we have to go after these terrorist organizations and hit them hard. we have to counter extremism but thatso have to make sure it is not easy for somebody who in thisthey want to go country to be able to obtain weapons. over the nextt days and weeks that we are being sober about how we approach this facts gethe determined by our investigators, we also do reflection and how we can best attack what will be a very challenging problem not just in this country but around the world. this we will talk about policy tonight but let's start with one of the many fundamental questions. john, what does the shooting mean for the war against terror? john: there is no question in these moments, we saw this after in termster brussels of mass shootings abroad and san bernardino and now in orlando, ofre is a heightened degree focus on the issues. there is not perfect unanimity between the parties but there is agreement on the notion that state is on islamic the core of what some of these events that are driving them, whether that is through direct recruitment or ideological recruitment, it is at the core of it. there is broad agreement we have to wipe out that threat. there are domestic questions with the homegrown element of this. what can we do within the borders of the united states? that will be a debate i think we will see for the rest of the campaign season. mark: a horrible thing for the the orlandofor community but it's also horrible because i think it shows how much division there is on how to fight the war on terror. emphasis on how to improve america's image, how much we need to sacrifice in terms of individual liberty. the debate that has occurred so , itin the vulnerability shows how unable to country is to stop something so simple and so horrible. there is a kind of core level unanimity on the topic. people recognize we have to get at the root cause but then there is the question of tactic. i do think there are substantial differences between the parties on how to deal with the root cause abroad and questions about how much do we want to redefine how much moree, surveillance should there be, how much do we enlist high-tech companies to root out people who have extremist ideologies internally, all those things on the table. because iw phase think as you said, we waited for this to come home but it hadn't really come home. now it is very much the focus for a lot of people about what to do coming next and it will be a big energetic debate going forward. shooting has renewed calls for tighter gun control laws in america. say that the weapons used on sunday were purchased legally by the shoe is despite being previously -- by the shoe despite being previously investigated for terrorist links. what do you think the shooting ands for that discussion that argument in american politics now? mark: zero. after every mass shooting, there is talk of strict gun control laws, talk about how we should take the event and turn it into a push for more gun control but with so many other issues including national security, i don't think this has any chance of having any impact on a debate about whether there should be additional measures. john: i think that is right in the short-term but it's obvious hillary clinton will put it front and center in her campaign. it's obvious there's a wide degree of agreement among most american voters that certain kinds of common sense gun for.ation they would be if hillary clinton makes essential to her campaign and those are the political circumstances that can strain action in this area. hillary clinton has been putting this front and center for months. themay be leading groundwork for being able to accomplish something on this front of certain things change in terms of the makeup of controlled congress and she wins the presidency. mark: i meant in the short term. long-term, i agree. i think hillary clinton will be the most aggressive candidate in the history of the country advocating more aggressive changes in gun control laws. and this event is something she will talk about. ,f hillary clinton wins absolutely cuddly to change. in the short-term, the short-term debate will not be about between now and the end of the year how to change gun laws because republicans will not focus on that in they still control the congress in a lot of states. whichthere is no issue on there is, if you judge by -- we will talk about secretary clinton and donald trump's speeches today -- but there is no other issue on which there is more clear division between hillary clinton and donald trump than on this very issue. i do think there is a predicate by secretary clinton being laid down. if we assume this is not the last attack of this kind we see on the homeland, i do think this may be the first time there could be measurable change in this area in many years if those things happen in that sequence. mark: obviously because the target of the attack, a gay nightclub during pride month, that has sparked an outpouring of support and solidarity with community over the last couple days. vigils have been held and planned across the country. tonight, the tower lit up in rainbow colors to remember the victims. based on what has happened, what does this tragedy mean do you think for the gay rights movement? gay rights movement in america because of demographics is advancing and it has been for a long time. what we saw today is unlike the gun control debate where the line was clearly drawn and the parties remain as far apart as ever. alongas suddenly brought a lot of republicans who had not been previously prone to talking about it in some pathetic ways toward the lgbt community. you hear from donald trump, marco rubio, a lot of republicans expressing sympathy. when you hear a party having to express sympathy, it makes it harder for them to later or simultaneously be against other measures that help that community. there is no way in which you ever want to think about something like this as there being a political upside or a silver lining. there is no so over lining of the people who lost their lives but it is the case i think that it is bringing out more explicit sympathy from people who have not been sympathetic to lgbt rights than we have ever heard. john: as much