the revelation rattled the republican party, leading dozens of lawmakers revoking their support of trump, and some have called on him to exit the race. paul ryan has said he would no longer campaign or defend donald trump with a phone call with gop leadership this morning. in a new poll, hillary clinton leads donald trump by 14 points. a cnn poll found that 57% of people felt hillary clinton won the debate. 34% said donald trump one. i am pleased to have my guests on this program. jonathan, where'd you think, after the release of the video and the debate, where are we with respect to donald trump and his campaign? and what might be expected for the rest of the week? nathan: we are at an extraordinary point where the most powerful republican will not defend his party's nominee, will not campaign for him. he hasn't un-endorsed him. donald trump had a debate performance that exceeded expectations, very low expectations. those in his party had low expectations. charlie: compared to the first debate, he was better. jonathan: yes. he stopped the bleeding to some degree. you did not see an exodus of more republicans leaving him after the debate, but he did not do much for helping his campaign. the party turned its resources towards every other race in the country except the presidential race. charlie: bob, where do you think the race is at this moment? bob: i think jonathan is spot on. talking to top republicans, there is a sense that the gop is boxed in because donald trump met the threshold in the sense that he roused the republican base that for 25 years have been looking for a certain kind of searing attack on the clintons, that is deeply personal and incendiary, going after the former president's past. because donald trump did that, he excited a lot of the base, the party leadership is reluctant to have a mass exodus. at the same time, the donald trump campaign is almost running , not as part of the republican party. he is the standardbearer but he insurgency for political stunts and potshots that is different than anything we have seen in history. charlie: frank? that: it is fascinating the rebbe -- the republicans would move to gary johnson. they watched donald trump in focus groups and moved towards him. they said he said what they needed to hear. charlie: was it because of what bob said? attacking bill clinton? frank: not in the personal way, it was in the sense that he was going to take on washington, d.c. i recognize that. i truly believe that he has undermined if not destroyed the american psyche and it will take us decades to get out of it. charlie: take philadelphia. he is going to philadelphia today. : there has been a series thatlls in pennsylvania show him down double digits. in pennsylvania, it is key to his strategy to putting together 270 electoral votes. i think we have gotten beyond that. pennsylvania is a state that is virtually lost to donald trump. even if he put in a stellar performance in the debate. right now, you talked to republican leaders, it is really about trying to keep this from being a cap -- a catastrophic loss that takes the house and senate. charlie: most republican leaders now believe it is an unwinnable election for donald trump. frank: they believe it is already lost. charlie: they are focusing on the house and governors and mayors. frank: there is a strategic debate about whether they need to prop him up so is it -- so it is not a disastrous loss or whether they need to cut him loose. isi do not believe it preordained. i believe there is a difficult path for him to win. it has to improve in pennsylvania, and it has to include october 19. it means he needs a stellar performance. without any histrionics, personal attacks. >> that was never part of the plan. >> he has never been able to do that, he has never had dipped -- discipline or focus. i am not a donald trump apologist, but call him dead. he has had nine lives already. charlie: what is the plan? bob: the most telling scene i have covered in the last year came last night. it was around midnight. rudy giuliani and kellyanne conway piling into one black suv at washington university at st. louis, and they were actively talking about , the commission on presidential debates stopped them from putting women who had accused president clinton of things in the past, including sexual assault and misconduct in the family box, and this was something they were about to have as a stunt on national tv up until three minutes before the broadcast went live. this was on record from giuliani. the plan was to have these women walk out and confront president clinton in that moment where usually, the spouses shake hands. they wanted the women confronting president clinton. this was at the top of the trump agenda. it was confirmed by both sides of the discussion. the idea that the trump campaign is thinking about the party, i don't hear that. when i spoke to donald trump on saturday, he said the republican party to him does not mean that much. he thinks they have lost in the past because they do not have the guts, as he put it to , challenge the status quo. this is a candidate in a campaign who are consumed with their own agenda, their own strategy, not really thinking about what paul ryan or mitch mcconnell wants. charlie: let me go back to the plan that you wrote about today. am i correct? bob: yes. charlie: they wanted to put those women, that were part of the press conference, in the vip box. would they want them to be there where bill clinton was? what was the purpose and who stopped it? frank stopped it? bob: he did. charlie: rudy giuliani was going to take them up to the box, escort them to the box. bob: they were going to be escorted to the box, but they were going to be the people who walked out instead of melania trump. it would have been four women walking