live from the swing state of pennsylvania, i'm michael smerconish. he and hillary take drug tests implying she's on medication. plus, with the final debate just four days away, wikileaks drops another batch of e-mails and the goldman sachs speech transcripts. donald trump may have literally kissed his chances good-bye. he doubles down on denials and a

media conspiracy. he said it's part of a rigged system, he says, and he's no worse than bill clinton and tries to paint his opponent as more enabler than victim. but are those attacks valid? i'm about to ask the man who broke the lewinsky scandal and before this, it was heavily tilted in hillary's favor. but check this out. look at this one. it shows trump up 44.2% to 41.1% and this is right before. i'll speak to two experts who explain why all the numbers could be off. and thanks to his uncanny ability to get trump to be trump, is the most influential media figure this campaign season howard stern? first, at a rally in maine, donald trump said something new, incendiary, take a listen. >> i think we should take a drug test prior to the debate. i do.

why don't we do that? we should take a drug test prior, because i don't know what's going on with her. but at the beginning of her last debate, she was all pumped up at the beginning and at the end, it was like, take me down. she could barely reach her car. so i think we should take a drug test. anyway, i'm willing to do it. >> this prompted obama's former campaign manager david axelrod to suggest hillary considering bailing on wednesday's debate. phil mattingly in maine. do you get the impression this was planned or was he off script? >> reporter: well, look, it depends on who you ask about what anything planned was is for the trump campaign but i can tell you this, michael. this was not in the prepared remarks. it's unlikely it was in the t l

teleprompters. it's another day. an odd way to get into a regular attack line for donald trump that hillary clinton, quote, lacks stamina or doesn't have the ability to be in the white house. but this was definitely a new angle to it and i can tell you, i texted with a couple of staff members after he made those remarks. that was not planned in any way, shape, or form in their eyes but i think it underscores what we've seen really in a big way over the last couple of days. he's doing what he wants to do. he's saying what he wants to say. and nobody's really going to stop him, at least right now. >> my hunch, phil, is it played well with the crowd that came out on a saturday to listen to donald trump. the question is, how does it play in the rest of the nation and beyond that hardcore, i'm sure it's like 40% he's going to get come hell or high water as long as hillary is his opponent. where is the growth strategy?

>> reporter: look, you could apply that to almost anything he said controversial over the course of the last 72 hours. we've seen a donald trump that has been off message, that has been ignores what some of his senior campaign advisors asked him to do. the messages they want him to get across, to reach the voters in the suburbs of philadelphia, reach the voters in the suburbs of columbus or in the suburbs of denver. the message he's been taking over the course of the last three days is not that message. it's donald trump cornered, donald trump against the world. and again, michael, things we're noting. this is a message donald trump is comfortable making on a regular basis, con vagveying on regular basis but not one they think will grow his vote or get a better chance to swing some of the swing voters but one might acknowledge if you want the best case scenario, make people like dislike everything so much, they won't go out to vote. if that's a winning strategy, most republicans would say you're probably not on point

with that, michael. >> and he keeps banging the drum about the rigged system. paul ryan wanted to separate himself, again, from donald trump as trump seeks to, i think, undermine the result whatever it might be. >> reporter: yeah. that's exactly right. look, paul ryan put into a statement what we've been hearing or what i've been hearing behind the scenes from republican officials repeatedly over the last 48 hours. that's donald trump, look, he's been talking about this idea of a rigged system pretty much over the course of his entire 16 months in the campaign. the last 72 hours, sharply focused on the idea that the election itself, the electoral process is rigged and i'll tell you, walking around, talking to supporters here in maine and talking to people all in for donald trump, they feel if hillary clinton wins, the only way that's possible is if the system is rigged. that is very concerning. for the system on the whole but also for republican leaders. that's why you saw the statement from paul ryan today. i think you're going to see more statements like that, trying to

