Return to Transcripts main page

Smerconish

Israel's Invasion May Affect U.S. Election; Trump Will Campaign Today In North Carolina Without Mark Robinson; Ohio Gov. Condemns Trump & Vance For Springfield Claims; N.C. GOP Nominee For Gov. Made Disturbing Comments On Porn Forum; Beirut Strike Kills Hezbollah Leader Who Is Wanted In The U.S.; National Campaign Pushes For Mobile Voting In U.S. Elections. Aired 9-10a ET

Aired September 21, 2024 - 09:00   ET

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

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[09:00:51]

MICHAEL SMERCONISH, CNN ANCHOR: The U.S. shrugs as World War III approaches. I'm Michael Smerconish in Philadelphia.

That provocative headline caught my eye this week in The Wall Street Journal. It accompanied an essay written by Walter Russell Mead. He's a professor of strategy and statecraft at the University of Florida. Professor Mead was shining a light on a report from the Commission on the National Defense Strategy, which you can be excused for lack of awareness. After all, we've been busy discussing the Trump and Vance comments alleging the eating of pets in Ohio and counting the number of times that Kamala Harris has answered questions, as well as how often she repeats her replies.

And don't get me wrong, those issues matter, but each of us has only so much bandwidth. And while we and the campaigns are consumed with such inquiry, there are more important issues that should shape who will be our next commander in chief. The Commission, highlighted by Professor Mead, consisted of eight experts named by senior congressional Republicans and Democrats. They just completed a comprehensive review that at any other moment in time would have sparked a national conversation.

As Professor Meade wrote, "The bipartisan report details a devastating picture of political failure, strategic inadequacy and growing American weakness in a time of rapidly increasing danger. The U.S. faces the most serious and most challenging threat since 1945 including the real risk of near term major war. The report warns, quote, "The nation was last prepared for such a fight during the Cold War, which ended 35 years ago. It is not prepared today."

Worse, "China and Russia's no limits' partnership formed in February of 2022 just days before Russia's invasion of Ukraine has only deepened and broadened to include a military and economic partnership with Iran and North Korea. This new alignment of nations opposed to U.S. interests creates a real risk, if not likelihood, that conflict anywhere could become a multitheater or global war." Simply stated, World War III approaches and the U.S. is ill equipped to deal. We are no longer the Colossus that can bend the world to our will. We are facing dangerous circumstances on many fronts, including China, Russia, North Korea and the Middle East, and each is getting insufficient attention in the campaign. Substantively, Republicans keep our eye on the border and the economy, Democrats on abortion and the future of democracy, all important, but our daily attention has also been captured by too many headlines like these, I'm a black Nazi, childless cat ladies, Doug Emhoff cheating, campaign crowd sizes, the Arlington Cemetery video, RFK and the bear, RFK and the whale, RFK and the journalist, whether Beyonce would show up at the DNC, does a like of a Taylor Swift tweet really mean that Caitlin Clark is endorsing Harris. In what may have been the only debate between Trump and Harris, there was only one question to both candidates on the Israel- Hamas war and the war in Ukraine.

But what about China's industrial espionage? Expansion in both sea and space, or how to offset their Belt and Road Initiative? Two and a half years after the Russian invasion of Ukraine, the war seems at a standstill. The Wall Street Journal estimated this week that more than 1 million have been killed or injured, and the U.S. seems intent on giving Ukraine only enough support so as to keep Russia at bay, but not enough to win.

From the outset, our commitment has been incremental and constrained, doled out like it's an allowance. Here's an example. Just a week ago came the news that the Biden administration is close to approving the use by Ukraine of long range missiles deep inside Russia, so long as they were not arms supplied by the United States. Lest you should think the threats posed to the U.S. by Russia and China are independent of one another. You might be surprised as I was in reading David Sanger's new book, "New Cold Wars" that presidents Putin and Xi have met about 50 times.

They are playing long ball. We are mired in election chaos that comes every four years. And then, of course, there is Israel, the use of pagers and walkie-talkies for a concerted action against Hezbollah in Lebanon, killing dozens and wounding 1000s, it seemed like something that Q created in 007's lab.