out to shake bill clinton's hand and to see if he would shake their hand. this is how they wanted the debate to start. the vip boxes were elevated near the stage, so they wanted the four women overlooking secretary clinton, steps away for the , entire debate. this was not a fanciful idea, this is something that was almost executed in front of a record national television audience. >> it is interesting how extraordinary this was. i was in the hall last night. unlike the previous debate, the vip box were the only seats on the stage, on the actual stage. these were so close, you could basically reach over and tap anderson cooper on the shoulder. these were the four seats set aside for the family, and they were going to put these four women, including one who accused rape, they're in that box on the stage, in the eyesight of hillary clinton for the entire debate. charlie: it was where bill clinton was sitting? >> the boxes are separated, but not by much. each family had a box on each side. charlie: whose brainchild was it? was it been an? bob: bannon, giuliani and donald trump, sitting together on the airplane, thinking about how to rattle secretary clinton. think about that. instead of focusing on what is wrong with washington, what has gone wrong with wall street, they are trying to pull off a political stunt that would have enraged more than half the country. it would have made the point. this is why he has had a 63% on a bit -- on favorability rating. this is why so many people cannot even consider voting for him. this is the problem with the system right now, it is so inherently broken. we are 28 days before the election. what happens on the day after the election? how will these people govern? how will they talk to each other? how are they going to sit in the same room? and the republicans are so divided now that paul ryan is not absolutely assured of being reelected speaker. enough republicans would vote against him. ard divided not just on donald trump and the personal baggage in terms of the trump campaign, but they are divided on the fundamental issues of what the party stands for. is it a party of free trade, is it a party of immigration reform, is it a party of entitlement reform? what does this party stand for? anybody undecided at this point? >> no. uncommitted, but not undecided. they decided who they will vote against. charlie: has this become, in the end, as the democrats hoped, a referendum on donald trump? >> yes it has, and donald trump has himself to blame. it was his antics that caused this to happen. the problem is, you can't get over it. i cannot emphasize this enough, this has gone so deep into the public psyche that it will take years to rid ourselves of this poison. -- theexplict ordinary extraordinary thing is, what an opportunity they had with hillary clinton is probably the most flawed presidential nominee democrats have put forward in modern times. on e-mails,apology it looks about as sincere as anyld trump's apologies for one of this litany of things. you saw her inability to give a good answer on what she was talking about in those goldman sachs speeches. the idea of a public persona and private persona was donald trump's best moment in the debate. you have a situation where over severeacare is facing a crisis, and republicans are unable to effectively make it an issue. charlie: it hasn't become a big issue. bob: charlie, just quickly, i am struck by, talking to trump officials and talking to trump and voters, the right-left dynamic of political campaigns is not happening. the dynamic is not occurring. we are seeing trump incompetent they cannotsation, stand the media, they cannot stand the republican party and they don't like the democratic party. they are disengaged all of those institutions and think there is some kind of conspiratorial collusion among the three groups. that is creating, i think what frank has referenced, there is a psyche out there, it is a large group of voters that are disengaged from these institutions that have held together american political life. where that goes, i'm not sure. that is something that is actively happening and being stoked by donald trump. >> we have to not allow him to use the phrase "this election was rigged." if he does, i think you would agree, there will be tens of millions of people who will believe him and never accepted new administration. forget the honeymoon. it will not be that the loser accepts the loss. >> he was talking about putting her in jail, at the debate. allow that moment to sink in. i mean, to see him say that he would -- charlie: and called her a liar. about 10 times. with respect to the russians, is there any news as to how the u.s. government, the fbi and the security council and nsa see the actions of the russians? >> the intelligence community came up with a finding that it was a most certainly the russians, i and almost certainly had to be approved by the most senior levels of the russian government. the question is what to do about it. i don't think that is clear at all. we put this question to the white house. charlie: they say? >> we don't know. the fear is, and we discussed this a while back -- charlie: we have to retaliate in some way. >> there is also a risk. if they retaliate, talk to richard clarke about this. if they retaliate, the russians retaliate. what happens if they take out the electrical grid in new york city? cyber war is a whole new frontier. it is dangerous. toe, we have the capability retaliate in kind, and it would be interesting to see vladimir putin's e-mails, but what is the -- or banking transactions play out on wikileaks, but what is the retaliation to the retaliation? charlie: do you expect more disclosures to come out about what donald trump may or may not have said to howard stern or some other media