where do those efforts stand? mark: today, the michelle obama appearance is going to dominate. she has been on the trail some, but not a lot. since this summer, donald trump has cut the gap in some extent nationally with hillary clinton. but mostly that is republican women coming home but not enough. if hillary clinton continues on the trajectory she is on, despite donald trump

occasionally talking about childcare, despite melania doing interviews in the last few days, the combination of the clinton campaign's relentless focus on female voters and the "access hollywood" tape will leave trump with, unless something dramatic changes, a very big gap with women that will make it mathematically impossible. john: there are long-term questions about the republican brand, damage being done to it. we can talk about newt gingrich and megyn kelly in various things going on. i am somewhat surprised. i went to look at the exit polls from 2012 when barack obama beat mitt romney by 11 points, 55-44. hillary clinton, according to cnn orc, is up by 13 with women. quinnipiac, 15. bloomberg, up by 14. that is actually surprisingly -- she is not doing substantially better than barack obama did. then again, barack obama won the

hillary clinton is doing better with women. i am surprised there has not been a bigger fallout with women than it has. so far given everything that has happened mark: over the summer, . he was more like 20 points down. some of that has come back. i think, if you look back at the c and theirigns ar aspirations to appeal to women, african-americans, hispanics, their efforts were so slow in starting, so haphazard. if you scored to lose, he will leave a legacy of, no blueprint whatsoever except in the negative sense of how the republican party at the presidential level can do better. john: he will leave a legacy where he has put his surrogates, people around him -- they put themselves in the position -- but he has put them in a horrible position where they have had to defend him from charges that are largely credible, only because he admitted on tape that he does these kinds of things to women.

they've had to defend him. that table play for a long time and hurt the republican party. said, it was inexplicable. republicans are calling it a bombshell memo. another wikileaks disclosure giving fresh ammunition to claims of impropriety in clinton world. as it is being called, bill clinton inc. to11 message from an advisor the clinton foundation, a longtime aide to bill clinton appears to describe the system that generated a lot of money for the clintons. according to the memo, his consulting firm made a charitable donations to the clinton foundation, while at the same time hiring bill clinton to the tune of millions of dollars for speaking fees and consulting gigs. those deals also included "in-kind services for the president and his family for

travel, hospitality, vacation and the like. donald trump address these directly, and he mixed -- he minced no words. mr. trump: the more e-mails wikileaks releases, the more lines between the clinton , the secretary of state office in the clinton's personal finances get blurred. just today, we read about doug brand bragging that he funneled tens of millions of dollars to bill clinton inc. that was through the foundation donations, paid speeches and consulting contracts. mr. band called the arrangement unorthodox. the rest of us call it out right corrupt. mark: there is another e-mail from wikileaks that people are talking about today. this one is from 2014. bandpears to show doug sharing -- setting up a meeting between a client and john

podesta. he was a white house senior adviser thin. he is now chair of the clinton campaign. all of this season to a pay to play narrative, but the clinton campaign has been trying to shut down the closing days before election day. john, how will this description of clinton world operate about how the clinton foundation in clinton world operated play with voters between now and election day. john: let me say i have always thought, much more than hillary clinton's e-mails, that the nexus of money, the philanthropic work and potentially policy were areas of real concern politically for the clintons going forward. these e-mails describe a messy, ugly, cd bunch of business. there is no getting around that. it is the case that donald trump is a horrible messenger because pf the problems with the trum foundation.

the trump foundation is at least as corrupt, if not more corrupt. also, there is the piece that i speculated might be shown, but has not yet been, which is did in the this influence policy? so, those two things undercut this is a potent issue awfully and it is also late. mark: it's late, and i think most voters who here about this and process it takes that's the way it operates. we should say this is the way a lot political families operate in government. the difference here is the scale and the fact that it is the clintons and now that we have the descriptions of what is there are plenty of people in shown. washington who arrange meetings for contributors all the time. i think the danger here is, if there is another disclosure, the press has become a nerd to the daily release of the wikileaks batches. we do not know if julian assange and others have a plan to drop something big and later, if the russians plan to send something over late. some clinton people said last week that they made a mistake, but the press does not care anymore. the press is primed to read this

every day and look for things. if this is a big thing, it will get a big hearing. john: although again with the i'm not giving it julian assange advise, but if you really going to drop a bombshell -- mark: you may not know about early voting. john: you might not want to wait before the day of the election to do it. mark: did they early voting in australia? john: or in any of the places he is associated again, there is a with. lot to criticize here, but again, it still remains very remote from the real lives of real people. mark: and hillary clinton's name has not come up much at all. that's important. but wait -- john: but wait, there's more about the campaign duet debut about hillary clinton michelle obama. we will bring in to reporters after this quick break. ♪

