and thinks he can revise his campaign by attacking you. >> i thought he was weak in the debate. he open badly. he closed badly. he had a couple of soundbites that were given to him by his people, i guess the pollsters. he hit me a couple of times and i hit him back much harder and the ad puts his part in not my part which is dishonest. look, he is a low energy person. he is a weak person. and, honestly, that is not what we need. we need someone that is strong and can get things done. he is weak. can you that have that. >> again and again you say that hillary clinton doesn't have the strength and the stamina to be president. you 69, she is 68. >> i am not talking age. are you suggesting she is frail? >> i am suggesting she does not have the strength or the stamina. >> what does that mean? >> she sees you guys for ten minutes, for a little while, and it is all rehearsed and stageed. pick a couple of people out of the audience at 100 percent and they talk to the people for a legal while and she goes away for five or six days and you don't see her. she goes to sleep or something. >> do you suggest she --. >> she not strong enough. not a health issue, not strong enough. we need a president that and go 24 hour as day, seven days a week. hillary clinton goes away three or four or five days and you have a have good day, mr. henry, good man, right, ed henry and he sees her and suddenly, she gone. just goes away. you need someone that can go all the time. our country is in such trouble. we don't have the choice of saying take five days off. >> vladimir putin bear hugged you, practically endorsed you and said you are an outstanding question, unquestionably talented and welcomes your recall for tighter and deeper relation with russia. that could praise you are not taking a tough enough approach to russia? >> it could. the smart people would say that is great. what do we need problems for? obama and vladimir putin do not get along. what do we need problems for? it was very nice he said great things and called me brillant, isn't that nice? >> you said it was an honor. >> of course. i am not talking about, i compliment people and maybe sometimes you don't mean it but i think he meant it. i tell you why. what is the purpose? why is he doing it? i do feel that russia, rather than being this group that we don't talk to and we -- i think they can be used for the good. we want to knock out isis. they want to knock out isis as much as us. they are knocking out airplanes that are russian own. >> russia has troops in ukraine. russia is propping up assad. do you want a friendly or adversarial relation? >> first of all, with assad, we are fighting assad and we are fighting isis and assad is fighting isis. we don't know what we are doing. we have all the fights going on and don't know what we are doing. we have to get rid of isis, fast and powerfully and get it done. as far as assad you wait. russia is on the side of assad and so is iran and other people. our first, the first thing we have to do is we have to knock the hell out isis. we can worry about assad. he is a bad guy but those we are banging they could be worse. we have seen that before libya and iraq and all the people, getting rid of all of the so-called strongmen and then it is ten times worse. look, if we spent zero dollars in iraq and all of the places over there, we would have been in better shape. right new the middle seat a powder keg. before -- whether you like saddam or not and who likes him? he was great at one thing, he killed terrorists. there were no terrorists. they were executed terrorists daily. now it is the heart of terrorism. you want to be a terrorist? you go to iraq. we video really messed up the middle east. big time. by the way, russia and be a positive force and an ally opposed to always fighting with russia. >> let's take bout journalist whose have been attacking you not in the opinion business, about your proposal barring muslims from coming to the united states. tom brokaw, a dangerous proposal that overrides history, the law, and the foundation of america itself. >> do you want me to comment on tom brokaw. i am not a fan. never was. he came to be during the "apprentice," and said thank yous because i had the big show on nbc and it was good for him with the newscast, okay, it helped and the first chance he gets he attacks me, and he said thank you so much for doing such a great job because it was so successful. let me tell you, tom brokaw, and the others in all fairness, someone has to bring it up, it is a problem. it is a problem l is something wrong. something is go on. there is a level of hatred whether it is 25 percent group or 7 percent group or 10 percent group, there is a level of hatred we have to figure out what is going on. >> let me read others to give. >> chance to respond to what i have said, the media going clear, campbell brown, cnn anchor tells colleagues, stop for a week and don't say his name and stop promoting hazeful demagoguery. >> campbell brown, for year i-have not heard of her name, and i did not know she was still alive but i guess she is. >> ben smith has buzzfeed and said it is okay to scale donald trump mendacious racist because it is not opinion, it is fact. the daily beast editor, people should boycott your business because you are a rain racist ad fashion it. >> everyone knows i am right and i have great friends that are muslims, some of then, some are not so thrilled but at the highest level, they call me and they say, what you did is right. there is a problem. we have to get to the bottom of it. there is a level hatred and viciousness. we have to find out what we going do do it about it. >> you have a pattern you put out something over-the-top and some find it offensive, for example, you north boundly said shut town of muslims coming to the united states and you backtrack and then. >> temporary. i said very temporary. >> and --. >> you had to know when you said that, there would be a media explosion, that you would be attacked, the republican party and democrats and many this the media, but, then, that puts you at the center --. >> and many agreed you do not say that. >> republican primary voters agreed. it is roughly half and half. >> whatever, but many agreed. many agreed. >> is it part of your strategy to dominate the campaign coverage by putting some things out there that you know will get the tremendous media reaction and even though a last it is negative? >> i have no strategy the my strategy is honesty. i say it like it is like your old friend howard cosell. the fact is, there is a problem. got to solve the problem. the way we solve