Skip navigation

'Up with Steve Kornacki' for Saturday, August 1st, 2015

Read the transcript to the Saturday show

Show: UP with STEVE KORNACKI
Date: August 1, 2015
Guest: Ana Marie Cox, Peter Suderman, Sabrina Siddiqui, Anthony Terrell,
Robert Costa


(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

STEVE KORNACKI, MSNBC HOST: Disclosure day for Hillary.

All right. Good morning. Thanks for getting UP with us. This is the
first day of August, 2015. Your Friday afternoon document, dump Hillary
Clinton releasing eight years of tax returns, also medical records and a
third batch of e-mails yesterday, all of this while striking back against
"The New York Times" for last week`s report about those e-mails. We`re
going to have all the details on that in just a minute.

Meanwhile, the heatwave continues its grip on much of the country today
with only five days to go until the Republicans in the race for the White
House start feeling the heat up on a stage with Donald Trump for that first
debate. We`re going to be looking ahead to that showdown in Cleveland.
Plus, much more over the next two hours. But we begin this morning with
that big disclosure for Hillary Clinton. That day of disclosures for
Hillary Clinton, releasing eight years of tax returns, medical records and
also the State Department releasing a third batch of e-mails from the
private server she used when she was secretary of state.

NBC`s Pete Williams joins us now with more on what we found out yesterday.
So Pete, yes, new e-mails to talk about, medical records, taxes, all sorts
of information from Hillary Clinton yesterday. What are the headlines?

PETE WILLIAMS, NBC NEWS JUSTICE CORRESPONDENT: So, we`ll start with the
taxes. The campaign released the tax returns jointly filed by Bill and
Hillary Clinton since 2007. Bottom-line here, they showed the Clintons
earned $140 million. They paid almost 44 million in federal taxes, which
is a tax rate of 35.7 percent. But they also paid $14 million in state and
local taxes and they say when you put that together, that makes for a
combined overall tax rate during that period of 45.8 percent. And their
records also show that since 2007, the Clintons have contributed nearly $15
million to charity.

As for the medical records, she is the first candidate this year to
disclose information about her health. Not actual medical records
themselves, but instead, a letter from her doctor. He says her physical
condition is excellent. He says though she takes blood thinners after
getting some blood clots, she is fully recovered from that concussion that
she suffered in December 2012 after fainting. And as for the e-mails, it
turns out that many in this batch were heavily blacked out, marked that way
just this week by the State Department as confidential. That`s the lowest
federal classification level. The classification levels go confidential,
secret, top secret. That would suggest that Secretary Clinton was not
aware when she sent or received those e-mails as secretary of state that
their content might later be considered classified. But in terms of the e-
mails themselves, we didn`t really see much.

KORNACKI: All right. NBC`s Pete Williams with the latest on the
disclosure day for the Clintons. Appreciate that. And the release of that
third batch of 1300 e-mails that Pete was just talking about there from
Hillary Clinton during her time as secretary of state, this comes as her
campaign was also going after "The New York Times" for its story about
Clinton`s e-mails, a story that contains several key inaccuracies. That
story which was published a week ago initially claimed that the Department
of Justice had launched a criminal investigation into Clinton`s private e-
mail account. It also suggested that Clinton herself was a target of that
investigation. Neither of those claims held up, though, and the story had
to be corrected multiple times.

The paper`s public editor calling it, quote, "Fraught with Inaccuracies."
The Clinton campaign turning up the heat then by releasing a scathing
letter to the "Times" quoting from it. But not all of it. Since it`s
about 2,000 words long. "The New York Times" is arguably the most
important news outlet in the world and it rushed to put an erroneous story
on the front page charging that a major candidate for president of the
United States was the target of a criminal referral to federal law
enforcement. Literally, hundreds of outlets followed your story creating a
firestorm that had a deep impact that cannot be unwound. The times took an
explicable let alone indefensible delay in correcting the story, and
removing criminal from the headline and text of the story. Talk about the
Clintons` war on "The New York Times" here, what they say is "The New York
Times" war on the Clintons, talk to today`s panel.

We have with us Ana Marie Cox, contributor with "The Daily Beast." Peter
Suderman, senior editor at Reason Magazine. And Sabrina Siddiqui,
political reporter at "The Guardian."

So, a lot of disclosure yesterday. A lot of sort of document dumps from
the Clintons. But I want to start on this back and forth with "The New
York Times." I mean, the "Times" had this report now over a week ago about
Clinton and her emails and saying there`s this investigation. They walked
that back. The public editor of the paper took them to task. And then,
three or four days after that, the Clinton campaign brings the story back
and goes after "The New York Times." So, what`s going on here, Sabrina?

SABRINA SIDDIQUI, THE GUARDIAN: Well, look, I think that they do feel that
this story has done not irreparable damage but the kind of damage that can
be so easily reversed. There were hundreds of outlets that followed the
story that then raised the question of whether or not there was a criminal
investigation. And the word criminal is of course so significant because
she is struggling with low numbers for her trustworthiness even though
she`s doing fairly well overall as a presidential contender. But that is
one of the main obstacles for them is making sure that her image and her
favorability remains at a decent poll rating. So, these kinds of stories
do a lot of damage when they don`t believe that there is a smoking gun in
the whole e-mail story and "The New York Times," according to them, was
trying to create one.

KORNACKI: They`re saying they`re not getting a fair shake from the press
here. Do you think that`s true?

ANA MARIE COX, THE DAILY BEAST: You know, it`s interesting, it`s an
interesting question. I mean, I think in general the coverage of the
Clinton`s desk is problematic. I think this particular case it must have
felt kind of good almost for the Clintons to be able to have a specific
thing that other people agreed with unfair coverage. That there are people
out there, their media critics out there that agree that the Times really
did a lot of like individually -- had some individual errors in there that
just piled on each other until they basically had to walk on this entire
story back. And I think you pointed out a really interesting point on it,
which is that they decided to go ahead and resurrect this story and to
write this letter and to come off with this tone at "The New York Times"
where another campaign might choose to let it slide. And I wonder if it`s
because at this point they realize that since that word criminal is already
out there, that they have to fight back with a lot -- as much firepower as
they have. And they`re not going to lose anything by fighting back.

SIDDIQUI: They`ve created their own way of responding to the media called
the briefing that`s kind of approach that the campaign has applied to show
some more savvy. They have a whole system online where they almost are
doing their own press. Because they don`t feel like they`re getting a fair
shake. So, in these situations where they feel like there`s unwarranted
scrutiny and just factually inaccurate information, instead of trying to
get the media to correct the record, they`re correcting it themselves.

KORNACKI: Well, and I guess in sports here, they would call this working
the reps. Right? I mean, every campaign in a certain extent is doing
this, they`re trying to -- if you make a mistake, if a media outlet makes a
mistake, you get all over them and you hope that next time, they`re going
to err on the side of maybe being a little bit more restrained in their
coverage of you. Do you think this has this effect whether you`re talking
about "The New York Times" here or any other outlets going forward? Do you
think the Clintons are maybe shaping the coverage going forward by doing
this?

PETER SUDERMAN, REASON MAGAZINE: I absolutely think so. And I think the
reason you work the reps is not to get the call that you don`t like
reversed. It`s so the next calls will be made in your favor. And I think
that it`s possible that in the long-term, this ends up being good for
Hillary Clinton because what they have basically said to "The New York
Times" is that you have to come to us, you have to wait for our response.
It was a big part of their complaint was they didn`t work with the
campaign, they didn`t get -- give the campaign nearly enough time to
respond and to look at the story. And so, I think that it is quite likely
that "The New York Times," which is an incredibly influential news source
in a lot of ways. And "The New York Times" will end up covering the
Hillary Clinton campaign in a way that is more careful and more deferential
to campaign -- to Hillary Clinton going forward.

COX: Until they don`t.

(LAUGHTER)

It comes in like a living sport is often a good analogy for politics. And
I just want to point out, there`s some people online that were sniping that
only losers work the reps. That that`s always a sign that you`re losing.
Is that you`re truly -- and that`s just not true winners actually work the
reps, they work them better. That`s how it works.

KORNACKI: We used to work the reps all the time. He was definitely --
many things but not a loser.

COX: This is actually -- I think Sabrina is correct. I mean, I think that
we`re seeing sort of interesting evaluation of the Hillary campaign in
their ability to be disciplined with their anger and not simply sort of
just like, I don`t want to use the wrong adjective here or the wrong verb.
But I think that in general, they have become disciplined in the way they
do this. And have said, I agree, we will do this ourselves if you guys
won`t do it. It avoids a lot of the sniping back and forth which can look
unattractive if you already have a negative disposition towards someone.

KORNACKI: Sabrina, you`re talking about just the damage of the initial
headline in the context of there`s been so much controversy about the e-
mails, about the private server, just two decades of coverage about the
Clintons and trustworthiness. So, yesterday, in addition to this, she`s
putting out tax records, she`s putting out medical records. We`re going to
have monthly releases of e-mails from the State Department. Probably
they`re going to last throughout this campaign. We have that to look
forward to. Do the Clintons -- does Hillary Clinton score any points?
Does she win back any of the ground she`s lost on trustworthiness by doing
the sorts of things she did yesterday or does she get no credit for that?

SIDDIQUI: Well, I think that they do want to be as open and transparent as
they can be in this process. Obviously, there`s a lot that because of the
fact that this is a private e-mail server and that controversy has at least
gained a little bit of traction. Probably it`s not the key traction that`s
going to be a deciding factor I feel in the election if there`s no real
smoking gun, like I said earlier, which there hasn`t been thus far. But I
think for them, what they want to do is get out ahead of the cycle as much
as they can and try to control the narrative as much as they can. So, it`s
important for them to release the information that they can at a time when
Republicans are attacking for them being secretive and for not being
forthcoming with the American public.

I will say that, you know, I said she`s struggling in terms of honesty and
trustworthiness in some of these polls. But again, she`s pulling
significantly higher than any potential democratic challenger for the
party`s nomination and she`s still doing fairly well in head to head with
most of the republican candidates. It`s showing that at least right now it
will be a tough election battle. And I don`t think they`re taking it for
granted. But it`s not like this has really undone her campaign. There`s
no indication that that`s happened.

