miami cal smerconish -- i'm michael smerconish coming to you from the city of brotherly love. flight the presidential debate should have cast its ballots

about who will be moderating. but the decision is delayed until after labor day. what is going on behind the scenes? and the clinton foundation again under fire for helping donors get access to hillary's state department. and now we won't see her complete schedule until after election day. plus, the real art of donald's dealings. a new trump biography drills down on his character and his business record. and the latest campus controversy as the university of chicago draws a line in the sand about safe spaces and trigger warnings. did it go too far? but first, the most important events between now and election day. the debates and yet with just a month until the first presidential showdown between hillary clinton and donald trump, maybe gary johnson and joe stein if they get to 50% in the polls, there remains a great mystery. who will moderate? in 2012 the moderators for the presidential and vice presidential debates were announced on august 13.

we're two weeks passed that date. cnn is reporting we won't learn until after labor day. for sure on the commission of presidential debates. they've got a tall order on their hands, selecting someone perceived to be free of bias. and keep this in mind, the candidates do not have a veto over whomever is chosen. it's a tough and important job and one that will be scrutinized bipartisans on both sides. anybody who doesn't think a moderator makes a difference must not remember cnn's bernard shaw asking candidate michael e dekakis what he would do if kitty dukakis were raped and murdered. >> if kitty dukakis were raped and murdered, would you want the death penalty?

>> joining me is cnn senior med ya correspondent, the host of the show "reliable sources," brian steltzer. brian, what is going on in this story? >> reporter: behind the scenes there are informal conversations happening. and this year it is especially tricky because of the donald trump factor. obviously a moderator like megyn killy would be a non-starter for donald trump. so the commission is having a very hard time getting to a place where they can actually confirm the four moderators. i think after labor day we'll hear the names. there are a number of journalists who are acceptable to both sides. but it's awfully tricky this year because of trump. >> frank, what is the job description? >> well, this year the job description is to be both a journalist, moderator and a circus navigator, i think. the job involves doing many things, which is why this is so

difficult. you have to ask good questions, listen fast and hard, you have to know what you're talking about to refer to information. we hope there's actually going to be substance in these debates. a good moderator gets the candidates to engage with one another, it is not just sort of parallel news conferences or soundbites generated. this year the moderator has to be a reality show host. they have to know that 60 million, 70 million around the world are watching this thing, maybe a billion people. so there's a great deal of pressure and a great deal of real-time thinking that goes into this job. not very many can do it. very few can, really. >> brian, can we drill down on the personalities. do you think by definition, some of the more partisan types, you made reference to megyn kelly, are out as a matter of course because that would eliminate a number of individuals at fox news and a number of individuals over at minneapolis. i think of the fox team of megyn

kelly, bret beiar and chris wallace are out. >> let's think about somebody not in the running. george stephanopoulos, because of his long ties to the clintons back in the '90s, even though he's been a journalist for many years, he's out. he's not an option. there are many people at abc and cnn and other networks that are options. look at anderson cooper having trump and clinton back-to-back on consecutive nights. lester holt at nbc. there's a number of journalists who i believe both candidates or all the candidates would find acceptable, fair and tough on that stage. >> so with regard to msnbc, you can't see rachel maddow, right? that's the big question. >> that would be my dream. i would love to see mad dow and amy goodman and bill o'reilly and megyn kelly on the same stage challenging the candidates

from all sides. but no, i don't think that is going to happen because the commission really prizes journalistic neutrality. >> do i get to disagree with my -- >> the supreme court of the united states in so far as to be on the supreme court of the united states, one need not be a lawyer. must someone necessarily come from the media realm to be a moderator of a presidential debate? >> no, they don't. >> now it's getting interesting. >> no, they don't. and they shouldn't only be looking at journalists and i know they are not. and in just a brief moment i'm going to disagree with my good friend brian stelter on this. there is so much that you're dealing with out there. you've got cameras, you've got clocks, you've got people talking to you in your ears, two presidential candidate who is are loud and maybe angry and maybe engaging one another. juggling all of that is hard to do if this is the first time you're stepping in front of a camera or a crowd like this. i can g a great professor and