♪ ms. obama: i know some folks who have commented that it has been unprecedented for a sitting first lady to be so actively engaged in a presidential campaign. and that may be true, but what is also true is that this is truly an unprecedented election and that's why i'm out here. , mark: that was more of michelle obama, the star of hillary clinton's rally today in north carolina. making a joint appearance. former and for desperate first lady joining us now. one of the best reporters in the business, and darren, political correspondent for "the washington post." what did you think of the body language?

i remember in 2008, bill clinton and barack obama did one event together and the body language was not that warm. it seemed warm to me today. anne: it was. they came out together in the not totally in the class act of clinton you would see that the vice president, but very close together. michelle obama made a point of saying that she considers clinton a friend. i think that was in some ways a nod to the perception that they do not have a particularly close relationship. it is certainly true that they don't have an enormous amount of experience with one another and that their relationship was not so great eight years ago in the aftermath of the 2008 election. it has grown considerably deeper and warmer since.

i thought michelle obama really had substantive things to say today about what she thought clinton could do as president that go beyond a standard one democrat endorsing another kind of stump speech. john: i think one of the big stories of 2016 is the reality that michelle obama is the biggest star of the democratic party. she is performing at a higher level than her husband, but she is not out as often as her husband. he is doing a lot of campaigning. how much will we see of her between now and election day? anne: a surprisingly large amount, even by the clinton campaign's expectations. they will tell you they are surprised that michelle obama wants to do as much as she is volunteering to do. they say they are not pressuring her to do more, but in fact she came to them with a number of proposals about things she wanted to talk about, including

today's event as a side with hillary clinton. i think one data point that is telling is that they booked a really, really big venue today. it is a stadium that in some configurations can seat 14,000 people. the way it was booked today, it was fewer than that. there was a capacity crowd of about 11,000. that is according to the fire marshal and more than twice the size of really any of the very two or three largest clinton rallies we have seen all year. crowd sizes at recent rallies -- and we are two weeks from the election -- crowd sizes at recent rallies have been in the 1700, 2500, maybe 3000 range. certainly not 11,000. mark: i wanted to talk about the wikileaks. jennifer paul mary was on msnbc today, and basically everything she said was, the russians, the russians.

this is done by the russians. do you get the sense that they planned to keep that up as a their answer for the next two weeks, or is something going to force their hand? anne: they don't think something has forced their hand yet. it certainly appears that with 12 days left, they think they can get it out by just continually saying, "this is stolen property, stolen by the russians," and "has anybody taken a good hard look at donald trump's connection to the russians?" all good questions, all valid points, but completely beside the point to the really mounting pile of dirty laundry that we see in these e-mails. notably, they do not dispute the authenticity of the e-mails, they simply will not confirm it. john: it is interesting to point out that donald trump went out again and giving vladimir putin prices on the trail, giving the clinton campaign a little bit of a gift. to what extent is the clinton campaign fully aware -- have a

totally gone through all of john podesta's gmail now so they know what assange has and they will be prepared as these things, out between now and election day? anne: god, you'd hope so, just to know what the potential trove is that is out there. one thing we really don't know from the outside is exactly when it was clear to the campaign that this material had been stolen, and exactly how much they knew about the size and scope of that safed -- theft. podesta apparently never deleted anything. he had many years stored in his gmail. with apparently one hack, whoever did it was able to go back many years, spanning podesta's time out of government , at the white house, and when he was the chairman and there

part of the campaign. was a lot exposed, and you have to think that the campaign and lawyers have been going through that for months. we knew that they knew that there was a risk out there. we did not know exactly what it was. mark: we talked about it earlier, but we would love to see you enunciate it. we have seen weeks of these e-mails come out. the batch releases unit produced from page stories in your paper. what was it about the memo that you can cause people to make a big deal about it then the previous e-mails question mark -- e-mails? anne: it through a lot of lines quite explicitly. beyond that, you have done band, -- doug band one of bill clinton's most trusted and loyal