[09:05:13]

And just this morning, according to Palestinian officials, at least 17 people have been killed, including women and children, in an Israeli missile strike in central Gaza. Israel said it struck a school compound being used by Hamas. On Friday, Israel launched one of its heaviest aerial bombardments killing a senior Hezbollah military commander in the southern suburbs of Beirut. At least 31 people were killed in the targeted strike, which flattened a multi-story residential building. Don't get me wrong, I'm pleased the Hezbollah leader is gone.

Ibrahim Akil was a man believed to have played a key role in the killing of 241 U.S. military personnel at the Beirut bombing in October of 1983. But why the electronic device attack now? Was it more about protecting Israel from incoming ordinance fired by Iran's proxy, or was it an effort to thwart the peace talks or throw a curve into the American election? Regardless, what if the effect is to put the United States into a regional war between Israel and Iran, Americans mired in the minutiae of our 2024 campaign will have whiplash in wondering how that all happened.

I want to know what you think. Go to my website at smirconish.com. Answer today's poll question, is the United States at greater risk from those within or outside our nation? Joining me now is Richard Clarke, the nation's first cyber czar, former White House counterterrorism coordinator, special adviser to Presidents Bush 41 Clinton and Bush 43. His new piece published at smerconish.com called "Israel's Upcoming Invasion of Lebanon will affect America's Election."

Richard, nice to have you back. I know you read the Commission report. What was your takeaway?

RICHARD CLARKE, FORMER WHITE HOUSE COUNTERTERRORISM COORDINATOR: I think the Commission made a very good case that America is not prepared for war, that we could fight a very brief, spasmodic war, but not a sustained combat, certainly not against China and Russia combined. We don't have the industrial capacity to turn out new weapons. It takes three to four years for us to build an airplane, seven or eight years for us to build a ship. We don't currently have the capacity to fight a long war.

SMERCONISH: What did you make of the timing of the communications device attack? That's the way I'll describe Israel's use, presumably, Israel's use of both walkie-talkies and pagers?

CLARKE: Well, it may have been the use it or lose its situation. There's reporting that Hezbollah was figuring out that there was something wrong with the pagers and the Israelis might have had to use them or never be able to do the operation. But it's also coming at a time when Israel is preparing the battlefield in many ways, taking out Hezbollah leaders, doing airstrikes, preparing the battlefield for what they call the next sequence in the war, talking about moving the battle north. They're clearly wanting Hezbollah to think that they're about to invade southern Lebanon and clear out the area from which the rockets have been hitting Northern Israel. They may actually be preparing to do it, and that could happen in the next week.

SMERCONISH: If that should happen, what do you anticipate would be the U.S. response? Or, more specifically, would we be involved from a defensive posture of Israel only or maybe offensive as well?

CLARKE: Well, Israel should be able to handle Hezbollah by itself. But if it involved Iran, if Iran came to the assistance of its Hezbollah proxy by firing missiles from Iran at Israel, then the United States would probably assist Israel in trying to shoot them down the way we did several months ago. That would be defensive, and that's something that I think the Biden administration would do fairly automatically.

SMERCONISH: OK, so now a little game theory. What would be the impact on the Trump campaign? What might be the impact on the Harris campaign? CLARKE: Well, the Harris campaign is trying to walk a fine line, a balancing act, trying to please pro-Palestinian voters, particularly in Michigan, and pro-Israeli voters throughout the United States. If this war broke out, I think the Biden administration, including the Vice President, would say, we have to defend Israel. Even if Israel was wrong to start the war, even if they thought Israel made a mistake by invading Lebanon, they would be forced to help defend Israel. And that might lose Michigan for Harris.

Trump is running around saying to American Jewish audiences, if you don't vote for me, quote, "there will be no Israel." So the irony here is that Trump is far more pro-Netanyahu than is Harris, but Harris may be punished by pro-Palestinian voters in Michigan.

[09:10:13]

I think Harris is trying to draw a distinction between being pro- Israeli, which she is, and pro-Netanyahu, which she's not. And Netanyahu is making it very clear, I think, that he is pro-Trump. So all of this war in the Middle East and its potential expansion in the next week might have an effect on the American election. Voting has already begun. I voted yesterday.

SMERCONISH: Richard, finally respond to my thesis. All of the subject matter that I referenced playing itself out domestically of interest. I'm caught up in it. It's significant, but when I stand back, lacking your credentials and your experience, I look at a planet potentially on fire, and I don't mean from climate change in this instance, and it worries me. What do you think?