as some republicans have been outspoken a huge this will be deal. it already is. you are ready see many republicans talking about the community in a way they never have and i don't think there is any going back. processl accelerate a that was already underway and it will make it more difficult for those who want the republican party to have a different position than the democrat party rights.writes -- term, inn in the short this context, how much would it take now for an anti-lgbt rights ,roposal that restrict rights it would be anonymously politically difficult and it would exhibit -- in the short term, it is the move. and it pushes us in the direction we have been going to for quite some time. when we come back, donald trump and hillary clinton responding to the orlando attack. we will talk about what they said and whether the strategy will change the discourse of the 2016 race. right after this break. ♪ john: hillary clinton and donald trump reacted to the orlando shooting with tweets and statements. calling it nearly -- calling into nearly every major morning show to discuss their policies for combating terrorism, which they laid out in speeches. laquon spoke in ohio. come smoke -- trump spoke in new hampshire. here is what it sounded like. clinton: the terrorist may be dead but the violence that poisoned his mind remains very much alive. mr. trump: it is an assault on the ability of free people to live their lives, love who they want, and express their identity. clinton: the attack makes it even more clear we cannot contain this threat, we must defeated. mr. trump: i will suspend emigration from areas where there is a proven history of terrorism against the united states or our allies. inflammatory anti-muslim rhetoric and threatening to ban the families and friends of muslim americans as well as millions of muslim business people and tourists from entering our country hurts the vast majority of muslims who love freedom and hate terror. mr. trump: hillary clinton for months and despite so many attacks repeatedly refused to even say the words radical islam until i challenged her yesterday and guess what? she will probably say them that let's see what happens. ms. clinton: we have to stop the america andhadists back again. tell the: we need to truth about radical islam and we need to do it now. if the fbi is watching you for a suspected terrorist link, you shouldn't be able to just go buy a gone with -- buy a gun. [applause] the secondabolishing amendment and leaving only the bad guys and terrorists with guns. no good, not going to happen, folks. lgbtlinton: to all the people grieving today, you have millions of allies who will always have your back. and i am one of them. mr. trump: ask yourself, who is really the friend of women and the lgbt community? donald trump with actions or hillary clinton with her words? i will tell you with a better friend is and someday, i believe that will be proven. big speeches and other media appearances by the presumptive nominees today. how do you think based on what we have seen, how do think the tragedy will impact the race? mark: we both said if there is an event like this, it will elevate national security, maybe even on par with the economy as a test for these candidates. i thought hillary clinton today and her team executed in the text of her speech, and her performance being tough and optimistic in terms of the semi-addicts of the event, i thought they handled it flawlessly. she is in a different zone in terms of communication and she's showing a lot of confidence. i think donald trump gave what he has on offer, to shake things up and when he today talked about banning emigration from countries that have been you see him simultaneously grappling with how to seem tough and perhaps trying to change some of the policy that have bothered people within his own party. i want to focus on prone to start with because in terms of major policy -- hillary clinton articulated what has been her policy with a few bells and whistles. trump went further with his muslim ban. you are saying he's trying to move it away from being a religious test and say the ditch and be focused on terrorist ties . however, he is essentially adding to the muslim band. he has gone further now and i think it will be a bigger target for a lot of democrats. i don't think he did a lot to ease their concerns partly because he said a lot of things that weren't true, including suggesting the shooter was afghani as opposed to being born in the u.s., suggesting, casting a broad net over the entire muslim american community, saying they all know when there are bad people in their midst and are failing to turn those people in. i thought that trump -- you are right, he has given people what he has been giving them, he will be consistent. i don't think he did a lot today in that speech. we can talk about the things he said on winning but in that speech, i don't think a lot of republicans got that was a speech that would make them feel reassured. mark: secretary clinton and her team are confident in their bones that in the end, eliminating trump is an acceptable alternative on the economy, on is this deals will be possible but that it will be absolutely possible and perhaps most decisive and doing it on national security and they will say she performed as a steady leader and he performed as much more of a hothead. there are a lot of americans that will look at her record and say well, he may be a hothead but that is what we need. trump's performance today has appeal but there is confidence that her performance today that her performance is a winning one on this issue. terms of her stature, now toume, her ability step up her game and communicate in a way that makes her seem like a credible commander in chief, she's playing at a high level and she has room to grow. her biggest weakness is still the record and i think trump will be able to make some by toting -- headwind the obama record and saying the country is not safer. are getting worse, there is a bad trend line here. the obama policies are brought helicesnd -- home. and at she will still have to deal with that and i think you are right that trump can make some headwind with her on that front. there