aides,. to point fingers at the boss, bill clinton saying, look, how come you are saying that i should not be doing some of these overlapping -- some of the overlapping business and a charitable relationships when bill clinton has far more than i do and has even greater exposure? if you consider it a risk, he has greater exposure than i do. that is an extraordinary thing for someone in his position, and frankly who owed his position to bill clinton to say and one interesting aspect of it that raised the profile of it and caused us to write about it in the detail that we did. here you see john podesta trying to tamp this down a little bit and say, cool it, i do not think that is the language you want to use and band is saying, that's , exactly what i want to say and i want to defend myself.

mark: thank you very much. up next more on wikileaks. , we talk about russia and the future of cyber warfare, after this. ♪

♪ john: there has been a lot of discussion around wikileaks, but few people who really understand the methods, context, and meaning behind the hacks and hackers that have been meddling in this year's election. from the circus, our documentary, i talked with two of those people, and what they had to say was super scary. in this year's election. [video clip] john: friday morning, washington, d.c. wikileaks and the russian

connection matters a lot try to explore this very question. ♪ john: so, your first encounter with this story was what? >> we have seen a lot of russian activity going around, but the big moment of change came in june of this year, when a company called crowdstrike first came out with convincing evidence that there were russian hackers that were behind the attack on the democratic national committee. john: dimitri, how are you? >> good to see you. come on in. ♪ john: ok. let's shoot some pool. >> the dnc had called us. they did not know if they had a

breach, but they saw some signs on the network. they called us in, and within a couple hours, we noticed there were two adversaries on the network, which we tied to the russian military intelligence, gr europe. the other group we tied to the successor of the kgb. i actually think they did not plan to start leaking. us going public completely accelerated their timeline. they panicked and said, we need a distribution channel, why not go to wikileaks? >> and because wikileaks is wikileaks, it's like having something up here on the front page of a newspaper. then we suddenly realized this was sort of old-style russian information warfare. >> exactly. it's information operations. that's how russians think about cyber. they think about it, how do we use cyber to begin our opponents psychologically? the goal is not just to try to influence the election to favor one candidate or the other, but

to actually discredit the entire process. >> all you need to do is create enough chaos, maybe in the voter registration rolls. you show up, sorry, your name is not on the list. that happens to thousands of people behind you and that shows the quality of the vote. >> that plays into putin's overall objective, to weaken the american presidency. it is certainly my belief that the goal is not to influence the election, but to actually discredit the entire process. >> i think his motive is to show that he has more nuclear weapons in his arsenal, and to show that he has to be reckoned with and dealt with with some respect. >> it's all about propaganda. that's how the russians think about this. the government is not prepared for the propaganda campaign that is about to unfold. john: yes, yes. now you are starting to freak me out. today, vladimir putin said it was rubbish that russia was

behind donald trump, but there is no doubt in this point, among most experts, that russia was the one who drove this hack and somehow those documents made its way to wikileaks and julian assange. you can watch "the circus" on showtime at 8:00 p.m. pretty much anytime on showtime. up next year, though, we will take a closer look at this issue of cyber war and how it might flareup on election day, with one of the guys you just saw, david singer. another one you did not see first, these words from our . sponsors. ♪

♪ >> is there anyone who really thinks in full seriousness that russia is capable of influencing the choice of the american people somehow?

america is not a banana country, is it? america is a great power. if i am not right, please correct me. mark: that was russian president vladimir putin speaking about a banana country, dismissing concerns that his government is meddling in the u.s. election. just before the break, you saw john's conversation with the national security correspondent film for our showtime documentary series during the break, you saw a segment with with bloombergpolitics. we are joined by the man himself, david sanger with the "times" d.c. newsroom. also, stephen leavy. thank you both for coming. david, update us on related sense of what -- on your latest sense of what the u.s. government's posture is on