Well, right. And I mean, we have the example of her husband, of bill in
the 1980s, he won two elections with the majority of the country saying,
they didn`t consider him trustworthy. So, we`ve shown in American policy,
you can win if you`re not considered trustworthy, at the same time, all
things being equal, you`d like to be considered trustworthy. I just
wondered, after two decades, is this something that somebody named Clinton
actually can reverse or is that set in stone? I mean, for 20 years of the
Clintons and trustworthiness.

SUDERMAN: What you`re seeing here is that they`re owning their combative
relationship with the media. And that is something that there have been a
couple of attempts to say, we`re resetting, we`re going to have a nice soft
friendly relationship with the media. That`s not what`s going to happen.
They`re not going to play the media`s game the way the media wants them to
at least. And so, I mean, it`s in Hillary Clinton`s interests here to
bring up a story that "The New York Times" got wrong and to make the story
that "The New York Times" got it wrong and that "The New York Times" are
out to get Hillary Clinton. And that`s what they want to remind people of.
Not the story of, you know, not the sort of the initial story but the fact
that "The New York Times" got it wrong and that "The New York Times" seems
to have been in some ways unfair in the way they treated the campaign and
too quick to pull the trigger on a story that wasn`t right.

COX: And it`s not so much even working the reps on this one. If they can
instill on everyone who already a suspicious of the media, that "The New
York Times" in particular did a bad job of covering them, then the next
"New York Times" story, no matter what it is, people who are already in
Hillary Clinton`s favor just going to assume that there`s something wrong -
-

KORNACKI: You establish the pattern, you establish what looks like a
pattern and then everybody starts looking at things through the prism of
that pattern.

Anyway, still ahead, Hillary Clinton going after Jeb Bush. A surprise
attack on the campaign trail yesterday. We`ll going to tell you what she
said, what he said in return and why she did that. But first, why someone
who looked like a top 2016 candidate may be headed toward an early exit.
Stay with us.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

KORNACKI: Political stocks rise and fall over the course of a primary
season. Donald Trump has enjoyed a surge over the past couple of months
the top of the GOP polls. Ohio Governor John Kasich who just got in the
race and starting to move up a little bit in the polls, he could be at the
beginning of his own surge. But in this falling stock category, well,
these negative headlines this week belong to the Rand Paul campaign.
Politico describing an underfunded and understaffed campaign beaten down by
low morale. Calling Paul an undisciplined politician who wasn`t willing to
do what it took to win. A man who obsessed over trivial matters like
flight times peppered aides with the men for more time off from
campaigning.

Paul`s campaign responding to the Politico report, quote, "The Washington
spin machine has never understood how campaigns work. We won`t play their
games and we won`t be distracted." Adding, quote, "This campaign is built
for the long haul." It was less than a year ago that Time put Rand Paul on
its cover and called him the most interesting man in American politics.
The expectations for his presidential campaign were very high back then.
He was going to take that libertarian base his father has built, he was
going to expand it and he was going to bring it into the mainstream. But
so far, Ran Paul`s campaign is falling short of those expectations. And
with 16 other candidates, he risks getting lost in the muddle. Is he one
great debate performance from turning it all around or are his problems
much deeper.

MSNBC`s Anthony Terrell was an embed on the Rand Paul campaign in 2012.
He`s well sourced in the Rand Paul world. He joins us now with the panel.

So, Anthony, they say, look, all these -- out there right now, we are built
for the long haul. You know the inner workings of the Paul world a little
bit. Is this campaign built for the long haul?

ANTHONY TERRELL, NBC NEWS CAMPAIGN EMBED REPORTER: Well, I spoke to a
couple of people in Iowa last night in this morning. And they were saying
the same thing that they`re focused on the caucus. Usually emphasis is
placed on the straw poll which is going to be next weekend. Supposed to be
next weekend. And now they can focus on their emphasis on the caucuses.
So, he`s been campaigning in the early states as they point to yesterday.
Senator Paul is in five events in Iowa today. He has another event. He`s
taking batting practice at the Quad City River Bandits. So, he`s
interacting with Iowans. But they said they`ve been focused on the debate.
That`s the next big thing. A lot of people are standing in for Donald
Trump.

KORNACKI: How is Rand Paul? We haven`t seen, we`re used to seeing Rand
Paul in debates and he has sort of a quirky presence. How is Rand Paul
going to be on a stage like that?

TERRELL: Well, he`s had a couple people standing in for Donald Trump and
others in between his day job. He`s doing debate prep. But he says
interacting with people in Iowa, it`s helping him. A lot of his issues
have gone mainstream, the privacy issue has gone mainstream, criminal
justice reform as you can see has gone mainstream in the Republican Party.
So, although he`s not at the top of the polls, his issues are now being
talked about amongst other Republicans. Something else to point out, this
time in 2011, Rick Santorum was polling at three percent, Newt Gingrich at
four percent. They both ended up winning Iowa, the other --

KORNACKI: In general elections, the campaign that`s always losing says but
Harry Truman was losing until the end. And I`m hearing from every campaign
losing now. Rick Santorum, two percent.

TERRELL: That`s right.

KORNACKI: We put a little asterisk next to that. But it`s fair to point
that out. I want to play a bit of Rand Paul. He was on CBS last Sunday.
He was asked about the state of his campaign and this is what Rand Paul had
to say about that.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SEN. RAND PAUL (R), KENTUCKY: But I think we`re still doing quite well.
We haven`t gotten quite the same attention recently. But I think when you
look at my polling against Hillary Clinton, I actually lead her in five
states won by President Obama. We even lead Hillary Clinton in
Pennsylvania, which hasn`t been won by a republican in a long time. So, I
think actually our candidacy, which I`m billing as a different kind of
republican, we`re pretty happy where we are.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

KORNACKI: Well, Peter let me ask you about this. Reason Magazine, you
have some overlap with Rand Paul on some of his issues. I look at the
polls we`re seeing right now and one thing that jumps out at me, is Ron
Paul, there was always the ceiling that Ron Paul had. He couldn`t get past
20, 25 percent in his primaries. Rand Paul doesn`t seem to even be getting
the Ron Paul base right now. When I`m seeing, I`m seeing it four, five
percent in the polls. The Ron Paul base was bigger than that. What do you
make of that?

SUDERMAN: I think that ultimately Rand Paul`s potential is much bigger.
But I think in the early going, the Ron Paul folks are not going to be
quite as excited about someone like Rand Paul who is playing the republican
primary game. A lot more conventionally than Ron Paul ever did. I also
think that part of Rand Paul`s current struggles if you want to call them
that, are just due to the structure of the republican primary race where
early on, the first six months is basically a race for Iowa. And Iowa is
not a great state for a guy like Rand Paul who doesn`t -- who is less
hawkish, who is not a fan of ethanol subsidies, who is not -- while
socially conservative, is not sort of evangelical first. It doesn`t front
that as part of his appeal. And so, you basically have a six-month period
in which that`s what people are competing for. And that doesn`t play to
his strengths and it doesn`t play to his what has made him interesting.

KORNACKI: And so much -- you go ahead.

SIDDIQUI: I think that a key part of what Peter`s said is the conventional
way that the republican primary works, and you listen to that clip of Rand
Paul and he talks about how he wants to be a different kind of republican.
I think now that he`s actually running, he sees how difficult it is to
actually achieve that. And that`s happened on a number of key issues,
Iran, the nuclear agreement. He ended up saying that he can`t support it.
And he still said that, you know, I would favor a diplomatic approach. But
he`s trying to have it both ways.

He knows that, you know, in the primary process, he just can`t come out
more forcefully and try and defend an agreement that`s been reached or any
of the merits of the agreement. It`s happened on criminal justice too. He
made that a pet issue of his. He does talk about it a lot on the trail.
But there have been moments like the riots in Baltimore as well as the
killing of Walter Scott in South Carolina in South Carolina where he didn`t
actually come out too forcefully on that issue either. And I think he is
struggling now, especially with the kind of narrative around some of these
issues in the primary. To really articulate why it is that his vision is
the appropriate direction which the party needs to go.

KORNACKI: What about specifically foreign policy, because that was
originally Ron Paul sort of calling card, noninterventionism. And it seems
like the mood in the Republican Party has changed a lot in the last year or
so when it comes to foreign policy. It`s becoming about being to the right
being more hawkish than Obama on foreign policy. Has that had an impact on
Ron Paul?

TERRELL: Well, it has and what Peter was talking about earlier, the Iran
coalition that was supposed to follow Rand Paul is kind of hesitant now
with his back and forth on Iran. Earlier, you may recall that he was in
favor of diplomatic solution with Iran. And now, you know, he`s signed on
to the Tom Cotton letter. But I want to double-back to what Sabrina was
saying. Sabrina were on South Carolina on May 9th covering a bit freedom
summit where a lot of republican candidates were. Where was Rand Paul? He
was in San Francisco opening a campaign office out there speaking at a
disrupting democracy thing. So, he`s trying to play the blue states as
well. Later this evening, he`ll be in Illinois. So in addition to these
early states where you`ll see a majority of the candidates, you`re going to
see Rand Paul and these blue states where he thinks he may have re-flip
some voters in to voting for him in the primary.

KORNACKI: Yes. I mean, that`s interesting. As you look at the most --
that time cover, the most interesting man, they talk about his potential
appeal outside that republican basement. You got to win that republican
primary first.

TERRELL: Yes. Yesterday his campaign -- press release saying, Rand Paul
is most-electable versus Hillary Clinton, he`s down by five points tied
with Marco Rubio, so.

KORNACKI: All right. Anyway, I got to cut it short there. But thanks to
MSNBC`s Anthony Terrell for that. Still ahead, I will try, try to dispel
one of the great myths of politics. It`s a myth you`ve probably heard over
and over again the last several weeks and the last several decades.