outlet that will simply keep this pot being stirred by disclosures, as people realize there is a lot of stuff out there because donald trump has been a celebrity and in pursuit of attention for a long time? >> certainly, "the washington post" and other organizations are looking into it. you also have the trump campaign , fully aware of other tapes and videos that are out there and that are possibly coming out. circle, trump's's inner is bracing this morning and afternoon for more things to this week.ter there is an expectation that trump tower that that will happen. the goldmine is really "the apprentice." the producer of the series is the owner of many tapes, things that were never broadcast, featuring donald trump. he has been reluctant. he has not released those tapes, everyone is trying to get a hold of "the apprentice" tapes. >> there are 12 seasons of tapes. i talked to a guy who worked sound on that show, and he heard those things, and sound people do not destroy what they have. if donald trump said it, they will come out. charlie: stay with us. ♪ ♪ charlie: tom barrack is here, he is the founder and executive chairman of a global real estate and investment management turn -- firm, overseeing $20 billion in assets. he is a longtime friend of donald trump and a close advisor to the trump campaign, serving on his economic and national security councils. i'm pleased to have him back here. welcome. tom: thanks, charlie. it is a privilege to be here. charlie: it has been here for 25 years. tell me about last night, the debates. tom: my personal view had been the same for a while, this idea of trying to show the rest of the world a piece of donald you had not seen, which is a more cadencened professional. a controlled demeanor. it is not that he doesn't have it, and isn't willing to do it. when you mention that word to him, he is not very excited. this lack of political etiquette is the key to the door that he is trying to establish. but i think it was imperative that people see that he had control, he had demeanor, he had poise, that he was intellectually up to the issues, and that he had the temperament to be presidential in whatever view that was. charlie: the question is whether he did better in the second debate than the first debate. that is a relative question. there is a consensus he didn't do well in the first debate. you share that. tom: i do. charlie: both candidates have had a large amount of disapproval, and it is not the first time in america. go back to jefferson and jackson and the feuds they had, and jefferson and hamilton in the feuds they had. this seems to be a new level of bitterness. do you share that? tom: i do. by the way, just going back, i think donald shares it. , if disruptor, his view is he would've listen to people at the beginning, he wouldn't be in this position. he would still be a reality show host. he would be back on "the apprentice." disruption carried the day for him, in finding this -- charlie: carried the day with whom? tom: the constituency he has. charlie: white working-class men. tom: i would like to make one comment on women. i have known him for 40 years. i know all the women in his life. i'm close with two of his wives. since she was a baby. women in his organization are critically important. he had a woman named norma toerer who came him -- game him as his secretary when he had three employees. over 26 years, she blossomed into controlling his entire entity. over that time, i watched him interact with her and all of the women in the organization with unbelievable elegance and softness. totally different from what we are perceiving from personal banter. of course, technology makes it difficult. if we all had technology intervening in personal conversations, it would probably not be great thing. the difference is, and i think he did this, he said it was inappropriate, i'm sorry that it happened. charlie: he said it was locker room talk, and a lot of athletes are saying it is not a locker room i've ever been. tom: the locker room was a giant misstep and that started a tsunami. charlie: what you mean? tom: to say locker room was inferring in a nice way that this is the kind of conversation and a privatean setting without women involved, and nobody is being insulted. it was a misnomer because in every word you say gets transmuted. charlie: we are questioning the character and integrity of him because he has reflected in his own use of language in a way that causes that to take place. he is responsible for this emphasis on it. you seem to be saying, and you know him and are his friend and you have been a business partner. you helped him with the plaza hotel and other things. you have been there. you still are, you sit on two important councils. economic and national security. you seem to say that whatever he does is ok because he is being a disruptor and he believes that is the way to win and the end justifies the means. saying, no, the presidency is different. it is about character and quality, something other than simply finding the deepest, disrupt.lace to try to tom: let's be clear. i am not making a value decision that anything is ok. what i am doing is portraying what i see as context. charlie: trying to understand him is what i think you can help with. that, i dealying in an environment where i have to build constituencies. i may portray them differently to each constituency. i make -- at i may talk different to each constituency. at the end of the day take my , track record good and bad. i have made businesses, i have lost businesses, i have capital gains, all of this is an issue. at the end of the day, let us separate words from actions. charlie: he has cast aspersions on a whole range of people, and that becomes the issue of the day. tom: again, i don't think, and a lot of these