on the buzz meter this sunday, donald trump says he is the target of a media witch-hunt, rips "the new york times" with reports on how he treats women and tries to shift the spotlight to bill clinton's past. >> i looked at the "new york times," are they going to interview juan neat at that broderick, paula jones, kathleen willie? in one case it's about exposure, in another case it's about groping and fondling and touching against a woman's will. >> and rape. >> and rape. >> big settlements, massive settlements. >> $850,000 for paula jones. >> and lots of other things and impeachment for lying. now, "the new york times" and if you look at stephanopoulos, these are like the pipe organs for hillary clinton. >> is the press taking this

campaign into the gutter? and is that crash of that egyptair flight changing the media's campaign coverage? megyn kelly finally sits down with trump after months of being attacked with the billionaire saying he has some regrets about his language and certain twitter tirades. >> you would be amazed at the ones i don't retweet. >> bimbo. >> that was a retweet. did i say that? >> many times. okay. excuse me. >> we'll look at the high stakes interview and what the critics say. also bob woodward and why "the washington post" suddenly has 20 reporters investigating trump. what about hillary? zuckerberg sits down with tucker carlson and other conservatives to diffuse accusations of liberal bias at facebook but was this just for show? plus remembering morley safer, a giant and a gentleman. i'm howard kurtz and it is

"mediabuzz." the crash of that egyptair plane dominated the news for days with donald trump drawing some criticism from the press for quickly tweeting that it looks like terrorism and he really got into it on msnbc with maek bra zin ski. >> i think the worry also is just how you will be as president as present your positions and your words and there are some concerns that you might be trigger happy with your words like, for example -- >> oh, really? i'm the one that didn't want to go into rack, mica. we cannot continue to let things like this happen. >> joining us to analyze the campaign coverage betsy woodruff political reporter for the daily beast, kelly riddell deputy opinion editor for the washington times and joe trippi the democratic strategist and fox news contributor. mika castigated trump over that tweet, candidates are a bit more cautious but is that criticism

fair? >> i think it's totally understandable. no authorities, no one from egypt or the united states government said this was a terrorist attack. donald trump from the campaign trail obviously for political reasons shouldn't have been the one to break that news. >> break that news, he was offering his opinion. >> exactly. but to say that that's the case -- >> looks like. looks like terrorism. >> we know what he means there. i just think it's totally ng understandable that folks would say made he ought to keep his powder dry on that one. >> when mika goes from that to say trump is a war monger, trigger happy, did the media have an obligation to point out he opposed the war and is far less of a hawk than hillary clinton. >> a lot of these when she decisions were made he was a private citizen, wasn't getting these intel reports. >> that doesn't let him off the hook completely. >> with this tweet what he did is he took a direct stab at hillary clinton and the benghazi cover up and he basically went out and he said this is an act of terror that american people are sick of like covering this stuff up, we're going to call a

spade a spade i'm not a traditional politician, i am breaking the establishment, not reading off the scripted talking points i'm going to tell you how it is. i think that's who donald trump is and that's how he's running his campaign. >> you're shaking your head, joe. talk about winning the news cycle. so hillary clinton hours later is on cnn with chris cuomo and she says it does appear to be an act of terrorism which is what trump's tweet said but then she ends up getting questioned about trump's gate because he was out of the gate faster >> that's what trump did. what trump does is he either creates the news cycle or he jumps into one. no matter what it is. so a plane goes down, bam, he's right there and he's in realtime and he's tweeting and that's how he's gotten to where he is. >> you say this admiringly as a former campaign manager or would it keep it up at night? >> no, as a campaign manager that's scary because you don't know when your candidate is going to blow himself up and it's totally possible -- i mean, everybody keeps saying trump never will, but i think that's

one of the problems that a lot of the other candidates out there in the republican -- >> probably not the best phrase in context. i know you didn't intend it that way. let me turn to the continuing fallout over this "new york times" piece last weekend, two full pages about donald trump's relationships with and conduct toward women. the lead anecdote involved a woman named roanne lane brewer who pushed back hard when she was portrayed as having a negative interaction with donald trump. here she is on "fox and friends" followed by the reporters defending their piece. >> they told me several times and my manager several times that it would not be a hit piece and that my story would come across the way that i was telling it and honestly and it absolutely was not. >> i believe roanne has asked for an apology. i mean, what do you say? >> we really stand by our story. we believe we quoted her fairly and accurately and that the story really speaks for itself.

