Return to Transcripts main page

Smerconish

Trump's New Team, Triumph of Right-Wing Media?; Interview with Mark Cuban; Campus Controversy: Roommate Ad Seeks "Person of Color Only"; U.S. Swimmers in Hot Water. Aired 9-10a ET

Aired August 20, 2016 - 09:00   ET

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

[09:00:00] SAMUEL BURKE, CNN MONEY BUSINESS CORRESPONDENT: The Samsung IconX, Earin and the Bragin. The rest which is randomly disconnect and my music would come out. So which one should you buy? The one that performed the best by far in our test, the Samsung IconX. The microphone works surprisingly well, even though it's all the way up in your ear and they have touch controls which allow you to answer the phone or skip tracks. At 199 bucks, they're the cheapest of the three that work, they look the least ridiculous and are the ones that felt the most comfortable.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

BLACKWELL: That's it for us. We'll be back at 10:00.

PAUL: "SMERCONISH" starts for you now.

MICHAEL SMERCONISH, CNN ANCHOR: I'm Michael Smerconish, home in Philadelphia.

Fascinating week. Trump pivoted, he shot, but did he score?

Donald Trump didn't offer any apologies but he did tell us this week that he regrets some of his behavior. He softened his tweeting tone. And then last night asked African-Americans what the hell they have to lose by voting for him?

He also again changed his campaign leadership, empowering a conservative firebrand to manage his effort and proving in the process what I've been saying about who holds the real power in the GOP.

I'll talk about Trump with that other reality TV billionaire Mark Cuban. You know, he tweeted a complaint at me last week during the course of the show. So I invited him on.

And another campus firestorm, this one you might have missed. Should college students be allowed to demand a roommate of a particular race.

Plus new information on the Ryan Lochte controversy and this makes me more sympathetic to him.

But first, I told you so. Six months ago I said here that if you want to understand the rise of Donald Trump, you should look to the people with microphones. And in an essay which I co-authored Dr. Brian Rosenwald that got nearly a million page views at CNN.com, we wrote this.

"Over the course of the last three decades these media personalities have surpassed party officials and even elected representatives in their influence, ascending to the exalted status atop Republican leadership."

Well, Donald Trump just such a provocateur, Stephen K. Bannon to be his campaign's chief executive. Bannon run Breitbart news and until this week he hosted a radio program under the same name. And as the "New York Times" noted, Bannon is, quote, a purveyor of scorched-earth right-wing media who dwells in the darker corners of American politics.

The Web site he runs, Breitbart news, recently accused President Obama of importing more hating Muslims, compared Planned Parenthood's work to the holocaust, called Bill Kristol, the conservative commentator, a renegade Jew, and advised female victims of online harassment to just log off and stop screwing up the Internet for men, illustrating that point with a picture of a crying child.

And Mr. Trump reportedly is welcoming the debate advice of Roger Ailes, the recently deposed chairman of FOX News. Both Bannon and Ailes employ a pugnacious style that Trump embraces. Together these developments bring full circle a process that began 30 years ago with the rise of a polarized media.

It used to be the political power was something earned by insiders paying their dues and gaining seniority. Today it's achieved by outsiders who say something incendiary, and the two have different priorities. Political parties, they exist for just one purpose, and that's to win elections. Not to be ideological vessels.

But not the titans of talk. They are on a business mission with a goal of attracting computer clicks and ears and eyeballs, all to generate revenue. So the passion, the engagement and the desire for entertainment that drives conservatives to Breitbart News or FOX News or liberals to MSNBC, that's often at odds with what it takes to grow the base and win a general election.

Misters Bannon and Ailes, they've enjoyed great professional success. And for their first act, they presented a more contrite Trump. With their recruitment, Mr. Trump would seem to ensure that the next three months will be highly entertaining for some. But the question remains whether they will be far too alienating for many.

Joining me now, talk radio host Buck Sexton. He regularly fills in for Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck and Sean Hannity, Amy Holmes, the former anchor at the Blaze, and a political analyst for Rasmussen Reports, and my co-author for that piece, Brian Rosenwald, the PhD, a fellow and an instructor at the University of Pennsylvania. He's writing a book on the development of talk radio.

Buck, let me begin with you. Aren't conservative talkers who are upset with Trump as their nominee reaping what they have sown?

BUCK SEXTON., RADIO HOST, THE BLAZE: Well, it depends on which conservative talkers you're referring to.

