and some strong issues that donald trump puts on the table that do need to be discussed. let's hope they can be discussed civilly in his administration. >> with that, anyway, michael steele, susan page, howard fineman. i'll be back with another edition of "hardball." see you then. >> we do have a special guest tonight. i'm very much looking forward to this conversation. in the presidential campaign of 1984, ronald reagan was running for re-election against walter mondale. in august of that election year as things were heating up, the reagan campaign picked just a bull's-eye religious conservative issue, not just to work on as policy because he was president, but to campaign on for re-election as well. and so president reagan gave a radio address in august of that year and, you know, it was designed for the campaign. he was talking up what he was doing as president. he was haranguing the democrats in congress for making him do it. it was just one of these

perfectly calibrated campaign year issues. and you can still get the text of the radio address that he gave on this subject, you can still get the text of it online at the reagan library website. here's how it starts, my fellow americans, i'm pleased to tell you that today i signed legislation that will allow student religious groups to begin enjoying a right they've too long been denied -- the freedom to meet in public high schools during nonschool hours. that's the issue that he picked. and that's the text of that radio address. here's the thing, though. this was a radio address, it was au audio only. he was going to do the radio address from his house in santa barbara, california. as they were checking the audio levels and getting him ready to start, he didn't just say the top of his speech. he didn't just say, my fellow americans i'm pleased to tell you that today i signed legislation that will allow student religious groups to

blah, blah, blah. he didn't say that which was the real first line of the radio address. when he was doing his sound check, while they were setting up his microphone. he started to do the first line but then he turned it into a joke. >> my fellow americans, i'm pleased to tell you today that i've signed legislation that will outlaw russia forever. we begin bombing in five minutes. >> he said that into the microphone. everybody laughed. we're outlawing russia forever. the bombing will begin in five minutes. after he did that in that sound check, somebody leaked the tape but that is what he said and it was a joke. he had a sense of humor. what's the big deal? the big deal it turns out was he was an american president and the subject matter was nuclear weapons. so do you know what happened next? we found this in the nbc archives today. this is from two months after he

made that we begin bombing in five minutes joke. this is two months later. this is in october right before the election of november that year nbc news was finally able to piece together what happened after reagan made his i'm outlawing russia, we begin bombing in five minutes joke. watch this and watch the graphics here in particular. this is awesome. >> it was the joke heard around the world, the one by president reagan about bombing the soviet union and it resulted in a soviet red alert and it became a campaign issue in this country. now, marvin kalb has learned that the soviets responded in their own fashion. >> the president was joking his way through an audio check on august 11th. >> i signed legislation that will outlaw russia forever. we begin bombing in five minutes. >> by august 14th, the story became world news. a major item on moscow television where the joke was not treated as a laughing matter. august 15th, a coded message left soviet military

headquarters in vladivostok. it said in part we now embark on military ax against the u.s. forces. the code was instantly broken by u.s. and japanese intelligence. this is what then happened. a special command unit went on wartime alert. key japanese military units raised their readiness status. soviet naval vessels in the north pacific baffled by the order checked with vladivostok. confusion. u.s. intelligence urgently v ll canvassed for signs of an imminent attack. found none. later officials of the top secret national security agency briefed congressman michael barnes. >> there is what they described as a wayward operator in the soviet far eastern command who sent out a message alerting soviet forces in that area that a state of war existed between the united states and the soviet union. >> within 30 minutes the mysterious soviet alert was canceled. >> within 30 minutes the soviet

alert, the soviet alert that said there was an active state of war between the soviets and the united states, that was canceled after it had been issued. but that joke from the president in 1984 it started in motion a series of events that put nuclear armed warships and military command units in a state of confusion and in some cases a state of wartime alert. ultimately nobody shot anyone. and the alerts dialed back, but phew. the president's ta presidents talking about nuclear weapons is nothing to mess around with, even if you're obviously joking. today just before noon, without any warning apropos of we don't know yet what, the president-elect announced via twitter what appears to be a 180-degree u-turn in american nuclear weapons policy. he wrote this.

the united states must greatly strengthen and expand its nuclear capability until such time as the world comes to its senses regarding nukes. that would appear to be a 180-degree u-turn from decades of u.s. policy in which we're reducing our stockpile of nuclear weapons, now we'll be greatly expanding our nuclear capability until such time as the world comes to its senses. what on god's green earth does that mean? and i ask you guys through this camera, i ask you guys these questions a lot these days when it comes to covering the transition to the new administration. the difference tonight is i have someone here to ask in person. i'm very pleased to say joining us live for the interview tonight is newly announced presidential counselor kellyanne conway. kellien, thank you so much for coming back. >> my pleasure. >> i've not seen you since the election. congratulations on the election. >> appreciate it. >> congratulations on the announcement today. >> he's your president, too. >> yes, we only have one president. >> thank you very much. >> he's, however, not the