is an awful lot about what he is saying that will make republicans nervous. coming up, we will head to capitol hill. we will talk to a top democrat next. first, a quick commercial break. ♪ mark: we are talking about the horrific shooting that occurred this weekend in florida. joining us now live from capitol hill, the democratic congressman from mississippi. thank you for joining us. guest: thank you for having me. mark: given how open and free america is, should americans accept this kind of incident as the new normal or is it realistic that the government could stop such things from happening? guest: i think it's realistic that the government should start looking at what is happening and whether or not there are some things we can do to minimize tragedies like what happened in orlando. i think what you will see over the next coming weeks is congress and other agencies looking at what could be done differently to prevent such occurrences. mark: what is one legal change that would have made this less likely? guest: well, i think there is concern that i'm hearing from a lot of people saying if the fbi had this person on their radar for making terrorist or extremist-related comments, should that have disqualified him from buying a weapon? i think the lawyers will look at that but i think it goes to the notion of what kind of background checks would pick up such a thing or if the fbi investigation, would that information go into a background check and be enough to deny a person the right to own a gun? those are some of the things right off the bat that we can look at. we looked at similar things that a lot of things are banned from being on 9/11,nes now that before we could do it -- a box cutters, nice. or certain we cannot do any of that now. i think congress shall look at this and see whether or not there are some things that we can do to prevent occurrences like this from happening going forward. we have focused a fair amount today on whether or not the shooter had direct ties to isis or whether you was just inspired by the ideology embodied by isis. as a practical matter, does that have any consequence in terms of what we should do next to make the country safer? guest: we have talked to experts all over the country and they all say that a free and open a laboratory for about anything you can imagine. so for someone who feels that isis is an ideology they want to participate in, they could very well become radicalized over the internet. thatnk we have to look at but law enforcement and the intelligence community for a long time has been very concerned about this notion. these are individuals who in others, they and are american citizens, not people who come here from a foreign country but they do terrorist-related things. what is it that we can do to identify lone wolves more than we are doing now? and the experts are looking at it and i think if we can, we will. of you know, we are a nation law, civil rights, civil liberties come into play. we still have to look at everything. john: thank you. , somee come back reporting on where things stand in orlando. we will talk to kate snow right after this. ♪ cover all of the angles of the shooting in orlando, we are joined by kate snow. a place the ground in where such a horrific tragedy has taken place, it sends a huge shock across the community, give us a sense of how the community and the city more broadly is dealing with the fallout of what happened over the weekend. kate: it's hard. it has been 48 hours, and i think people are still absorbing the shock of what happened. everyone here sort of has a look on their face like, what has happened to our community? i am standing in front of pulse, a couple blocks down that way, and we have not been able to get close to the scene. it has been hard absorbing the gravity of what happened here, that 49 lives were lost in that building over there. you feel distant because the police are keeping us away. obviously, they have to spend days processing it. they are going through the shooter's computer and digital trail to figure out more about him. we learned a lot more about him today from the fbi director in terms of all the times over the past few years he had sworn allegiance or said he supported various groups overseas. we learned more about the shooter, but we are starting to learn more about the victims. john: the lgbt community has obviously faced hate crimes and been subject to those crimes. this particular crime is tied up with the issue of islamic terrorism. to the extent you have had contact with victims' families, how are they dealing mentally with being hit with a double barrel hate crime? guest: i talked to a number of people about that very thing. leaders in the lgbt community here in nationwide. i was talking to a city councilwoman earlier, the first openly gay member of city council. she talked about the shock and feeling this was representative of the anger that is out there, the rage that still exists in this country. she says hatred is not the answer. what we saw saturday night is that the hatred is still very much alive. i do not know if we have a sound, but i asked her about donald trump's comment today. he said there are thousands of assault weapons in this country and it is impractical to control all those weapons. for response was, if we are not going to talk about gun control right now, when are we going to talk about it? there is this intersection of several things, the potential for terrorist connections, of gay rights and gay pride and that community struggling to come to terms with what happened, and the weaponry used and the questions coming up about gun rights. mark: another interesting aspect of the interview you did with the councilwoman who knows the owners of the club well was her denouncing those who want to hold vigils around the city. talk about why she had that point of view and how big an issue that is for the city at large. guest: i was a bit surprised, taken aback, when she said we do not need more candlelight vigils. i said, why? she said, there are plans nearby to have another candlelight vigil. that takes people away from the crime scene behind me. police officers have to staff and surround a crowd and make sure it