>> is it damaging to "the new york times" that the woman, who by the way, went on to be trump's girlfriend for several months, came out and basically said they got it all wrong? >> it's obviously not helpful. that said, of course, she didn't dispute that the words that they quoted her as saying, she didn't dispute that the anecdote happened, she said this was a positive interaction rather than a negative one. "new york times" readers can decide whether trump's behavior is okay. there's a difference between behavior that's welcome. >> what this was about, kelly, she first met donald trump at a pool party at mar-a-lago, he said do you want to change into a swimsuit, she did, and then he introduced her as a beautiful trump girl or something. the times said this was a dee basing experience, she said she was proud. is that putting your finger on the journalistic scale? >> i think this is a classic case of these reporters have an agenda and preconceived narrative that they wanted to be proven true. they went through all the sources and put together a story that they -- that was

preconceived, that basically touted the narrative of donald trump as a creepy guy when this clearly has been proven baseless by roanne as well as by carrie prajan, misu.s.a., they went through their book and placed pieces where they felt were necessary. it clearly was a hit piece. >> joe. >> it clearly showed bias. even coming from mike horner, there was no reason to lead -- to do the whole leez of this thing with something they say was debased and she says i'm happy. i think that does damage -- whether it was biased or not it damages the credibility of the story and they shouldn't have put it that way. >> what do you make of trump pushing back hard against "the new york times," which is fine, but in the context of that interview with sean hannity he brings up bill clinton, an allegation by juan neat at that broderick dating to 1978 it was

not made public until 20 years, she says he raped her, that's never been proven. what do you make of trump going there and the way the media should treat that? >> trump is going to go there, there's nowhere he won't go so the clintons have to prepare for that. and the press has to cover it when he says stuff like that. >> if i can add, hillary clinton in an interview during her campaign said that women who make allegation that is they are sexually abused or attacked deserve to be believed. she opened the door for trump to bring this back, for reporters to bring this back, for the entire history of bill clinton's sexual shenanigans to be fair game. >> the press loves this stuff but it is about her husband. >> readers love this stuff, too. >> andrea mitchell on nbc basically said that juan eat at that broderick's case has been disproven. that is not accurate. it has never been disproven and nbc's reports still stands to this day. so the media partially is responsible -- they need to actually report the truth on

this and not drop off the unsavory things about bill clinton. then you have the bimbo eruptions that hillary clinton was a part of. >> when you say that, bimbo eruptions was not her term, it was a term of bill clinton's former chief of staff and i am waiting to see the evidence of hillary clinton's personal involvement. >> carl bernstein's book on his biography of hillary clinton lays it out. you have george stephanopoulos who quit the white house because of these reasons. >> he didn't say he quit because of -- >> all -- most if not all of this has been aired over and over and over again, i think what's going to be interesting is the more donald trump or the press goes on both of them in these areas, i don't think -- it's still going to be the economy, it's still going to be other things and i think the press does get preoccupied with -- >> there is a fascination with trump and women and bill clinton and women and hillary's role in her husband's gland ring. let me move on because there was a huge media build up for

the fox broadcast network prime time special the first one with megyn kelly. one of the guests was donald trump. let's take a look at when they talked about whether the candidate has had second thoughts about anything he has done in this campaign. >> when you look back on the past nine months from that first debate to now, any regrets? >> absolutely i have regrets. i don't think i want to discuss what the regrets are, but absolutely i could have done certain things differently, i could have maybe used different language in a couple of instances, but overall i have to be very happy with the outcome. >> was the interview revealing? >> not particularly. i mean, for him to say i could have used different language at some point is part the vaguest possible thing you could have said. >> trump is not big on apologies and said he had regrets. >> it's weird he said he didn't have regrets but didn'toint out anything specific. he said so many things that have drawn pointed brutal criticism for him just to say every once in awhile maybe i said something