president yet. >> that's right. >> that's part of why i want to ask you about foreign policy pronouncements because you've said -- and you've been most clear on this out of everybody in trump world -- that you respect that president obama is still president. he's president until noon on january 20th. usually what that means is that a president-elect would avoid trying to box in the existing president, specifically on matters of foreign policy. the united states has to speak with one voice on foreign policy. in the transition that we have seen mr. trump criticize and in some ways undermine the one-china policy we saw him call on president obama to do one thing at the united nations, we now have this announcement of what would be a very dramatic turn on nuclear weapons. isn't he kind of cashing checks that president obama has to cash? >> no, look, this is him preparing to be president. he's asked constantly what his position is on x, y or z and in the case of the nuclear comment, i discussed it with him directly. he's making the point that this

is about nuclear proliferation in the face of rogue nations and regimes that are stockpiling weapons, it would seem. and all he's saying is, look, his first priority is to keep us all safe and secure. his first doctrine is peace through strength. in a perfect world, we wouldn't have any nuclear weapons. it's not a perfect world. it's in fact a very dangerous world. >> proliferation, what do you -- >> well, i think all the president-elect is saying is that we have to be able to keep ourselves safe and secure and when others stop building their nuclear weapons, then we'll feel more secure in that regard. >> who is he talking about? >> he's talking about anyone who fits the description of a regime that would do us harm or a rogue nation. >> i mean, i'm asking you this not to try to trap you on this, but in all seriousness. this is a really big deal. is he talking about some new nation that's a proliferation risk that nuclear weapons are being developed by a country that we don't know about.

>> i don't think the tweet was groundbreaking in this regard. it seems that president obama himself has called for an upgrade in our capabilities. i read in one or two articles up to $1 trillion is the price tag. we all, president obama, president-elect trump, everyone shares the same, i think, core value, in their first duty is to try to keep us all safe. we know it's a dangerous world and that includes nuclear weapons. >> when he says we have to expand our nuclear capability, does he mean more nuclear weapons? because for decades, we haven't been making nuclear weapons since george h.w. bush as i'm sure you know. is he talking about more nuclear weapons? do we need more than we have? >> his first obligation is to keep us safe and secure. he recognizes at the same time that other people are nuclear capable. that's not abating. it's not like we're going to tell them please stop doing that because we said so. and we wants us to be prepared. he makes it very clear that this may be a way for others to stop

doing what they're doing. >> honestly, though, the american position on nuclear weapons worldwide for a very long time now, not just as a partisan matter but over multiple presidents has been that we are trying to lead the way in reducing the number of nuclear weapons in the world. he's saying we're going to expand our nuclear capability. >> he's not necessarily saying that. >> he did. >> what he's saying is we need to expand our nuclear capability, really our nuclear readiness or our capability to be ready for those who also have nuclear weapons. i mean, this is what happens. when you say that terrorism, particularly isis, radical islamic terrorists are being contained, that they're the jv team and we don't have to worry about them anymore. then people are being killed in nice, in berlin this week, at the nightclub in may, in san bernardino a year ago, in paris, brussels. it doesn't ring true to anybody that they're not advancing. >> what does that have to do

with nuclear weapons? >> i'm going to give you the analogy. us saying they're contained and then attacking proves that everybody who feels unsafe in a world with terrorists particularly in the case of isis are advancing, that they're still wanting to do them harm. he's trying, i think in his quest to keep us safe and secure, he's putting the world on notice that he will do what he thinks he needs to do to keep us safe and secure. >> by expanding our nuclear capability. >> he's not trying to change a policy through twitter. >> okay. >> and he's not trying to project what he will do as president. what he's merely saying is that this is a man who gets his intelligence briefings regularly, the pdb, presidential daily briefing refers to a product, but in addition to that which we know he received today or yesterday or both, he also has other intelligence sources, and he's learning many different facts that i'm not privy to. this is one of the responses that he felt compelled to give based on those facts. >> do you feel confident that the president-elect understands what we've got for a nuclear arsenal right now? >> yes. >> is he saying that we need

more weapons on hair trigger alert, on launch on warning status? is he saying that we need more nuclear weapons in europe? is he saying that we need different kinds of nuclear weapons? as you know, there's a nuclear triad. right? we've got three different kinds of nuclear weapons. a lot of weapons experts, a lot of nuclear experts say we need to get rid of one of those legs of the triad. is this an announcement or are we not getting rid of the nuclear triad. >> he thinks that a nuclear triad is important to maintain. he's not calling for any of the policies that you suggested/asked me. what he's merely saying is that he wants us to be ready to defend ourselves and he's not making new policy. >> this sounds like really new policy. on nuclear weapons, it's really a sensitive matter. >> i would agree. >> who has the most nuclear weapons after us and russia? >> i don't know. but i'm sure he does.