retaliating against russians, or taking some measure against them continuing? >> so far, the discouraging of their activity was limited to public statements they have made, including the one joe biden made a bit more than a week ago now, threatening some kind of covert action to stop them. the fact of the matter is, we had not seen public sanctions. if there has been covert action, it has been subtle. so far, the only thing we have seen is the revelation in the ukraine of some e-mails about their actions in ukraine. no one is convinced that that was american action, that if the u.s. did something they were hoping it would be a little bigger than that. there is some debate on whether or not the administration should act before the election, because if you do act before the election, that gives the

russians a chance to act back on the day of. so it's possible that you are not going to see real retaliation until after november 8. john: i want to ask you this question, steven, what happens next potentially? forget about wikileaks and the stuff they are trying to screw up with the election and hillary clinton, what about election day? what is the risk? steven: there is a lot of risk. we saw last week a big attack on some internet companies, the infrastructure of the internet. that happened during election day, maybe a broader attack, there would be a good amount of chaos. mark: there's still no indication of who was responsible, right? steven: no. the feeling was this was not an international attack, a foreign government doing that but other , people think it was a probe. again, there could be chaos. it does not have to be the russians. it could be individual actors anywhere in the world really.

there has been a lot of people talking for a few cycles about the vulnerability of our election systems. one thing that is in her favor is it is not one centralized system, so if you are going to attack the general election system, the best way would be over the whole internet in general, because there are 51 different states and districts that are voting, and each one has a different system. john: david, we know the voting machines are not online. they are not booked into the internet. as stephen suggested, if there was a massive outage in the internet, that would create an atmospheric chaos. the thing you and i discussed in washington was more specific, going to the question of affecting voter registration, and those systems are online. just sketch out the scenario by which that could create chaos and pandemonium on election day. is thatssibility

you have people newly registered. they registered into a central database. they show up on election day, and they've got their receipt from the day they registered, as they can remember to bring it but no one can find them. ,then they have to vote on a provisional ballot. if you have a lot of those, thousands or tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands it , would really slow the works down, and you might not even get conclusions that night. a lot of states are preparing for that. many of them are printing out their database, or printing it out in sections and giving it to the polling places so that there is a backup to the system. but as you have just heard, every state is different, and as a result, everyone's got different procedures. same is true when you get to the actual voting machines. most of them are off-line although there are a lot of

, people who are overseas who are veterans who are allowed to vote by e-mail. there is a question about the security of that. and even if that happens, there are a lot of states, five in specific, that do not have any paper backup to the ballot that you cast. if there is a question later on, very little to go back and do the audit. other states have only partial backup. steven: if you want to do slow down and generally have some polling place where there is chaos, the question is, how can they tell? because, i can guarantee with confidence that there is going to be polling places in this district or people would be lined up, not able to vote. there will be people who will show up that say they can legally vote and they will not be able to vote there percent -- 100% chance of that happening anyway. wikileaks, to the extent

that we understand the motives and goals, do you think they feel what they have done with the podesta emails has been a success? steven: yes, it has. the very first one, where they get the head of the dnc to resign, that's a pretty good hit. it's interesting, the ones that came out talking about hillary's speeches, had they come out during the primaries, i think it would have had a bigger impact. their impact was greatly reduced because it happened to be the same day that we watched donald trump in the trailer talking about, you know, his views on women. they were pretty much overshadowed. i think generally, if there is an impact, we don't know what, if anything, is to come, so i have seen something interesting happening, the drops keep happening and they have successfully less impact. my hopeful view is we are getting desensitized to what is

in private e-mails. maybe there is some order restored to the universe as we realize that just because e-mail is stolen, it is not necessarily salacious on its face. mark: we had y2k, which was the different opposition of the same type of anticipation of a potentially cataclysmic event. and when there is a super bowl, and national security event, how much of the limited bandwidth of the intelligence community within the federal government is and computer experts going towards preparing for election day? steven: i have been talking to people involved in that effort, and they are preparing for a monitoring sense. remember, the voting system is a state and local system in the united states, so not only is there no central database, there is no central authority, both -- no federal authority over this. as we discussed the other day, the voting system is not considered critical infrastructure.