CLARKE: I think we might be in a pre-war period. It's certainly possible that China could invade Taiwan in the years ahead, and that would draw the United States in. It's certainly possible that the war in Ukraine could yet expand further and draw the United States in. We have never been in a period like this since the height of the Cold War. And yet, as you said at the top of the show, Michael, it's not a subject of debate or discussion in our election.

It should be, because we're choosing between two leaders who will make decisions about a possible future war.

SMERCONISH: Said much more clearly than I offered. Thank you. Richard Clarke, as always.

CLARKE: Thank you.

SMERCONISH: You know I like to respond to your social media in real time. I don't see it coming. I'm on all usual platforms. Follow me on Twitter now, X if you're not already doing so. What do we have, Catherine (ph)?

Things have gotten really poisonous when a majority of people or at least the ones who answered this believe their fellow Americans are the biggest enemy, not Russia, not China, not North Korea. David, I don't know if you're tipping the hand in terms of how that poll is going so far, because I don't look at the results until they come up on the screen at the end of the show. I think it's a legitimate concern.

We know we've got domestic unrest. I have articulated here the worries that I have about misinformation and disinformation, especially in a world of artificial intelligence if we don't know the victor on the night of the final voting, meaning on November 5. I'm really worried about a several day time period, and now with the Georgia hand count, little more complicated than it's been presented, I think. But I'm worried that we don't yet know the outcome of the election, that Tuesday night, maybe that Wednesday, Thursday, Friday, and what might then unfold. So, one more reason to be worried, not only about the situation that I've described internationally, but what's going on domestically as well.

Remember, I want to know what you think. Go to my website at smerconish.com. This is today's poll question, is the United States at greater risk from those within or outside our nation?

Up ahead, how will the recent scandal surrounding North Carolina Lieutenant Governor Mark Robinson impact the 2024 presidential election? Trump is campaigning there today, not with the GOP nominee for governor, Corey Lewandowski, senior Trump campaign official, here to explain. Be sure to sign up for my smerconish.com daily newsletter for which Steve Breen drew this.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[09:18:02]

SMERCONISH: Former President Trump will hold a campaign rally today in Wilmington, North Carolina. Mark Robinson, the Republican candidate for governor, not expected to be there. A CNN KFile investigation found Robinson made a series of inflammatory comments on a pornography website's message board more than a decade ago in which he described himself as a black Nazi and expressed support for reinstating slavery.

Joining me now is Corey Lewandowski, a senior adviser for Trump's campaign. By the way, we extended an offer to the Harris campaign to send someone as well, but they declined.

Corey, will former President Trump say anything about Mark Robinson when he takes that stage today in North Carolina?

COREY LEWANDOWSKI, SENIOR CAMPAIGN OFFICIAL, TRUMP CAMPAIGN: Well, Michael, you have to wait and see. Listen, we're not focused on Mark Robinson. We're focused on winning a presidential election. And I've never seen a presidential candidate who has either benefited or had a detriment by a candidate down ballot from him. So Donald Trump is at the top of the ticket.

He's going to lay out his vision for America. It's a very different vision than what Kamala Harris wants. And the people of North Carolina will continue, as they have done in two separate occasions to send Donald Trump back to the White House.

SMERCONISH: I would typically agree with you that down ballot is not affected, but in this case, I looked at RealClearPolitics just before coming on, 0.1 percent separate Trump and Harris in North Carolina according to that average. I don't know that it matters, but it's Trump who has the 0.1 percent advantage. In this case, does Donald Trump believe the denials of Mark Robinson?

LEWANDOWSKI: Well, I haven't spoken to Donald Trump specifically about that. I traveled with him. This topic did not come up. Look, it's up to Mark Robinson too. He has said that these things were not accurate.

I don't know if they are or are not and I'm not here to answer for Mark Robinson. What I am here to tell you is that, you know, the people of North Carolina, which has a huge military population on two separate occasions, has voted to send Donald Trump to the White House. I think they will do that again in 45 days.

And Michael, you know this voting has already begun in a number of places. The ballots went out yesterday in North Carolina. So effective immediately, people have the opportunity to vote for Donald Trump.