>> it's france. >> well. >> india and pakistan. one of the most important things to know about india and pakistan having nuclear weapons is number of nuclear weapons that they've got on launch status. do you guys talk about that? is that like -- >> well, i don't. he's surrounded by national security team. >> if the united states announces a u-turn on nuclear policy, india and pakistan don't have any nuclear weapons on launch status. they could move them to that status because a new nuclear arms race is about to start. >> we're getting ahead of ourselves, rachel. >> but that's what happens in the past when presidents have made even jokes about nuclear weapons. i think what i'm trying to get at is a lot of people are hiding under the bed right now because it doesn't seem like he knows what he's talking about on this issue. >> that's not fair. >> how can you make policy on twitter? and then say he's -- >> he's not making policy on twitter. >> expanding our nuclear arsenal and announcing it on twitter is a big deal. >> he didn't say that. he said our capability.

perhaps he is also echoing what president obama himself has tried to do here, which is get upgrades to our nuclear systems. i saw in one or two or three reports to the tune of a price tag of a trillion dollars. so again he's talking about keeping us safe and secure. in a perfect world we wouldn't be talking about nuclear weapons. it is not a perfect world. it's a world in which these exist. and it's a world in which -- >> we need more? >> no. he didn't say that. >> expanding our nuclear capability. >> in the world in which we live which is not perfect, it is very dangerous and uncertain, i hope we can all agree, military might has been one of the ways to deter people from doing bad things. now, that can take on any number of different aspects, but on this one i think that we're getting a little too far ahead of ourselves that he's changing policy and making policy in a way that he did not intend. >> okay. the president making policy happens whenever the president speaks on a national security matter. and i want to ask you about a

couple of other national security personnel decisions. on election day, the new national security adviser, retired general michael flynn, wrote an op-ed in which he argued that the united states should extradite a guy who turkey wants us to extradite. it now appears that general flynn's company was being paid by the turkish government, and he did not disclose that in the op-ed, he did not disclose that publicly when he was announced as an adviser to the campaign. he has never talked about it in publicly in terms of being national security adviser. i don't have anything against general flynn personally, but he was being paid by a foreign government and advocating their policy positions in the u.s. government while advising your candidate now the president-elect. >> i heard you say it appears. is that -- >> well, it's been reported that he was on the pay -- his company was receiving money from the government of turkey and as somebody who works in his company has confirmed that.

>> i have not discussed that with him. i would not be the right person to ask to comment on that. >> if he was on the payroll of a foreign government while advising your candidate, would that be disqualifying for him as national security adviser? >> not necessarily. i would need to know the facts. obviously that decision only lies with one person, the president-elect. >> general flynn, during the campaign, accused hillary clinton of being involved in sex crimes against children. >> you're talking about a tweet? >> yeah. he wrote this. it wasn't a retweet. >> or fake news. i believe, right? is that the fake news story? >> during the campaign, late in the campaign, said that hillary clinton was involved in sex crimes with children. >> but i think the source of that was a fake news report. >> right. but he tweeted it. right? he broadcast this. >> i haven't seen his twitter feed, but i trust you. >> he did. you can ask him, he did. as national security adviser, it will be his judgment that the president turns to in times of national security crises no matter what they are. his judgment is such that he did

publicly accuse hillary clinton of being a child rapist. >> no. >> he did. he did. >> that's a little hyperbolic. >> sex crimes against children -- >> the fake news retweets myself. >> it wasn't a retweet. he said that everybody needed to check out this news that hillary clinton was involved with sex crimes with children. >> rachel -- i'm sorry. >> if that's his judgment, i can understand how he might be involved at some level in the campaign, he might have things to offer. why would a person with judgment like that be national security adviser? wouldn't you want somebody who has rock solid instincts and judgment particularly about public information to be in that kind of a key role? >> but you're conflating the two things. you're telling you're audience frankly, one negative thing about him and we're not looking at his overall credentials and his years in the national security community. his tours of duty. i talked to him about those directly, his tours of duty, the three goals he has for the country as national security adviser which include government

reform, peace through strength, a stabilization of the middle east. these are his goals. he's got a full, long resume of very impressive national security skills and accomplishments that i just can't wash away based on a tweet. and the other thing i just want to say -- >> -- you like run down somebody in a crosswalk. there's no defense to that to say look at all the other days i had a great driving record. you know what i'm saying? >> that's not a perfect analogy. >> no, it's not a perfect analogy. but comment on the judgment that it takes to have said something like that and never apologize for it? >> if i may i would like to comment on the judgment of what we currently have, my heart breaks every single day when i look at aleppo. why? because i'm a compassionate human being. i can't stand the fact, rachel, that women are choosing suicide over rape. i can't stand the fact that you've got basically plurality is not a majority of children under the age of 14 or so gone now either displaced or dead and killed.