build up confidence in the system because donald trump is absolutely going the other direction and there's no sense he's going to change anytime soon. he's setting himself up that if he loses, he has a scapegoat. but that is a very dangerous scapegoat when you have supporters that believe everything he says and genuinely believes that the system is rigged, it must be rigged, michael. >> and finally, phil, quickly, anything in that wikileaks drop today that has the trump campaign buoyed? >> reporter: look, the trump campaign has been thrilled about all of the wikileaks drops from john podesta, clinton campaign chair e-mails from the last five or six days but we get full tripl transcripts of the wall street speeches to goldman sachs. this was the issue for a period of time during the democratic primary. bernie sanders attacking hillary clinton for not releasing the speeches. now, what in these speeches is a smoking gun? not a lot. it's a very candid kind of transcript of hillary clinton's remarks, a more candid than you

see on the campaign trail but largely, in line with what she's said up to this point but donald trump saying this is the issue they want to talk about. wikileaks is something they're not going to let go of anytime soon. so you'll hear about this going forward. >> phil mattingly, great job. thank you so much for the report. >> now, the number stands at 9. that's how many women cnn confirms have come forward with allegations of misconduct regarding donald trump. something struck me while watching anderson cooper interview one of the first, jessica leeds, the woman who claims trump groped her on an airplane decades ago. the trump campaign said they would prove it false. their proof was the testimony of a british man already discredited in another public case who claims he was sitting across the aisle on that same flight and he saw no groping. trump's denial was more in keeping with his responses to all of these claims. take a listen. >> when you looked at that horrible woman last night, you

said, i don't think so. i don't think so. she would not be my first choice, that, i can tell you. man. you don't know. that would not be my first choice. >> his denial set off a light bulb in my head. there was something unusual about leeds in comparison to other trump accusers and women with whom trump has ward. to quote donald, "just look at her." we know he judges men by wallet and women by appearance. he brags about his own alleged wealth and this week, he repudiated the harassment charges of a "people" magazine reporter by insinuating she was too unattractive for his attention. sh remind this reminded me of carly fiorina or no flat chested woman could be a 10. here's what i realized about jessica leeds, unlike so many

other of trump's objects of affection. she is actually age appropriate for the donald. she's a contemporary of his. he's 70. she's 74. so at the time of the alleged incident, she was 38. trump 34. she herself explained to anderson cooper that in the midst of this controversy, she pulled out her own old photographs to show and said this. >> because i'm 74 years old. and for him to now look at me at this age, he would never even give me the time of day. but i wanted people to know what i looked like when i met him. >> she's right, of course. and her self-deprication.

we should be lucky to age gracefully as her. now, donald trump's defense against his accusers' claims is threefold. he, one, denies. two, points a finger in bill clinton's direction and going so far to stage an event with three of bill's alleged victims to remind us of the past and three, hillary was an enabler. viciously attacked these women. >> bill clinton sexually assaulted innocent women and hillary clinton attacked those women viciously. >> is that last charge true? clearly, hillary was a victim here, but does she also have anything for which she must answer? michael isakof for yahoo news, national correspondent for nbc, 2010 to 2014. widely credited with breaking the monica lewinsky story. he chronicled this in his book,

uncovering clinton. michael, i want to talk about juanita brodrick, paula jones and kathleen willie. let me begin with this brief clip from han nity's program on fox. roll it. >> back in 1978 when i was working for bill clinton's campaign for governor, i was raped by bill clinton. i was viciously raped. and then three weeks later, when i happened to be at a fundraiser for him, but i didn't attend the fundraiser. i was just going there to hand in information that, to tell them i was no longer going to volunteer for the campaign, hillary personally threatened me. >> okay. she personally threatened me. what was the threat? i referred to another clip. juanita brodrick with breitbart. >> here comes hillary straight for me.