unfortunate and for there not to be follow up or more detail i think a lot of folks were disappointed. >> interesting phrase that megyn kelly didn't go after him because she made clear this was not a presidential debate, it was not an interview on the kelly file about issues, it had been taped well in advance and was going to be a softer personality profile but obviously they talked about themselves. what do you think is the impact of trump saying, gee, maybe i shouldn't have retweeted bimbo and that sort of thing. any? >> no, i don't think it has much impact. look, i think its expectations for this thing were all off. megyn kelly has proven she can take on donald trump and really ask him the tough questions. that's how the whole thing started. >> yes. >> so i think, you know, again, this was a different time, a different kind of interview and i don't think there was a lot of gotcha, trying to trip him up. >> kelly, a lot of critics didn't like it, and that's fine, whether it's too soft or not, some mate have had an agenda.

he has called donald trump a bigoted quasi fascist. "washington post" has called trump hateful, nonsensical, so they didn't like the interview. >> i mean, this is ironic, right? they all rallied toward megyn kelly's cause after the august debate and looked at her as some sort of champion. she has always been neutral. she says she doesn't love or hate donald trump, this was going to be a fair interview and that's what it was. just because she didn't attack him they are disappointed with it. that's just ridiculous. >> all right. >> it was pretaped two weeks in advance so it's hard to do breaking news -- she's looking at this to warm him up to get on the kelly file so that she can go after the hard hitting stuff. this was more of a barbara walters interview. >> she had the entire year of his campaign statements and we didn't get any new information -- >> you should interview megyn kelly, then. >> as i said, the critics disagree even at this table. when we come back brit hume on

the never trump crowd and whether the press should still take those folks seriously. later inside the meeting between mark zuckerberg and the serves tiffs who say facebook is biased.

a front page "washington post" story says that grass roots conservative activists are still trying to block donald trump's nomination at the cleveland convention with a scheme to free the delegates to vote however they want. joining us is brit hume fox's senior political analyst and former washington political editor. should the media give plenty of air time to these never trump types who still insist that this nomination battle isn't over? >> i think these stories are legitimate stories, but i don't think they're front page stories.

i think that the real story is that -- is that things are moving in trump's direction. his effort to woo conservatives is making progress and you can see things that that's the drift of things. there was a question will paul ryan support him, we now can see he eventually will, the nra endorsement is further proof of that. the list of potential supreme court nominees that he put out went a long way with a lot of conservatives. that's the main story that he's doing pretty well in that effort. >> the other thing is a sidebar. >> a sidebar story, yeah. >> in that same vain bill chris stall has been talking to mitt romney, tim coburn about putting together a third party challenge. should journalists portray this as well a little desperate? >> i think it's an extreme long shot the way it looks down, the people interviewed none has showed any interest. >> nobody has raised their hand and say i will do it. >> i will do it. obviously you wouldn't do it unless you thought there was a

real chance it might work or unless you had some other reason for wanting to be a presidential candidate with whatever attention you could get from it. i just think it's -- i don't know whether we ought to call it desperate, but anybody reporting it -- it should be clear from reading the facts what a long shot it is and i think basically that's true. >> we have this spade of recent polls, fox news poll, "new york times" poll showing donald trump in a hypothetical match up against hillary up 2 or 3 points, other polls showing hillary by a few. and so my question is the media geniuses all said donald trump are not going to win this nomination, are they now having to take trump more seriously after saying if he did get the nomination he would be clobbered? >> obviously so. i think a lot of people wouldn't expect what would happen after he got the nomination pretty well locked up that he would begin to rise in the polls in the way that he has. >> so quickly. >> it also comes at a time when hillary clinton's troubles and weaknesses as a candidate are on full display.

she's clearly overwhelmingly likely to win this nomination and yet she can't shake bernie sanders and she's contending with him pushes her to the left which makes, you know, long-term prospects a little more difficult. all of this comes at kind of -- as a kind of a perfect storm. candidates often do get a bounce when the nomination is secured, even if it's not formal yet. >> so a trump bump. >> so there is a trump lift. >> yeah. >> and hillary is having a tough time and so he's ah-ha he had in some polls, behind in some, it's basically a tie right now i think it's fair to say. we really don't know what it's going to look like when she gets free of sanders and can focus all her attention on him and once the democratic party's attack machine which will be in full cry is loosed on him we will have to see what happened. >> polls this early are very a femoral. i shift a little shift in the media mindset about donald trump. let me turn to hillary. we see stories like "time