and i look at that as a humanitarian crisis. we've done next to nothing of value for 5 1/2 years. where is the judgment of our secretary of state? where is the judgment of the administration? we can't just look the other way when things like this happen. that is not me changing the subject. that's me saying if we talk about judgment, let's talk about what a lack of judgment, a lack of action has wrought in hot spots around the world beginning with aleppo. >> a complicated and dangerous world i think it's reasonable, i think it's almost inarguable that there's at least question if not concern that we've got a president who has no governing experience, no foreign policy experience, no public service experience. that's an unprecedented thing. but obviously he put that case to the american people and the american people elected him. >> that's a big asset to them. president obama had -- he had been in the united states senate for practically a hot minute before he announced he would run for president. he'd been a state senator but i think people liked that, too. they liked the fact that they had somebody in 2008 and again in 2016 can arguably look them

in the eye especially given who their opponents were and say, i will go to washington as your president owing nobody anything. and i will work for you. it was a compelling argument for president obama in 2008, it was a compelling argument for donald trump in 2016. >> on national security issues you've got president-elect trump, though, without any national security or foreign policy or governing experience. you also have a secretary of state who only has private sector experience, no public service, no governing no diplomacy experience. you have a national security adviser who has raised some of the questions that i have about his judgment notwithstanding other things in his career but in terms of policy decisions that have been announced, i mean, monica crowley is someone i like very much from the cable news world. i met her in green rooms. and studios like. she's been just announced as possibly a spokesperson for the

national security council. >> she has a ph.d. in that field. >> she also has claimed publicly that barack obama, president obama is secretly not black. barack obama is not black, yet this guy is campaigning as black and painting anybody who dares criticize him as racist. that's the biggest con i've ever seen. it's one thing to talk like that in, you know, dummy cable news, this environment, or on -- you know, or on talk radio, which is where she made those remarks. but how could you put somebody who has a record of saying things like that as potentially the spokesperson or the deputy of the national security council? why aren't there more serious people being picked for these very critical roles on the most serious issue of all, which is national security? >> i have never heard that comment. i don't even know what that means. i heard you say it. >> it's amazing. >> i know monica. she's incredibly smart and incredibly thoughtful and deliberative in her work. and you're right, people say things on cable tv or talk radio sometimes that i guess they would take back, that probably applies to everyone.

>> never taken that back. and you guys have just given her an incredibly important national security job. >> she has a ph.d. and has worked with president nixon on other things. the president-elect has faith in her to be able to communicate what the national security agency is doing at a very fraught time. i do think you're cherry picking some appointments in that we've even been lauded by some of his naysayer and detractors as having put together -- he, not we. he's put together a cabinet of qualified men and women who have done great things in the private and public sector and are willing to share those persons -- experiences in the cabinet. i would just say, eight years ago at this time, i certainly -- i don't know about other people. were critical of the cabinet that was in formation because you want the new president, whoever the occupant is, to be able to take his time, maybe one day her time, to form that cabinet in a way that helps -- will help to execute on their agenda, on their vision for the

world and for the nation's economy and those who at least are giving the president a wide -- president-elect, excuse me, a wide berth and the deep breath to do i think will be very impressed with who he puts there in these various positions. >> kellyanne conway, stay right there. you can't leave. soon to be counselor to the president. first ever republican female campaign manager and the first woman to ever win a presidential campaign. she's here tonight for the interview. stay with us.

with my moderate to severe ulcerative colitis, 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.

here's some breaking news from "the wall street journal." just published tonight. i'm going to read it straight off the lead out of "the wall street journal." quote, president-elect donald trump's pick to run the health and human services department traded more than $300,000 in shares of health-related companies over the past four years while sponsoring and advocating legislation that potentially could affect those companies' stocks. congressman tom price, a georgia republican, bought and sold stock in about 40 health care, pharmaceutical and biomedical companies since 2012 including a dozen in the current congressional session, that's

according to a "wall street journal" review of hundreds of pages of stock trades. in the same two-year period he sponsored nine and co-sponsored 35 health-related bills in the house, his stocks includes amgen, bristol-myers squibb, eli lilly and pfizer and aetna. it was between 50 and $100,000 of an australian biomedical firm innate immunotherapyics whose largest shareholder is a gop congressman on the trump transition team. the stock has since doubled in price. joining us once again is the newly announced counselor to the trump campaign, kellyanne conway. thank you again. if the stock filings are accurate that "the wall street journal" is reporting on, your pick to head up health and human services in the cabinet was personally investing in companies while he was sponsoring legislation that could affect their stock price. if these stock filings are accurate, would that be a problem for you? >> i really -- i'm learning