and starts to me and starts saying, i just wanted to thank you for everything you were doing in bill's campaign and it's so nice to meet you and all of these things. so i just nodded and told my friend, let's go. and i thought, somebody from behind had grabbed a hold of my arm but it was her. she grabbed a hold of my arm and my hand and she pulls me into her and she says, with this very angry look on her face, which had been so pleasant seconds before, and in a low voice says, do you understand everything you do? and that frightened me. >> do you understand everything you do? is that the totality, michael, of the charge against hillary for having enabled in the brodrick case? >> in the brodrick case, yes. and it is, by its nature, ambiguous. you don't know what hillary was

referring to, if she said it exactly the way juanita brodrick recounts it today. it's a data point, it's something that questions, but how far it goes is hard to say. we don't know what hillary clinton knew about what juanita brodrick says her husband did to h her. we don't know how much information passed. based on everything we know about the clintons and the relationship bill clinton had relationships with lots of women, as far as we know, hillary clinton knew nothing about. so it's hard to know what to make of it. >> i know. i agree with that assessment. it's hard to know what to make of it but i want to drill down on it. we here at cnn get accused, i say, you won't even talk about these women. i talk about them on radio but i want to -- i'm a lawyer.

i want to know, what's the record? and if that's the worst of it, i don't know how in the brodrick case you can say hillary enabled because think about this. that would have to mean that bill went home and said, i raped this woman, and that hillary's response was to go confront her and say, do you understand everything you do? that's nonsensical. >> i tend to agree. there's so many gaps in the record here, in the evidence, that it's just hard to know what to make of that. look, i do want to just make one point to keep things in perspective. you know, clearly, there were lots of, there were multiple serious allegations against bill clinton during the time of his presidency, i investigated, i wrote about in the book. and it went beyond infidelities to accusations of sexual harassment and unsolicited sexual advances but we have had

in just the last week, more women come forward making accusations publicly against donald trump for equally serious, if not more serious misconduct than we had in the entire eight years of clinton's presidency. so it's worth keeping that in perspective in the course of having this discussion. >> okay. but here's the question, because i really want to stay focused on her. what is the worst of it? you're the expert. what's the worst of it? make the best case you can that she was not only a victim, but also an enabler. >> first of all, michael, i'm not making a case here. i can tell you what we know. >> okay, what do we know? >> hillary clinton was part and parcel of doing damage control for the clinton campaign. you go back to take a look at

john dickerson's excellent new book, whistle stop with the chapter on the 92 campaign. and from the beginning, accusations of sexual infidelity by bill clinton was the biggest single baggage that bill clinton had when he ran during the democratic primary in 1992. this was the issue that democrats talked about the most. this was the issue the clinton campaign was most concerned about. hillary clinton was very much a part of the damage control on that. she was focused on discrediting accusations of misconduct against her husband, discrediting women who had been rumored about, who came forward to talk about relationships that they might have had with bill clinton, certainly, gennifer flowers. she was instrumental in the hiring of a private investigator, jack paladino, who

i first wrote about in 1992, was paid over $100,000 for the specific job of digging up dirt, discrediting gennifer flowers and other women who had been linked to bill clinton. so hillary clinton was very much a part of that. i don't know if that makes her an enabler. it makes her -- she viewed this as political combat. accusations against her husband were coming from the political enemies and she was going to do her best to try to push back and discredit the allegations. >> final question, if i might. do we know, i'll accept what you just represented. do we know if that's because she didn't believe the women back in '92 and therefore wanted to stand by her man and something more mac hiavellian to it? >> i think that's something for people to speculate about.

you know, what went on between the two of them, what was in her head? people can infer based on the record. this continued through the clinton presidency whenever accusations came up, she rushed to the barricades when monica lewinsky came up and pushed back immediately, this is part of a vast right wing conspiracy. so it's been a part of her political career from the get-go to stand by her husband and attack the people who were criticizing or coming forward to discredit her husband. >> michael, thank you for being here. >> thank you. still to come, he wrote "too big to fail" and written that the harassment trump is accused of would disqualify him from most jobs in america and isn't that true about the accusations of hillary clinton? i will ask andrew ross sorkin and the polls say hillary is starting to run away with the election and run said they're

crooked and rigged and still drawing huge crowds. who or what should we believe? >> we get crowds like this everywhere. but they just said, they said, there's no way we're three down. even the polls are crooked, i'm telling you. >> just because you draw big crowds doesn't mean you're winning the election. if all you needed was a big crowd of people, our next president would be ikea on a saturday.