[09:05:01] I mean, there are obviously people who have done everything in their power on the -- on conservative media to try and prevent the rise of Trump. There's the very prominent never Trump movement. And if you actually look at some of the most prominent right-wing publications that are out there right, "National Review," the "Weekly Standard," among others, they have said quite openly that they think that Trump has hijacked the Republican Party, and this is a faction, Trump-ism, if you will, that was able to grow in large part because you had a field of 17 candidates starting out.

And so now what you see is one individual who is sort of of the GOP laboratory but he has gotten outside of it now and has taken over things. It's not the party that people thought they were going to be supporting going into this year. So some talkers certainly have been on the Trump train very early on, and it pushes all along. But there have been others that have said that this was a disaster for the GOP and they continue to say that to this day despite the fact that we've had the convention and Trump is clearly the nominee. So it depends on who you're asking about it.

SMERCONISH: But Brian --

SEXTON: And which fraction you're looking at.

SMERCONISH: But, Brian, if I pick up on what Buck said using the word laboratory, I mean, the guys with the Bunsen burners and the beakers are named Limbaugh, Beck and Hannity. They have been pouring the concoctions for 30 years. And what they've grown is Donald Trump in their image, am I wrong?

BRIAN ROSENWALD, UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA, PROFESSOR WRITING BOOK ON TALK RADIO: Absolutely. You know, you're right, Michael. I mean, I was looking at Buck and it sort of reminds me of a guy who has been eating poorly, not exercising for 30 years, and then turns around starts exercising one day and six months later a surprise he has a heart attack. You know, they've been cultivating this for years and years and years. He -- I mean, Donald Trump is reading the talk radio hymn.

He is validating the views of a lot of conservatives that wanted a community and talk radio has provided that community for them and cable news now and Web sites like Breitbart. And the fact is that this is -- he's a creature of this. I mean, this is -- you hear his fans saying the same things about him that they said about Rush Limbaugh in the early 1990s. Thank God I have someone who's giving me a voice.

SMERCONISH: And, Amy, the argument that I'm making, the political argument that I'm making is that that's great for the base, that will put 20,000 people into an arena all fired up. But it doesn't win general elections because there's just not the cross appeal that's necessary. How am I wrong?

AMY HOLMES, FORMER ANCHOR ,THE BLAZE: I would agree with you that no, you can't win the presidency with your base and that applies to the left as well. That applies to Hillary Clinton. But I disagree with your premise that this is coming out of right-wing radio? My former boss, Glenn Beck, has been on radio lambasting Donald Trump for the last year. This is ridiculous. If you want to point a finger at who gave us Donald Trump, you can point it to 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue and that is Barack Obama.

That came from the midterm election in 2010 that gave you the Tea Party. The midterm election in 2014 where you had voters who said to Mitch McConnell and Paul Ryan, we want to put the brakes on legislating by executive action, by President Obama taking this agenda to the left, and Donald Trump supporters, if you look at polling data over the last year, they actually sort of span the ideological spectrum.

They are not just from the right. They're also from the center. They're also disaffected voters who want a voice in politics, and they feel the beltway politicians have not been listening to them for a very long time.

SMERCONISH: But, Buck, here's what I'm saying in drawing a linear connection between some of what you hear on the radio or in conservative outlets and Trump. I'll give you a top of mind example. Rush Limbaugh referred, as you well remember, to Sandra Fluke as a slut. Is that any surprise then that you hear in the course of this campaign Donald Trump talking about Megyn Kelly having blood coming out of her wherever? Or another experience that I remember was Glenn Beck making reference to Barack Obama as ,a quote-unquote, racist with a deep-seeded hatred of white people.

Is it any doubt then that you're going to hear candidate Trump say out on the hustings (PH), the risks and the peril that the Obama presidency has presented to America? I see it all as connected. They have cultivated a receptiveness to this type of tonality and speech. You can reply because I know you disagree.

SEXTON: Yes, of course. I mean, those are completely disconnected. I don't understand how it is that you go and pull comments from different individuals over a period of many years and say, well, this comment was bad or I didn't like this, this comment was bad, therefore that's what the GOP has become. I mean, there are plenty of times when you could look at what's said on the left by all sorts of figures including people in the media that I think people would find very distasteful.

I'm not really sure what you're saying, what, that there is a coarseness that exists in conservative in media that doesn't exist in liberal media and that's how we got Donald Trump?

SMERCONISH: No. No, that's not what I'm saying. I'm saying it may exist in liberal media as well, but it hasn't taken control of the party. And the reason I'm bringing it up at the outset is because one of these provocateurs is now formally running the Trump campaign.

[09:10:08] So it's come full circle.

(CROSSTALK) HOLMES: Hold on, Michael.