But next, something that hasn`t happened in the last six years just
happened in a major American city. There`s details on the other side of
the break.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

KORNACKI: We`ll get back to politics in a few minutes, including the
budding rivalry between Hillary Clinton and Jeb Bush. It`s heating up.
But right now, we turn to something else that`s heating up. The west coast
where temperatures have topped 100 degrees in some areas. Portland,
Oregon, has seen its highest temperatures in six years. In Seattle has
seen the most 90-degree days and it`s ever seen in a single year. And
things are not that much cooler here on the east coast. Temperatures
likely to reach 90 degrees again today with little relief in sight.

NBC`s Kristen Dahlgren is live in Central Park here in New York. Kristen,
we`re in the middle of a heat wave, huh?

KRISTEN DAHLGREN, NBC NEWS CORRESPONDENT: Yes, good morning. It`s not
even 8:30 and already temperatures in the high 70s. There`s actually a
race about to get started here in Central Park. We`re at mile two here.
So it will be interesting to see how the runners are doing when they get to
this point. We do see a lot of runners and cyclists already out.
Everybody trying to get things in early this morning as those temperatures
head up near 90 degrees. A little bit of good news is that it`s some drier
air. That means it feels a lot cooler. We`re not going to see that high
humidity that we did over the past few days. So, things actually feel a
little better than they have here in New York. But then it doesn`t mean
that this isn`t dangerous heat. And so, we`re seeing some really serious
warnings from authorities. Remember, that child that was locked in a car
not far from here in New Jersey a few days ago. Police saying, again,
please if you`re headed out today, make sure you don`t leave your kids,
your animals in a hot car that can quickly turn into an oven. So, really
some serious heat, stay hydrated. Watch out for heatstroke as well --
Steve.

All right. Kristen Dahlgren live in Central Park. Thank you for that
report. And I`ll give just a little piece of advice to you out there.
Don`t just look at the temperature in the middle of the heat wave like
Kristen said. The dew point, the dew point, if it`s low, you can handle
the heat a lot better. The dew point not out of control today in New York.
So, a little good news there.

Anyway, still ahead, last night`s blue moon which I thought was just a beer
or a song by the Marcels. An explanation and some amazing pictures are
still to come. But first, Hillary Clinton slams a fellow candidate set to
speak on the very same stage. So who is she singling out for attacking
why? Those answers on the other side of this break. Stay with us.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

HILLARY CLINTON (D), PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION: I don`t think you can credibly
say that everyone has a right to rise and then say you`re for phasing out
Medicare or for repealing ObamaCare. People can`t rise if they can`t
afford health care. They can`t rise if the minimum wage is too low to live
on. They can`t rise if their governor makes it harder for them to get a
college education. And you cannot seriously talk about the right to rise
and support laws that deny the right to vote.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

KORNACKI: That was Hillary Clinton yesterday mocking the Jeb Bush super
PAC right to rise and suggesting that Bush is hurting the cause of black
Americans. She made that jabbing speech to the National Urban League in
Ft. Lauderdale. It`s a bold step because Bush was only one of two
Republicans who were speaking at the same event. Now, Bush didn`t respond
directly when he took the podium. One of his aides did, however, calling
the speech Clintonesque and a cheap shot. It`s not the first time Hillary
Clinton has gone after a potential republican opponent while mostly
ignoring the rivals in her own party. She also called out Donald Trump in
two different languages for his remarks about Mexican immigrants in his
announcement speech.

But with 16 months still to go before the general election and before the
Republicans even start debating each other, Clinton seems to be singling
out Bush as a favorite target. In June, she attacked Bush`s record on
voting rights when he was governor of Florida. And just three weeks ago
she pounced when Bush talked about Americans working longer hours. So, why
is she going after Bush so early and so intensely?

Here now joining the panel is Robert Costa, national political reporter
with the "Washington Post." So, Robert, this was a surprise attack
yesterday. Clinton and Bush at the same event. We`ve been getting all
this media coverage lately about Bill Clinton and George Bush, Sr. and his
great friendship between the two of them and the two families. And then
Hillary Clinton goes after Jeb Bush and nobody really saw this coming.

ROBERT COSTA, "THE WASHINGTON POST": Well, for many Democrats it wasn`t
that surprising because as Republicans are enduring this carnival of a
summer led by Donald Trump, they`re also looking ahead to the general
election. And they still see in many democratic circles Jeb Bush as the
biggest threat. And they look at his work with immigrant groups. They
look at his outreach to African-Americans on education reform and they see
this is someone in an Ohio and a Florida who could be a problem. So,
Secretary Clinton she`s trying to take him out early and by going right at
his core theme of right to rise.

And we can put this up. These are some recent poll numbers testing the
republican candidates against Hillary Clinton. It`s a little early but
Quinnipiac put these up. So, you can see, look, Donald Trump is getting
crushed by Hillary Clinton there. Scott Walker just a point behind and Jeb
Bush running a point ahead of Hillary Clinton. This is from Quinnipiac in
the last week, these head to heads. So, Robert, the setting for this
yesterday, we say, this is the National Urban League talking about the
black vote, how critical it was to President Obama in both of his
victories, not just getting big support from African-Americans but also
getting huge turnout from African-Americans. That`s a key part of Hillary
Clinton`s formula as well.

COSTA: It`s critical. Secretary Clinton wants to inherit the Obama
coalition. And Democrats expects some of the numbers among African-
American Democrats to erode in 2016. But the less that number erodes, the
better for Secretary Clinton. And you see Republicans doing more outreach
to African-Americans, whether it`s Ben Carson running for president, you
have the different candidates like Bush appearing at the National Urban
League. They`re making some inroads in spite of the trump hoopla. And
that`s something that Hillary Clinton just wants to cut off and make sure
the groups she`s appealed to in the past know where she stands. And
really, she can highlight what she wants to on the republican side.

KORNACKI: Peter, I wonder, you made watching this yesterday. So, Robert
is saying, the goal here for Hillary Clinton is look, Jeb Bush wants to
expand that republican base, expand that base when it comes to black
voters. You know, typically, the last election getting less than 10
percent. Can you expand that to 10, 15, even up to 20 percent. What
Hillary Clinton did yesterday, does that make that tougher for Jeb Bush?

SUDERMAN: Well, it shows how much Hillary Clinton needs that not to
happen. Wants that not to happen. And how sensitive, I think the Hillary
Clinton campaign is to this. Also how sensitive the Bush campaign is.
They reacted pretty strongly to Hillary Clinton`s jabs. I mean, I think
Bush gets a little bit of credit for showing up. He was one of only two
Republicans even though everyone was invited. All 21 candidates. Only
Bush and Ben Carson showed up to this event at all. I think Bush gets, you
know, Bush gets a little bit of credit here just for going and for making
some steps. And I think it is at least from their perspective, from the
perspective of the campaign a little bit unfair for Democrats to say, quite
rightly in my opinion, that Republicans have not made an attempt to
outreach to black voters. And then when Bush shows up at something like
this to complain about what they`re doing and to jab them.

COX: I think, Republicans still want credit for like showing up at these
things. I mean, that`s what really shows. I mean, Rand Paul sort of done
similar things where it`s like just to show up, you should be grateful for
my presence here. I mean, I think Hillary in some way -- that seems to be
the attitude and black voters have not responded well to that. I mean,
Rand Paul, when he did his talk at Howard University, he explained to the
voters there, that you know that the Republicans were the first ones who
wanted to abolish slavery. I mean, I think, and also I think to have, to
say that Ben Carson running is outreach to black voters is also a little
bit condescending.

I think that he himself is black but that`s not the same as outreach. And
that is not the same as changing policies. And I think that this audience
that Hillary was talking to is actually pretty sophisticated in that regard
and did not respond well to Ben Carson`s speech or that did not respond
that well to Bush`s speech. And I don`t think they would have responded
well to these speeches whether or not Hillary was there.

KORNACKI: Well, and interesting Bush did not -- he`s backstage as this is
happening. He did not respond directly to what Hillary Clinton said.
Specific charges she was leveling. He came out and basically delivered the
speech he was planning to anyway.

SIDDIQUI: Yes. And I think that obviously they`re going to complain about
her attacking him. He can`t exactly go out there and respond in the same
way. And the focus for him has been compared with some other Republicans
in the primary to campaign where Republicans have stopped campaigning and
to reach out to groups they no longer reach out to. I think Ana is right,
I think Democrats believe that showing up does not really just amount to
outreach. And I think one of Hillary Clinton`s points essentially was to
African-American voters and make the same case to Latino voters as well.

Don`t fall for what Democrats see as mere lip service. At the end of the
day, the question is what sort of policies do you favor in order to help
minority communities or disproportionately affected by things like economic
downturn, criminal justice for African-American voters. So, they`re trying
to build that case. And that`s why she talked about Medicare, voting
rights, ObamaCare. Because at the end of the day, Jeb Bush, you know, he
did talk about a few things, he talked about, you know, the confederate
flag controversy and he talked about some degree of prison sentencing
reform. But he wasn`t exactly putting out a clear policy vision. It was a
lot of just talk about how he wants to reach out to the community.

KORNACKI: Well, let me ask you this, Robert Costa. So, from the
standpoint of the Clinton campaign, obviously probably they would like --
if you look at those poll numbers, they`d love to draw Donald Trump as
their opponent. Doesn`t sound like they think that`s going to happen.
We`re all sitting here, saying we don`t think Trump has the staying power.
We`ll see. We`ll see how that plays out. But in the absent -- it is Bush
the matchup today will like the idea of the matchup with Bush. Are they
scared of it? Do they look at Bush and say, we could run against W.,
that`s going to work to our advantage, how do they see that?

COSTA: Well, when they look at Jeb Bush`s record, Democrats think they
have a big target. But the way these elections have moved in such a
structural way, that the whole country is divided 95 percent red versus
blue. And that the election in 2016, Democrats and republican strategist
believe what we want in the margins. In Cleveland, Cuyahoga in the suburbs
there. In Philadelphia, in the suburbs. The I-4 quarter of Florida,
Virginia, Northern Virginia. In those marginal areas, small key areas. If
Republicans can get any kind of boost from minority voters, that could turn
the election. That what has the Clinton campaign paying attention.