talk to 250 people in a lecture hall and be a presidential historian. can i manage that kind of realtime juggling? maybe the answer is yes. brian, the one thing i would say about rachel maddow and the others, that would be a dream scenario in one way, but the other thing very important and the commission should be thinking about, and the public should, the moderators should not be such overarching characters themselves to overshadow the candidates. they should be there to ask the questions, get the candidates to engage and step back to let it happen. so maybe, god forbid, the public actually sees an engagement of the two candidates and gets a little bit of light with all of the heat that we have been seeing so far. >> i mostly -- even if the moderators try not to be players on stage, they are players because it is all about the performance, having to be able to manage the television stage being set up. in some ways these debates are so artificial. so you need the moderator and television expertise, decades of

it in order to know how to manage it. that makes sense. >> it does. and this year it will be more so as he brings showmanship to it. when do you step in and interrupt? when do you stop? when is that appropriate? when is it disrespectful? that's a juggle, that's hard. >> this year they have to be more assertive. they should not get in the way, but we'll need the realtime fact-checking if candidates say the things they have been saying son stage and at twitter and rallies. >> frank, i asked you for someone with experience because this is no easy task. it would seem by definition that would preclude a number of millenials. i know online there's a lot of chatter among voter who is say, hey, i hope it is someone representative of our generation. but frank, to your point, if it is, it will be a first go-around for somebody. >> yeah, and that is tough. again, you know, it is very intimidated. i have interviewed presidents of the united states with lots of years of experience.

it doesn't mean when you walk in the room that is -- that is a scary thing a little bit. from this book i'm working on, i interviewed bob schaeffer before the debates. here's a guy with years and years in front of a camera interviewing presidents and senators and doing a weekly talk show. so you feel the burden there. i think the point you mentioned, though, is very important about millennials and others, one thing the commission absolutely needs to do is make sure there is diversity among the moderators. it can't be a bunch of old white guys, sorry to the white guys, that's not the country or where the debate is going or coming from. >> i did ask jorge ramos -- sorry, i mentioned jorge ramos and he said he probably knows he's not in contention because of the battles with donald trump, but he wants the see a hispanic anchorman on the stage. >> brian stelter, before you

leave me, give me a name, someone on the stage in one of the debates. >> well, i think diversity is crucial. they are going to look for someone as lester holt or martha r raddick. anderson cooper could be in the mix. but the commission doesn't know yet. >> those are exactly the names i would give you. >> oh, really? >> yep, those are very likely names and those are almost certainly the finalists among those that the commission is considering. >> all right. i'm throwing wolf into the list. thank you, gentlemen. frank and brian, be sure to watch reliable sources tomorrow morning at 11:00 a.m. what are your thoughts? tweet me @smerconish. i'll read them later in the program. still to come, new accusations about this week about then secretary of state hillary clinton taking meetings with donors to the clinton foundation. do those criticisms have merritt? and a college dean sends a letter to incoming students that pushes back against political correctness and sets off a firestorm. hey diddle diddle,

the cat and the fiddle, the cow jumped over the moon... then quickly fell back to earth landing on the roof of a dutch colonial. luckily geico recently helped the residents with homeowners insurance. they were able to get the roof repaired like new. they later sold the cow because they had all become lactose intolerant. call geico and see how much you could save on homeowners insurance. at clorox 2 we've turned removing stains into a science. now pre-treat with clorox 2! watch stains disappear right before your eyes. remove 4 times more stains than detergent alone. be the you who doesn't cover your moderate to severe plaque psoriasis. be the you who shows up in that dress. who hugs a friend. who is done with treatments that don't give you clearer skin. be the you who controls your psoriasis with stelara® just 4 doses a year after 2 starter doses. stelara® may lower your ability to fight infections

and may increase your risk of infections and cancer. some serious infections require hospitalization. before treatment, get tested for tuberculosis. before starting stelara® tell your doctor if you think you have an infection or have symptoms such as: fever, sweats, chills, muscle aches or cough. always tell your doctor if you have any signs of infection, have had cancer, if you develop any new skin growths or if anyone in your house needs or has recently received a vaccine. alert your doctor of new or worsening problems, including headaches, seizures, confusion and vision problems these may be signs of a rare, potentially fatal brain condition. some serious allergic reactions can occur. do not take stelara® if you are allergic to stelara® or any of its ingredients. most people using stelara® saw 75% clearer skin and the majority were rated as cleared or minimal at 12 weeks. be the you who talks to your dermatologist about stelara®.

if you have moderate to severe plaque psoriasis, isn't it time to let the real you shine through? introducing otezla (apremilast). otezla is not an injection or a cream. it's a pill that treats plaque psoriasis differently. with otezla, 75% clearer skin is achievable after just 4 months, with reduced redness, thickness, and scaliness of plaques. and the otezla prescribing information has no requirement for routine lab monitoring. don't take otezla if you are allergic to any of its ingredients. otezla may increase the risk of depression.