SEXTON: Hold on a second.

HOLMES: Hold on, hold on. I want jump in -- I want to jump in here. Hold on.

SEXTON: This is important -- this is an important one. I didn't really get to respond --

SMERCONISH: One at a time, one at a time. One at time. Go ahead, Buck, you go first.

SEXTON: I just want to say, this idea -- this idea that Donald Trump is somehow the culmination, as we said before, of decades of right- wing radio is nonsense. As Amy well pointed out, you have some of the most prominent conservative talk radio hosts in this country who are adamantly opposed to Trump to this day even though he is the Republican nominee. We're not even in the primary anymore. You have -- as I said the most prominent publication --

ROSENWALD: But, Buck, you can't just undo --

SEXTON: You have people in the never Trump movement who are horrified by this.

SMERCONISH: But, Buck, Buck --

HOLMES: Mike --

SMERCONISH: Buck, they've created it.

HOLMES: Michael, can I --

SMERCONISH: They built -- wait a minute. You can. I promise you can. But let me say this, they built the lab, they just don't like what it created.

Amy, respond to that.

HOLMES: I think you don't like what the American people are saying through Donald Trump. And where I wanted to jump is you're also not acknowledging his new campaign manager, Kellyanne Conway, a woman that I've known for two decades from Washington, D.C., who is a reasonable, lovely persona, who is I think helping shape Donald Trump sort of new accessibility to voters.

So you're pointing to Steve Bannon from Breitbart rightly because he's been brought on board. But you're not pointing to the fact that Donald Trump just elevated a woman, a conservative woman, a woman who's very well known in conservative circle, also on television, also in right-wing media, is actually being a very lovely, thoughtful, centrist woman, and I think that is not very fair of you, Michael, to be honest.

SMERCONISH: I appreciate having her here last weekend. As a matter of fact she was my guest.

Dr. Rosenwald, bail me out. I'm under assault.

ROSENWALD: No, Michael, you're 100 percent right. You can't put the genie in the bottle once you left it out. You can't cultivate something for 30 years and then turn around say, we don't like it. And to Amy's point, it's not the American people, it's a segment of the American people. And the segment that is great for making money on cable news or talk radio, but it's not large enough to elect a candidate.

You can't win with the 45 percent -- 40 percent, 45 percent of the Republican base that got Donald Trump to this point. If he does not come back to the center and hiring Steve Bannon is indication that he wants to keep going down the pugnacious, conservative chain that will be very entertaining that will thrill his fan, but how does that get you to 50 plus 1 percent?

HOLMES: But you know what? Ironically -- ironically, what I find amazing is that Paul Manafort, his previous campaign manager who is now resigned, kept promising us this presidential pivot that never happened and then he hired Steve Bannon, and it does happen. That Donald Trump does give the speech, he goes to Louisiana, he does start this outreach. So I have just -- this whole theory that Donald Trump is the creation of the right-wing --

(CROSSTALK)

SMERCONISH: Amy, Amy, I think that's a great --

HOLMES: Donald Trump has never been a member of the right-wing.

SEXTON: Yes, he's a splinter faction.

HOLMES: Until like three months ago.

SEXTON: Amy is 100 percent correct.

SMERCONISH: I can't wait to see --

SEXTON: And if you think that this is the culmination, it's just not true.

SMERCONISH: I can't wait to see how long this new -- this new Trump lasts. Guys, obviously this is a great subject for more talk on a different date. Thank you all for being here.

SEXTON: Thank you.

HOLMES: Thank you.

SMERCONISH: Tweet me @smerconish. I'll read some of the best later in the program.

Still to come, a Facebook post looking for a roommate led to the headline, students at Claremont Colleges refuse to live with white people. Is that accurate and is it acceptable?

Plus, he helps fund entrepreneurs on "Shark Tank," now he's in the tank for Hillary Clinton, billionaire and SMERCONISH viewer Mark Cuban is here.

Another fan of the program, apparently, Kellyanne Conway just made reference to by Amy, tweeted me after appearing last weekend. Check this out.

Hey, I hope that doesn't cause Mr. Trump to tell her she's fired.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[09:17:56] SMERCONISH: We love getting your feedback on Twitter. Last week I got a complaint from a certain billionaire viewer whose done reality TV and become a real American power in American politics.

No, not Donald Trump, Mark Cuban who owns the Dallas Mavericks, landmark theaters and Magnolia Pictures, among other things. He's an investor in and star of one of my favorite TV shows, "Shark Tank." Regarding my interview with "Clinton Cash" author Peter Schweitzer, Cuban tweeted, "Smerconish, Schweitzer is the king of innuendo. He never proves anything. Just accuses a lot of people of bribery."