the washington monument is, the jefferson memorial is, but not the underpinnings of our democracy. that is something likely to change after election day. you have federal government officials who can look for signs of trouble, but they don't have a lot of authority here because that authority is vested in the states. john: i want to talk about one the possibility of how intrusion other election day scenario can , happen in terms of how the vote totals are reported in media. talk about that because they can cause chaos. steven: it sure can. remember, the vote totals are unofficial totals. they are a quick put together, and let's say in a close state like north carolina, the early results he got were donald trump up by three, and of course i am

making up these numbers, right? and if you days later, after all of the official numbers are together and all of the mail-in ballots are counted and everything else, what you hear is no, hillary clinton won by one. you are going to have a lot of trump supporters under that circumstance say, hey, something suspicious happened here. i heard that night that he won, and now she won. was someone playing with the numbers? the answer might be that someone was playing with the preliminary numbers but not the real mark: ones. thank you both. when we come back, we will head trump bunker for a look at the data shop. we will be right back. ♪

♪ john: donald trump's behind the scenes data operation is something his campaign has kept almost entirely from public view, but bloomberg was granted exclusive access to the people that strategy the ads and large data of the donald trump campaign is using in the final days, and possibly beyond. we are joined by one of the authors from that piece, sasha issenberg. it is great to see you here. and your beard. tell us about your story. sasha: josh and i went down to san antonio, where the trump campaign has built a sickly a second headquarters. there are people who go to work off of an office near the freeway by the airport, and that is where trump has built a data digital operation that they have not wanted to talk about. he got to the primary by doing

very little beyond tv interviews, rallies, using social media out of his own account as a sort of broadcast medium, with the nomination, they have built a system that is doing a lot of targeted communication and collecting a lot of data on his supporters and this is the first time they have pulled back the curtain to talk about what they had been up to. mark: one thing that caught my eye was the notion of voter suppression. here's part of what you write in the piece in "business week." a senior aide says we have three , major voter suppression operations underway. they are aimed at three groups clinton needs to win over, idealistic white liberals, young women, and african-americans. yeah, campaigns sometimes engaged in voter suppression, but why would someone say that given the optic of it? sasha: i think this is the evidence of a campaign that is run by top-tier people who have

very little, if any, experience around political campaigns. you look at stephen bannon jared , kushner, these are people who have very little experience at all. i think they have developed a strategy which is sort of dubious from a scientific perspective, but they have no idea how fraught the term "suppression" is. they think what they're doing is basically going to the most unreliable parts of the democratic coalition, the groups are you have a lot of voters who are not regular voters and bu where polls did not show a lot of enthusiasm for hillary clinton over the course of the year. they think if they give them negative information about hillary clinton, it will keep them home. that's a little different than what the term suppression means illegally, but the fact that they threw that around as freely as it did with us is a sign that they do not commodity political know you. mark: but you don't need to be a political expert.

you just need to have a sense of morality and pr to not say that to a journalist. sasha: this grows out of their strategic assumption that the end of the campaign, which is that they have this very fervent base, the thing that is getting them to 42% or 44% in staples. -- state polls. they recognized that is not going to be enough to get 270 electoral votes. their strategic assumption at this point is the only way they can turn their coalition into a winning number is to shrink the size of the electorate. this is their gambit to go after groups that they where they think they have the most chance , to reduce turnout among democrats. john: your piece is unambiguous about two things. one, that they understand that they are almost certain to lose, and two, that they have longer-term ambitions along the lines of what some people suspect building a media , operation on the back of the movement. talk about that.

sasha: trump has given an indication that he does not trust polling. they are doing a ton of it. from a lot of different places, every night they run electoral simulations to predict their likelihood of we quoted a piece winning. saying that basically their numbers are tracking the silvers at 538, but with a lag because they are not relying on public polls. they know they are going to lose, and what comes after it is likely either a splinter political movement or a trump media property, and they will have 13 million names they have collected to be an audience or constituency for either. john: the story is fantastic. everyone should read it. it breaks a lot of news. you can find a piece on our website bloombergpolitics.com and in the latest edition of bloomberg businessweek. up next, it is time for some meditation. we will be right back. ♪