things for sure, if he didn't go after the muslim mother, it wouldn't -- it would've been a good thing. he did not need to talk about the miss universe situation. people get it. they don't look at -- charlie: then why does he do it? why does he feel he has to do that rather than talking about how he wants to change the country in terms of policy? mind, whatk in his he is doing is communicating to what he thinks the average voter is saying. you fight what you actually believe then and you accept consequences, even if that is the media and three fourths of the voting population is thinking it is absurd. charlie: according to the wall street journal not a single , chief executive of a fortune 500 company has endorsed him. if you are a public company likeou endorse someone him, that is not a very good thing. let's talk about the market. the market is deciding who won the debate. the peso. this is a joke, right? the peso goes up and hillary wins the debate. the peso goes down, donald wins. the issue is, the market is looking for transparency and consistent -- consistency in logic and we know there is not , any. i think for sure, disruption in every form is frightening to everyone in the establishment, including big business. big business cannot support these outlandish positions for the reasons you are saying, a very good argument for most people, saying there is something wrong in the consistency of the man delivering the message. i don't think that. i think the opposite. charlie: instead of there being something wrong with the consistency of the man delivering it? tom: the frustrating thing to me is, i know the man. the man is perfectly fit. the dialogue we have been in is confusing. at this point, to me, if i were advising him, if he actually listen to me, -- charlie: he doesn't listen to anybody. but he firmlys believes the track he is on is the correct track. to pivot and get to where he could do it, he could sit with you, the best thing would be for him to sit with you for an hour and a half and let you drill on him about these real substantive issues. i promise, you would be more impressed than what you would think. charlie: we will have him here tomorrow. tom: i will try. charlie: thanks for coming. tom: thank you for having me. ♪ ♪ charlie: ruth bader ginsburg is an associate justice of the united states supreme court. she was nominated by bill clinton in 1993. she had been serving as a judge on the d.c. court of appeals since 1980 when president jimmy carter appointed her. her early career was defined by advocacy in gender discrimination cases, earning her a reputation of the thurgood marshall of the women's rights movement. she has written a book, i met with her on the occasion of the publication. charlie: thank you so much for this opportunity to talk to you. justice ginsberg: it is a pleasure to talk to you. charlie: this is the first book you have written since being a justice of the supreme court. justice ginsberg: yes, not the first book ever. the first book was a bestseller about civil procedure in sweden. [laughter] charlie: i missed that one. but you have always been about procedure. justice ginsberg: yes, i taught procedure at rutgers and columbia. charlie: this is a collection of speeches and writings about you and the law. when did the love affair with the law begin? justice ginsberg: my interest in becoming a lawyer started in the 1950's when i was a student, and undergraduate student at cornell. it was the heyday of senator joe mccarthy. not a good time for a country. there was a huge red scare. people were being called before the house on un-american activities committee. they were being interrogated about some group they belong to at the height of the depression in the 1930's. charlie: and lost their jobs. justice ginsberg: there was a blacklist in the entertainment industry. my professor brought to my attention the lawyers that were appearing before the people, called before the committees. they were reminding congress we have a first amendment and that they were straying very far from those fundamental precepts of our system. charlie: you saw the law as a protector of our liberties. justice ginsberg: yes, i wanted to do something that would make conditions better. so that is what led me to take the lsat when i was a junior. that is the law school aptitude test. charlie: you were at cornell from 1950-1954. there was another student there. justice ginsberg: my dear husband. we decided that whatever we do, we do it together. he started out as a chemistry major, but his true major was golf. he was for business school or law school. in the 1950's, for some reason he determined that harvard was the place for us, but harvard at that time did not admit women. so the law school. i was very pleased because that was my number one choice. charlie: so you set out for harvard law school. justice ginsberg: not immediately. we were married, and we had a gap period. we were on a base. charlie: he became a great chef. he cooked until he died. was he cooking then? was he a great chef then? justice ginsberg: he was learning then. i had a cousin who sent him a cookbook, an english translation, and he treated it like a chemistry text. he started with page one, the basic stocks and moved on to sauces. in the course of two years, he became an excellent cook. i still have the cookbook that he used. it is falling apart, it has food stains to show how well used it was. charlie: you said that what happened in your life was that you were the weekday cook and he cooked on weekends and special occasions. justice ginsberg: for any visitors, i was not allowed to cook for guests. charlie: at some point your daughter said they do not want to cook anymore. justice ginsberg: i had seven things that i made, we would get to number seven and i would