does not get out of hand, make sure there is security. her point was that all we need right now is to figure out what happened here and help the families, help the victims, help those who are survivors. we do not need to have groups coming in taking advantage of the moment. she is sensitive that some groups have come here from other places outside of orlando. she thinks they just want the limelight, a little bit of attention. everyone would agree the attention should be on the families who lost loved ones and the people who survived. i mean, there are a lot of people walking around who were there saturday night. they are here with us still. that should be celebrated. mark: we know from new york after 9/11 and washington as well, other cities have dealt with horrible things like this. leadership has to be strong and talk about how the city will fight back. there is always some jitteriness. how much of that are you feeling there, that people are not relaxed and worried about other attacks? guest: it is interesting. compared to other, and unfortunately, we have all been to too many scenes like this, i do not feel as much a sense from people here that they are worried about something happening again imminently. there is a collective sense this was one man that, according to family and friends, had a long history of instability. his own father describing it to my colleagues as someone who struggled with mental health issues. there is a sense this is one isolated guy, but that said, the connection overseas and the fact that he wanted to swear allegiance to isis has the country on edge. this is a very different thing for the gay community, too. we have had hate crimes against individuals, but to have 49 people massacred in a gay club is different. john: we in the political world are looking at this to some extent through a political lens. we watched donald trump and hillary clinton respond. i know you are busy and did not have a chance to see both speeches. guest: i saw a large part of both of them. john: ok. i'm curious how much people down there are paying attention. could the people in the community care less what donald trump and hillary clinton have to say? given what they are dealing with in the terms of immediate horror. guest: i think it is too soon for most people who live here who are directly connected to what happened saturday night. they are still in mourning, trying to process what happened. they are not watching cable news and msnbc, tuning in to see the clinton or trump speeches. there is a sensitivity year, to -- here, again, to go back to what the councilwoman said, do not take advantage of the moment. they do not want politicians or anyone else to be taking advantage of this tragedy to make a political point or score points. john: ok. kate snow, thank you so much for being down there. thank you for being with us. next, more about donald trump's speech in new hampshire. we will talk with a senior trump advisor when we come right back. ♪ mark: the image of the eiffel tower lit up tonight, one of the commemorations around the world for what happened in orlando. joining us now to talk about those events, mary matalin, who is a member of the libertarian party. in the wake of the republican nomination fight, she left the republican party. she is in our dc bureau, along with barry bennett, senior campaign advisor to donald trump. mary, i would like to ask for your sense of how the government and political system is responding to serve the public interest in the wake of what happened in orlando. guest: not well. you said to your previous anchorette how people care down there. they should not care less. what have the chattering class been talking about? gun restrictions, background checks, all of which would have made a difference. it is calculated. it is hogwash misdirection. it is not being handled well, but it is a political calculation. i did not leave because of donald trump. mark: i did not say you left because of him. i said you left in the wake of the nomination fight. guest: you are right. i retract that. mark: barry, talk about the campaign's decision to give the kind of speech he did today, change the schedule. what went into that decision? guest: it is a great example of our government not doing its job. we know what causes someone to suddenly radicalize. we need to know. we need to know we can keep those people out of the country, from immigrating here. our government has totally failed at this. we are asking the fbi to clean it up. it is an impossible task. it is another example, unfortunately, of government failing. that will probably be a long-lasting effect. guest: i do not know if it is government failure. it is a cultural failure in that we disincentivize coming forward, in the ft. hood case, the san bernardino case. we do not want to appear intolerant. i am pretty sure the fbi is doing their job as well as they are allowed to with the rules of engagement under which they are acting. if people do not want to come forward, we are going to have these kinds of tragedies. john: barry, let me ask you something about mr. trump said this morning about mr. obama. he does not get it. or he gets it better than anyone understands. either one is unacceptable. we are led by a man that is not tough, not smart, or has something else in mind. can you explain what those quotes mean? not the part about him not getting it. what is the something else in mind or that he gets it better than anybody else understands? guest: i think what he was talking about is he just stuck his head in the sand and refuses to call it what it is, radical islamic terrorism. it is all politically correct. we are not allowed to hate anybody, even terrorists. that kind of attitude, which is not helping the case. john: those are both consistent with "he does not get it," or he is not tough, not smart. it is the other part i'm curious about. he gets it better than anyone else understands or he has something else in mind. what does that allude to? guest: i think he has something else planned. he plans to throw it all on the next president. john: many people think mr. trump was suggesting that president obama was somehow complicit. is that not how we should interpret that? guest: that is exactly what i am saying. guest: maybe you could interpret it as he knows that obama supports open, lawless borders, which trump does not. maybe he thinks obama is turning a blind eye because it comports with his plans. john: mary, today, mr. trump gave his speech and said he was still in favor of a temporary ban on muslims coming into the country. he wants to ban immigration from countries with historic ties with terrorism. how do you feel about those proposals? guest: i think it is sort of a sledgehammer. the essence of it is correct. we could certainly have more scrutiny of people coming from known terrorist countries. we should do deeper background checks. we should have extra scrutiny. we need to address the lone wolf or known wolf situation. we need to do scrutiny on these lone wolves and known wolves. they have no leaders. they do not call up isis central and say, i am punching in today. they do it the way they do it. it is constant for them. we need to do better scrutiny. we need immigration reform, anyways. part of the immigration reform would be to pay special attention in the way the israelis do, to people who are coming from countries that harbor terrorists. mark: mary matalin, bennett, stand by. we will come back and talk more about the attacks in just a moment. if you're listening to us in washington dc, you can listen to us on bloomberg 99.1 fm in washington. ♪ john: we are back with the renowned republican, now libertarian, mary matalin, and barry bennett. just before we went on the air, we got word looking at donald trump's facebook page, based on incredibly inadequate coverage, we are revoking the press credentials of the washington post. the executive editor has said that revocation is nothing less than a repudiation of a independent press. can you explain what the washington post has done to justify your campaign revoking credentials? guest: i wish i could. i have not been able to talk to the campaign since i saw the facebook post. john: mary, you have dealt with the press for a long time, sometimes in adversarial circumstances. is there a circumstance in which you could imagine in the middle of a campaign revoking the credentials of the washington post? guest: probably not, but there have been occasions where i slept across the face various reporters at tarmacs across the country. i am not sure it matters. mr. trump has a line of communication around the country that transcends the washington post. it is off message. i guess that is on message for him. john: should the press right now take this as a warning sign that, if it displeases the campaign, it faces retribution of this kind? that is the inference i would draw from this action, that everybody is on notice. guest: i do not know it was meant as a warning shot. in today's social media age, the press is remarkably less important. more people read that post then the washington post, i assure you. john: i assume you are not saying that the press, television networks, the washington post, is now irrelevant and should be disregarded. guest: in the day, that was the only way to get your message out. every stop on the plane were your only chance is to get your message out. that is not the case today. mark: barry, is inappropriate -- is it appropriate for a campaign to allow or not allow coverage of a news organization based on that organization's coverage? is that appropriate? guest: it is not appropriate, but that is not what is happening. they are determining who gets access and who doesn't. that happens every day. mark: i understand. you are saying the trump campaign has never denied a news organization access based on coverage? it has been widely reported -- guest: politico, for instance, has been banned from a lot of events, but it does not stop them from reporting. they just can't be in the room. mark: but is it appropriate to ban an organization because they -- the candidate or candidates do not like the coverage? guest: you can certainly ban access, absolutely. guest: i do not think it is inappropriate. mark: not inappropriate to say we do not like the story? you cannot cover us? i'm not talking about interviews. i'm talking about coverage. guest: if you did not like coverage of a particular reporter, you could choose not to do interviews with them. mark: it is not about interviews. it is about whether you denied press credentials to cover events other news organizations are allowed to cover. mary, is that appropriate? the trump campaign seems to do that. guest: i think it is a waste of time, making a big pronouncement about it. you know better than anybody there are ways to ban or de-credential press who you want to punish. that is as old as campaigns are. what is disconcerting is making a big hoo-ha about it. on the other hand, when mr. trump made a big hoo-ha in the new york times and it collapse on itself, it reinforced a meta-message of his. he needs to get more on a policy and principle message. mark: just to be clear -- john: go ahead. mark: it is not about whether it has been done before. i do not think it has been done on this scale in my career. it is not about whether you can get away with it. it is a matter of principle. news organization should be denied coverage to open press events because of the content of things they have written or said previously. i have not heard either of you say you think it is appropriate or not. guest: it is ineffective. it is inappropriate in a campaign because it is ineffective. go ahead and cover it. what i thought was counterproductive was making a big hoo-ha out of it. we agree it is inappropriate. one of us, who does not work for trump, is saying it was counterproductive. john: we will be right back. ♪ mark: a lot more coverage on the orlando shooting and its implications on politics on bloombergpolitics.com. coming up, emily chang speaks to the ceo's of microsoft and linkedin. sayonara. ♪ >> tuesday, the 14th of june. this is "trending business. live in sydney, beijing, and singapore. this is a look at what we are watching. the yield on the 20 year has inching closer and closer to zero. microsoft has a plan to get ahead in the world of social networking. it's one of the biggest deals technology has ever seen.