[09:20:04]

SMERCONISH: OK, one more on this issue, Thom Tillis, Senator Thom Tillis, put it up on the screen, I'll read it to Corey Lewandowski and everybody else aloud, "If the reporting on Mark Robinson is a total media fabrication, he needs to take immediate legal action. If the reporting is true, he owes it to President Trump and every Republican to take accountability for his actions and put the future of North Carolina and our party before himself."

That makes sense to me. Doesn't he owe it to Donald Trump to take accountability if it is true and if not, to do what Donald Trump would do, which is file a lawsuit?

LEWANDOWSKI: Yes, I think, I think the problem is this, Michael, look, the deadline to get off the ballot for candidates has now, since passed. The ballots were sent out already, and so it looks like Mark Robinson is going to be the Republican nominee for governor regardless of what this is. What's amazing to me is the timing of this story, obviously came out on the last day, and again, Mark Robinson has denied it. I have not spoken to Mark Robinson or anyone has campaign, but that's up to him to figure out. We're solely focused on the presidential election.

SMERCONISH: Is former President Trump going to visit Springfield, Ohio? And if so, when?

LEWANDOWSKI: Well, look for a number of security reasons, we don't give out the President's schedule ahead of time. I'm sure you appreciate that. But if we decide to go to Springfield, Ohio, it will be widely known, and I'm sure, widely attended. But for security reasons, we just don't give up the schedule that far in advance.

SMERCONISH: So, in the print edition today of "The New York Times," I read it online yesterday, but today, in the print edition is the essay from Governor Mike DeWine of the great state of Ohio. I'll put on the screen what he said relative to your candidate. It pertains, of course, to the comments that have been made recently. "As a supporter of former President Donald Trump and Senator J.D. Vance, I am saddened by how they and others continue to repeat claims that lack evidence and disparage the legal migrants living in Springfield. This rhetoric hurts the city and its people, and it hurts those who have spent their lives there."

Your response on behalf of the campaign is what?

LEWANDOWSKI: Yes, my response is, listen, you want to be talking about what may or may not be happening in Springfield, Ohio, but what we're not talking about is the American lives that have been lost by the illegal supporting to this country. No one's talking about Laken Riley. You know, Donald Trump has been to the border. He's met with these families. He's heard their stories first-hand.

So you know, the mainstream media, by and large, wants to talk about what may or may not be happening in Springfield, Ohio, as opposed to what the real problem is, is that under the Biden-Harris administration. Tens of millions of people are pouring to this country, at least 100 on the terrorist watch list. And they're not coming here for our beaches. They're invading our country from within. We've seen it in Aurora, Colorado just recently, and we have to do something about the illegals who continue to pour into this country.

Kamala Harris has not answered the simple question of when she's been for the border wall before she was against the border wall. And Donald Trump's been very clear re-elect him, and the border wall will be finished, and Americans will be safer.

SMERCONISH: But here's what I don't get, aren't you, otherwise, isn't Donald Trump, President Trump, otherwise stepping on a winning issue. Wouldn't we be discussing Springfield, Ohio, independent of the unfounded pet allegation? And instead, now it's all about the pet allegation instead of saying, here's one community of so many across the country that cannot handle the migrant population that they're forced to deal with because of porous borders, we're not having that conversation. Instead, it's the subject of ridicule and scorn about what he said in the debate. Explain to me, because I really don't know, how does that make sense in the campaign?

LEWANDOWSKI: Well, listen, I think Vivek Ramaswamy had a town hall meeting there just the other day. He -- they interviewed a series of the people who were there, and what they said was, because of the policies of the Harris-Biden administration, all of these immigrants have come in and completely changed their community, and they don't have the ability to handle it. This is a relatively small town. They've been inundated with immigration that the schools can't handle, the health care can't handle, the jobs that are being taken. And so listen, if we're talking about the issue of illegal immigration, it doesn't just affect one community or one state, it is now affecting everybody.

Almost everybody knows someone who's been affected by this issue. We've heard it town halls. We've heard it across the board. But you know, by and large, the mainstream media doesn't want to talk about the detrimental impacts of illegals coming into our country and committing crimes -- SMERCONISH: OK.

LEWANDOWSKI: -- against Americans.