you both have a perfect driving record. until one of you clips a food truck. then your rates go through the roof. perfect. ♪ for drivers with accident forgiveness, liberty mutual won't raise your rates due to your first accident. and if you do have an accident, our claims centers are available to assist you twenty-four seven. call for a free quote today. liberty stands with you™. liberty mutual insurance.

liberty stands with you™. and you're talking to youro doctor about your medication... this is humira. this is humira helping to relieve my pain and protect my joints from further damage. this is humira helping me go further. humira works for many adults. it targets and helps to block a specific source of inflammation that contributes to ra symptoms. humira has been clinically studied for over 18 years. 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. ready for a new chapter? talk to your rheumatologist. this is humira at work.

donald trump vis running fo president but would walmart hire him? the host of cnbc's "squawk box" and now co-creator of the showtime series "billions." would they hire him? would corporate america hire a guy with all these revelations? >> i think the answer is not. donald trump would give any hr department, human resources

department, relations department a heart palpitation given the comments he's made. he's his own boss now but in a fortune 500 company said, sort of ironic given he does market himself as a business person. not to clear a business would hire him. you mentioned walmart. let me read you what their employment policy states. what is prohibited if you're an employee and this is all the way down the line from a top to the bottom. you are not allowed to, prohibited, sexually assauexpli language, remarks about a person's body, using slurs or negative stereotyping, verbal kidding, teasing, or joking, intimidating acts such as bullying or threatening. it's almost as if they wrote the policy for this gentleman we seem to talk about almost non-stop on television. >> it would be largely a liability concern because a guy

like this in your midst, if there's a claimant to come forward, people would say, you're on notice. >> you're the lawyer. you know it well. what happens in a situation like this, if you were to hire somebody, frankly, like a donald trump to come into your company and there were to be a problem in the future where a woman, another employee were to come forward and say he sexually harassed me or something like that. they invariably take the material that's come out of this election period and they're going to show it in court and say, not just is there a pattern and practice of this, but the corporate board, whoever hired you, you knew this too. so it does create a larger issue. no doubt. >> should we cut him any slack because this behavior took place largely if not exclusively when he was in the entertainment industry? andrew, i remember and i know you'll remember that litigation on the west coast a couple of years ago about the writer's room where someone brought a harassment claim and said, this

is what takes place in the writer's room. maybe this is what you get on billy bush's bus. >> i don't think so. i think this is very different. i don't think this was in a creative space in that same way. i think writers do sit in writer's rooms and come up with all sort of scenes, some of which, people occasionally find offensive. i think this is a very different situation and reveals a side of him that is an unfortunate side in this instance. and on the years issue. 11 years, 15 years, if you're a lawyer, you bring this material into the case no matter what, whether a judge is going to allow you to put it in front of a jury, that's a different question but timing. and also other people coming forward, farther back, more recent. it's everywhere. >> final subject. put up the tweet from mark cuban so i can ask andrew ross sorkin

about the trump brand and the damage. every single trump hotel and golf course is toast, done, over, bernie madoff has a better brand. agree with that? >> yes and no. in a couple of years from now. let's say he doesn't win. and you have to make a trip to chicago and there's a very good trump hotel in chicago. it's a great hotel. i will give donald trump all the credit for building great hotels, or the next time you go to dc and go on expedia and find a good rate and it's a trump hotel, are you going to say, i'm not going to say there? i think there will be some people who won't, but i'm not convinced, again, that it's a timing issue. maybe tomorrow they wouldn't, for those who don't like him. the great irony, the people he is most attracted to or attracted to him are a very different cohort these days than

the people who would normally go to his hotels. the brand he represents and the people he now wants to represent, if you will, are a different piece. if you would indulge me for a second, the one thing to say in fairness, after i wrote that column about the walmart piece and whether he was employable, i got a number of e-mails from other ceos who said, i'm not sure i'd hire hillary clinton either. in fairness, i want to make that clear because of the e-mail issue and i did get a number of responses to that effect. >> a point not lost on me. a legitimate question of whether she could pass a security clearance test in the government given her handling of the e-mail, and yet, could be commander in chief. by the way, in chicago, i'd stay at the park hyatt regardless. andrew ross sorkin, thank you so much for being here. what do you think? tweet me. i'll read some later in the program. still to come, there is a consistency to the polls, national and in swing states. showing hillary with a growing lead but ahead, two experts who