My response, I immediate invited him on the program. Mark Cuban has been very vocal this election cycle and he joins me now.

Mark, you did tweet me when I was interviewing Peter Schweitzer, and I don't know that you've taken the time to read the book, "Clinton Cash," but look, I thought it was well substantiated. And on my PolitiFact that his reporting was built on by ABC, by "The Washington Post," by "The New York Times," not exactly institutions looking to do a hit job on the Clintons.

MARK CUBAN, BILLIONAIRE ENTREPRENEUR: No, they certainly reported on it, but a lot -- you know, when you read those articles, they don't come to conclusions, they just report on what he wrote.

You know, I'll give you a perfect example. He talked about the Iranian deal, right? And so he made a big deal that there was this quid pro quo and that she sold the rights to uranium, you know, et cetera, et cetera. Well, what he didn't say was there are nine agencies that had to approve that deal, including the Treasury Department, the Department of Homeland Security and eight others. Right? He didn't talk to anybody to see what their -- what their response was or interview them to see what their involvement was. He made it seem like it was entirely Secretary Clinton's responsibility to make the decision. And there's reporting that said she wasn't even involved in the decision.

SMERCONISH: Mark, I like you because you're an independent thinker. From what -- I follow you. You say some conservative things, you say some liberal things. That's what I do. I don't know anybody so robotic that they see the world off to a liberal or conservative lenses except for the TV presenters with whom I have to rub elbows.

CUBAN: Yes, right.

[09:20:02] SMERCONISH: So that's why you're here. I'm thrilled you're here.

CUBAN: OK.

SMERCONISH: But here's the deal.

CUBAN: Sure.

SMERCONISH: People were saying this guy did a hit job because he had some association with the Koch brothers. He might have an association with the Koch brothers --

CUBAN: Well, I don't care about that.

SMERCONISH: -- but that doesn't necessarily mean --

CUBAN: Yes, I don't care about that.

SMERCONISH: OK. Me neither. Maybe -- you know, a broken close is right --

CUBAN: Yes.

SMERCONISH: And one final observation, then I want to get off this.

CUBAN: Sure.

SMERCONISH: But you tweeted at me while having the conversation with him because what was documented last week in the news was how this Lebanese businessman who had expertise or so he said that he wanted to contribute to the State Department, there was contact made by the Clinton Foundation, Doug Band, to the State Department at its highest level and they said, hey, he's an important guy, give him an audience.

Now apparently he never got a meeting, but there is supposed to be a Chinese wall between the Clinton Foundation and the State Department that seemingly was breached.

CUBAN: No, I don't think there's supposed to be a Chinese wall. I mean, look, if I haven't given money to any campaign, but if I called somebody -- in this administration a future Trump administration and said, you know what? Can you guys help me get access to so-and-so? They're going to try to make an introduction because it's an American business or, you know, it's an affiliate, it's somebody that they are trying to help. That happens in politics every day. That happens in government every day. That's the job of the State Department is to facilitate, you know, international, trans-international commerce, international security and other things.

The foundation does good things. When they say this Lebanese business person just wanted to convey information, never got a meeting and just conveyed information, then somebody did their job. They felt the information wasn't worthwhile. There was no reason to have the meeting. There was a connection made and nothing happened. Nothing happened.

SMERCONISH: So this has been an interesting week, Paul Manafort is out, Steve Bannon is in. I expected the campaign would go in more of an incendiary direction. And yet on Thursday night we saw a more conciliatory Donald Trump. What do you see? Read those tea leaves.

CUBAN: I don't know that we saw a more conciliatory. I mean, showing regret is far different than apologizing, but I give -- I will give him credit and I did on Twitter that his presentation skills were far better. He didn't look bored reading the teleprompter, he was engaged, he was emotional and that was something we hadn't seen from him when he was reading prepared remarks. And so, you know, I have given him credit for making the move but it doesn't change the content. So we'll have to see what happens there.

SMERCONISH: You're known for your business prowess, has it occurred to Mark Cuban, and I know this is hot online so let me float the theory, that this is really all about business and that the tag-team of Trump and Bannon and Ailes somewhere in the background now that he's out at FOX, this is all about building a conservative empire that can take business away from FOX News.