magazine," hillary's aids and allies -- excuse me. hillary's new trump to out trump trump by being boring and "the washington post" included more than a does allies talking about h her poor showing. this is the spin from her side. we are not quoting opponents here. what do you make of that? >> well, it goes to the question she faces, which is should i go out and talk mostly about what i'm going to do as president and why you should elect me. the question that's hung over this hillary clinton campaign from the jump and which i think has given real force to the sanders campaign is what is she really -- if you had to sum up in a sentence what hillary clinton's campaign is about what would you say based on what she has said? as a political analyst you might say, well, it's about another term for barack obama's policies. but she's not saying that. >> right. >> so what is she going to campaign on? is she going to go out and say i'm going to give you barack obama for a third term basically or is she going to simply decide

that donald trump is such a target rich environment and so vulnerable that the way to win is to beat him within an inch of his life within the ads and comments. >> my own reporting says that the hillary people like this contra contrast, her but reliable, trump unpredictable. but when she does interviews she doesn't seem to make a lot of news. she has a very cautious style. your thoughts? >> she does. she is not a particularly good campaigner and that's one example of why she's not. her inability to kind of deliver the goods in these interviews. >> and now we have her own people anonymously conceding that point rather than battling the obvious. brit hume, thanks for stopping by. ahead, bob woodward says "the washington post" isn't digging up dirt by unleashing 20 reporters on donald trump. remember morley safer and the distinctive voice he brought to a rich career?

morley safer was a giant and a gentleman. i met morley a couple times and unlike so many big seeing yoes on tv, he was not full of himself and didn't make himself the story. he died this week after 46 seasons on cbs. safer was the cool civilized counterpoint to the confrontational mike wallace. the sad news comes a week after the program announced his retirement and aired an hour long segment. >> do you feel like a legend? >> i don't think you ever feel like anything. you feel like a -- >> yes, i think we should do the interview both in the nude. you'd love it. go on. >> what the hell? >> hey. hey. do you like that one, pal? >> please. >> playing pool with jackie gleason, but he could also

confront the wife of bernie madoff. >> do you feel the shame? >> of course i feel the shame. >> it's a tough name to live with. >> it sure is. >> safer did ground breaking reporting in vietnam, especially in story about the torching of civilian huts that pricked the american conscience. >> as we came in guys started lighting up. with matches, with lighters, with flame throwers and they were clearing these people out and torching their houses. this was not like any operation i had ever been on before with american troops or with any troops anywhere quite honestly. >> this is what the war in vietnam is all about. >> morley was such a comfortable presence in our living rooms, but, the former canadian newspaper man was never quite comfortable with the business in a made him famous. >> i really don't like being on television. i find it intimidating, discomforting, it makes me uneasy. it is not natural to be talking to a piece of machinery. but the money is very good.

>> morley safer was 84. >> coming up, the press puts bernie sanders on the defensive after some of his supporters disrupt a convention and make horrifying death threats against a democratic official. later mark zuckerberg is meeting with conservative critics, can he fix facebook's problem with bias? you won't see these folks at the post office. they have businesses to run. they have passions to pursue. how do they avoid trips to the post office? stamps.com mail letters, ship packages, all the services of the post office right on your computer. get a 4 week trial, plus $100 in extras including postage and a digital scale. go to stamps.com/tv and never go to the post office again.

democratic campaign awash in negative headlines after bernie sanders supporters causing pandaemonium at last weekend nevada convention. debbie wasserman schultz calling the senator's response unacceptable. several sanders supporters made death threats and things turned ugly. >> i want you to let you know that i think people like you should be hung in a public execution to show this world we

won't stand for this sort of corruption you cowardless bitch running off the stage. i hope people find you. >> it's a subject the vermont senator was not anxious to discuss with the press. >> this weekend in the nevada convention, do you have any reaction to that? >> we're back with the panel. kelly, in terms of the coverage here sanders who has come out against debbie wasserman schultz and for her primary opponent has really been getting hammered by the media over the handling of these scuffles. is that fair? >> i think that's totally fair. this took place on saturday. if this was a trump rally or trump supporters they would be head line news on sunday. "the washington post" didn't even cover this until wednesday and the head line it was on the seventh page of the paper and the head line was clinton wins kentucky, sanders picks up oregon and then it had a graph all the way at the bottom and this was this little thing in nevada. i think this has been totally