tell your doctor if you have a history of depression or suicidal thoughts, or if these feelings develop. some people taking otezla reported weight loss. your doctor should monitor your weight and may stop treatment. side effects may include diarrhea, nausea, upper respiratory tract infection, and headache. tell your doctor about all the medicines you take, and if you're pregnant or planning to be. ask your dermatologist about otezla today. otezla. show more of you. where self-proclaimed ofinancial superstars , pitch you investment opportunities. i've got a fantastic deal for you- gold! with the right pool of investors, there's a lot of money to be made. but first, investors must ask the right questions and use the smartcheck challenge to make the right decisions. you're not even registered; i'm done with you! i can...i can... savvy investors check their financial pro's background by visiting smartcheck.gov

we do not know hillary clinton's full schedule at the state department until after the election. on wednesday the a.p. published the first systemic effort to calculate the scope of intersecting interests of the clinton foundation donors and people who met with or spoke to secretary clinton about their needs. the a.p. concluded that more than half, at least 85 of 154 people from private interests who met with clinton, were donors who contributed as much as 185 million dollars to the foundation. the a.p. story called this an extraordinary proportion indicating her possible ethics challenges if elected president. and that sure sounded nefarious. but the clinton campaign cried foul when they said the report was a distortion noting that the a.p. did not include in its calculations foreign diplomats or u.s. government officials.

had they been included, the report would not have been that more than half of her interactions were with donors but that a tiny fraction fit the description. and now we hear, we won't be getting hillary's full schedule until after election day. so what, if anything, did we just learn? joining me now, democratic strategist julian epstein, democratic chief council of the house committee during bill clinton's impeachment hearings and a close associate and legal advisor to the clinton, and peter schweitzer, he's the author of clinton cash. peter, let me start with you. what is the significance in your eyes to this week's revelations? >> well, i think the a.p.'s story is hugely important. and i find the clinton defense quite bizarre. the question is not who she meets with when the german chancellor requests a meeting. that's part of her duty.

the question is who does she choose to give access to, who does she choose to allow to have access to her ear? and it's pretty clear based on the a.p. evidence. when she has choices, she's choosing a high proportion of clinton foundation donors. the e-mails that have come out also reveal that we have now gone from the point where we had a strange pattern of behavior where people were donating money to the clintons and seemed to get favorable action. we now have e-mails that show the clinton foundation as the conduit. if you're a crown prince or a billionaire in nigeria and want access to the highest levels of the state department, you don't need to go through or can go through official channels, you simply go through the clinton foundation. that is hugely troubling because it shows that money provides access. and i think further evidence is going to show that it equated with favors. >> if the associated press did this type of analysis, this type of drill-down on any of the 435 members of congress or 100 members of the u.s. senate,

would we not find the exact same thing? >> well, i think we would. i think money in politics is the troubling issue. but here's the huge massive difference, federal law prevents a crown prince or a nigerian billionaire from donating to a political campaign or a super pac. the clinton foundation provides access for foreign entities, foreign interests, corporations, governments and oligarchs. so it's no longer money pay to play involving a americans, involving wall street or oil companies or big labor, we're now talking about foreign interests influencing our national politics. and precisely the reason that we have financial reskrixs on foreign access to campaign donations. the clinton foundation is a way around that. and that is so troubling. the people now have the fear of our -- sorry. >> but that is only if there's a quid pro quo. and i don't think you can

establish by virtue of what the a.p. revealed any such finding? >> no, but the a.p. is just one part of the larger pattern. look, it is very, very clear. if you look at the former governor down in alabama, seagleman, if you look at senator menendez, there are people in jail or being prosecuted on far less evidence. this notion that circumstantial evidence doesn't apply, it's not relevant. that is ridiculous. so i think the a.p. story is part of the larger pattern that exists. and that is why this demands an independent council to investigate the matters. someone appointed by president obama who could assess these issues and evaluate them fully and take them out of the political realm. >> a final question for you and one i've asked you on numerous occasions. is there a smoking gun here? and if so, what is it? >> i think the smoking gun is here. you see the flow of money, you see favors done and you now see the communication taking place. i think if you put this in front