about that while i'm sitting here so i'd have to learn more information. i don't even know what the rules are that govern the ability of members of congress to hold stocks. i take it they're getting the information from information he's filed. >> yeah. >> so it's not a lack of transparency or some furtive cover-up, it's information that he's put out there for everyone to see, which, a, i appreciate as a citizen. but b, i really -- what i know about tom price congressman, hhs designee, he's for free market patient centric health care that he's vote to repeal and replace the affordable care act many times because he believes and he hears from many people that reducing our quality and increasing our prices and reducing our choice and our access was really not was intended for many americans. some had coverage, some are very happy. many are not. i'm sure you saw the poll just this week that show two real lendses about part of the affordable care act of president obama's legacy. you have people saying it was

his greatest accomplishment and people saying it was his greatest failure. so on this particular -- >> another 6.something million people signing up and enrolling. >> that's right. >> if what "the wall street journal" is reporting and what they're reporting is not very complicated. he was trading in stock while sponsoring legislation that could have affected the price of that stock. is that the kind of ethical problem that would pose an issue for him in terms of being nominated? >> i looked at the code of ethics put out by the transition. a lot of it is about whether or not people can be lobbyists after they leave the administration and stuff like that way down the line, which will have a very hard time enforcing when it comes to it. but something like this. if he did this, if he was trading for his personal gain information that he had because he was a lawmaker. >> it doesn't say that. but does it say it's illegal? >> if it's a violation of the stock act, then presumably there will be an investigation of that. but if it wasn't technically

illegal but he was still affecting his symptom price through his work as a congressman, then buying that stock, that would be a problem. >> you just gave the democratic senators a good line of questioning to ask. i'm sure they're watching you. >> well done. well done. let me ask you something along the same lines. i'm not going to ask you about the president-elect's tax returns because that's very well-ready to ground. but he did release a financial disclosure form. >> 104 pages. >> in that financial disclosure, one of the lines on one of those 104 pages it says that he has between 3 and 15 million invested in a hedge fund that has placed a particularly big aggressive bet that fannie mae and freddie mac are going to be privatized. so he picks his treasury nominee last month. the day after he picks steven mnuchin to be his nominee, mnuchin says i want to privatize fannie mae and freddie mac and the stock goes fthrough the roo.

if donald trump is invested in the hedge fund, he just financially benefited to pretty significant amount with a multimillion dollar investment from what his treasury nominee said. >> first, i don't know if he still has that investment. >> can we know that? >> let me get back to you. >> it's important. >> because remember he has accountants and lawyers working literally around the clock to make sure that everything that needs to be done for a man who has been so brilliant and successful in business, unprecedented in modern times in our presidency, rachel, is sufficiently disentangled for him to take his job as president of the united states and focus on that 110%. secondly, i would expect the treasury secretary designee of a conservative republican president to say they would like to privatize fannie and freddie. i don't think that should strike anybody as brand-new information or tied to some investment. >> it wouldn't be controversial if we knew whether or not the president was going -- with every other president we've known. we've never even had to ask. you just look up and check to

see if the president had a financial entanglement where he would be personally benefiting. the issue here is we don't know. what trump has. "the new york times" directly asked the transition does he still hold this particular investment, which was directly affected by this announcement the day after he announced him. and the answer was we're not releasing this information at this time. that would be easy enough to announce. >> the third thing i want to say about that, though, that's a pretty small holding compared to everything that the man has -- >> 3 to 15 million. >> sounds like a lot of money to me and you, but the fact is that it's not a huge investment when you consider the idea that he would pick steve mnuchin to be the treasury secretary and say, hey, while you're out there, say you'd like to privatize fannie and freddie, an idea that many republicans and conservatives have had for a very long time. >> should we not be concerned about any private financial gain he might have from these transactions? >> no i didn't say that. what i'm saying is that the

presumptive guilt, the presumptive negativity -- >> it's a question. >> not necessarily by you, but by others, it's ubiquitous. the other thing i want to say is a lot of the stock market seems to like the fact that donald trump will be the next president. >> mazel tov. >> 20% -- excuse me it's up to 20,000, close to 20,000. it's had maybe a dozen or so gains in the days or maybe more by now since the day he was elected president. by the way, the opposite was predicted. first it was that he can never win, this is a joke, go home, there's no map, there's no path. we heard it on this network and elsewhere. then the minute he got elected literally he takes a call from secretary clinton. she concedes, everyone concedes and congratulates him. i was standing right there. and the stock market likes it the next couple of days. >> if you are going to short the expectations market, you will win in this environment. we can give that advice to everybody. but there is something unique going on here in addition to you guys winning and getting to brag about that. >> we're not bragging. >> and rub the naysayers' noses in it.