KORNACKI: We`ll talk about how small the electoral -- not even swing
states anymore. Now, it`s like swing high way corridors and that`s the
entire national election.

Anyway, Robert Costa with the "Washington Post," thanks for getting UP this
morning. I appreciate it.

COSTA: Thank you.

KORNACKI: And still ahead, why "El Chapo," one of the most wanted
fugitives in the world could be coming to the U.S.

And next, dispelling a myth, it`s been getting almost as much attention as
Donald Trump.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Republicans fear repeat of the three-way election of
1992 where some blamed billionaire Ross Perot for costing President George
H.W. Bush the White House.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: The big danger for Republicans could be if Donald Trump
after the primaries are over the size to pull a Ross Perot.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Yes. If he runs third party, that`s very dangerous.

SEAN HANNITY, FOX NEWS HOST: Does the Republican Party now have a Trump
problem that he could be the Ross Perot of this race just like it helped
elect Bill Clinton president?

(END VIDEO CLIP)

KORNACKI: So this is something you probably heard a few times since Donald
Trump entered the race for president. Even more when he hinted that he
could run maybe as a third-party candidate if he doesn`t win the GOP
nomination. Donald Trump, the idea that he could be another Ross Perot.
The idea that Trump could cause the Republicans the White House. Just like
Perot did back in 1992. Now, this is a fun storyline, the idea that one
Clinton, Bill Clinton, only one the President see because of a third party
candidate. And now, another Clinton, Hillary, maybe she`ll catch the same
break. One Clinton elected in a third-party fluke, the other elected in a
third-party fluke. The only problem with that storyline though is that
it`s not true.

Ross Perot did not cost Republicans the 1992 elections. This is one of the
great political myths of our time. I wrote about this myth last week. But
now, let`s go to the big board and let`s take a closer look at it. And
let`s try, try to debunk it. So, think back a generation ago to the 1992
presidential election. Here with the final results. This is the national
popular vote. You see Bill Clinton 5.5 points ahead of George Bush, the
President. Ross Pert, the independent there at 19 percent. Now, the
difference here is about six million votes between Clinton and Bush. It
means that if Bush was going to overtake Bill Clinton without Ross Perot,
Bush would have needed to win about two-thirds of Ross Perot`s voters.

So, on Election Day in 1992, the pollsters asked the voters. They said
look, if you only could pick between Clinton and Bush, if Perot wasn`t in
the race, Perot voters, who would your choice have been? These are the
results. This is what the exit poll showed. Bill Clinton would have
gotten 38 percent of them. George Bush would have gotten 38 percent of
them. A lot said of them said, they would just have stayed home. They
only showed up and only voted because of Perot. So, again, Bush would have
needed two-thirds of them and he only got 38 percent. The same number as
Bill Clinton. So, really, that number tells you not much of a difference.
But the story is more than just, it`s more than just a story of Election
Day.

Also, keep in mind the climate of the 1992 election. This was the approval
rating for George Bush before the election in 1992. You have to remember,
the unemployment rate had spiked in 1992. It was thought that the country
was in the middle of this recession, almost without an end. His approval
rating was down at 34 percent. And by comparison, Barack Obama when he got
re-elected in 2012 was up near 50 percent. That`s where George W. Bush was
when he got re-elected in 2004. Thirty four percent, what is that
comparable to? That`s comparable to where Jimmy Carter was. The only
other one-term president to the modern era where Jimmy Carter was when he
got run out of office in 1980.

Another thing to keep in mind. We don`t have this for you but I could tell
you in the 1992 campaign, there was a ten-week period from the middle of
July until October where Ross Perot was not in the race for president. He
dropped out in the middle of July, he re-entered at the start of October.
In that ten-week period, there was not a single poll that was taken, not
one poll that ever showed George Bush, Sr., leading Bill Clinton. In fact,
most of the polls taken in that time showed Bill Clinton leading George
Bush by more than ten points. Some of them had him leading by more than
20. Again, even right after the republican convention in 1992 when the
Republicans got a bounce.

Still, the polls has never showed Bush leading Clinton. There is no
evidence that Ross Perot elected Bill Clinton in 1992. There is none.
Now, to put this in more perspective. Right now, we can show you evidence
of when a third-party candidate actually would affect the race. So, take a
look at this. This is the new polling right now. This is why Trump is
different than Perot. Clinton against Bush. A one-on-one race, a six-
point lead in this poll for Hillary Clinton over Jeb Bush. This is a new
Marist poll that came out this week. Now, look at this. They add Donald
Trump to the mix. Look what happens. That six-point lead explodes into a
15-point lead with Hillary Clinton with Donald Trump getting 20 percent.
Huge difference here between what we saw in 1992. In 1992, when you took
Perot out of the mix, you still have Bill Clinton leading George Bush
comfortably. In this situation, when you add Trump to the mix. Suddenly
the bottom falls out for the Republicans in a close race turns into a
landslide. That`s a third-party candidate who could be a spoiler for
Republicans. Ross Perot never was.

Anyway, still ahead, another good week for Donald Trump. But how will
debate week go? It`s finally here. And next, Jon Stewart reveals his
final three guests on "The Daily Show." Stay with us.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

KORNACKI: All right. There`s a lot going on this morning. Let`s get
caught up on some of the other headlines making news with our panel. Let`s
see what`s on the first index card here. This is from "USA Today." The
headline, Jon Stewart has named his final three guests for "The Daily
Show." So, this is it. So, the big week, the final week of "The Daily
Show" with Jon Stewart after 16 years. And the final three guests are
going to be Amy Schumer, Denis Leary and Louis CK. All of them comedians.
They will be the final three guests and the big finale is going to be
Thursday night. No word yet on what Stewart has planned. Also Thursday
night, we should add, the night of the first republican debate. So, you
wonder on his last show, is he going to just have fun with that debate or
is it going to be a special show with the highlights or whatever. But this
is it, the end of the era for Jon Stewart.

SIDDIQUI: I don`t know what this election will look like without him. And
I think with Donald Trump being part of it, you just want him to stay and
linger a little longer. But you know, it`s time.

COX: Donald Trump in the election, we don`t need Jon Stewart perhaps. It
was sort of like everyone is pretty easy target. It`s a great big Donald
Trump pinata we all can take whacks at. I mean, what was made Stewart --
other people made this observation that Stewart really was I think one of
the reasons why so many of us were compelled by him. The way he
articulated a certain amount of liberal frustration and rage during the
Bush administration. And I think it`s been some communists who have said
and I tend to agree that during the Obama era his role really changed. It
became more of a commenter and less punctuarer (ph) if that makes sense.
Like he was less angry and more -- and did more analysis and did actually
some really great interviews. But the tone definitely changed and it`s
interesting to see him go back comedians for his last show. Because that`s
almost like he`s going back to the very beginnings of the show when it
really was more like sort of a straight comedy if that makes sense.

KORNACKI: Well, then we find out this week too that he`s spent time at the
White House with President Obama. But also, you think at the beginnings of
the show too, he took over the show from Craig Kilborn. He had not had any
political edge too and it all he gave it this very political edge.

SUDERMAN: Yes. I mean, he comes from a comedy background. That`s the
origin of the show when he`s going back to that. And he became an
incredibly influential political commentator over the course of time and
this just shows that he`s going back to his roots, back to his base that
where the show started, where he started in a lot of ways.

KORNACKI: So, we`ll see if he becomes like the Walter Cronkite of Comedy
Central now and we`ll bring him out for the conventions or for the debates
or something like that. Let`s see what else we have here. Not really a
headline but we have a moon for you. The blue moon. Last night it was
something you only see once in a blue moon. A blue moon. It looks orange.
Some beautiful pictures coming in from all across the country last night.
You`re seeing them on your screen right now. Blue moon is, of course, the
second full moon in a calendar month. It occurs about once every 2.7
years. Look at that picture. That`s fantastic. That would get a lot of
Instagram likes.

COX: I believe the other saying is that once in a blue moon, every rich
buffoon will run for president. I think that we`ve seen that kind of
happen. And maybe that means the Donald Trump`s popularity will fade. But
I`m not sure what else it means for us politically.

KORNACKI: Well, we`ll have to consult an astrologer. Maybe we`ll get some
more information on that. Let`s see your another headline about George H.
W. Bush, we`re just talking about in a minute ago, the former president, he
actually think well-wishers yesterday on Twitter for the support he
received from a recent fall. You can see it there. He said, "Who knew
jumping out of planes was safer than getting out of bed? Thanks to all for
your kind get well messages." In good spirits. Obviously, that`s good to
see the former president of course discharged from the hospital last month
after being treated for a fractured bone in his neck. And he was
celebrated recent birthdays, I think it`s two years ago by skydiving.
Let`s see what else we have here. Let`s see. This is from "USA Today"
again. Uber valuation jumps to $51 billion. The valuation is more than
double that of Air BNB and snap chat. It is also more than four times the
combined value of two rental car companies, Hertz and Avis. I am guessing
the guy from Reason Magazine loves Uber.

SUDERMAN: I suspect that a large part that of that evaluation is the money
that I`ve spent. I mean, it`s no, it`s a great service. I couldn`t get a
cab in my neighborhood in Washington, D.C. with any reliability at all
until Uber showed up. I think what that evaluation shows us is that Uber
is not just a car company. Not just a transportation company. But they
are changing and sort of shifting their model to becoming a logistics
company of moving around stuff and getting things to people as well as just
getting people from place to place. And that`s a big deal.

KORNACKI: You guys taken an Uber?

SIDDIQUI: All the time. I think what`s interesting about Uber, it`s also
kind of emerged as an election year issue. But in a real substantive
policy discussion, the cost sharing economy and the Republicans and Hillary
Clinton are coming at this from very different perspectives. Hillary
Clinton of course talking about the need for some reforms for healthcare
benefits, for a longer term, wage, prospects and jobs prospects and then
Republicans of course trying to push back on regulation. But the cost
sharing economy is something that`s new. And I think that that`s -- it`s
an interesting debate that I am looking for it tonight.