say it's not that simple. here? (becky) i've seen such a change in einstein since he started eating the new beneful recipe. the number one ingredient in it is beef. (einstein) the beef is fantastic! (becky) he's a very active dog. he never stops moving. he has enough energy to believe that he can jump high enough to catch a bird. it has real beef, grains, vegetables, and he loves it. well, we were coming for an interview... so he wanted to wear his tie. (einstein) it's my power tie. it gives me power. (vo) try new beneful originals with beef. now with real beef as the number one ingredient, healthful. flavorful. beneful.

so it's over, right? or is it? the latest numbers show hillary clinton pulling away from donald trump. almost any poll that you look at. here's fox. put it up there. hillary up by 7% or more and that's before the most recent controversies and revelations. nate silver, 538.com the guru of polling said hillary has an 84.7% chance of winning and believe trump said they're crooked and rigged. the usc l.a. times daybreak tracking poll consistently shows

trump doing better than others. as of this morning, 44.2% for trump. hillary at 44.1%. what's the difference? how do preelection polls match the final results? i think you're about to be shocked. david lauder, i have to note, the methods of the l.a. times poll don't meet the cnn standards and yet, in 2012, that poll said, your poll said obama would win by 3.38% and he won by 3.85%. and the applied statistics at columbia university co-authored a saying the margin of error in polls is actually double what we're led to believe. let me begin with you. how does your methodology differ from the conventional polls? >> there are a number of things different. probably the most important thing is we ask a different question and because we ask a different question, a somewhat

different answer. rather than forcing voters to say, i'm for this person or that person, we ask them, on a scale of 0-100, what's the chance that you're going to support hillary clinton and the chance you're going to support donald trump and the chance you vote for somebody else? on the same scale, what's the chance you're going to vote at all? so that is designed to capture the ambivalence about the the election. there's no guarantee it will work the same way but it has a track record and by doing it that way, when you have one candidate who has very intense support and another one who is maybe less intense, you're going to do, show a better result for the one who has more intensity. i have to say, as other polls have shown, we've shown a steady decline for trump over the past week to ten days and increase for hillary clinton. they're now tied in our polls,

as you mentioned. if those trend lines continue, you can sort of see where they're probably going to go. and the intensity for clinton has been increasing as the election has gotten closer. the other -- >> you call me and i say, i'm 100% for trump and then we call your house and you say, 70% for hillary. i'm going to get waited appropriately, even though by the way, we both show up, cancel one another out but you say passion, i think you're saying is we factor in passion more than the others. >> that's right. that's one thing we factor in more than the others. as you said, once you voted, you go from that 70%, you become 100%. as the neil nosaid an unenthusiastic counts as much as an enthusiastic one. on record, they move from 70% to

100% and early vote kicks in, i think you may see clinton move up. the other big difference in the poll and why cnn doesn't use our poll, rather than asking a different sample every week, we go, we have a panel about 3200 people. we go to them every week and ask the same questions. so as a result, when you see the poll move, you know it's people actually changing their minds rather than just a difference of who answers the poll one week to the other. >> understood. >> the risk -- >> if i misstated this at the outset, you said obama would win by $3. 3.32% and he won by 3.85. i am fascinated by your poll and i'll keep watching it on a day-to-day basis. david lauder, thanks. now columbia professor gelman. you are the stats guy.

i find remarkable your analysis. tell everybody what you just did and with what result. >> we looked at a bunch of polls for various offices over the past several elections looking at polls during the several weeks before the election occurred. each poll has a margin of error. so you can look at that and also look at how close the poll is to what actually happens in the election. so you can calculate an empirical margin of error and how far are they in reality? the empirical margin of error twice as large as the theoretical margin of error that gets reported. >> in other words, when we speak of, i'm a knucklehead. you've got to break this down for me. when we speak of a 3 point margin of error, we're talking about a potentially 6 point differential because trump could be 3 higher than they're forecasting and she could be 3 lower and there's a 6 point gap and you're saying it's not even