>> it's honestly not that. do i look like somebody who rubs people's noses in anything? >> look, government of azerbaijan, they rent out trump hotel suites at the trump hotel in washington, the president-elect makes money from that. when his building project gets green lit from the government in buenos aires, he makes money from that. >> well, his corporation does. >> yes. and he's the primary owner of his corporation. it's money for him. anybody who wants to, any foreign country, anyone can -- they now have the option basically to pay money to the american president by doing favors for this business that he owns. >> by renting a hotel room? i think that's so attenuated. by the way, the money goes to the corporation. >> corruption is still corruption. >> that's not corruption. that is not corruption. it's a hotel room. >> but if you want to give money to the president, the american president, we have never had a way to do that before. no foreign government has had a way to do that before. the american people special interests haven't had a way to funnel money to the american

president right now. >> who is funneling money to him? >> no, but you can through his business as long as he still has an ownership stake in it. >> he has said he won't be involved in his businesses when he takes the oath of office. >> but he'll still benefit from their financial bottom line. anybody who affects that is in effect paying the president. >> no. and look -- i disagree. and here's why. two things quickly. one is we've never had this situation before. it's unprecedented. it's hard to get an arm around. we have a politician moving from political office, to political office. we moved their lifetime pensions and great health care along with them. >> and their tax returns. it's amazing. >> the americans ended up not caring about that. they heard that. some of the -- >> that was vomited at me every single day by 50 people on tv, and nobody cared. >> vomited? >> that's how much it was said. >> tax returns. >> i asked you about it -- >> you're right. just sort of a metaphor. but the american people didn't care enough about that. but secondly remember when the trump corporation benefits from

a financial transaction, please don't leave people the impression that the money goes into donald trump's pocket. he employs tense of thousands of people -- >> hold on. he's the primary owner, he owns this corporation. it's not like people own a stock in it. right? >> at the moment. >> will he give up ownership? >> he said he will do whatever is necessary to comply with the law and the -- >> he's never said that he's going to give up ownership. are you making news here? >> no, i didn't say that. i said he will do whatever is necessary to comply with the law. >> as long as he owns it the benefit goes to his corporation. >> you just said something i thought was remarkable, actually. a lot of the things you say are frankly remarkable. you're very well prepared. >> thank you. >> and the democratic party could use that these days. they're in a bit of an identity crisis. you just said that there's never been a president that can financially benefit, that a foreign country can funnel money. i was like, ding, ding, ding, we had a secretary of state that did exactly that. she used the state department as

a concierge for foreign governments to dump money into the foundation. her husband gets a million bucks over in russia to give a speech, she gives up 20% of our uranium rights. >> you realize it was only yesterday they had to cancel the 500,000 hunting trip with the boys. >> guess what happens there? >> you guys made such a huge issue with that about the clinton foundation. and right now you've got ivanka sitting in on the meeting with the japanese prime minister while seeking funding from a japanese-owned bank. >> softbank, the 50 billion? >> no, nice try. the apparel deal she was seeking financing. >> she didn't discuss that with him. >> but she's there in the meeting. if you were going to make an issue of pay to play. >> where is it here? show me where it is here. because it was clearly on the americans' mind about hillary clinton and the state department. that's just obvious that hurt them. they can blame russian hacking and jim comey and poor bernie sanders who did a terrible thing of give people another

alternative. and he won 22 states and over 13 million votes. they can blame everyone they want to blame, the weather on election day. but the people cannot get past that honesty and integrity and veracity number that the obstacle that she had and a lot of that was embedded in -- >> you are no longer speaking for an active campaign. >> no, no. >> you're speaking for a president-elect who has an unprecedented problem. you have to hold on for a second. >> success. >> entanglements. i have to do business right now. kellyanne conway stays with us for just another moment. stay with us. without using your data. that makes you more powerful than a table for 60. wednesdays are the new thursdays! or the mandatory after party. how early is too early to leave? you're not going anywhere. i'm not going anywhere. it's your tv, take it with you. watch all your live directv channels, on at&t, data free.

♪ as soon as i became a parent i changed as a person,

drastically. ♪ i tried hard to quit smoking. ♪ but when we brought our daughter home that was it. ♪ now i have nicoderm cq. the nicoderm cq patch with unique extended release technology helps prevent your urge to smoke all day. it's the best thing that ever happened to me. can you say thanks nicoderm cq? every great why needs a great how.

we have one more segment to talk with kellyanne conway. she says yea. we didn't have to chain her to the desk. but we do have the zip cuffs ready. when we come back with kellyanne conway i'm going to introduce her to one of the people who i am most impressed with in this business, in the business that i am in. and that introduction is right after this. stay with us.