of a jury as is done in political cases elsewhere, i this think the clintons would face jeopardy. i'm not calling for a trial, but i'm saying there should be an independent council to evaluate the things to put people under subpoena. >> peter schweizer, thank you. let's get the flip side, julian epstein, part of the council during bill clinton's impeachment. and an advisor to hillary clinton. if we add in her meetings with foreign dignitaries and government officials, and if, in fact, the number of meetings is a universe of 1700, the fact remains that 85 people who were big donors to the clinton foundation had their access to her facilitated by virtue of that relationship. isn't that in and of itself is a problem? >> i don't think any of the facts show that, michael. i think that there in all of the

a.p. reporting there is no suggestion whatsoever that any of the meetings that secretary clinton had with private interests, whether donors or not donors, were somehow inappropriate. and i think your previous guest mr. schweizer is clearly interested in selling a lot of books. but like a lot of critics of hillary clinton his arguments are half-baked and he's unable to back them up with serious legal analysis whatsoever. he calls for an independent council, says ethics violations, you know in all your discussion with him he was unable to cite a single example in which any particular favor was provided and exchanged for a donation to the clinton foundation. he was unable to provide any legal analysis. the fact of the matter is the a.p. reporting, regardless of what the data show, and the data and the a.p. story is very incomplete. the amount of contributors that she met with, the clinton foundation contributed with, were probably less than 5% of the overall meetings. but regardless of the stats as you say, the 85 or so clinton

foundation contributors that she did meet with, there's no suggestion whatsoever that any of those meetings were in any way inappropriate, that any special favors were given. she was meeting with people like the melinda gates and her foundation, people that were doing, trying to find economic capital for underprivileged areas around the world. just no suggestion whatsoever there was any wrongdoing. and mr. schweizer comes on to make a lot of reckless allegations to sell books. but his legal analyzing is very immature like the e-mail controversy. critics like mr. schweizer made months and years saying hillary clinton violated criminal laws and you have the head of the republican -- the republican head of the fbi, mr. comey, who came out to say there was no basis to say she violated criminal laws in the use of

e-mails. there's no there there. >> so many of these are in the eye of the beholder. i don't want to lose cnn viewers in the weeds, but muhammad eunice, to the hillary supporters, here is a 2006 nobel peace prize winner, of course our secretary of state would meet with such an individual, but you delve a little deeper and find out he's a bangladeshi businessman being scrutinized by their government at a time when he's getting access to our secretary of state. and you say, geez, i wonder if that's connected? he writes a big check or has a big check written to the clinton foundation. when he's jammed up in banglade bangladesh, he's got the ear of our secretary of state. that sounds on the surface that it's deserving of more scrutiny. >> perhaps more deserving of scrutiny, he's a nobel prize winner attempting to get financing into and hugely important work in terms of

finding microfinancing into underindividualed areas in bangladesh and elsewhere. the fact that he wouldn't have legitimate business to discuss with the state department on its face is just wrong. can somebody, can a skeptic come out to say, well, there was -- there may be some reason to explore this further? sure. they could make the point that you made. but let me just say that between the e-mail conversation and the schedule controversy, the amount of attention given to her e-mails is unprecedent. compare this to donald trump, he won't release his tax returns or personal information. why is that relevant? well, because according to numerous reports, he's gone from $300 million in debt, donald trump that is, to $650 million in debt. much of which is controlled, the debt, that is, controlled by interests sympathetic to the

russians. and direct russia as well. >> i'm getting to that in my next segment. >> fair enough. >> let me just say because we are short on time, sometimes i believe she's her own worst enemy. why should the public not have before the election access to her calendar as she was secretary of state? i don't think she's well served by recent events where the government says we can't turn it around quickly enough. that entire brooklyn operation right now aught to be pitching in, going through a page at a time and putting it out for public inspection. you get the final quick word. >> well, that's a fair question, michael, but it's not the brooklyn operation's decision. this is a decision by the state department and a negotiation with the judge and a negotiation with a.p. the judge has ordered 600 pages per month to be released. the state department has been doing that and the question is whether the judge will speed up the schedule and the judge wants to speed up the schedule and it may. the bottom line again is that the viewers must understand, nobody, nobody, nobody has made a persuasive case whatsoever

that any of hillary clinton's meetings, whether they were with public or private officials were in any way appropriate, did any wrongdoing occur, any quid pro quo occur, anything close to an ethical violation. >> thank you for that. >> the critics are so far away from serious analysis it's not funny. >> i've got to move. up ahead, thank you, julian. the reporter who literally wrote the book on donald trump after covering his business dealings for 30 years is here with amazing details of how trump operates. and a letter to the freshmen at the university of chicago from the dean of students criticizing safe spaces and trigger warnings sparks a national debate. ible lf. he is. but i'd like to keep being terrible at golf for as long as i can. new patented ensure enlive has hmb plus 20 grams of protein to help rebuild muscle. for the strength and energy to do what you love. new ensure enlive. always be you. when a moment spontaneously turns romantic, why pause to take a pill? or stop to find a bathroom?