underreported and now the press is reporting it only because there was a formal complaint filed by the nevada democratic party against sanders, harry reid went on the floor and said sanders should apologize, now it's being covered but should have been covered more at the beginning. >> there are differing accounts about how bad the situation was, but what's not in dispute is even some liberal media outlets and writers are turning on bernie, asking where he is still in the race, asking why he didn't condemn these incidents more forcefully. >> i think he should have handled it -- i mean, i think it's legitimate to challenge him for not denouncing them, but i do think it's a little overboard when we don't even know who these people who called the chairperson are or whether they are even bernie supporters. to hold him responsible for it i think is wrong, but you do want to denounce it stuff, don't you, bernie, is legitimate on the press' part. >> now, sanders has been saying in interviews, he did one today

on cbs saying even if he's behind in pledged delegates he wants to go to the convention. here is "new york times'" head line, bernie sanders eyeing convention, willing to harm hillary clinton in the home stretch. the subtext, is it a little crazy? >> it's a little theatrical. this is an example of folks erg on the side of trying to make stories where they may not exist. hillary clinton stayed in in 2008 through the beginning of june, there's zero evidence that her staying in that long, her even floating the possibility of that did anything to damage obama in the fall. >> bernie is trying to harm hillary. >> that's how campaigns work, you try to win. >> there is no indication he's going to get out in june like hillary did. he said he's going to take it all the way to the convention, there's four petitions that have been filed in philadelphia all for bernie sanders supporters for protests. >> we talked earlier about some

of the more personal criticisms of donald trump particularly aimed at hillary's husband the former president. here she is on cnn being asked that question question. >> do you ever feel compelled to defend your honor, the honor of your husband? >> no. >> with statements that he's making that go to the core of the relationship? >> no. not at all. i know that that's exactly what he is fishing for and, you know, noim going to be responding. >> joe trippi, i understand that hillary clinton doesn't want to get into a point by point response when donald trump brings up any of the bill clinton scandals, but i watch these interviews, there was one on "meet the press" again today and she doesn't seem to make much news in these interviews, everything she says seems incrementally different from what she said yesterday. is this a problem or is this my own bias because i want candidates to say colorful things we can talk and write about? >> i think we're going to find out. that's different stylistically, different style obviously from trump. >> 180 degrees.

>> and i think that's going to be a big -- what do the american people want? both of these people are exactly what you see and exactly what you're going to get. one sort of careful, thought -- you know, thinking through every sentence, the other one jumping immediately into the news cycle saying whatever comes to mind and whatever repercussions i'll fix it later. and i think both of them have done well. both of them are the no, ma'minf their party. >> journalists have to ask these questions. they're not getting much in the way of answers. she obviously criticizes trump in some of them. >> i think it's interesting how different they are and how a lot of reporters are going to feel a whiplash going back and forth between covering the two campaigns. i don't know in modern american history we have two front runners that have less in common than trump and clinton. it's going to be different than being in hillary mode. >> the polls say both are pretty

unpopular. joe trippi, kelly riddell, betsy woodruff thanks for joining us. mention on "mediabuzz" tucker carlton on whether facebook used them and others as drops as they met with mark zuckerberg. and the challenges of hillary clinton and donald trump.

facebook has been doing

damage control since former employees charged that the social network is biased against conservatives when picking it's trending top picks. mark zuckerberg sitting down with glenn beck, s.e. cup and dana perino and tucker carlson. joining me from new york, tucker, glenn beck criticized some of the conservatives in your group saying this was like the salem witch trial in which facebook had to plead guilty or be burned at the stake. your response? >> it's ludicrous. it was a pleasant meeting. i thought that facebook making a good faith effort. they're basically liberal, this he know that, you know, they draw from the peninsula, from silicon valley and upper income highly educated people generally and that's a liberal demographic. they know that when you have a bunch of people with the same world view in a room you can make nad vent ert mistakes. it doesn't help their business model to is up suppress