this is an unrequited thing but i'm just going to say it. there is a woman who i have always admired in this business who i never worked with directly. don't know her personally. but from a distance i always thought she was really impressive. long stretches reporting from the war in bosnia. more than 25 reporting trips to iraq starting with the initial invasion of iraq. one of the best iraq reporters we've had of either gender. she was the first reporter to get the scoop when abu musab al zarqawi was killed. she also wrote an incredibly moving, incredibly well reported book on the battle for sadr city in baghdad and what that was like for the first cavalry division fighting that house-to-house battle. and what it was like for the

first cav families back at home waiting for news while they were in this battle. she's the only american reporter to have reported in a combat mission from an f-16. she's operating at a totally different level in this business. i've never worked with her, but i've always admired her. she's really been through it. kellyanne conway is our guest for the interview. kellyan kellyanne, i'm raising this issue right here because here is how your boss has been talking about her in public. >> how about when a major anchor, who hosted a debate, started crying when she realized that we won. how about it? tears. no, tell me this isn't true. >> we know from the number of times he's told that story that he's talking about abc's martha raddatz there. martha raddatz did not in fact cry on election night. she did not say, no, tell me this isn't true. there were no tears streaming down her face.

it's wrong what he's saying about her. but what i'm bothered by is the way he's singling her out, not just with wrong information but singling her out. is this how even a reporter like martha raddatz is going to be treated by this president? >> no, and i would have updates but they're privately held. we've been discussing this with abc news. i talked to the president of abc news about this directly and i've talked to the president-elect. look, we all have enormous respect for martha raddatz as a journalist. everything you just said about her would get a plus one from me. and we do have enormous respect for her and her colleagues at abc news. anybody who watches just this past week the job she did sitting in for her colleague on "this week with george stephanopoulos," it was a tour de force in how you interview people right, left and center on issues you know something about. >> she's among the best we've got in this country. >> i completely agree with you. i would like to broaden the conversation if i may -- >> wait. are we going to get an apology

from the president-elect on that? he's telling a story about her that is not true and telling it to great effect and having people jeer her. will he correct that? >> apologies like that are not made publicly necessarily. >> but the accusation was made publicly. >> so the accusation was made by a number of people. i'm just telling you i have an gotten an update to what you presented there is what i'm saying and it would make you happy. in terms of his relationship with the press, i don't know anybody can disagree with the purely improvable fact that donald trump got more negative press coverage than anybody in modern political history. >> also quantifiably more press coverage than anybody in modern political history. >> his people were -- >> he was a phenomenon. >> -- the president. heck of a lot more interesting to cover. no doubt people wanted to cover him. but the negative press, the presumptive negative press and i'm somebody who is very pro press, i have good relations with most of the press, the print and electronic media.

but it is frustrating oftentimes if you're in trump world to not be able to get your message out which is why he ended up taking it directly to the american people. people would ridicule us for doing these rallies, but it was his way of being the master communicator, master connector he is of making people feel like they were part of his movement, not part of in garden variety politics. let me just say his way of cutting through the noise or cutting through the silence on an issue whatever the case was at a given time. >> it's on an issue just to stay specific to martha raddatz here, he did say something publicly that isn't true. until he corrects it public include, the people who heard it will continue to believe an untrue thing about a woman that doesn't deserve it. i have one more thing that i don't think you've ever commented on. peter thiel is part of the transition. he put a news organization out of business. he did not like how gawker.com covered him in silicon valley. so he funded a legal strategy against them. they got sued for over $100 million. it made that company go away. they no longer exist because

peter thiel sued them out of existence. the lawyer he used to do that is now representing melania trump in a lawsuit that she has filed against a blogger you've never heard of. she's filed $150 million lawsuit against a blogger. is that going to continue after inauguration? is the trump family going to try to sue to bankrupt news outlets and bloggers? >> that's not the goal here tp. the goal here is to collect the truth. >> to collect $150 million from that guy. >> no. i don't want anybody to leave here misinformed or misled that somehow he sued a company out of business. he filed a lawsuit. the judge and the jury heard all of the evidence. gawker didn't settle. >> ask him why he did it. he said he did it -- >> and he succeeded with apparently an excellent lawyer who now has been hired by mrs. melania trump who also has been

slandered and maligned and she has a right to defend herself. this woman is brilliant. anybody who -- anybody who -- anybody who underestimates her does so at their own peril. she'll make a wonderful first lady. will that lawsuit continue when she's first lady. >> i don't know where it is in the process right now. but she has a right to defend herself. >> this is a novel legal strategy. he's the one who pioneered it, he invented it. >> and he succeeded at it. with this lawyer. >> and it made a journalistic enterprise disappear. >> they made themselves disappear by not settling and by being arrogant going forward. that's how the legal system work. >> he accomplished what he set out to do. >> the man's an amazing success story. >> with the gawker thing, he set out to make gawker disappear and it worked. is the trump family now embracing that strategy? >> not at all.

melania trump, no, she's defending herself. and she got, i think, an unusual, if not unprecedented apology even though -- >> she got a retraction and now she's still pressing ahead with the lawsuit. >> well -- >> why press on with the lawsuit after the retraction? >> why is it okay to treat her that way, rachel? >> i'm not talking about her treatment. >> that's what this is about. if you're going to lie -- >> i have no opinion on the hulk hogan sex tape, but i do have an opinion on using a novel legal strategy to disappear journalistic enterprises. >> that's not what this is about. >> why use a lawyer? >> because he's effective. he does a great job. >> he's effective at this legal strategy. >> that was one type of case that he handled. but that's not the goal here. the goal here is to, i think, punish and to call out people who lie about melania trump. >> and a retraction isn't enough? even if you retract it the first family will continue to sue you? >> that's not first family. she's a private citizen.