cialis for daily use is approved to treat both erectile dysfunction and the urinary symptoms of bph, like needing to go frequently, day or night. tell your doctor about all your medical conditions and medicines, and ask if your heart is healthy enough for sex. do not take cialis if you take nitrates for chest pain, or adempas for pulmonary hypertension, as it may cause an unsafe drop in blood pressure. do not drink alcohol in excess. side effects may include headache, upset stomach, delayed backache or muscle ache. to avoid long-term injury, get medical help right away for an erection lasting more than four hours. if you have any sudden decrease or loss in hearing or vision, or any symptoms of an allergic reaction, stop taking cialis and get medical help right away. ask your doctor about cialis and a $200 savings card.

the possibility of a flare was almost always on my mind. thinking about what to avoid, where to go... and how to deal with my uc. to me, that was normal. until i talked to my doctor. she told me that humira helps people like me get uc under control and keep it under control when certain medications haven't worked well enough. humira can lower your ability to fight infections, including tuberculosis. serious, sometimes fatal infections and cancers, including lymphoma, have happened; as have blood, liver, and nervous system problems, serious allergic reactions, and new or worsening heart failure. before treatment, get tested for tb. tell your doctor if you've been to areas where certain fungal infections are common, and if you've had tb, hepatitis b, are prone to infections, or have flu-like symptoms or sores. don't start humira if you have an infection.

raise your expectations. ask your gastroenterologist about humira. with humira, control is possible.

narrator: it wasn't that long ago. years of devastating cutbacks to our schools. 30,000 teachers laid off. class sizes increased. art and music programs cut. we can't ever go back. ryan ruelas: so vote yes on proposition 55. reagan duncan: prop 55 prevents 4 billion in new cuts to our schools. letty muñoz-gonzalez: simply by maintaining the current tax rate on the wealthiest californians. ryan ruelas: no new education cuts, and no new taxes. reagan duncan: vote yes on 55. sarah morgan: to help our children thrive. now i want to focus on

donald trump, donald trump the businessman. this week donald trump softened his anti-immigrant stance and labeled his opponent a bigot. he still hasn't released his tax returns. we feel like we are often distracted from the fundamental question. does donald trump's business background make him qualified to be president? joining me now, david k. johnston who has covered donald trump for 28 years. he's the author of a book called "the making of donald trump" and teaches at the university college of law. and betsy mccoy, a constitutional scholar with a ph.d. from columbia, former lieutenant governor of the great state of new york. she was invited to be part of donald trump's economic advisors. i have read your book, david. in the book you say if i landed in arkansas, i would have written about hillary, but i landed in atlantic city so i wrote about donald. and you say, i wrote this book to tell people things about his background that he won't tell them himself. take your best shot. >> well, donald got his

helicopter, his personal helicopters and the ones for his casinos from a convicted felon who turned out to be a major drug trafficker. and instead of cutting ties with this guy, he kept him on, he rented him an apartment under very unusual circumstances, he wrote a letter pleading for mercy saying he was a stand-up guy. the guy got 18 months while the people who delivered the drugs for him got 20 years. and by the way, the case came before maryann trump barry, donald's older sister. so here we are worried about the e-mails and connections and we should investigate that and write about it, but there's been virtually nothing outside of my book of donald's life-long business dealings with russian mobsters, cons, violent offenders and this big-time cocaine trafficker. >> lieutenant governor mccoy, respond, please.