SUDERMAN: The head of Uber has said that he loves ObamaCare and that it
makes his business possible.

KORNACKI: So, there you go. Well, full disclosure, I took an Uber to work
today. I can`t get a cab right, that early hour in the morning. So,
that`s how I get here in Saturday morning.

Anyway, still ahead, the countdown to Thursday night and one of the most
anticipated presidential debates of all-time. That is still ahead. Stay
with us.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

KORNACKI: Solving a mystery.

(MUSIC)

KORNACKI: Thanks for staying with us this Saturday morning.

Lots more still to come as we continue.

Five hundred days of not knowing what happened to Malaysian Airlines Flight
370. Well, that mystery appears to be coming to an end. Much more on that
in just a minute.

Plus, the anticipation growing as the days count down to what might be the
most anticipated presidential debate of all-time. What to expect coming
up.

But we begin this hour with the latest in that search for Malaysia Airlines
Flight 370. NBC News has now confirmed that debris from a plane found on
an island in the Indian Ocean earlier this week arrived in Paris to be
inspected. The debris, part of a wing and a piece of a suitcase was found
on a beach on the remote island of Reunion. Investigators have identified
the wing piece as a component of a Boeing 777. The only 777 missing is
MH370.

We get more now from NBC`s chief global correspondent, Bill Neely from
Reunion Island.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

BILL NEELY, NBC NEWS CHIEF GLOBAL CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): They packed
it carefully. Every square inch of the aircraft wing flap may be vital in
answering what happened to Malaysia 370.

The debris has now arrived in France to be analyzed at a specialist defense
lab. French police are searching Reunion`s beaches for more debris.
Locals are making discoveries, finding pieces of plastic taken in by police
as evidence.

The man who found the aircraft part and a battered suitcase here found
water bottles from China and Indonesia. Half the passengers were Chinese.

"I hoped to find a lot more debris," he says, "to help solve this mystery.
But there is a problem."

(on camera): Well, the truth is there is every kind of junk on this beach,
something that looks like a machine part. This is, well, this is a rubber
ring from something. It could have fallen off a ship, off an aircraft, off
anything.

(voice-over): Investigators look for debris by air too. We joined the
search along a coast where finding anything more could be tough.

(on camera): There`s 120 miles of coastline to search on this island
alone. On a nearby island, it`s more than 3,000 miles. And there are two
dozen islands in this general area that they`d have to search.

(voice-over): So, all eyes are on the debris they`ve found and what it
might tell us.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: We wait for the result of the verification, whether it
belongs to 777 or it belong to MH370, I think that yet to be verified.

NEELY: These are extraordinary times on the normally sleepy tourist
island, a volcano erupting just miles from where the islanders are trying
to unlock the mystery of a missing plane.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

KORNACKI: And that was NBC`s Bill Neely from Reunion Island off the coast
of Africa.

Turning to the 2016 election. At the end of another week, Donald Trump
still sits atop the field. His numbers are stronger than ever. The latest
poll from Quinnipiac University shows the billionaire businessman with a
seven-point lead over the rest of the field.

Trump taking that lead on the road, spending recent days in Scotland at a
tournament held at one of his golf courses, which means he won`t be at the
Koch brothers` summit in southern California, but that also could be
because the Koch brothers didn`t invite him. Other candidates like Jeb
Bush and Scott Walker will be on hand instead.

This is the latest example of the Republican establishment trying to shut
out Donald Trump. But John Harwood writing in "The New York Times" says
its Republican political leaders are partly to blame for Trump`s success.
He writes that, quote, "In dealing with the dyspeptic constituency that has
empowered them, the Republican Party has repeatedly failed at anger
management." He adds, "So many top Republicans have been unwilling to risk
angering voters and rank-and-file lawmakers by distinguishing grievances
from contrived ones, lost causes from achievable goals."

Now, Trump is trying to use that anger against the political establishment
to his own advantage.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DONALD TRUMP (R), PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: For the last few months, I`ve
been -- I hate to use the word -- I`ve been a politicians, because I talk
about politicians, all talk, no action. They don`t get the job done.
They`re terrible.

Our country is going to hell, because that`s what they do. They talk and
there`s no action.

So, I would say that now, my pretty much my sole focus is running for
president.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

KORNACKI: And joining us now from Washington is John Harwood, chief
Washington correspondent with CNBC, as well as a national political
reporter with "The New York Times".

And our panel is back with us in New York. Ana Marie Cox, contributor with
"The Daily Beast", Peter Sutherman with "Reason Magazine", Sabrina
Siddiqui, political reporter at "The Guardian".

So, John, first to you, the rise of Donald Trump, you`re saying this is a
symptom of dysfunction within the Republican Party.

JOHN HARWOOD, CNBC CHIEF WASHINGTON CORRESPONDENT: Look, the Republican
Party has harnessed the anger and upset that really flowered among their
base when we had the financial crisis, we bailed out Wall Street, bailed
out the auto companies, President Obama came in, big stimulus plan, health
care plan. You had a mix of cultural and economic factors, I think,
fueling this sentiment within the party.

But the problem is, if you don`t control it, it`s going to turn on you at
some point. That`s what -- we`ve seen that happen in numerous Republican
primaries, Bob Bennett, Dick Lugar, Mike Castle all lost in primaries.
Those were effective Republican politicians. They weren`t able to stop the
debt crisis and government shutdown. Those hurt the party`s reputation.
You look at how the national Democratic and Republican parties are viewed.
It`s a much better picture for Democrats.

And now, Donald Trump is coming along and he`s saying that these are the
Republicans running against me. They`re all talk. They`re bums. They`re
idiots. They`re stiffs.

And he`s also hitting that immigration issue, which really fuels the
cultural part of this, Steve, which is older white voters are seeing the
country change, become more diverse in ways that impacts their communities
and makes them feel unsettled and Donald Trump is really pitching to that
audience. And it`s a dangerous one because long-term Republicans have got
to accommodate themselves to a more diverse America if they`re going to
restore their ability to win national elections.

KORNACKI: I mean, the Republican Party itself said this in its autopsy
report after the 2012 election. They identified the immigration as one of
the issues the party needing a change.

But let me ask you this then. So, Trump makes his comments about
immigration and you have the Republican establishment saying, whoa, whoa,
you know, the tone there is off. We don`t want -- message is one thing,
but the tone is another thing.

Then, he talks about John McCain and everybody, everybody in the Republican
Party rains down all of this shame and disgust on Donald Trump. And we`re
sitting here on the eve of this debate, and Donald Trump, not only has he
not taken a hit in the polls from this, he`s actually improved.

So, what can the Republican establishment do to tamp this down?

HARWOOD: Well, I do think that in the end, Steve, you know, there`s a
difference between where we are in the summertime and when it`s going to be
like when people actually start voting in a few months.

So, part of this problem, I think, from a Republican establishment point
much view will take care of itself, because when people have to choose the
next president, I think they`re going to look at Donald Trump and not be
able to quite envision him behind that desk in the Oval Office.

But in the meantime, you`ve got other candidates whose messages are being
smothered probably good for Jeb Bush. Because Donald Trump is dividing
vote that could go to people like Scott Walker or Ted Cruz or others who
are his, you know, most important long-term rivals in the race. And I
think Jeb Bush has got a chance to contrast himself. I think we`ll see him
use that in the debate on Thursday.

KORNACKI: I want to bring the panel on this. But, first, I want to show,
this got a little bit attention this week. It`s fascinating. "Bloomberg"
did this focus group up in New Hampshire and they talked to Republican
voters in New Hampshire about Trump. I think you get a real feel for what
Trump is tapping into.

Let`s play some highlights from that.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: He`s not a politician.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: He`s not going to be, like he said, I won`t be bought
of.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Trump is a threat, because he doesn`t fit in the same
box all the other Republicans are in.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

KORNACKI: I mean, I`m listening to this and I`m thinking of all -- you
know, his attacks on Lindsey Graham, his attacks on Scott walker. He
attacks members of the Republican Party, of his own party with a bluntness
that it`s not considered, you know, sort of -- the rules of combat in
politics usually preclude it, but he does it in a way that I think
resonates with people who hate the system.

SUDERMAN: Yes, I think that`s exactly right. Trump appeals to people
because he doesn`t talk at all like a conventional politician, because he
says things that no conventional politician if their right mind would ever
say because he`s not really a politician. He`s a showman, entertainer.
He`s running a stunt campaign. This is as much a performance art project
as much as anything. I mean, this is -- trump in some sense, the ideal gag
candidate that someone like Jon Stewart would have embedded in the
Republican primary if he could have invented and created and scripted a
character to run alongside the rest of the Republicans.

And so, he`s exploiting the base excuse -- exploiting the gap between the
party base and its elites. And he`s doing it very effectively.

COX: And I just want to say, like, as much as he`s a stunt candidate, that
was sort of a stunt panel at "Bloomberg".

"Talking Points Memo" did some reporting and it turns out that I think it`s
really telling, only one of the people on that panel actually said they
were 100 percent a Trump supporter. All the people were on the panel to
talk about why they liked Trump. But at least one person who they
interviewed said she wasn`t actually considering voting for him.

So, I think what that panel was actually kind of in a way accidentally
great journalism, because it exposed the difference between, you know,
being a Trump voter and being a supporter. I mean, there are people who
like Trump and people who enjoy watching him.

But there`s such a thing as hate watching something and there`s not such a
thing as hate voting. No one goes into a voting booth and says, you know
what? I really enjoy how angry he is, and he`d be no, not a great
president.

KORNACKI: I mean, what John was saying, too, it makes a lot of sense.
We`re still months out and we`ve seen eruptions in the past, behind -- you
know, we always talk about Herman Cain or whatever in 2011. But at the
same time, Sabrina, I think this has even at this point gone on a little
bit longer than maybe people were expecting.