>> first lady of the united states, if you retract, you get it wrong, you apologize and you retract it, you will continue to be sued perhaps as an individual for over $100 million? that will continue. >> do you think an apology and retraction undoes the damage? when humpty dumpty falls off the wall -- >> you guys are endorsing the -- >> i'm not saying that. i'm not defending it. i'm defending her right to sue people who spread lies and vicious lies about her. >> if the trump family believes -- >> i got a great novel strategy, stop lying about melania trump. >> every president not only in the modern era, every president back to the beginning of newsprint has believed that the press has lied about them a. i've never seen a first family or his family members trying to put newspapers out of business. >> rachel -- he's not trying to do that. he's not trying to do that.

that's not her lawsuit. her lawsuit is suing someone, suing a publication that lied about her. >> are they going to do that to everybody? >> are people going to stop lying about them? and she didn't file that lawsuit as a first lady. she filed that as a private citizen. >> will it continue -- >> are people going to continue to lie about her? >> presumably the first family will continue to believe that people are lying about them. all presidents do. will the lawsuit -- >> it doesn't even come close. do you know what we were discussing eight years ago around this time, not you and me, necessarily. do you know what the country was discussing eight years ago? we weren't discussing all the negative -- any negative stuff that was associated with president-elect obama. it was basically what will they wear to the inaugural, what will he try to push through? it's just different for the trumps. and you know it. but as a private citizen is being lied about, i'm very proud of her, i'm proud of her as someone who admires her, who knows her and proud as a woman

who gets sick and tired of watching other women torn down in the press, especially a public figure like that. i'm proud of her for pushing forward with that lawsuit. she got a retraction, an apology. is the damage undone? do you think you can't pull up that story somewhere? i bet you can pull it up right now on your computer. the damage is always there. >> are you glad that gawker's gone? >> i haven't paid much attention to it. am i glad that they're gone? >> do you think if somebody lies about the first family, you see it as a lie, would you want that news enterprise to be gone in punishme punishment? >> no. >> this conversation that we had will be taught in journalist classes. >> i have a quick addendum to that. i certainly don't want them gone. but i also want the legal process to take its regular course without interruption from anyone else. so if the lawsuit includes a judgment, if the verdict includes a judgment that puts said gawker out of business because they did not settle or they did not protect their assets or they did -- if that's

the result, that may not have been the intention. but in this case the man is brilliant. >> kellyanne conway. >> thanks for having me here. >> i hope we continue to do this. you said once we spoke that i would get to speak to your candidate. you owe me one. >> he did want me to tell you, i told him last week i was coming on your show this week. he told me he was so happy. i talked to him two days ago make sure you announce on her show you're coming into the white house. i'm sure he's watching. >> congratulations. >> thank you very much. appreciate it. >> we're way over time. we'll be right back. sorry. but there will still be pain. it comes when your insurance company says they'll only pay three-quarters of what it takes to replace it. what are you supposed to do? drive three-quarters of a car? now if you had liberty mutual new car replacement™, you'd get your whole car back. i guess they don't want you driving around on three wheels. smart. with liberty mutual new car replacement™, we'll replace the full value of your car. liberty stands with you™. liberty mutual insurance.

g new cars. you're smart. you already knew that. but it's also great for finding the perfect used car. you'll see what a fair price is, and you can connect with a truecar certified dealer. now you're even smarter. this is truecar.

keeping the power lines clear,my job to protect public safety, while also protecting the environment. the natural world is a beautiful thing, the work that we do helps us protect it. public education is definitely a big part of our job, to teach our customers about the best type of trees to plant around the power lines. we want to keep the power on for our customers. we want to keep our community safe. this is our community, this is where we live. we need to make sure that we have a beautiful place for our children to live. together, we're building a better california.

where does the time go? i want to thank the trump transition. i want to thank kellyanne conway personally for agreeing to come in here and talk to me. i cannot get a lot of republican and republican operatives, let alone people involved in high-level republican politics to have a conversation with me.

i know everybody wants blood on the floor. what i want is a way to hash things out in a way that is civil and confrontational when it needs to be, and i appreciate kellyanne conway being willing to have that conversation with me. thank you. >> they openly declare war against each other. >> we know they're preparing themselves for battle. >> in the back pages of the phone book here. you have names and numbers. why? >> because they're my homies. >> the guys i talk to say they'll do anything about it. they'll retaliate.