CUBAN: No, I don't see that at all. But what I will say -- I haven't dealt with Steve Bannon in a long time but I have in the past and he was super smart. I can say quite confidently that I think he's a lot smarter than Donald Trump. And that the master plan is probably Steve's. And I think a lot of what happen Steve is smart enough to make it Donald's idea. And I think this is going to benefit Steve Bannon, it's going to benefit Breitbart News, but I don't think -- I don't see Donald participating in the benefit whatsoever in terms of what happens after the fact.

SMERCONISH: Mark, help me understand what went on, because last September I remembered 20,000 people coming to the home of the Dallas Mavericks and Donald Trump praising you for facilitating that visit.

CUBAN: He paid me to use the arena. He's a customer. What could you like to know?

(LAUGHTER)

SMERCONISH: Well, come on, at that time you said publicly you were open to the idea of being his running mate.

CUBAN: Right. No, you know, when Donald first got into the race, I actually was very excited. I thought it was a unique opportunity for somebody with a business background to step in and change the game. I liked the fact that he was honest and he didn't give prepared comments. And so I thought there was a real opportunity. And on top of that, I was really not a fan of Ted Cruz. I was clear that I was an ABC person, "Anybody But Cruz," because I thought Ted is a demagogue but he's also smart. And that's a dangerous combination.

And so I told Donald that I would help him try to get past Ted Cruz. But I also told him at some point you have to dig in and learn policy, understand the issues and recognize that it's a very difficult job. And that the only certainty in the position is uncertainty. And if you're not willing to learn and read and dig into the issues, that's going to be a real problem and that's where we had a falling out.

SMERCONISH: I know you don't agree with Donald Trump and you've made it clear that your support of Hillary Clinton is not just opposition base to Trump. There are things about her candidacy that you like.

Here's a question for Mark Cuban. Do you nevertheless look at him and say, wow, he's had a hell of a ride and maybe I, Mark Cuban, should look seriously at an electoral run in the future? Has he changed your world view?

[09:25:08] CUBAN: No, the exact opposite.

(LAUGHTER)

CUBAN: There's so little --

SMERCONISH: How so?

CUBAN: There's so little focus on policy and programs and getting results, you know, we cover the same five, six topics over and over and over again. And we never go into depth about any of them. There's no real new discussion. We don't -- you know, we don't talk about automation and the impact on employment. We don't talk about Icahn in terms of what's happening with -- internet naming. We don't talk about patents. There's all these little things that add up into big things that no one even brings up anymore because we scream and yell, whether regrets means apology or not, and whether, you know, Clinton's foundation and Clinton cash and all the other nonsense is real or not.

And then we call her to lie and lying Hillary and catch Donald in his lies. There's no their anymore in politics. Why would I want to step in the middle of that quagmire?

SMERCONISH: A non-political question to end with Mark Cuban. Have you stopped to think about the impact of "Shark Tank" beyond the episodes that get aired?

CUBAN: Oh, yes.

SMERCONISH: I have four children, three of them are teenage sons, one is now 20, but we watch it together. We talk about business strategies and ideas and it occurs to me that the ripple effect from what you've started must be enormous.

CUBAN: Oh, it fills me with more pride than you can imagine, Michael. The reason I do the show is one and only, it sends the message that the American dream is alive and well. It is the -- we have been told, anyways, I'll use a Donald Trump quote. We've been told -- people have said that it's the number one --

SMERCONISH: People have said --

CUBAN: Yes. It's the number one show on all of television watched by families together. And that's important to me. I hear it all day long, parents come up to me with their eyes well up with pride about how -- like, the example you just gave, their kid, you know, their son or their daughter who might be 8, 10, 12, 14, 16 years old is now talking about starting a business. Is talking about wanting to be an entrepreneur, something they've never talked about before.

That's why I do the show, that's why "Shark Tank" is important. That's why Donald Trump is wrong because the American dream is alive and we'll, and getting stronger. And that's one of the reasons -- I'll put in a plug again. I -- you know, I have sat and talked with the Clinton campaign and they are wide open to listening to me about a lot of ideas on small business, creating, you know, better efficiencies, reducing paperwork, et cetera.

I could never get through the door back when I was talking to Donald to even begin to talk about those things. So, you know, the two dovetail together, but I'm certainly super proud. And the new season starts on September 23rd on ABC.

SMERCONISH: I can't wait. Just in time for the night of to end and for me to go back to "Shark Tank." Mark Cuban, thank you so much.

CUBAN: "The Night Of" is great show, isn't it?

SMERCONISH: Awesome. Unbelievable.

CUBAN: Thanks, Michael. Yes. I love it.

SMERCONISH: Just two episodes left. Thank you, Mark. Me, too. Good to see you. Thank you.

CUBAN: Thanks, Michael. Always.