i know you're eager to. >> yes, i would like to. voters have a choice. on the one hand, racial demagoguery and class warfare from hillary clinton. or on the other hand, real economic growth and higher take-home pay offered by donald trump. right now our economy is limping along. at 1.2% growth. and the reason, declining business investment. three quarters of declining business investment. donald trump's program to lower corporate tax rates and produce unfettered energy development and release the economy from the burdensome relations imposed by barack obama will mean 4% growth. and that means higher take-home pay for americans. that is the key here. hillary clinton is telling americans that she's going to force corporations and is wagging her finger, force

corporations to pay their fair share. what she's not telling them is that corporations in this country already pay the highest tax rates in the world even after all the loopholes and deductions. and her program to force corporations to pay more and to slap them with an exit tax when they leave this country will mean even lower growth, no growth at all. more people laid off. and lower wages. americans can't afford that. they need more money in their pockets. >> let me put this -- let me put this question to david, because david, she's responding with substance and substance is a good thing. but your book talks about donald trump the man, donald trump the businessman. and you raise questions about the way in which he's run his own business that you say are reflective of the type of leader he would be. did i get it right according to your book? >> that's exactly correct. and donald's business record is very clear. there are profitable casinos today in atlantic city. donald's were among the first to fold because they were badly

managed. i wrote about it in my book now, "the making of donald trump" and my 1992 book of "temples of chance." testifi he was a terrible manager. fortune 500 declared several of his companies when he was in charge at dead last or almost last in every category "fortune" magazine tested. he cheated illegal immigrant workers out of $4 an hour pay. and a federal judge found that he engaged in a conspiracy to cheat these workers out of their pay. donald says wages are too high which totally undercuts betsy's argument. and betsy seems to be unaware of the fact that i have shown and nobody disputed who is a tax expert that many american corporations literally turn a profit off the income tax. when i first reported that congress did an 1800-page study to show everything i had written was exactly correct and it was

worse than i said. >> let me ask her to respond. lieutenant governor, you wish to respond. >> i would like to respond. americans have a chance to look at much more about hillary clinton and donald trump than what has been revealed so far here. both of these candidates have submitted financial disclosure forms. donald trump's 104 pages long for listing 185 profit-producing ventures, golf courses, commercial buildings, residential buildings, and huge management fees paid to him by owners of other properties who want him to manage them because he does such a good job. now, compare that with hillary clinton's little 11-page financial disclosure form. it's all speaking fees and royalties -- >> governor, wait a minute. hold on, come on, time-out. >> no, no, no time-out. here's what i'm saying. >> we have seen all of the clinton -- governor, come on. you're giving me sound bites.

i must jump into this. hold it. we have seen all of the clinton's tax returns, decades of the clinton tax returns. are you not troubled by the idea of lending -- ma'am, let me finish and i'll give you the final word. are you not troubled by the prospect of laying whatever credibility you have on the line for a candidate whose tax returns you and the public have not seen? >> well, first of all, tax shaming is the democratic way of suggesting that somebody who doesn't pay the highest rate is morally deficient. as long as donald trump is following the law -- >> answer my question. >> which he is, right? >> michael, can i jump in here? >> i answered your question. >> answer my question, governor. then david, youlg g'll get a wo. answer my question, are you not troubled that you have not seen the man's tax returns?

>> no. i'm far more troubled that i haven't seen what hillary clinton told her private audiences to earn speaking fees. >> i want to see that, too! that not an answer! we should see everything! >> everybody knows what could she have possibly said to people to get half a million dollars per hour. >> thank you, i'm getting nowhere. thank you, both. thank you, both. let me say something, we aught to see everything she said to goldman sachs and we aught to see all of his tax returns. that's the right answer. more campus correctness in the news. a dean's letter to students at the university of -- sorry about that, but every once in a while i'm entitled to my own opinion, too, right? where was i? oh, yeah, the university of chicago. a dean's letter criticizing safe spaces and trigger warnings and protests against controversial speakers has itself proved to be controversial. i'll talk to the professor who chaired the committee on whose work. that letter was based.

you were once pretty bad at. it's the same for credit. even if you're not good at it now, that's okay. because credit isn't just a score. it's a skill. experian. be better at credit. be the you who doesn't cover your moderate to severe plaque psoriasis. be the you who shows up in that dress. who hugs a friend. who is done with treatments that don't give you clearer skin. be the you who controls your psoriasis with stelara® just 4 doses a year after 2 starter doses. stelara® may lower your ability to fight infections and may increase your risk of infections and cancer. some serious infections require hospitalization. before treatment, get tested for tuberculosis. before starting stelara® tell your doctor if you think you have an infection or have symptoms such as: fever, sweats, chills, muscle aches or cough. always tell your doctor if you have any signs of infection, have had cancer, if you develop any new skin growths or if anyone in your house needs or has recently received a vaccine. alert your doctor of new or worsening problems, including headaches, seizures, confusion and vision problems these may be signs of a rare, potentially fatal brain condition.

