Skip to main content

tv   With All Due Respect  Bloomberg  March 4, 2015 5:00pm-5:31pm EST

5:00 pm
greg with older respect to ben carson, do not pass go, do not collect $200. on the show tonight, the bush money emporium, hillary clinton, boring but first, e-mail. this story is not dying. how is this controversy most hurting hillary clinton's presidential prospects? phil: i see two points.
5:01 pm
subpoenas are now coming out of this like they know the committee to her staff. even if they don't find damaging e-mails related to benghazi a male strictly between her and her staff, not a lot of good will come out of that. mark: a lot of people will say this is horrible, but right now it's a baseball story. she has to launch a campaign in the midst of something that is not in the anytime soon. it's bad. and what they are worried about is if she gets off on the wrong foot. she wants people to be thinking something new about her. and this is deja vu all over again, the kind of clinton scandal that is inexplicable to other democrats totally alienating to journalists she needs to court, and it fires up republicans to say she's vulnerable. and that is what republicans need more than anything the next year. collects -- phil: is this still
5:02 pm
sticking with her? mark: i don't see how it goes away. even if she had a press conference tomorrow and said here is why i did it this way. here are the mistakes i made. here are all the e-mails for you to read that do not impinge on national security. even then, people will say you showed poor judgment, and how do we know that is all the e-mails? she could have controlled the server. she could have done anything she wanted with these e-mails and no one could have stopped her stop phil: -- no one could have stopped her phil. phil: if she holds a press come tomorrow, how many people will believe her? mark: none. phil: the bus was buzzing and the magic was in the air dedicated to electing them into office. this is what they got. >> i'm still in the grandmother
5:03 pm
glow. six months in, it's better than a spot treatment. i highly recommend it. my grandfather was a factory worker started at the age of 11, worked until he was 65, and got to retire. yes, we have to work on macro issues, but also macaroni and cheese issues, too. phil: if you missed the whole speech, here is the ti -- tld our version. it was the banner version of the folk with the ed norton version of the hulk. they were not very interesting hulks. mark: there were things she said last night that were inspirational, particularly for women who would like to see a female candidate. but if this e-mail candidate was not going on, people would be saying high profile most home-court advantage she could have and that was not the speech people wanted to hear.
5:04 pm
who do you want in your liver and for four years? -- in your living room for four years? she was flat and slow. at her best moments she was not that interesting. i fell asleep twice during this week -- the speech. but i would not fall asleep during a bill clinton or george bush or barack obama speech. if that's the best she's got, the country will be sick of listening to her after a few months. phil: she was testing things in her last couple of appearances. was there no desire to test? mark: that crowd was ready to cheer and moved and holler, as you said, and it was a sedate thing. i find her to be a compelling person with compelling ideas. i really do. but if that is her most compelling at this point, i think unless the republicans nominate a piece of plywood mothers a good chance the
5:05 pm
american people will say, i would rather listen to that person for four years then someone i would listen -- i have listened to for a long time. phil: ask jokes, can't do it. mark: turning to washington -- phil: macaroni jokes, can't do it. mark, turning to washington, apparently team just does not want the supersized whales to make the regular jumbo whales feel that. that is just one of the unexpected twist in this sweepstakes. what is the most significant difference between 2015 and 2012? phil: lack of fear. jeb bush's super pac and pac are the same name. everyone was very concerned how they would navigate this legal thicket in 2012. that has changed. there is able in this go all out for your super pac.
5:06 pm
mark: and including events. mitt romney went to three fundraising events. president i think went to two. jeff bush has already gone to more than that -- president i think went to two. jeb bush has already gone to more than that. this time, people are doing all they want, except jeb bush apparently self-limiting on this one area, i think my for pr purposes. phil: how is it that you have to tell your donors, no, no, that is too much money? keep it buried away? it's a good life full -- it's a good life. obamacare is back in the supreme court and so far, the only does that has emerged is this, it is still totally ridiculous they do not allow cameras in the courtroom. if obamacare goes down, which the case might lead to republicans are willing to -- ready to win on the politics i.