conservative views torques lose the trust of a huge percentage of their audience. they were worried and brought these people in and they had zuckerberg and cheryl samberg and peter teal one of their keyboard members, the head of their development team, they were trying. and, you know, glenn beck mischaracterized it completely in my mind, glenn beck spent most of the meeting sucking up to mark zuk en berg, you are a visionary. >> sucking up are you saying? >> sucking up in a profound way, in an almost theatrical way. >> he says that you guys are acting like jesse jackson trying to shake down facebook or exact some quotas for conservative news. >> i find quotas appalling. i think he was talking about me. i made the lopoint, look, if you've got a roomful of people who agree it's important once in awhile to bring people who don't agree as a backstop against

making bad decisions. they're focused on ethnic diversity which is fine but there are deeper forms of diversity like ideological and cultural diversity. i said half joking, you know, why don't you hire a bunch of mormons. if you want a workforce that looks like america, americans, 11% african-americans, 11% african-americans. fine. but america is also 3% mormons. i course i wasn't there to shake them down or enforce or suggest any affirmative action program, just making an obvious point. >> mark zuckerberg said on facebook i know many conservatives don't trust that our platform serves content without a political bias, you seem persuaded that he's trying to fix that. >> facebook isn't exactly a news organization, but it's a platform for other news organizations to disseminate their news.

>> include all of us, we all live in facebook's world, what facebook does is hugely important. >> that's right. in the interest of full disclosure we do a ton of facebook business, it's a big part of our business and that was one of the main reasons i was there. whatever you host a lot of news sites, editorial judgments are going to get based, it's not based all on the results of an algorithm. the views of your employees will at some point down the line have an affect and they know this. i mean, i'm sure this will happen in the future is there a systematic attempt to sequel much voices they don't agree with, i don't think so. they will lose money in the end if they do that. there is a built in incentive for them to try to be sort of fair as distinct from "the new york times" which doesn't have a diverse audience, it's aimed toward a specific group of people who agree with them. facebook is different. >> reaching out to everyone is good business for facebook and i

thought it was good that mark zuckerberg reached out to you and some of your colleagues. thanks for helping us walk through this issue. after the break bob woodward responds to donald trump's attacks at jeff bezos and that the people is less interested in investigating hillary clinton.

bob woodward made more news than he intended in saying the "washington post" was assembling a journalistic task force to investigate donald trump and the candidate quickly took a shot at jeff bezos. >> every hour we're getting calls from reporters from "the washington post" asking ridiculous questions. i will tell you this is owned as a toy by jeff bezos who controls amazon. amazon is getting away with murder tax-wise.

he's using the "washington post" for power so that the politicians in washington don't tax amazon like they should be taxed. >> i sat down with the veteran "washington post" editor and author here in d.c. >> bob woodward, welcome. >> thank you. >> when the washington examiner quoted you as saying the wast post has 20 reporters assigned to investigating donald trump this was widely reported as the paper is determined to dig up dirt on trump. fair or unfair? >> it's unfair. it's to look at every phase of his wife which is precisely what we're doing. a press release was put out a month ago announcing that the post is going to be doing this book and as the reporting proceeds there will be stories in the newspaper and that's kind of the focus and at the same time we're going to -- and as i said, do the same thing on hillary clinton. >> of course that was my next question. will hillary clinton receive the same scrutiny and approximately the same number of articles as

the republican nominee? >> yes, i believe so. it depends on, you know, what we find out. trump has not been a political public figure and political public figures get more scrutiny than somebody in business. so there might be more about him, but it depends on what is discovered. but this is -- the headline on that story that somehow was to dig up dirt, it is not. >> of course the fact there will be a book about trump tells us something about the media marketplace. this is what people say they want, for journalism to hold public figures, politicians, accountable, but hasn't that also fallen out of fashion in the twitter age? if they're producing 50,000 words or 60,000 words on donald trump, how many people will read that? >> well, that's up to them. but it's important that it be available. you don't want people going into the voting booth in november and

saying, i really couldn't find out who these people are. i couldn't really discover what hillary clinton did in her senate years or as secretary of state or as first lady. gee, i don't understand how donald trump got in the casino business. how successful was he? where did he have his casinos? who ran them? and what were these bankruptcies or near bankruptcies about? and so forth. and that will be available to people. i think -- >> the current level of reporting been inadequate in your view? >> i think we can always do better. if there's a theme line in all of this, if you were to look at my e-mails, you would see people keep saying, well we didn't know enough about bill clinton before he became president. we didn't know enough about