SMERCONISH: Still to come, I should have asked Mark Cuban whether he thinks Kazir did it in "Night Of."

When does a college student's ad searching for a roommate spark a national debate? When it says only a person of color need apply. That sure sounds like discrimination.

And Donald Trump's new tactic to win over African-American voters brings new controversy.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DONALD TRUMP (R), PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: And what do you have to lose? Look, what do you have to lose? You're living in poverty, your schools are no good, you have no jobs, 58 percent of your youth is unemployed. What the hell do you have to lose?"

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[09:33:09] SMERCONISH: Another campus firestorm erupted into a national debate this week. This one about roommates and race. It started with a Facebook post, Kare Urena, an African-American student at Pitzer College, was seeking a fourth roommate for an off-campus house and wrote, POC only, meaning "people of color".

She later defended herself, saying, "I don't want to live with any white folks." It got picked up by a student newspaper with this headline, which then got picked up nationally. Can that seemingly discriminatory Facebook post be defended?

Joining me now, Carol Swain, law professor at Vanderbilt University, and civil rights attorney Areva Martin.

Areva, my wife is a real estate broker. My mother is a real estate broker. I used to run the department of housing and urban development in five states. You know the rules that apply to ads.

Now, this was a Facebook post, but my God, you can't even advertise a mother in law suite. How can this be justified?

AREVA MARTIN, CIVIL RIGHTS ATTORNEY: Well, you know that the fair housing act, Michael, does have some exceptions. And I think this whole conversation has been framed inappropriately. And everyone is pouncing on this student and then the other two roommates in this situation.

And for me, this isn't about racism. It's not about segregation. It's a cry for help by an African-American student and her roommates, who are saying on this campus where the population is 5 percent African-American and almost 50 percent white students, they feel ostracized. They feel isolated. They suffer a great deal of racial animus.

And I think the president did this conversation a complete disservice, because he too then denounced the student's comments rather than reaching out to the students and trying to understand what drove these students to the point where they felt the need to make that kind of statement. I think that's the real injustice here, is the fact that the students have not been embraced in their issues framed in a way that gives them some kind of peace and solitude on that campus.

[09:35:02] SMERCONISH: Here's what you made reference to. Melvin Oliver is the president. Can we put that up on the screen? Because Areva just noted he said, "While Pitzer is a community of individuals passionately engaged in establishing intra-cultural safe spaces for a marginalized group, the Facebook post and several subsequent comments are inconsistent with our mission and values."

He then went on to say, our shared goal is to create a balanced approach to engaging complex intercultural issues, not to isolate individuals on the bases of any protected status.

Carol, didn't he get it right? Melvin Oliver, the president.

CAROL SWAIN, LAW PROFESSOR, VANDERBILT UNIVERSITY: Well, not completely. And I agree with part of what Areva stated. It's much bigger than the individual student. It's part of a trend of resegregation that's taken place on campuses across America, and it does show that people -- minority students feel that there can be a double standard when it comes to codes of behavior. Had that been a white student, that student would be forced to undergo

mandatory sensitivity training and may find his or herself in a position where they would be under some type of penalty on that campus. They would certainly be ostracized.

(CROSSTALK)

SMERCONISH: Areva, you probably take the case if it had been reversed and white students who acted similarly.

MARTIN: I would take the case for the three students that made the Facebook post, Mike. I think the issue here -- race issues on college campuses are so complex, so nuanced. This is the same campus where a dean had to resign her position last year, because an e-mail she sent to a Latina student saying that that student didn't fit the mode of Claremont student colleges.

I think that's an example of the racial hostility on this campus. And quite frankly, white students do not bear the burden of slavery. They don't bear the burden of the Jim Crow era, of the violence of segregation.

So, it is inappropriate to talk about these students without that context. And it's inappropriate to talk about race and segregation without addressing the feelings of isolation that they feel in this campus. It's been reported.

(CROSSTALK)

SMERCONISH: I want one final statement from you, Carol. A final statement from you on this and then I need to raise a different issue.

SWAIN: First, what's going on is that we have aggressive affirmative action programs that are bringing some students to campus that are not fully prepared. The students get sheparded into ethnic studies programs, where they learn more and more victimization. They are not learning how to think. They are not learning how to be independent.

The whole thing about safe spaces is because some of these students probably should have gone to a historically black college or one where they will naturally get segregation.

MARTIN: There is no evidence of that. That's ridiculous.

SWAIN: There are studies that show that. There are studies that show that resegregation and studies that show -- it is about affirmative action. It is about affirmative action.