5:07 pm
mark: the parties better positioned to deal with the politics of obama care than it ever has been and they still might lose. it's complicated, but they've gotten religion on enough stuff about how to message is how to be substantive, how to identify leaders to talk about it. i think the party is as ready as it possibly could be if the supreme court asked. phil: here is what no one can answer for me. if they have to act, and presumably they what if the supreme court takes the plaintiffs side on this what is the policy on this? senate republicans had won op-ed and house republicans had a different op-ed. mark: boehner and mcconnell are going to say, obamacare will be destroyed unless you sit down and agree to some concessions. i don't think the president will at first blush. if this thing cannot survive because of the way the market will work and of people lose their subsidies, they can give
5:08 pm
him a lot, pre-existing conditions, lifetime caps, and maybe keep the thing together. phil: i'm skeptical. mark: coming up, a man who almost sort of officially speak for hillary clinton. sayonara for now. ♪
5:09 pm
5:10 pm
mark: our guest tonight is affiliated with and runs a number of organizations that are all for hillary clinton and her looming presidential campaign. he's a tactician and a man who love stopped in city. david brock, thank you for joining us. david: thank you for having me on. mark: first question, and fill in i will stop you if we think you are misunderstanding or not answering what we are asking. we will be interesting, so get ready. trent heresy and accountability -- you care about transparency and accountability and have your
5:11 pm
whole career. do you think you worry about the way hillary clinton has acted as secretary of state? i want you to say this sentence hillary handled her e-mail practices at the state department weekly. david: yeah, she handled her e-mail at the state department perfectly. i agree with that. phil: david, just a simple question. why didn't she use government e-mail? it seems simple. david: i cannot answer that for the secretary. i can say what i think maybe the case that it was a smarter easier way to work. and there are some security experts out there -- i am not one -- who say the personal e-mail system that was set up may have also been safer and more secure. mark: david, you are speculating. you do not know why she used -- didn't use the state department
5:12 pm
e-mail. david: no, i don't. mark: the state department has said in the past couple of days that they cannot be sure the -- that secretary clinton hand over -- that secretary clinton handed over all her e-mails. she did eventually hanover a lot of e-mails. if karl rove has said, i handed them all over, trust me, would you trust karl rove if that is what he said? david: secretary clinton is the head of the agency and the way i understand the way the law works, it is the call of the agency to turn over what is relevant or pertinent. i trust that she did that. mark: but if karl rove had a private e-mail server at the white house, never used white house e-mail, and wrote all of his e-mails on and in the white house said we would like you to hand over all
5:13 pm
e-mails that were relevant would you trust him to an over the batch that would be complete or have questions? david: i might have questions and i don't think there is anything wrong with asking questions. more: why should the press and the public trust that hillary clinton on e-mails that she totally controlled and could have deleted or withheld if she wanted to, why should we trust that she handed them all over? david: i think because there is no evidence of any wrongdoing and i don't know of any allegations of wrongdoing. mark: there was the allegation that it was improper for her to do e-mails that she controlled because then it's up to her to decide what she wants to hand over. david: who is saying that? mark: i saying that. i'm saying i wonder why as the head of the state department, as jay carney said the policy of the government was to not use personal e-mail for government activities, i'm saying it was in the public interest to have an official e-mail relevant to her
5:14 pm
duties in the government record. how do we know she handed them all over? are we saying that america should trust her judgment? are you saying america should blindly trust her judgment about what needed to be turnover and what -- turned over and what was she was obligated to turn over? david: i think the fact that 55,000 pages of e-mail returned over, and they were preserved under the law. mark: there might have been 255,000 pages. we do not know. david: my understanding is there was nine out of 10 e-mails turnover. mark: had we now? that is not the way government accountability works. they are saying nine out of 10. you are saying we should just trust her. david: you can speculate all night about what has gone on
5:15 pm
here. all we know is that you are not right that the law said she needed to do this through government accounts. that is not correct. mark: that is what jay carney the white house spokesman for her boss said. david: if that is what he said, i don't have that quotation in front of me. mark: in 2011, jay carney said u.s. government policy, all of our government work is conducted on government e-mail accounts. david: that was not the case, i guess. do you think the white house did not know that terry clinton was using her snatch that secretary clinton was using personal e-mail? mark: i don't know and neither do you. phil: do you think it would be helpful for her to come out and talk about this? some arts -- are surprised it was not brought up last night. she has let this to you. why doesn't she just come out? would that be helpful? david: the reason we are here now is because of a false story in the "new york times."
5:16 pm
i don't know why she would have to address that. phil: i get what you're saying, but if people are skeptical that nine out of 10 e-mails, or even eight out of 10 e-mails were turnover, how can you trust that? wouldn't it be easier for her to trust -- to come out and squash that right now and say, here is what happen and put it to bed? david: i don't think so. i'm not quite grasping what people skepticism means here. we have the facts. we know what the facts are. mark: here is a fact. she held onto those e-mails that she was solely in control of 423 months. david: -- fo 20r three months. david: is that right? because i thought the state department had said that the state department had received them last november. mark: she held onto them for 23 months.
5:17 pm
is that a reasonable amount of time? david: yes, the state department came and asked for them and they asked other secretaries of state and as far as i know, she's the only one who disgorged 55,000 pages of e-mail. there is nothing inappropriate about it. mark: one describes it as having an elaborate damage control operation much like john kennedys. that was you. david: [laughs] i don't know when i said that. mark: do they still have such a thing? david: i don't know when i said that. mark: they don't have an elaborate damage control operation? david: no. mark: i consider you such a thing. david: we put out the fact of the public make up their mind. mark: david, vacant for coming in. we would like you to come back at the story comes forward.