6. when you look at 4221 polls, which you did, it's more like 12% or greater. >> my colleagues and i did it together, so first, i don't want to get all the credit for it, but i wouldn't say it's 12%. it's a 3% margin of error, theoretically, 95% chance it's within 3% of what's actually going to happen. it was more like 6%. i don't remember the exact number. that's for an individual poll. when you look at the poll aggregates like nate and others are doing, it's more accurate. but any individual poll, it's more variable than you might think. different polls use different methods as the previous person said and get different people. different people respond in the weekday, weekends, sort. >> what's the short answer as to why the pollsters don't have a better track record? >> it's a hard job.

they're not drawing from an urn and getting a random sample of the population and getting a bunch of people. responses over 90% and not quite representative of the american public or the electorate and then have to adjust the sample to match the electorate. different polls get different people. when a candidate is not doing well, then his or her supporters tend to be less likely to respond to the polls. so that exaggerates the fluctuations. >> interesting. your last point. right now, big moe as bush 41 would have said. the momentum on hillary's side of the equation and you're saying, given the news about that, that might cause trump respondents to be less inclined to participate when a pollster calls their house. >> if the election held today, i think trump would do better than he's shown in the polls. and a few weeks ago, it was the opposite that the news for clinton wasn't so good and so i

think clinton supporters were less likely to turn out to the polls. >> fascinating. only one vote matters. that's the one coming up on november 8, or if you are an early voter. thank you, andrew gelman. i appreciate your analysis. >> good to be here. still to come, among many things, i could never have predicted this presidential election was the journalist whose interviews would be most impactful. howard stern. ahead, stern's wrap-up show regular and our cnn legal expert, danny ze value loes. than your health. re t or the freedom to choose what doctor you want to see. so if you're on medicare, consider an aarp medicare supplement insurance plan, insured by unitedhealthcare insurance company. like any standardized medicare supplement plan, you'll be able to stay with the doctor or specialist you trust... or look for someone new -- as long as they accept medicare patients. and you're not stuck in a network... because there aren't any. so why wait?

call now to request your free decision guide and learn more.

one of the many unexpected aspects of this presidential election is the platform from which so many of one candidate's controversial statements originated. the howard stern show on sirius xm. time and again, things said before the race on stern's radio program came back to haunt him.

david fernholt revealed six stern shows between 2002 and 2013. in the latest batch, trump, again, brags about his sex life and reminisces about infidelity. >> anyone ever say i cheated? >> i'm saying you did. >> no one ever said. i guess they implied it. come to think of it, they implied it in the strongest of or've te terms. some of the greats in history. >> seriously, what is it about you? do you think? there's a lot of billionaires out there, and you know, why do you think? here you are. >> i honestly believe it's because i'm a very handsome guy. >> but wait a second. >> looks are very important. >> stern is a self-described hillary guy. he hasn't sought to object himself in the race and doesn't

play favorites and joked if trump gets elected, he would appoint him to the supreme court. what was it about the stern program that gave him the comfort level to speak so freely time and again? our danny cevallos is not only a cnn analyst but a stern super fan who regularly appears on the wrap-up show and joins me now. hey now, danny. do you agree with my assessment as one who listens? howard has not sought to inject himself. the people who listen, don't understand that about him. >> as super fans, we think about the show a lot. we love the conjecture, his true intentions are. and he doesn't appear to be interested in the election any more than being a known hillary supporter but clear from the show and these tapes, a long time, he's maintained a friendly relationship with trump and they've talked plenty of times which is why to super fans like

you and i, i don't know why everybody is so shocked. these tapes were not secreted away. they've been hiding in plain sight for the last 10, 20 years. >> were they particularly noteworthy when they were recorded? >> no, they weren't, because, and even trump himself said something to the effect, had i known i'd be running for president, i might not have gone on the show and said these things. but even at the time, he wasn't speaking in a presidential way but he was a caller and trying to be entertaining and trying to be funny. and that's sort of the beauty of the long form interview that howard has pioneered and perfected. he gets people to open up, be real, and talk about what's really on their minds. he doesn't drag them kicking and screaming talking about sex. if somebody calls in, if somebody wants to talk about sex, that's being real and howard will make them go there or get them to want to go there