SIDDIQUI: Yes, it`s gone on longer than people were expecting and it`s
made some of the other candidates uncomfortable. John hit the nail on the
head when he said that Jeb Bush is the biggest beneficiary of Donald Trump,
because he was facing real credible threats from Rubio, from Scott Walker,
from Rand Paul. It`s not that he doesn`t still face those threats. It`s
very early. You can`t put too much stock into polling showing Rand Paul
and Marco Rubio at 6 percent or 7 percent.

But, you know, he is at least gaining the most by being able to put out his
message and some of the candidates who don`t have the establishment backing
of Jeb Bush and certainly don`t have the financial capabilities of Jeb
Bush, they aren`t getting the traction that they need. They aren`t getting
their messages out.

But I also wanted to say quickly on the point of Donald Trump being the
monster that the Republican Party created. It`s also -- the immigration
angle is a big piece of this because we all know the immigration reform
passed on a bipartisan vote and then it died in the House.

Republican leaders tried to put out their own immigration reform plan.
They could not overcome that conservative faction within the House, you
know, and that`s how we got here where this continues to be a wedge issue.

And also, let`s all remember how aggressive the Republican Party sought
Donald Trump`s approval in 2012. Mitt Romney going -- having that big
endorsement from him despite the fact that he`s putting all those birther
theories about President Obama. And where was the outrage then?

SUDERMAN: Yes.

HARWOOD: Steve --

KORNACKI: So, John, yes, I want to just preview if you could, John, the
debate on Thursday night, though. The expectations for Trump are so
enormous at this point. Just as a performer that he`s going to show up and
just own the stage, is there a chance the expectations are out of control
for him?

HARWOOD: Well, I think Trump operates off a different set of expectations
than conventional politicians do. So, we understand that he`s going to say
outrageous things or he could at any moment say outrageous things. And I
think people don`t take his words literally or seriously in a way that they
would other politicians.

So, in part, people are going to see, is he going to try to transition
himself to be a somewhat more sober figure who people could imagine in the
oval office?

But I do think that Jeb Bush drew a very important line with his own
comments late in the week. He was in Florida and he was reacting to the
rise of Trump and he said, "Here`s the deal: I don`t have anger in my
heart, I`m not a grievance candidate." That`s a line that over the long
run in the campaign in a general election will play very well for Jeb Bush
if he can get there. At the moment, he has got the ability to corner that
market, compassionate conservative. That`s what his brother ran on.

John Kasich will compete with him somewhat for that. But John Kasich is
still at the nascent stage of his campaign. But I think that`s a line that
you can expect to see Jeb Bush draw on Thursday night.

KORNACKI: Yes. No, that`s interesting until you think about the longer
term implications. Does Donald Trump make Jeb Bush more palatable by
making him look more mature.

Anyway, John Harwood of "The New York Times" and CNBC -- thanks for joining
us this morning. I appreciate it.

HARWOOD: You bet.

KORNACKI: And still ahead, Zimbabwe is saying it plans to ask for the
extradition of that Minnesota dentist who shot Cecil the Lion. Will he
face trial overseas?

Now, on the other side of the break, former RNC Chairman Michael Steel will
be here to talk about that big debate. That is next.

Stay with us.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

KORNACKI: The million dollar question heading into Thursday`s night
debate, how will Donald Trump and his fellow candidates interact when
they`re on that stage together? An adviser to Florida Senator Marco Rubio
saying that Trump is, quote, like a rattlesnake with a toothache, the worst
kind of guy to have up there, because you have no idea who he is going
after.

Trump himself is trying to downplay expectations.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

TRUMP: You know, these guys debate every night of their life. That`s all
they do is debate. They debate all over the place and nothing happens.
So, I`m sort of the opposite. So, I have no idea.

You know, I am who I am. I`ll show up. I look forward to it. And that`s
all I can do. I have no idea how I`ll do. Maybe I`ll do terribly, maybe
I`ll do great.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

KORNACKI: All right. Let`s bring in Michael Steele, MSNBC political
analyst, former chairman of the RNC.

Michael, let me ask you the most pressing question first. You`re advising
Trump. He`s got to go on that stage Thursday night. Does he wear the hat
or not?

MICHAEL STEELE, MSNBC POLITICAL ANALYST/FORMER RNC CHAIRMAN: Yes, leave
the hat home.

(LAUGHTER)

KORNACKI: So, what do you --

STEELE: Leave the hat home. And, just, you know, pick a lane and stay in
it.

KORNACKI: So, yes. I mean, what are you expecting? This is going to be,
I think, the highest rated primary debate we`ve seen. I think everybody is
expecting Trump to be on the stage taking shots at everybody. Do you think
that`s going to happen?

STEELE: Well, you know, I don`t. I think people are going to be a little
bit disappointed on that front. I think and I take from Donald`s remarks
there that he recognizes that, yeah, these guys are professional debaters.
This is what they do. They debate, they do nothing.

So, that`s going to be how he`ll probably frame a lot of his answers in the
context of "I`m going to say something, I`m going to try to say something."
Now, you know, folks who are on policy side go, where is the meat, where is
the substance of it?

But I think he`s going to stay in the vain of reminding the voters of why
they dislike Washington, why they dislike these other 16 people on the
stage and why he`s bringing something different to the table. Will he go
after some people? He may do that if it serves his moment.

But I don`t think he`s going to come out of the box, you know, just leading
off with a left hook when he doesn`t have to and put himself in a position
where, all of a sudden, then he becomes the antagonist for everybody on
that stage.

KORNACKI: Well, we see he has, clearly has a short fuse. He`ll get going,
almost start riffing. That`s how the McCain comment came out at that forum
in Iowa. How about from the other angle, some of the candidates up there
looking to make a name for themselves? I mean, some of them are going to
be lucky just to make that top ten and get on the stage.

I think of, like, Chris Christie who`s looking for that breakout moment in
a debate. He`s a guy who`s got a bit of a temper too. Do you think the
other candidates show up looking to pick a fight with Trump that might
somehow elevate him?

STEELE: I really hope they don`t. That is not advisable. I think the
Rubio campaign has it right. You don`t want to mess with a rattlesnake
with a toothache. I just think that`s not the way to go is to go in and
antagonize Donald Trump.

The format itself, which we don`t know that much about, but the format,
along the traditional lines will not allow Donald Trump to necessarily
dominate the way he has or to go down rabbit holes the way he has when he`s
sort of freewheeling it and just riffing from a podium -- number one.

Number two, talk about staying in your lanes, the advice for the candidates
is: this is your moment to show your presidential temper. For someone,
especially like a Marco Rubio and a Chris Christie, where there are, you
know, questions, concerns about whatever regarding those candidates, this
is the moment for them to show their presidential temper.

I don`t think you achieve that by going one-on-one slugging it out with
Donald Trump. Because all that does is elevate Donald Trump, certainly in
the eyes as we saw for those New Hampshire voters. He`s someone who is
going to fight for me, where you don`t want him to be the -- you don`t want
to be the one he`s beating up.

So, the idea of staying in your lane, laying out who you are, what your
vision is on the topic before you is a safer way to go. Now, if he comes
after you, show you got the moxie to take him on. But don`t necessarily
pick the fight.

BLITZER: Well, let`s bring the panel in here. But, first, I want to play
Jeb Bush. He was interviewed last night by Lester Holt on the "NBC Nightly
News." Lester asked Jeb Bush about the Trump phenomenon and Jeb will be on
the stage with him in a few days. This is what Jeb Bush had to say about
that.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

JEB BUSH (R), PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: I was surprised that Donald Trump
has surged. I think he`s captured the deep frustration that people feel.
I mean, I get that. I get the lack of rule of law, the sanctuary cities,
the open borders -- all those things. He`s, you know, in very graphic way
appealed to people`s anger about those things. And I think it`s important
to be respectful of that, make the case that we can fix these things. And
over time, the Trump phenomena will either succeed or fail based on his
proposals.

LESTER HOLT, NBC NIGHTLY NEWS: But you call it a phenomena as if it`s
something that`s --

BUSH: Well, yes -- the fact that you`re not asking me, you`re not asking
me about Scott Walker or other well-qualified candidates. It`s definitely
a phenomena.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

KORNACKI: You know, I`m think of what Michael just said about a minute
ago. You know, you don`t necessarily, if you`re one of the other
candidates, you don`t necessarily show up at this thing looking to go
attack Donald Trump, but if he turns on you, that becomes a test of your --
of your toughness. Can you stand up to him? Do you want to look like
you`re being walked all over on stage by Donald Trump? That`s some of the
candidates have to think about a little bit.

If he`s in your face saying, you couldn`t stand up, you couldn`t stand up
to Iran, you couldn`t negotiate, you got to have something to say to that.

SIDDIQUI: Could you stand in for Donald Trump?

COX: Yes.

(CROSSTALK)

SIDDIQUI: But, look, I think they do want to show a certain amount of
toughness. But Michael Steele is right. They don`t want to get pulled
into the wrong direction.

One of the biggest obstacles for Mitt Romney in 2012 was the long lasting
effects of the debates and a lot of the things you get pulled into saying,
getting pulled so self-deportation obviously followed him to Election Day
when it came to Latino voters.

So, when Donald Trump is up there railing against immigration, if he
decides to go that route and starts to turn to Marco Rubio and Jeb Bush in
particular, the two more moderate candidates on immigration reform, the
last thing they want to do is to allow that record of theirs to unravel or
unfold before the public, because it`s going to have lingering effects for
any of those candidates who are playing the long game.

COX: Let`s remember, it`s -- there`s an interesting thing (ph) that makes,
that factors here. One, I think the structure of the debate, at least to
the way that we know with the rules and format are is going to benefit
Trump, because it`s going to keep him from riffing and going into rabbit
holes that he goes into.

On the other hand, the high number of people, the large audience, the
amount of attention people are paying to it, I think that could possibly
hurt Trump. Because I do think that his anger plays well to his specific
kind of voter. I think it might not be as hard as we`re saying to look
presidential next to Donald Trump. I mean, like I think if he goes after
someone in a specific way to dismiss him might actually kind -- dismiss him
without dismissing his voters, if they can walk that line, if a candidate
can walk that line, I think it`s going to pretty easy to look better and
more presidential.