5:18 pm
-- thank you for coming in. we would like to have you back as the story comes forward. we will be right back. ♪
5:19 pm
5:20 pm
>> i made a lot of money, but they didn't tell me i was going to do 20 years in prison. they didn't tell me that in her of me to drive a big car with big wheels on it that some alleles with kids kid would go hungry. i had never read a book and never try to read a book. in my neighborhood, it wasn't. >> he's on the road today, but john heilemann recently sat down with mark levin, the director of that documentary, which also happens to be about some of john's favorite subjects, los angeles, reading, and drugs lots of drugs. here's the conversation. john: tell us why you decided to
5:21 pm
make this story about this guy. the story is incredible. and let's talk about some of the issues. >> i first heard of some of the government complicity back in the iran-contra affair. i was a tv producer and at the iran-contra hearings. that was the first time i ever heard people chanting "cia means crack in america and i carry web who wrote a series of articles called dark alliance, who blew the up -- means crack in america" and i wrote a series of articles called dark alliance. and i met a tennis player, and a jock and he kept saying get your but out here to texarkana and i will show you something. i eventually did get out there and met with rick.
5:22 pm
unfortunately, the bush administration decided the one tennis court was a luxury producers -- prisoners did not deserve. and rick ross learned to read in prison. john: he was busted and put in prison, 20 years to life. marc: he was life without parole. i remember leaving the prison that day in texas and thinking how remarkable it is that he has learned to read and that he's gotten case law, but chances of overturning a federal life without parole sentence are like one in 100. and he called me and said i told you i'm getting out. i'm on my way to delay on the bus. -- two l.a. on the bus. let's make that movie. john: he found a procedural problem in his career -- in his conviction, which he was able to alert lawyers to and get it overturned. marc: that is correct. john: he now preaches the
5:23 pm
virtues of literacy to at-risk kids. marc: that is correct. these kids sit mesmerized as he talks will stop you send in some political leaders, church leaders, educators, and everybody is going to be fidgeting and nodding out. you see what kind of attention he gets. you can reach kids who most need the help. john: this story could seem like history in some sense because it comes from an era in south central los angeles when the crack epidemic was at its height. but you also look at mass incarceration of african americans and the militarization of police, some pertinent issues that are topical today. marc: absolutely. the film will be showing this coming sunday at the closing ceremonies at the 50th anniversary of the selma march in selma, alabama. and some people say, mlk to the king of crack, what is the connection? but this whole mass incarceration of young men of
5:24 pm
color, the drug wars's effect the spread of games, the militarization of -- the spread of gangs the militarization of police, this is how we got here. we are finally where maybe politically for the first time you see both republicans and democrats cory booker and rand paul, both saying this has got to stop. john: and it is -- a lot of people have referred to the mass incarceration of especially black males. the number in prison if higher than any place in the world except south africa. some people refer to it as the new jim crow. marc: in 1980, there were 41,000 inmates on drug charges. today there is over 500,000. this is the new struggle. eddie ellis, who was in the attic uprising once said the story of the african-american male is from the plantations to the projects to the prisons.
5:25 pm
the fact that we have imprisoned so many and that our schools fail and then where do they go to learn? prison. i think this is the new civil rights movement. it's hard to believe, but sometimes the people who have lifted have the most credibility in talking to others at risk of why they should change. -- who have lived it at the most critical of the in talking to others at risk of why they should change. john: although change is going to be hard in this area, it has reached the top of the pop-culture pyramid. this is something we are talking about from the stage at the academy awards to millions of people. marc: i was moved, the fact that he brought up that we are a nation that incarcerates so many of our own people. the bottom line is, we know that drugs are bad. but someone in the document resettlement drugs are bad, but the drug war is worse. john: and when you have a bunch of white people that only see minimal prison time at best, this story is an inspirational
5:26 pm
story because of that, but also because rick ross has treated story around and has become a model citizen. marc: absolutely, and he can still hit a mean tennis all. john: documentary comes out this sunday night. it is in two parts, two hours each. mark: we will be right back with quite possibly the most contrite thing from rahm emanuel we've ever seen. ♪
5:27 pm
5:28 pm
phil: in kindergarten, the teacher sometimes you should just say you're sorry. we're not sure if from a 90 school that day, but that's ok. he has -- if rahm emanuel was in school that day, but that's ok. he has produced a video. rahm emanuel: i can rub people the wrong way or talk when i should listen. i own that.
5:29 pm
more: it will be interesting to see. it makes me think he thinks he might lose. we are life 24-7 on up next, taking stock. this time, for real, sayonara. ♪
5:30 pm
tim: -- pimm fox: before the care act is before the u.s. supreme court. the nine justices heard argument focusing on obamacare back -- accessories. a decision to limit the tax credits might challenge the legality of president obama's landmark legislation. one attorney general said that is the thing to do. quite this is a law that needs to be opened up and we need to start over and a lot of state of ideas about how to help people. pimm:


info Stream Only

Uploaded by TV Archive on