some serious allergic reactions can occur. do not take stelara® if you are allergic to stelara® or any of its ingredients. most people using stelara® saw 75% clearer skin and the majority were rated as cleared or minimal at 12 weeks. be the you who talks to your dermatologist about stelara®. ♪ the sun'll come out for people with heart failure, tomorrow is not a given. but entresto is a medicine that helps make more tomorrows possible. ♪ tomorrow, tomorrow... ♪ i love ya, tomorrow in the largest heart failure study ever. entresto helped more people stay alive and out of the hospital than a leading heart failure medicine. women who are pregnant must not take entresto. it can cause harm or death to an unborn baby.

don't take entresto with an ace inhibitor or aliskiren. if you've had angioedema while taking an ace or arb medicine, don't take entresto. the most serious side effects are angioedema, low blood pressure... ...kidney problems, or high potassium in your blood. ♪ tomorrow, tomorrow i love ya, tomorrow.♪ ask your heart doctor about entresto. and help make tomorrow possible. ♪ you're only a day away ♪

♪ ♪

it is back to college season. we just dropped off our college son for his freshman year. i felt obliged to talk to him about the political environment. already it looks to be another year of campus controversies. to recap just a few of last year's dust-ups, some students felt threatened by chalk graffiti supporting donald trump. at yale students lobbied against halloween costumes that they deemed offensive. and students tried to get newspaper columnist kathleen parker removed as a speaker because of her radically conservative politics. and a letter from the dean at

chicago, canceling views or safe spaces that would allow students to retreat from perspectives at odds with their own. this created heated debate on and off campus. and joining me now is university of chicago law professor jeffrey stone. he chaired the faculty committee whose work led to the dean's letter. professor, this is big news. front page today, page one of "the new york times." is the message being communicated from the university of chicago the way you would like? you have the opportunity to speak for your committee's work. >> no, to be perfectly honest, the university of chicago is deeply committed to academic freedom and to a robust and wide open freedom of expression. but the letter which was sent out by the dean of students in one sentence is basically, i think, been misconstrued. the letter says that the university doesn't approve of trigger warnings and that's been

interpreted to mean the university forbids trigger warnings and that's not true. all it means is that the university doesn't require individual faculty members to do that, but faculty members in their own academic freedom are perfectly free and appropriate to warn be students in advance if there's material they think individual students would find particularly sensitive. and similarly on the language about safe spaces, what the dean of students meant to say is that the university of chicago itself is not a safe space. it is a place where people are expected to confront difficult challenging ideas. not to say that students could not get together themselves and form organizations where they speak with other students with similar backgrounds and experiences, that's not what the university's policy is. so the problem here is largely when it is misinterpretation. >> so quickly, we suit up in this country in our usual jerseys, liberal and conservative, you know that this gets put into the confines of

that kind of a debate. is it a liberal versus conservative issue? >> well, it poses the kind of interesting division. traditionally in the united states, it has been political conservatives who have been advocates for restricting free speech on campus, whether that be opposing darwinism or criticizing wealthy donors and benefactors or during world war i and the mccarthy era, the vietnam era, calling on suppression of various kinds of speech. and traditionally it has been liberals advocates of free speech. in this situation it's a bit more complicated. conservatives have taken on the mantle of defending free speech and liberals, traditional liberals are kind of divided. some liberals like myself believe strongly in free speech. and are committed to the principle that even with respect to ideas that people find offensive, universities have to guarantee the freedom to advocate those ideas and to

encourage students to address those ideas and to combat them intellectually. other liberals have taken the view that, well, certain types of speech seen as demeaning and humiliating to religious groups, women, gays, lesbians, immigrants and so on, should be -- students should not be subjected to that. and those have come out of liberal traditions. so you have seen division among liberals on this question and most conservatives are aligned with the free speech liberals in this context. >> you know that you're earning cheers, the university of chicago is earning cheers from some corners where people say at last someone stood up to coddled millenials. if that is their interpretation, professor stone would say what? >> well, i would say there are lots of -- one of the questions is why over the last several years we have seen a demand across the university -- across the nation at colleges and

universities for restrictions on speech, that previously were not subject to any restrictions. and it's coming from students. and what is interesting about that is throughout american history, there's been no real serious movements in which students have been the moving force in an effort to create censorship on campuses. so this is unique in that sense. and the interesting question is why. and the truth is there are lots of different possible explanations. one of them that you just mentioned is the notion that some members of this generation were raised by parents who were so-called helicopter parents who shielded them and prevented them from con hatroversycontroversy. and a more positive view of it is this generation of students is seen in a positive way of