the problem is to air the problem the i air the problem. that was done a week and a half ago and i took incoming what you would not believe from everyone. wow, i said, man, three days later, everyone is say, well, you know, he has a point. got to discuss it. all over the world not just talking about here but talking about it all over the world and now people are saying, trump's got a good point we have to sit down and discuss it because there are real problems. i am not original talking about in this country but in many other countries. >> you told chris wallace that ted cruz is a bit of a maniac in the senate, not qualified to be president and in the debate you said the temperament is file, i know you like senator ted cruz and you two get along but why did you call him a maniac. >> i like him. he said something about me and i said something. with a little smile. we had a lost fun at the debate. and i got do know him very well the last three days and he is fine. he is a nice guy. the thing about ted cruz he is the one person, and ben carson, also, ben carson, also. but he hit me and i hit him and...he retreated, but, not retreated. he did not retreat. i like him. i really like ted cruz. a lot of people don't like alicia ortez. -- don't like ted cruz. a lost things i say are correct but they are controversial because our world is so policemenly correct if you say correct things, suddenly, they think, with a terrible statement, although they are basically statements that are correct. but ted cruz would back me 100 percent virtually every time. you cover it better than anyone. >> after the mainian comment, two votes in radio, rush limbaugh and mark levine criticized you for taking on cruz. >> two great guys. i like those two people. they have been very supportive and it made me think about it because mark and rush have been so nice to me and...i thought about it a little bit. >> said the cnn moderators in the debate were stirring up trouble by asking rivals yet. do you want to respond? you are the frontrunner, by a lot, as you would say. of course a lot of the questions will reinvolvement around you. >> i did not think it -- the first debate, a big portion of the show was donald trump said this, donald trump said that, donald trump and i said what is going on and my comment said this is stirring up trouble. and poor jeb get killed in the polls, and he is a very ineffective candidate and they ask a question and donald trump said, the poor guy is standing in and he went, you know, he gave a sound bait. >> he said you cannot insult your way to the presidency and then i killed him. here is the think: they should not have done that to him. it was unfair to him. but they gave him a trump thing and i thought it was unfair to him and to be honest with you, i thought it was inappropriate. >> we will have more of my sit down with donald trump later in the program. when we come back our panel weighs in on the interview and later on hillary clinton and bernie sanders and the democratic debate >> donald trump is continuing the crusade against the press as you just saw perhaps equal time for media folks. join us is mercedes schlapp political cullant and an official in the bush white house, and polly ball and betsy woodruff. >> what did you think about him push back on tom tom brokaw and campbell brown? thank you is an effective mechanism of saying, you know, on the tom brokaw case, rightfully so, tom brokaw when he did the piece open him, regarding the muslims and basically in essence calling trump a racist, trump had to punch back and respond. on campbell brown that was fascinating because he said he didn't know who she was or --. >> or she was still alive. >> she very much alive. >> she is. she left the media because she was raising two kids. again, he fought back hard on both of these cases. it is one of the situations where donald trump wins the debate. betsy? >> what upsets me is how he talked about rush limbaugh and mark levin, the only time he has taken a step back of public criticism account only time he has shown deference to the media figures. >> why is that? i thought he was saying he had nothing to do with it. >> he said those guys made me rething. all the reason why is because he understands what most candidates do not understand that talk radio has displaced a lost traditional old media and some conservative internet media as far as the way to get primary voters to like you. they are his bread and butter. if he lose them he is in huge trouble the high has to keep them happy. >> polly why does he keep on bringing up the stamina of hillary clinton? she is pushing back, last night she uses him of -- accused him of blustery. thank you is interesting, similar to the low figure attack on jeb bush so he clearly is preparing to a hypothetical general election situation where that is the main line attack. it is rich come trillion a guy who could not get through a three hour debate without look like he would wilt --. >> he does not say she does enough interviews. >> he is much more accessible than any other candidate. >> in history. >> absolutely commendable for a presidential candidate to expose himself to that many questions from the media, but, to the early point, he has a real love-hate relationship where the press for that reason. as campbell brown said, the media is his oxygen. he said outrageous things and he needs us and does not have to air ads because he is on tv all time. at the same time, he is obviously very credit calf the press. it is a third of his hour long speech on the stump bashing the press and often, very, very, very crudely by name. >> but how can we complain when the frontrunner is willing to subject himself day after day to journalist's questions which i have always said the candidates should do. >> the media is his super pac. he -- after the las vegas debate, he was one of few candidates who went back to the spin room and talked to every reporter including a local reporter from las vegas. there is not a bias in that sense. he is willing to go on msnbc, hardball, he -- why? the message is not necessarily going to change so that is one of the reasons why he has been so dominant and, again, being able to dictate what those organizations are covering and for him to be effective and at the end, obviously, it helped the poll numbers. >> people who do not lake donald trump will pick up on the super pac comment. >> we will take a break and you can always let us know what you think. we have more of the donald trump interview. stay tuned. first, the cnn moderators trying to gold the -- doad the candidates into >> woman and the