go back to number one. the only cookbook i used was for 60 minute meals. no more than one hour from the kitchen to the table. charlie: you transfer to columbia. why transfer? justice ginsberg: marty was one year ahead of me, he had his first year at harvard. in my second year, his third year, he had cancer, a testicular tumor. in those days, it was most uncertain whether he would live. no chemotherapy, massive surgery and massive radiation. we wanted to be together for as long as he would live. as it turned out, he lived many years after that. he was one of the first survivors of that form of cancer. jane was three years old, and i did not want to be a single mother. so i left harvard and asked if i could have a harvard degree if i successfully completed my legal education at columbia. the answer from the dean was absolutely not, you have to spend her third year here. i said, but you accept transfers until the second year. they say the third year is the most important. that doesn't make sense. i was told a rule is a rule. i went to columbia, contemplating three years of law school and no degree from either institution was too much. but columbia gave me a degree. they transferred me to the columbia law review and they were very good to me. charlie: harvard did not give you a degree. but marty comes to you and says, do not go back and accept anything from harvard in less they will give you an honorary degree. justice ginsberg: when my colleague became the dean of harvard, every year, she said we would love to have you as a graduate. marty said, hold out for an honorary degree. which i eventually received. charlie: there is a picture of you and placido domingo. he is singing to you, and your title is what? justice ginsberg: "woman in ecstasy." it was a thrill enough to know that we would be seated next to each other because we were in alphabetical order. domingo was just wonderful. when they called me to receive my honorary degree and he stood up and went to the microphone and things words the students had written, to the tune of one of the most famous arias in the world, it was a thrilling moment. being so close to that great voice was like having an electric shock run through me. charlie: we are talking about three great loves of your life, marty, the law and opera. you teach at rutgers and columbia. why teach? justice ginsberg: my plan was that i would work at a law firm for about five years and then going to teaching. teaching is a very good life for someone who likes to read, who likes to think -- charlie: and likes to write. justice ginsberg: i had an offer from rutgers in 1963 at a time when there were perhaps women perhaps 15 women teaching in tenured positions in law school from coast-to-coast. there was a burden then, what i bird in hand.as a word in han would i get another offer if i went to a law firm and waited? so i took the offer in 1963 and remained there until 1972. that was the year of the woman. every faculty in the country was looking for women. charlie: and columbia came looking for you. justice ginsberg: yes. charlie: when did you get drawn into the women's movement? justice ginsberg: the late 1960's. i begin to think about it when i was in sweden in the early 1960's. sweden was already much further than the united states in opening opportunities for women. so observed how people were living, but i put it on the back burner. in the late 1960's, the women's movement came alive again, and my students propelled me into this line of inquiry. charlie: asking for legal advice? justice ginsberg: asking for a course on women and the law. so i went into the library and inside a month i had read every article and federal decision that had to do with gender-based differentials. it was no mean feat, there was precious little and all of it was bad. whatever lines based on gender the law draws is ok with the court. my students wanted to have a course on women in the law. i prepared for that. at the same time, new kinds of complaints were coming into the new jersey affiliate of the aclu. women who were schoolteachers and pregnant and were being forced onto so-called maternity leave as soon as they began to show in the fourth or fifth month. the leave was without pay and there was no guarantee of return. schoolteachers were not pleased with the arrangement, they thought they were ready, willing and able to work and there was no reason why they should have to leave the classroom just because they were pregnant. another group of blue-collar women whose place of work had health insurance coverage. these women wanted health insurance coverage for their families. the employer's rule was that family coverage was only available for a male worker because a woman was not considered the head of the family, she was a pin money earner. she can get money for herself and her family. those new complaints were coming in, complaints that women finally have the courage to voice. it was the new clients and my students that propelled me into -- charlie: you also started a review and it became -- it seems to have become the driving purpose and driving cause of your life. justice ginsberg: i had a fantastic opportunity. there was a real possibility that there would be change in the laws. feminists have been saying the same thing that we set in the 1970's generations before, that society was not ready to listen. you speak of abigail adams, she told john to remember the ladies and he did not. but in the 1970's, the women's movement was coming alive all over the world, not just in the united states. the united nations had declared international women's year. we had just had the experience of the civil rights movement of the 1960's, so it was possible in the 1970's to move the court away from the lines drawn based on gender. the warren court's one