KORNACKI: Michael Steele, very quickly ask you: what is the biggest risk
for Donald Trump in this debate?

STEELE: The biggest risk for Donald Trump?

KORNACKI: Yes.

STEELE: None.

(LAUGHTER)

KORNACKI: He comes in the front-runner, he goes out the front-runner.

STEELE: Yes. He doesn`t care. If his numbers drop after this debate,
Donald Trump basically doesn`t care, because Donald Trump has in his mind
how he wants to make his message and do his thing. He`s going to do that.

The only person who takes Donald Trump out of this presidential campaign is
Donald Trump. I think the base, I think the party leadership needs to
understand that, the media needs to understand that.

So, no matter how much you bad-mouth Donald Trump, he`s his own man and
that is the appealing thing about him. He is his own man. And no one
defines that but him. You may not like it, you may not agree with it.

But at the end of the day, you have to kind of respect it because there`s
nothing you can do about it. It`s him. So, that`s his strength going in
and I think that will be his strength coming out.

How the other candidates then build the rest of their candidacy and their
campaigns around that knowing that`s there within the party and within the
primary process is going to be one of their big challenges.

KORNACKI: All right. Well, we will see. Five days from now in Cleveland,
ten of them on that stage. We don`t even know who the ten are yet.

STEELE: Right.

KORNACKI: We do know Trump will be one of them.

Thank you, Michael Steele, though, for joining us this morning.

STEELE: You got it.

KORNACKI: Appreciate it.

Still ahead, the major political issue Hillary Clinton still won`t talk
about on the campaign trail. Next, new details about that Minnesota
dentist who killed Cecil the Lion.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

KORNACKI: We are staying on top of a developing story this hour in
California where Governor Jerry Brown has now declared a state of emergency
as more than a dozen major wildfires continue to burn in that state. One
firefighter from the U.S. Forest Service was killed battling the flames on
Thursday. Searchers found his body yesterday. Wildfires have scorched
thousands of acres. The largest near Sacramento has burned more than
18,000 acres.

Meanwhile, the government of Zimbabwe says it plans to ask the U.S. to
extradite Walter Palmer. Palmer is the Minnesota dentist and big game
hunter who has gone into hiding after killing Cecil the lion and inciting
global outrage.

NBC`s Kelly Cobiella has been following the story, joins us now live from
London.

So, Kelly, what`s going to happen here?

KELLY COBIELLA, NBC NEWS CORRESPONDENT: Well, that`s the big question. We
may not know for weeks, possibly months, Steve. The Fish and Wildlife
Service says a representative for the doctor has now been in touch and
their investigation is ongoing. But will Dr. Palmer have to face justice
in Zimbabwe?

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

COBIELLA (voice-over): The killing of Cecil the lion was illegal, the
Zimbabwe government says. And they want Walter Palmer to be extradited.

The Minnesota dentist is still in hiding. His local guide, Theo
Bronkhorst, told "The Telegraph" newspaper the two were upset when they
realized they killed a protected lion. But he said, "We took the head and
the skin as the client had paid for the trophy." He said Palmer wanted to
kill an elephant next but couldn`t find one big enough.

Trophy hunting is legal in 11 African countries. Every year, tourists kill
105,000 animals, including 600 lions, more than 600 elephants and 800
leopards. Even endangered species like the black rhino can be fair game.

Over 95 percent of Americans are against hunting any animal in danger of
extinction. Yet over half of big game trophies go to American hunters.
They pay tens of thousands of dollars, money they argue goes towards
helping animal populations.

Jason Crebin hunts in South Africa but only kills what locals can eat.

JASON CREBIN, HUNTER: These animals are providing food, lifestyles, jobs
for unfortunate people over there. A lot of the hunting stuff falls right
back into the community.

COBIELLA: Most conservationists agree.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Trophy can be conducted sustainably and scrupulously,
and can contribute to conservation.

COBIELLA: But while paying to kill brings in millions, paying to see the
animals is worth billions.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

COBIELLA: Safari tourism brings in an estimated $25 billion a year to
African economies.

And, Steve, as for that elephant that Dr. Palmer allegedly wanted to hunt
after killing Cecil the lion, hunting elephants in Zimbabwe is legal. But
bringing the trophies back to the United States is not.

KORNACKI: Interesting.

NBC`s Kelly Cobiella in London -- thank you for that report. I appreciate
it.

Still, a big issue plagued Obama and is now plaguing Hillary.

Next, Republicans threaten to shut down the government once again. We`re
going to find out why on the other side of this break.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

KORNACKI: As Congress heads out for a month of vacation any day now,
another federal government shutdown could be looming. This time, lawmakers
are fighting over the future of Planned Parenthood. This in the wake of
secretly recorded videos that show Planned Parenthood employees discussing
prices for fetal tissue and body parts according to the anti-abortion
activist group that released them.

The videos, some might find them disturbing, had been edited by that group.
A federal judge last night blocked the release of future recordings
revealing private information pending a hearing on Monday.

Meanwhile, a growing group of Republicans now saying that they will reject
any bill to keep the government open that does not gut federal funding for
Planned Parenthood.

Ted Cruz and 18 House conservatives first issued the shutdown threat
Wednesday with more centrist voices following suit. Senator John McCain
telling "Politico", quote, "I would vote for a spending bill that defunded
it. And that`s the way it`s going to be. It`s pretty obvious."

There`s going to be a test vote this coming Monday on defunding Planned
Parenthood. But it`s expected to fall short of the 60-vote it needs to
overcome a filibuster.

The White House also weighed in on a growing controversy on Thursday.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

JOSH EARNEST, WHITE HOUSE PRESS SECRETARY: There`s ample reason to think
this is merely the tried and true tactic that we`ve seen from some
extremists, you know, on the right to edit this video and selectively
release and edited version of the video that grossly distorts the position
of the person who is actually speaking on the video. The president
certainly will not support another effort by Republicans to try to defund
an organization that offers important and needed health care services to
millions of women across the country.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

KORNACKI: So, let`s talk about the panel about where this is all heading.

To set up the discussion, let me just put this on the screen. This is
polling from just a couple weeks ago. Planned Parenthood, favorability
rating, nationally, 52 percent of Americans say they have a favorable view
of Planned Parenthood, 30 percent say they have an unfavorable view.

There have been past attempts to cut off federal funding for Planned
Parenthood. What might be different this time the proponents think that
these videos have stirred up something and changed the political climate.
For instance, put this up -- Hillary Clinton asked about the videos in New
Hampshire this week. She said, "I`ve seen pictures from them. I obviously
find them disturbing."

So, you`ve got in the minds of the anti-abortion activists, you`ve got
Planned Parenthood supporters on the defensive on this one.

Sabrina, how does this play out? Is there pay risk for Planned Parenthood
to lose federal funding.

SIDDIQUI: Well, ultimately, I don`t think that will happen with President
Obama and the White House. He will most likely veto this, and even Hillary
Clinton, although she said the videos were disturbing. She then issued a
forceful defense of Planned Parenthood and all the other health care
services that it provides to millions of women across the country.

You know, there is growing support among Republicans in the Senate and
certainly in the House as well for this tactic of trying to attach it to a
spending bill. At the same time, the test vote expected on Monday, you
know, talking to a lot of lawmakers last week in the hallways of the
Senate, it certainly gauged that they don`t have the required votes to
overcome a filibuster. And so, I think if you`re Majority Leader Mitch
McConnell, you`ll use that test vote to then try and quell that movement
and say, well, we don`t have the votes to obviously defund Planned
Parenthood in the spending bills.

He`s a supporter of the bill. He`s a sponsor of it. He`s supporting at
least the effort. But then, that would be, I think, his strategy to allow
that vote to fail, have the symbolic vote and then move on.

KORNACKI: So, what about the overall, the politics of Planned Parenthood
and the videos. Mike Huckabee talking about it in the campaign trail, Rick
Perry. The anti-abortion activists believe they have politically something
that`s going to change the equation on this.

COX: I am not sure -- I am not sure if I agree for the long-term. It
tends to -- I think talking about Planned Parenthood tends to educate
people about Planned Parenthood. And there`s a lot of people out there who
know about Planned Parenthood because they`ve had an experience with it.

I personal have gotten birth control from Planned Parenthood in various
times in my life when I haven`t had insurance. Most of what they do is
provide birth control. And there`s been estimates that actually if they --
the leading provider to women who use publicly provided birth control. If
they did not provide it, the abortion rate would be, some people say 2/3
higher than it is today.

And, of course, there is no federal money goes towards performing
abortions. There are laws in various states, and, of course, federal laws.
So, Planned Parenthood doesn`t use any of the federal money that it gets to
actually perform abortions. This is really showmanship at a crass level.

And I think if you get people talking about it, you`re going to get some
people reminding them that what an important part it plays in their life.
For a lot of women, Planned Parenthood and other publicly funded health
care providers that are mainly family planning centers, that is -- that is
their primary health care. That is where they go for their annual
checkups. And that is what they used.

And most of the Planned Parenthood`s money doesn`t come in the form of a
block grant. It comes from Medicare or Medicaid. Medicaid, it comes from
Medicaid paying for women who use it as their primary care doctor.

This is -- I don`t think this is going to work out well for them.

KORNACKI: What do you think, Peter?

SUDERMAN: I mean, I think that this is a symbolic issue that Republicans
want to do for their base, for the social conservative part of the base,
which remains a huge part of Republican Party and which is always
frustrated with Republicans which they`re trying to motivate right now
during the primary season. And so, this is something that they`re going to
do symbolically and that they`re going to pursue, but it`s not going to end
up with Planned Parenthood being defunded.

I also think that it sort of shows how relatively unserious Republicans are
about cutting spending. This is a half billion dollars which is in some
ways a lot of money. It`s a lot of money to Planned Parenthood but it`s
not a lot of money in the grand scheme of the federal budget. This is the
fight they`re picking in their, you know, sort of grand let`s reduce the
deficit, you know, trillions of dollars here.