(CROSSTALK)

SWAIN: There is a study that shows that --

SMERCONISH: Guys, we're not going to solve this one.

SWAIN: More integration on campuses in states where they have banned affirmative action. (CROSSTALK)

MARTIN: Black students feel --

SWAIN: I can post my studies. I can post my studies.

SMERCONISH: Let's try and solve the next one, because we haven't solved that one. Donald trump last night made a pitch for African- American voters. Here's what he said.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DONALD TRUMP (R), PRESIDENTIAL NOMINEE: What do you have to lose? Look, what do you have to lose? You are living in poverty. Your schools are no good. You have no jobs, 58 percent of your youth is unemployed. What the hell do you have to lose?

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SMERCONISH: I think and I should add this, he uses that 58 percent number, he's adding in all African-American youth, regardless of whether they're looking for employment. But in any event, Areva, is that a good strategy for him to make that pitch?

MARTIN: That's the most nonsensical, ridiculous strategy ever. He's in an audience, predominantly white audience, talking about you, your people. The most insulting comments I've ever heard from a candidate.

It's not a strategy. In fact, what I think it is, it's a ploy, and it's not about black voters. It's about white voters. I think he's doubling down on his white voters and trying to say to them, look, I've checked the black box. I've talked to African-Americans. He has no real intention to court African-American voters. He is not talking to us where we are in African-American church systems, historically black colleges and black communities.

Both of the pitches that he's made in the last week have been to predominantly white audiences and he's not addressing the issues, the number one issues that African-Americans say that's pivotal in this race. And that's the issue of criminal justice reform. Hasn't mentioned it one time.

And when he does, he talks about law and order, and we know that's just a dog whistle, a racist code word for lock up African-Americans.

[09:40:06] SMERCONISH: But, you know, I have to say, Professor Swain, Stephen A. Smith was on this program a year ago. Spring of 2015. He said something similar.

Watch this.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

STEPHEN A. SMITH, TV AND RADIO HOST, ESPN: I definitely believe that the black vote has been taken for granted. I'm simply saying, let's not be so transparent in our support for one

party over another when that does not appear to be working for us. Force people to flatter us. White folks do it, Jewish folks do it, Hispanic folks are doing it. Why can't black folks do it? That's all I'm saying.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SMERCONISH: Professor Swain, isn't that exactly what Donald Trump was saying?

SWAIN: Yes, and I challenge every African-American that's watching your show to listen to the speech that Donald Trump gave a few days ago about race and law and order. And one reason that he is speaking to audiences that are predominantly white is that unlike the Democrats, it's not easy for Republicans to take that message to a church, that church will find themselves under investigation by the IRS. So, there's a double standard there.

It's foolish for blacks to all be in the same political party, what the Democrats are doing and have done is killing blacks. It is keeping them on a plantation. And the blacks out there also need to see the new movie "Hillary's America: The Secret History of the Democratic Party" because they're finding out that the Democrats are not their friends, have never been their friends, and that the agenda is really killing the population.

(CROSSTALK)

MARTIN: Every study shows that African-Americans --

SMERCONISH: Just the two of you together and spend the full hour covering the landscape. Because I think the three of us could do it. Unfortunately --

SWAIN: I can document what I am saying.

MARTIN: I just want to say, African-Americans were flattered at the DNC. You were there, mike. You saw how many African-Americans were represented at that convention from the bottom to the top.

SWAIN: Window dressing! Window dressing votes.

SMERCONISH: All right, ladies. Thank you both.

MARTIN: Thousands of African-American delegates.

SMERCONISH: Thank you.

Still to come, new details on the Ryan Lochte Olympic scandal and they've gotten more sympathetic to the Americans. Danny Cevallos will join me to discuss.

Here's another tweet. "Smerconish, today's show was the worst I've ever seen from you and it is because you are so desperate to lie for Hillary." Hey, tweet me separately, again, so everybody can see it. And be specific. I want to know what the lie was. Back in a sec.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[09:46:37] SMERCONISH: By now, you know that four U.S. Olympic swimmers are in trouble after creating an international incident at a gas station. Gold medalist Ryan Lochte and his fellow swimmers originally said they were pulled over in their taxi and robbed at gunpoint by men dressed as police. But as the week progress, their story unraveled, and they have become symbols of the ugly American stereotype.

But now one of the athletes, swimmer Gunnar Bentz, has just released a detailed account, his version at least makes me more sympathetic to the men.

Joining me now, criminal defense attorney, and CNN legal analyst, Danny Cevallos.