cnn colleagues tried to get donald trump and the other candidates into slamming each other and drew the wrath of donald trump. >> governor bush, you call mr. trump unhinged when he proposed banning not american muslims from the united states. why is that unhinged? >> mr. trump this weekend you said that senator ted cruz is not qualified to be president because he does not have the right temperament and acted like a maniac. >> the last three or four days i have gotten to know him and he has a wonderful temperament. it is very sad that cnn leaves jeb bush, governor bush, down a road by disasterring off virtually all of the questions, mr. trump this, it is very sad. >> there was criticism of the approach of cnn. >> i thought it was perplexing he asked the muslim comment, given that everyone for the entire week was saying that banning muslims is unhinged. it is valid. if you call someone a maniac and you turn around and change the way you talk about them, why would you use the dramatically different approach? >> i thought it was a serious debate, entirely foe can youd on terrorists. what is wrong with saying, you said this privately at a fundraiser or publicly and now say it to his face? >> it is fine to let it all come out and see -- i don't think the cnn dedoes it was just infighting between one or another there were a lot of substantive question. the interesting thing was a question to ben carson can raised a lot of eyebrows. >> i thought that was out of bounds. >> on the killing of innocent civilian lines. >> you are okay with killing hundreds of thousands of innocent children. >> thank you is where they missions the mark. >> the sharp exchange that everyone relayed between marco rubio and ted cruz, that was a ready question, trying to contrast their positions on immigration and what happened in 20 then as well as the n.s.a. surveillance. >> it was substantive and that is what distinguishes the candidates on the issues which is what the debates are for. there was a little bit of the name-calling and back-and-forth but there was less of that, than there has been at the others. that is why i think there has not been so much criticism of the moderators. when you recall a couple week ago when they were all attacking the moderators, it is deserved. >> that would be a cnbc we debate. now, there is a lost fact checking and some done by fox news about what he meant or what he said that he did not mean in 2013 when he opened an amendment to the compromise immigration bill spearheaded by marco marco rubio when he said he wanted the bill to pass and provide a path to citizen shell to get the illegal iment greats out of the shadows. >> you reached later in princeton that if my amendment were adopted this bill would pass but it sound like you wanted the bill to pass. >> of course i wanted the bill to pass. my amendment to pass. what my amendment it taxis citizenship off the table but it does not -- what it doesn't mean that i poored the other aspects of the bill, a terrible bill. >> i want to add that senator mike lee in defense of senator ted cruz say i was with him for three weeks and during the whole process and in no way is he supporting amnesty. this is about chosing words very carefully from legalization to amnesty. it is very important to distinguish that especially in the view of conservatives. >> we cannot know what was in his mine but you can say here is what you said in 2013 and here is what you are saying now. >> there is a reason to choose words carefully because you are trying to have it both ways. and crazy crazy has been trying to have it both ways on immigration for years. >> but it is an issue in the campaign and that was an excellent fact check. but there are two that nations for what ted cruz did with the amendment and north looks good for him. there is his explanation now that it was a poison pill, and trying to cityline to people that you introduced something in order to kill it or the other explanation is that he did not noon it and there is a conflict between what he said then and now. >> i hope to have a chance to talk to senator ted cruz about that. looking at day before and after the debate, we learn that donald trump dominated 13,000 mentions and ted cruz plummeted, from 10,000 to under 7,000 mentions. marco rubio had a sizable jump 2,400 to 4,400 and ben carson jumped by half dawn to 1000 barely on the radar. >> why donald trump spends so much time denouncing reporters and pundits. by anyway. >> and later, bernie sanders apologized to hillary clinton in the debate but is the press just tuning out that race? >> free we dome of speech versus national security was also on the agenda during my sit down with the republican frontrunner at donald trump tower. >> you said you would talk to people like bill gates about closing the internet up. >> not closing the internet. >> your words, closing the internet. >> for isis. take the sections where isis is and knock out the internet. that is fine. >> you say only fool inpeople would raise concerns about freedom of speech. >> only stupid people. can you imagine freedom of speech for isis? i'm not talking about closing it up in miami beach. >> how? with technology. these are smart people, the inventors of the internet. we have the inventers of the internet, the smartest people on earth, they invented it and isis uses. internet better than us and recruits your kids, isis is recruiting our children. using the internet. but this is a point i am saying about the intent. i could see there was rustling in the audience. freedom of speech for isis? what i am saying, they are recruiting our children and the children of other countries, to go fight for them. and i am saying, close it up or actually better, infiltrate the isis internet. >> i would love to see terrorists do that but it could be complicated. >> i was referring to isis. >> if reaction to amazon founder bezos tweeted he will offer you a one way ticket on a company's rocket. >> i have seen too many of the rockets exploding before they get off the ground but you tack about jeff bezos he bought the "washington post" and he bought it as a thing to buy influence so that he accident have to pay tax at amazon. in my opinion. he has influence. >> privately. >> privately but he uses it. >> it doesn't affect --. of court be he but the it privately so he can influence people not to tax amazon. come on. i thought you were smart. the only reason i say that is because the "washington post" treats meterbly. if i did 12 good things in one day i would have 12 bad stories. it is tell. but the express very dishonest. >> is gone from calling journa