COX: Most of the money is actually state money. It`s only $105 million
from federal money directed to Planned Parenthood.

SIDDIQUI: I also think one of the things that was striking about this,
watching Republicans unveil the bill last week is how cautious they were in
the framing of this bill and of this fight that they`re picking. You could
see that they are mindful of the lingering gender gap that they face and
that`s why they made it a point to reallocate the federal funding toward
other women`s health care providers and so that it was not just a straight
bill that defunds Planned Parenthood.

And that is certainly, I think, what I believe will hold them back from
really allowing this fight to play out for too long because they are
keeping elections in mind. Mitch McConnell wants to retain the majority of
the Senate that they picked up last November. So --

KORNACKI: Right. It was that contraception mandate in 2012. The Obama
administration, the Obama campaign wanted that fight. They thought that
played well with them in the 2012 election. So, we`ll see how that
unfolds.

Still ahead, we`re going to discuss the big questions that Hillary Clinton
ducked this week, whether she can get away with that.

Stay with us.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: As president, would you sign a bill -- yes or no please
-- in favor of allowing the Keystone XL pipeline?

HILLARY CLINTON (D), PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: This is President Obama`s
decision and I am not going to second-guess him because I was in a position
to set this in motion and I do not think that would be the right thing to
do. So, I want to wait and see what he and Secretary Kerry decide. If
it`s undecided when I become president, I will answer your question.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

KORNACKI: That was Hillary Clinton responding or not really responding on
Tuesday to a question about the Keystone XL pipeline, declining to say
whether she supports that pipeline`s expansion. It`s a project that
started when she was secretary of state. Now, if approved, the new stretch
would transport tar sands oil from Canada down to the Gulf Coast of the
United States.

Clinton`s Democratic opponents for president were quick to criticize her
evasiveness.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SEN. BERNIE SANDERS (D-VT), PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: I don`t think there is
merit to that answer. She`s a candidate for president of the United
States. Climate change is one of the great issues that all of us have got
to deal with. I think the people are entitled to know her opinion on the
issue.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

KORNACKI: And Hillary Clinton has also taken a wait-and-see approach to
answering questions about the Trans Pacific Partnership, multinational
trade deal supported by President Obama. Clinton says she will not endorse
that fully until she sees the fine print.

President Obama has yet to make up his mind about the Keystone pipeline
either. But he has the job as chief executive.

So, you get the luxury of evading questions like this when you`re still
running for the job.

So, this "elect me president", and then you`ll find out what I of it. That
seemed to be the answer she`s giving there.

I mean, it`s obvious politically why she doesn`t want to answer a question
about the Keystone pipeline. I mean, it splits the Democratic base.
You`ve got labor on one side, you`ve got the environmentalists on the other
side.

You`ve got something else going on with the TPP. You`ve got labor is up in
arms about that. At the same time, this is something the Obama
administration is pushing. She wants to be seen within the Democratic
Party as the candidate of continuity with Barack Obama. So, she tries to
say nothing.

Can you get away with that?

SUDERMAN: I think you can when you`re Hillary Clinton running the Hillary
Clinton campaign, which is virtually certain. I mean, she`s going to be
the Democratic nominee. Almost no one thinks otherwise. A few Bernie
Sanders fans to the contrary.

And it`s actually similar to the confrontation with "The New York Times"
that we talked about earlier, is that when you`re in a position of strength
like that, you can confront a big media organization and you can refuse to
answer questions even important policy questions over and over again and
you can get away with it, because where else are Democrats going to go?

COX: What`s funny is she starts out with a defensible refusable answer,
which is like, this is something that`s happening now, I`m a former
secretary of state. I don`t want to get in the way of whatever
negotiations happening. She should have said something like when I was
secretary of state, I wouldn`t have appreciated it if another candidate had
come out with an opinion and tried to tell me what to do.

But then she goes to this, when I`m president, then I`ll tell you.

KORNACKI: Right.

(LAUGHTER)

KORNACKI: She knows the game she`s playing is what she`s basically --
here`s what I wonder. Look, OK, she`s the overwhelming favorite to win the
Democratic nomination, hard to see her losing that.

I wonder, longer term, if giving answers like this, of having people see an
answer like that, what that does to the image overall to Hillary Clinton --
here`s what I think of, play this moment.

This was -- a lot of people think this was the moment her campaign in 2008
really started to lose traction when Barack Obama really got his opening.
This was a 2007 debate when she was asked about the question of driver`s
license for illegal immigrants. This was that exchange.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

MODERATOR: You told the Nashua, New Hampshire, Editorial Board it makes a
lot of sense. Why does it make a lot of sense to give an illegal immigrant
a driver`s license?

CLINTON: Well, what Governor Spitzer is trying to do is fill the vacuum
left by the failure of this administration to bring about comprehensive
immigration reform.

CHRIS DODD (D), FORMER PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: You said yes. You thought
it made sense to do it.

CLINTON: No, I didn`t, Chris. But the point is, what are we going to do
with all these illegal immigrants driving on the roads?

DODD: That`s a legitimate --

MODERATOR: Do you support his plan?

CLINTON: You know, Tim, this is where everybody plays gotcha. It makes a
lot of sense. What is the governor supposed to do?

(END VIDEO CLIP)

KORNACKI: So, again, again, Sabrina, in that situation she`s in a much
more competitive primary than she probably is here. But again, if she`s
the Democratic nominee for president next year and she`s giving answers
like that this year, does that end up hurting her?

SIDDIQUI: I could.

I don`t think she`ll necessarily do that. Part of this is getting her
through the primary without much controversy and then if she`s standing up
on a debate stage with the Republican -- with the Republican nominee, if
they feel that they have to weigh in on an issue like Keystone or the
trade, Trans Pacific Partnership, and then they will.

Right now, I think her campaign is also making a calculation that it`s very
early. There are a lot of voters who are just not tuned in. Obviously,
with the primary, within the Democratic base and people who care deeply
about the Keystone pipeline and about the TPP. But when it comes to the
general electorate, they don`t -- they aren`t really watching the day to
day, and by the time she actually has to face voters, I think they would
have honed much clearer answers.

KORNACKI: All right. Bernie Sanders does not like that analysis, I can
tell you that.

But, anyway, up next, the first look at the upcoming Michael Bay film on
Benghazi, hitting the big screens just before the primaries. Peter is
cheering for that one.

Stay tuned.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

KORNACKI: All right. There is a lot going on this morning. Time to get
caught up on other headline making news with today`s panel. So, here`s one
-- the Benghazi movie. This has been starting to get a little bit of buzz.
A Michael Bay film about the attack on the American consulate in Benghazi
in 2012, a trailer for it was just released. Take a look at this.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: We need assistance. We are overrun.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: States under attack. Let`s go, man. States under
attack.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Let`s go, we got to move.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: If you do not get here soon, we are all going to die.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: You have a U.S. ambassador at risk.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: The ambassador is in his safe haven. You`re not the
first responders with the last resort.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

KORNACKI: Now, you can see, maybe there, one of the actors in that is John
Krasinski, who is in "The Office". The film is going to be called "13
hours: The Secret Soldiers of Benghazi."

Here is the key part, though. It is going to come out in January,
basically on the eve of the Iowa caucuses. This will be in the theaters as
voters go to the poll in the first in the nation caucus state.

SUDERMAN: I mean, they are aiming for the same spot in the calendar
release that "American Sniper" got last year, basically. It through
January, it made a ton of money. It was a huge, huge sleeper hit, ending
up being I believe the highest grossing film domestically last year.

And it`s directed by Michael Bay. It`s going to be a slam bang ridiculous
movie. He`s the guy that does "The Transformers" films. I really hope
there are giant robots on this and it`s kind of a revisionist look.

KORNACKI: I`m not expecting to do many giant robots.

COX: One thing about this, which is that the heroes of this movie are
military contractors and I`m concerned about that.

(LAUGHTER)

COX: Like, we`ll see what happens.

KORNACKI: I`m curious how they handle this one.

Let`s see what else we have from AFP -- judge rules fugitive Mexico kingpin
to be sent to U.S. So, a Mexican judge has issued an order to extradite
"El Chapo" if he is recaptured, big if there. Of course, he elaborately
escaped. Again, we put escaped in quotes here, escaped from a Mexican
security prison three weeks ago. The U.S. requested "El Chapo`s"
extradition on June 25th. This has obviously been a big international
story.

It`s also -- I got to say, we talked about the rise of Donald Trump and it
was one of those, the fact that this happened just as Donald Trump was in
all of the controversy over immigration comments, this is the sort of
anecdotal thing that happened that probably helped to fuel his rise a
little bit.

SIDDIQUI: It does. Well, he`s had a few of those anecdotal scenarios. I
mean, I`m not trying to diminish the sanctuary city debate, but he also
happened to have a tragedy that he could seize upon and then politicize for
his own agenda. But honestly, this whole "El Chapo" thing, that`s the
Michael Bay that I`m waiting to see.

KORNACKI: Yes. Well, it`s not a drama, though, when they basically let
him out of the jail. I`m not sure how much of it -- this is quite like
those New York --

COX: Michael Bay assigned to the prison.

KORNACKI: There you go.

Anyway, thanks to today`s panel, Ana Marie Cox, Peter Suderman, Sabrina
Siddiqui.

Thank you for getting UP at home and joining us to morning. We will see
you back here tomorrow morning at 8:00. But before that, you`re going to
want to watch "MELISSA HARRIS-PERRY". She is coming up next.

Have a great Saturday.



THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY
BE UPDATED.
END

<Copy: Content and programming copyright 2015 MSNBC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.
Copyright 2015 Roll Call, Inc. All materials herein are protected by
United States copyright law and may not be reproduced, distributed,
transmitted, displayed, published or broadcast without the prior written
permission of Roll Call. You may not alter or remove any trademark,
copyright or other notice from copies of the content.>






  MORE FROM RACHEL MADDOW SHOW  
  
Rachel Maddow Show Section Front
 
Add Rachel Maddow Show headlines to your news reader:
 

Sponsored links

Resource guide