because, you know, when he has matt lauer or dan rather, they talk about vietnam and fly fishing. guests go where they want to go on that show. >> in other words, to the uninitiated, this may sound stunning, the confessional nature of it but in those long form interviews, i mean, he interviews people for an hour at a time now for this sort of conversation to unfold is not an out outlier. >> not at all. again, these tapes have been around for a long time. in past elections, some tape surfaces with some private event recorded on an iphone. this is material that's gone out to millions and millions of listeners on sirius xm. it's no surprise that these tapes are out there and that just now, the fact that people are mining them now for material is frankly, rather surprising. but, you know, when trump was calling in, he was sort of playing along trying to be funny. the reality is that, people now

don't find what he was saying to be funny and don't find it presidential. it shouldn't be a surprise. >> final observation from me that you can buy into or not. my impression is any other media personality were sitting on the cash, the treasure-trove of trump audio, they'd been tripping over themselves to release it. i don't think any of these revelations came from howard stern or anybody on his crew. >> not at all. i'm not an insider. i'm a guest sometimes on the show. again us super fans think a lot about the show from listening. i don't think there's any indication that howard has had some personal interest in the outcome of the election. he's out there just trying to do a good interview. i would guess he would say look everyone who comes on this show gets real. they try to be funny. they talk about what interests them. if it's news worthy it frequently is. that show breaks news all the time. again at its core the long form

interview just makes you talk about what's real to you. >> you going to hit him with the hind? >> bobba boo a to them all and hit them with the hind. >> you never get an invitation to say these things openly. you don't have to shout it out behind somebody. you're being invited to hit them with the hind. thank you. >> thank you. still to come, your best and worst tweets. what do we got? my god, time has flown by i haven't seen anything. is melania an enabler as trump claims hillary is. i'd love to know the initial courtship between he and her. it makes you wonder, right? guess what guys, i switched to sprint.

sprint? i'm hearing good things about the network. all the networks are great now. we're talking within a 1% difference in reliability of each other. and, sprint saves you 50% on most current national carrier rates. save money on your phone bill, invest it in your small business. wouldn't you love more customers? i would definitely love some new customers. sprint will help you add customers and cut your costs.

switch your business to sprint and save 50% on most current verizon, at&t and t-mobile rates. don't let a 1% difference cost you twice as much. whoooo! for people with hearing loss, visit sprintrelay.com.

i really do appreciate your tweets @smerconish. here's what came in during the

course of this program. put it up on the screen. this a.m. when you said we all should wish we should age as gracefully as her. i teared up. it needed to be said. she's beautiful. she is beautiful. let me tell you something in that opening commentary today i had a line in it which said i think that jessica leeds, 74 years old is a beautiful woman. and i took it out. because i thought if i say that, now am i playing into this objectification of women. the hell with it she's an attractive woman and she's age appropriate for him. and she felt compelled to show anderson cooper her own photographs. that's a distressing thing. she's got to say, anderson you look at me here you wonder how was he hitting on me then. i find her to be incredibly credible. do we have another tweet we can quickly put up? i know i'm running over. what a joke as with every other media outlet. 30 seconds on clinton. the rest of the show on trump. no, i spent a lot more time on hillary. i had the man who broke the

lewinsky story. i'll see you as part of the debate coverage from vegas.

upgrade your phone system and learn how you could save at vonage.com/business

when legalizing safe, responsible adult use of marijuana, the most important question is how? by voting yes on prop 64: adults 21 and over could only purchase marijuana at licensed marijuana businesses. and prop 64 bans advertising directed at kids... requires strict product labeling... child-proof packaging... and bans edibles that appeal to children. smart provisions to safeguard our families. learn more about the safeguards at yeson64.org. learn more about the safeguards - i was diagnosed with parin early 2013.lly it took awhile to sink in. we had to think a little more seriously about saving money for the future and for the kids. - the income of airbnb really helped to mitigate the stress. - but we have that flexibility of knowing that if you know things get worse, we have this to help keep us afloat. - so that's very, very important for us.