george w. bush. >> did he know enough about obama and is that a fair criticism that obama in 2008 didn't get the kind of intensified media scrutiny that for example donald trump is getting in this cycle? >> a lot of people feel that. >> do you? >> i feel we can always do more. and i think you -- i think it literally is impossible to find out too much about these people. and whether everyone is going to pay attention to it or be interested or read the long article or read a book, it is our job. i remember canceling graham the former owner/publisher of the washington post when we were in the midst of the nixon case. and i was was talking to her about, where's this going, what does it mean, and so forth, and she raised the question, that's exactly the right question, why do we dig into these things when

it's hard and people are uncomfortable that we're doing this? and she said, because that's the business we're in. >> so since i bring up water gate and nixon and you've said that in hillary clinton's private e-mail or echos of water gate, but you are quoted as saying, i don't think anyone feels it was her intent to distribute classified information in a way that was illegal or jeopardize security. how do you know that before the investigation? >> look, i've talked to people about it. president obama himself said there was no intent that this was careless. >> you going to defend his --- >> of course he is. and i've always said the questions about the e-mail investigation and i think they should be answered. and certainly before the election. but the question of the intent and whether it was careless or not, i don't think anyone is

suggested that hillary clinton was putting out classified information so people, the russians or chinese or somebody could read that. and the purpose was efficiency and maybe to keep it from others. it was not to distribute classified information. i don't think her severest critic is suggesting that. what they have said is there was negligence here and that's part of the investigation. >> trump reacted last week by criticizing jeff bezos saying that the founder bought the washington post to help further amazon's corporate interest. i haven't seen any evidence of this. but with the decisions such as these investigations of a presidential candidate? >> bezos, as marty baron put out a statement -- >> executive editor.

>> -- right, that's it's his. barron's decision to look at this and all of the candidates. i've talked to bezos about this. he said it's just got to be bipartisan, aggressive and he has said that the resources would be available to do this. it is echoing in a different way. we do this because this is the business we're in. >> and we will see where these journalistic efforts lead. bob woodward, thanks for joining us. >> thanks. >> still to come, a questionable grant on the iran nuclear deal. and backlash over a cover-up of a weather forecaster in a cocktail dress.

a big black eye for npr a after the radio station got a

grant. they win the white house to sell the iran nuclear deal and that money from the plow shares fund which wants to eliminate nuclear weapons was specifically earmarked for reporting on the u.s. an iranian nuclear report. outside groups like plow shares are part of the echo chamber the administration pushed. npr said there are no conditions on the grant and there sapphire wall to protect the reporting which they insist it is not trying to influence. npr interviewed the president of plow shares twice last year only identifying him once as founder but this does not past the smell test. you have probably seen this video of ktla's video chan needing a wardrobe adjustment. we will tell you what happened next. >> you want me to put this on? why? because it's cold? >> getting a lot of e-mails. >> what? really? >> there you go. >> okay. i look like a librarian now.

>> the episode went viral. the meteorologist said she was just playing along with the joke. her original dress clashed with the green screen weather map. so she wore the little black dress and some viewers complained. in sat rising, libber it i was handed a sweater on the air to change the little black dress for something that isn't so much evening wear. on average, we do what, 6.8 gags here per morning. some work, some don't. >> i'm sure it was all in good fun. the reason why they say it is massage any of the or likened to, liberty should have had the liberty to wear what she wanted. we hope you like our facebook page. we are liberal, conservative and all kinds of comments. e-mail us, mediabuzz at fox

news.com. you can also respond on twitter. let me think what you think of the show. i will respond. back here next developing in political news at this hour. the divide in one party growing as supporters are suing over widespread confusion in the primary race and the other party, what could be an epic movement toward coming together? i'm harris faulkner. this is the report. here's how it is playing out. a short time ago, a new sign the gop is combining forces to back donald trump. reports of south carolina senator lindsey graham who has had a long public spat with trump is privately telling others in the party in a fundraiser to support the presumptive nominee. graham's press secretary will only confirm graham was there and no change in the senator's