♪ mark: with 12 days left in this election, the campaign may have you burnt out, run down, and stressed out. if you are any of those things, you are not alone joining us to . talk about the stresses of this election cycle and how to handle them is of good morning american weekend, the great dan harris. also, the author of the book "10% happier." your times bestseller, cofounder of the 10% happier mobile app in the host of the 10% happier podcast and 10% happier inc. dan, welcome. so, we know a lot of people have how pervasive is election 2016 been stressed because of the election. how pervasive is election 2016 stress? dan: quite pervasive. more than half of americans say

the election is getting them anxiety. -- giving them anxiety. 25% of americans say it is getting in the way of them doing their work because of political discussions in the workplace. 50% say the prospect of a clinton presidency makes them anxious, 70% for trump. 7% say they have lost friends over this election so it is pretty bad. mark: so it's not just doug band. dan: no. he is having a tough cycle, no question about it. doctors are reporting people with heart palpitations, stomach problems, sleeping problems, stress eating, compulsive cleaning. not a problem i have had. john: the will pretend to be a morning show here. what am i supposed to do about it, dan? dan: that was a softball. i think there are three tips. one is limit your media consumption. we have to stay informed but not do it too much. john: just "with all due respect." dan: maybe nightline if you have time. big piece of advice

that doctors and i recommend across the country privately and publicly is meditation. it is a really helpful thing. in fact, we posted some free guided meditations for people who are freaked out about this election. john: posted them where? dan: on our app, 10% happier. john: smoking dope? dan: i don't know if there is research that has gone into that, i don't want to name any names, but his initials are alfonso pena. one of your stage managers is applauding. vigorously. john: that would be my only advice. smoke dope. mark: what about meditation? will that help someone who has never done it before with 12 days to go? dan: i think so. meditation works quickly. you know because you and your lovely wife to be, karen, helped me write the book. a lot of people do not know this but he is one of my closest friends over here. i do not view meditation as some magical, physical fix.

it is brain exercise. just the way you exercise your body, your muscles get stronger, your heart gets stronger. when you exercise your brain, you get less yanked around by your emotions. that is what is happening. we feel hopeless, anxious, and angry, and we are allowing that get us into arguments with our coworkers, spouses or kicking the dog and meditation helps you not get so yanked around by that. john: there is a kind of perception that meditation is dippy bullcrap, but you are saying this is a legitimate thing. dan: i was of the view that meditation is for people that are into cat stevens, crystals. john: you say it like those are bad things. : we now know he's most open and likes finger cymbals.

anyway, yes, i was of the view that it was completely weird for a long time, but now i look at the science and it shows a can of boost your immune system and a rewire the parts of your brain, lower your blood pressure so i started to give it a shot. there are different kinds of meditation that you can do, but i think if you do up the street up, secular, mindfulness meditation, you are in good hands. john: it is not up to be transcendental to work? dan: you can transcend and a lot of environments. john: i can still meditate and be ok? dan: a lot of people do tm who are pretty straightlaced. mark: you've got a "nightline" coming up on this? dan: i do. it will be on next week. we convened a panel of clinton supporters and trump supporters and had them meditate together. it was super tense in the room, because these people have serious disagreements. by the end, actually, they started talking about, and this will sound a little grandiose,

but i think it is a part -- point worth making shared , humanity. these are people who have come from basically shooting daggers out of their eyes at one another -- mark: strong trump supporters and clinton supporters were singing could buy a. dan: basically. mark: tell us where it is available. dan: it is available in the app store, and if you do not have a n apple phone you can get it , online. john: why only 10% happier? why not aim higher? dan: i pulled it out of my rear end. it is a joke. thank you for not getting the joke. john: i would like to be 90% happier, 190% happier. dan: i am trying to counter program against the overhyping of the $11 billion a year bullcrap machine known as the self-help industry. john: this book will change your life. dan: yes, incrementally. mark: the dan harris. thank you very much. john and i will be back right

after this. ♪

john: on a scale of one-godzilla, how much do you love that guy? mark: dan harris? godzilla plus. john: head to bloombergpolitics about what donald trump's followers are saying on the stealing of the election. coming up, emily chang breaks down amazon's earnings. until tomorrow from me and mark sayonara. , ♪

♪ it is 9:00 a.m. in hong kong. i am haidi lun. this is "bloomberg markets: asia." ♪ haidi: gains and refining overcame deepening losses from oil and gas production. ura, a 90% surge in trading claims after the vote in june.