contribution was a woman, today we would call her battered. she had a husband who was philandering, abusive and who had humiliated her to the breaking point. she spied her young sons baseball bat and took it and hit him over the head. he fell against a hard floor. end of their fight, beginning of her murder prosecution. florida at that time did not put women on a jury rolls. her point of view was, if there were women on the jury, they might better understand what was in my mind, my rage at that moment. charlie: but she was convicted by 12 men. justice ginsberg: yes, she did not necessarily think women would acquit her, that she thought they might come in for a lesser crime of manslaughter. but she was convicted of murder by an all-male jury. her case came before the supreme court, and the court said, we don't understand the complaint. women have the best of all possible worlds. women can go to the post office and sign up for the jury rolls, but if they do not sign up, they are not there. how many men would sign up if they were not obliged to serve? and what does a lot like that -and what is a law like that- saying to people? it says, men are essential to administer justice, women are expendable and we do not need them to be part of the system of justice. so that is where the warren court was, they did not get it. you can imagine her when she was told that women have the best of all possible worlds. it was exactly 10 years later in 1971 that the berger court moved in a new direction. that was in the case that was the first gender discrimination brief i wrote in the supreme court. i had written such briefs for courts of appeal. sally was an everyday woman. she made her living taking care of the elderly. she had a young son and she and her husband had divorced. sally got custody when the boy was what the law calls "of tender years." when the boy reached his teens, the father said he needs cap custody so that he can be aware of a man's world. sally fought that, she thought he would be a bad influence. she was right, the boy became severely depressed and one day he took out one of his father's guns and committed suicide. sally wanted to be administrator of his estate and she applied. not for economic reasons, there was very little there. the father perhaps out of spite applied a few weeks later and the probate court said, sally, the law controls what i must do. it reads, as between persons be equally entitled to administer a decedent's estate, males must be preferred to females. sally took that case on her own dime to three levels of the idaho courts. and then someone on the aclu board spotted it when it was on the idaho supreme court, and said this is the case that will turn the supreme court in a new direction. and it did. the supreme court took her case, and in a very low-key opinion held that a statute saying males must be preferred to females is a violation of the equal protection law. charlie: who wrote the brief for sally? justice ginsberg: i did. her lawyer obviously did, but i wrote her brief. arguedlawyer from idaho but i wrote her brief. charlie: when people say that you are to the woman's movement what thurgood marshall was to the civil rights movement? justice ginsberg: i feel uncomfortable with that comparison. charlie: because? justice ginsberg: we definitely copied thurgood marshall's message. he proceeded step-by-step all the way up to brown versus ford. -- brown against board. you have to declare separate but equal unconstitutional in all circumstances. but there is an enormous difference. during the 1970's when i was dealing with these gender discrimination cases -- charlie: most of them successful. justice ginsberg: my life was never in danger. thurgood marshall when he got up in the morning did not know. my life was never in danger. charlie: so courage for him. -- so a different kind of courage for him. justice ginsberg: enormous courage. the naacp, he headed the legal defense fund, it was the only show in town. if african-americans wanted to be represented, it was the naacp. when the women's movement was underway, it was more dispersed. there were more cases going to private lawyers, sometimes groups other than the aclu. charlie: when they talk about the women's movement and they talk about the legal argument in the architecture that helped prevail in the courts, they put you in front of the parade. and you know that. justice ginsberg: i was fortunate to have that position. when i was a teacher at rutgers and deciding where i should affiliate, with what group should i affiliate, i picked the aclu because it is not women's rights, it is people's rights. rights as well as women's. i call it the struggle for equal citizenship stature for men and women. there were cases brought on behalf of men who were disadvantaged sibling because they were men. the law reflected this pattern. men were the breadwinners and represented the family outside of the home. women took care of the home and children. the common-law rule and civil rule were identical in this respect. the man was the head of the household and could choose any mode of living and she was obliged to conform. in civil law, the states in the united states that have their inheritance based on french law, based in spanish and french law, it was called the head and master rule. ♪ mark: i'm mark crumpton, you are watching "bloomberg technology." in an attempt to appeal to millennial voters, hillary clinton campaign with former vice president, al gore, saying clinton would make climate change a top priority. mr. gore: the choice in this election is extremely clear. hillary clinton will make solving the climate crisis a top national priority. mark: he warns that donald trump would "take us toward a climate catastrophe." mr. pence: when he takes residence in the white house, he