injustice and determined to take a stance on actions to speech that are unfair to and damaging to various minority groups in the community. so there are different theories about what is going on here. >> professor stone, we dropped ours off this past wednesday, i'm hoping he'll have a robust discussion and debate on a whole variety of different issues. that's what we're looking for in his education. and i like what i hear from the university of chicago for what it's worth. thank you, sir, for being here. up next, political discourse on social media has gotten ugly and divisive. some liken it to a shark frenzy and npr decided not to have comments on its website anymore. my thoughts on that and some of your tweets, which are hopefully not ugly or divisive, like this one. was i? geez, i hope not.

my eyelove is finding a ♪"all yodifferent angle.plays my eyelove is season 1, episode 1. my eyelove is making a story come alive. eyelove is all the things we love to do with our eyes. but it's also having a chat with your eye doctor about dry eyes that interrupt the things you love. because if your eyes feel dry, itchy, gritty, or you have occasional blurry vision,

it could be chronic dry eye. go to myeyelove.com and feel the love. those hot dogs look good. oh yeah, hebrew national. they're all-beef like yours but they're also kosher. is that a big deal?

i think so. because not just any beef goes into it. only certain cuts of kosher beef. i guess they're pretty choosy. oh, honey! here, have some of ours. oh! when your hot dog's kosher, that's a hot dog you can trust. hebrew national

this election cycle has turned a lot of social media into anti-social media. people's facebook feeds are increasingly fractious reflecting our polarized national political dialogue. a piece in tomorrow's "new york times" magazine about facebook's political pages quotes page operators likening comments to torch wielding mobs and sharks in a feeding frenzy. that's a part of why npr recently discontinued comments on any of its news stories at npr.org. the other reason? npr discovered what i have expected about such forums. only a tiny percentage of their users were doing most of the posting. .06% of their 33 million viewers. i applaud npr. it's been years since i read any of the comments on my own sunday column in the philadelphia

inquirer. i found them to be angry, uncivil and unresponsive to the merits and not worthy of the response something when commenters hide behind pseudonms. the internet has made our life easier, the use of technology is not without drawbacks. the beer muscles some grow when given the opportunity to express themselves anonymously. like the drunk that has an inflated measure of himself. they would say things if their faces were known. our political dialogue is course. nasty anonymous comments are a significant part of a much bigger problem. it's one aspect we can easily control. just like npr just did. having said that, what tweets have just come in on this program? smerconish, you should wear a referee jersey instead of a

suit. my goodness. i have felt that way this entire election season. you're right. hit me with another one. that was civil. that was nice. that was okay. we don't have it? what happened if i say this, keep your tweets comin coming @smerconish. i appreciate you walking and i'll see you the week after next. client, quicken loans has asked me to show you just how easy it is to secure financing for a dwelling like this. we need only answer a few quick and simple questions. name. address. income and employment history. now rocket mortgage will pull my credit at no cost and provide a custom solution based on my financial information. and all that's left is to push this button. (whisper) rocket see star trek beyond in theatres.

be the you who doesn't cover your moderate to severe plaque psoriasis. be the you who shows up in that dress. who hugs a friend. who is done with treatments that don't give you clearer skin. be the you who controls your psoriasis with stelara® just 4 doses a year after 2 starter doses. stelara® may lower your ability to fight infections and may increase your risk of infections and cancer. some serious infections require hospitalization. before treatment, get tested for tuberculosis. before starting stelara® tell your doctor if you think you have an infection or have symptoms such as: fever, sweats, chills, muscle aches or cough. always tell your doctor if you have any signs of infection, have had cancer, if you develop any new skin growths or if anyone in your house needs or has recently received a vaccine. alert your doctor of new or worsening problems, including headaches, seizures, confusion and vision problems

these may be signs of a rare, potentially fatal brain condition. some serious allergic reactions can occur. do not take stelara® if you are allergic to stelara® or any of its ingredients. most people using stelara® saw 75% clearer skin and the majority were rated as cleared or minimal at 12 weeks. be the you who talks to your dermatologist about stelara®.

he has supporters like david duke. connected with the ku klux klan. >> do you want white supremacists to vote for you. >> no, i don't at all. >> ku klux klan values, donald trump values are not american values. >> whoever committed this brutal act, i pray for that person. >> rodney earl sanders charged with two counts of murder in connection with the deaths of two nuns. >> they liv