Danny, let me mention this to you. They were hammered. They were stupid. They tore down a sign.

But I know you read that statement. They didn't do anything that should have warranted the drawing of weapons on them. And why were they paying cash outside judicial system to be let go?

DANNY CEVALLOS, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: Yes, this statement, first of all, is brilliantly crafted. Certainly a team of pr and lawyers were involved. Because it really is a very, very good statement, and it's obviously serves the swimmers' interests.

But I will say this -- and I've been saying this from the beginning -- the problem I had with Brazilian authorities holding a press conference and saying, these men were not robbed, and then in the same breath, they say, what happened may have been that somebody pointed a begin at them and demanded money. Well, that is robbery.

And, you know, this statement also locks in that Lochte may have ripped down a sign, but if you read the statement, then two guns are drawn on them. Then they're made to sit down on the sidewalk with their hands up. We saw that from the video. And then thereafter, Lochte gets into a shouting match with the guards, which doesn't look good for Lochte in terms of poor behavior.

But in terms of a robbery or some sort of exhortation of force, it doesn't look very good for the security guards. Unless, of course, this is a legal common practice in Brazil. If you believe somebody owes you money, and then you can point a gun at them? I'm not entirely sure. I'm not admitted to the Brazilian bar.

But here in America that, is what we would call robbery and it's probably even kidnapping.

SMERCONISH: It seems like they acted, the swimmers, in an asinine fashion. But, you know, where do they go to get their reputation back? It might not be as bad as we initially believed, and I fear that too many Americans have already moved on from this story. Let me ask Danny Cevallos this. Any chance any of them have to go

back or h it at least run the process in that country?

CEVALLOS: You know, this story changed so many times over the week, so if I were to chart the likelihood of an extradition of any of the swimmers back from the United States to Brazil, it would be a chances are vanishing and going down very, very quickly. And I would say they're approaching zero now. And the only person Brazil could possibly be interested in at this point would be Ryan Lochte.

But I have to say, it doesn't seem likely, and then based on the extradition treaty of the United States has with Brazil, simple vandalism is probably not within the list of extraditable offenses, and nor is giving a false statement to police. Although other similar crimes might meet the description, it doesn't seem likely this would be considered an extraditable offense by the U.S., significant enough to return Lochte even if Brazilian authorities chose to charge him.

SMERCONISH: One final observation. The statement that we both read also suggests that there are perhaps other camera angles out there that we have not yet seen.

[09:50:06] So perhaps there's more to come.

CEVALLOS: You know, Michael, the thing about this story is in the last week it's as if nobody has ever heard of anybody giving statements that slant to their own best interests. Anyone who does any amount of litigation, criminal or civil, wouldn't be surprised that one side, the Brazilian side that emerged, favored the Brazilian story. Now, here's a very good statement from one of the swimmers that just happens to favor that particular swimmer's interests.

It's not necessarily lying. We all spin our stories, even unconsciously, for self-preservation. This is no exception.

We may never find the truth. Maybe it lies somewhere in between. But we shouldn't be surprised that these two stories are at polar opposites.

SMERCONISH: More to come, perhaps. Danny Cevallos, as always. Excellent job. Thank you for that.

Still to come, your best and worst tweets like this one. Let's see what he says or she says, "Smerconish, Buck Sexton, blah blah blah, you were great squashing another baseless CNN premise." I don't think that was directed to me. I imagine that was directed to Amy and to Buck Sexton as praise.

We're back in just a second.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[09:55:25] SMERCONISH: You can tweet at me if you can spell "Smerconish." By the way, what's coming, so let's look together what came in this week. Hit me with the best or the worst. "Smerconish, Trump is yelling what right wing media has been

whispering for 30 years." Well, that was my point. The opening segment, and some misunderstood what I was saying, this climate that allowed his ascendancy was created in the conservative media.

The fact that today some of the conservative hosts don't like what they created is beside the point. You know the old expression, you reap what you sow.

Give me another email, or text or tweet. "Amy Holmes just prove your point Smerconish about talk radio and Trump. Deflect everything to being Obama's fault."

Well, come on, nothing was better for talk than the Clinton years. The best is to be outside, lobbing grenades inside. And maybe that's a scenario will result if Hillary should be elected.

Do we have time for one more? Quickly? Quick, quick, quick. Let's see.

"You're a big disappointment. What should the guards have done to detain vandalism suspects, use harsh rhetoric?"

Hey, let me tell you something -- if it were one of my kids and someone pulls a gun on them for urinating outside and then wants cash to be paid to them? No. It sounds to me like a kangaroo court.

I'll see you next week.