SMERCONISH: OK. Final thought, what I think you're saying is, if it were presented, just as Corey Lewandowski said, by -- and the way you just characterized it makes sense to me. You don't think we'd be talking about it, and therefore it requires Donald Trump to make something up in order to elevate it?

LEWANDOWSKI: No, what I'm saying is, listen, the issue of illegal immigration is a very serious one, as one has been perpetrated because of the failures of this administration, and it's something that on day one can be stopped, but these this administration has chosen not to engage in that. And because of that, Americans have lost their lives and communities have been decimated. That's what's going on right now, and it's a major issue in this country.

SMERCONISH: Corey Lewandowski, thank you for being here.

[09:25:01]

LEWANDOWSKI: You bet.

SMERCONISH: North Carolina Republican gubernatorial nominee, as I've been discussing, Mark Robinson says he's staying in the race. He claims someone manufactured this and he blames AI.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

MARK ROBINSON, (R) LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR OF NORTH CAROLINA: This is not anything that is characteristic of me, nor has it ever -- has it ever been.

I'm not going to get into the minutia of how somebody manufactured this, these salacious tabloid lies, but I can tell you this, there's been over $1 million spent on me through AI. The things that people can do with the internet now is incredible. It's just like Clarence Thomas said years ago, this is a high tech lynching. And you know, back long years ago, they used to use rope. Now they're using table.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SMERCONISH: Is that strategy going to work? Joining me now is Kaylyn Jackson Schiff, an assistant professor of political science at Purdue University, co-director of the governance and responsible AI Lab, and co-author of a study published in the American Journal Science Review, "The Liar's Dividend, Can Politicians Claim Misinformation to Evade Accountability?

Professor, thanks for being here. You studied 15,000 people. What did you find?

KAYLYN JACKSON SCHIFF, CO-AUTHOR, STUDY ON "THE LIAR'S DIVIDEND": Thanks so much for having me, Michael. Yes. So we did a survey of over 15,000 American adults looking for evidence of this concept called the liar's dividend. Can politicians or other public figures receive a benefit or a dividend from claiming that real scandals are just deep fakes or fake news? And in our study, we found consistent evidence that people are willing to give greater support to politicians who cry wolf about fake news or deep fakes.

They're more willing to support politicians who make false claims of misinformation after a scandal.

SMERCONISH: OK, this is depressing, but it means, let's just assume, for the purpose of this conversation, that the lieutenant governor was the person behind all of those communications online that he denies. We're assuming right now that he is that person, you are telling me for political purposes it makes more sense for him to just deny, deny, deny, and lay it off on AI then apologize?

SCHIFF: We do find evidence that politicians who make these false claims receive greater support compared to politicians who apologize or politicians who try to remain silent after a scandal. There is a silver lining, though. We do find that fact checking can reduce this concept of the liar's dividend. It can reduce benefits that politicians receive from making these false claims. So there is the hope that with increased fact checking, these sorts of claims might be less effective. Of course, we need to pay attention to people's willingness to trust fact checking organizations and the sources of fact checks themselves.

SMERCONISH: So, in a world of artificial intelligence, it means that you can be placed somewhere you never were. Things can create an appearance that are completely false. And in that process, it gives cover to malevolent actors, people who are engaging in misconduct. It gives them cover to say, well, that's not mine. That wasn't me, I wasn't there, and the public is left somewhere in between, trying to figure out what's the truth.

SCHIFF: That's the concern. That is what motivated us to conduct this study. We are interested in this environment in which AI generated information, the proliferation of advanced artificial intelligence tools is making us all concerned about the images, the videos, the text, the audio that we're encountering. You know, can we trust this information? Is it real or is it AI generated?

And my co-authors, Daniel Schiff at Purdue University and Natalia Bueno at Emory University, we were wanting to investigate what impacts this might have on the political environment. And so, it is a little bit of a grim story around the fact that this uncertainty in our informational environment is having political impacts. But this isn't the end of the story.

SMERCONISH: You say -- yes, go ahead.

SCHIFF: Right. Go ahead.

SMERCONISH: Go ahead. No, if there's good news, I want to hear it, because I'm pretty depressed.

SCHIFF: Yes, so there is some good news. I mentioned the fact checking. There's also efforts around watermarking and labeling AI generated content. So policymakers, social media platforms and technology companies are looking at solutions to putting watermarks directly on images or labels surrounding images, to provide information to all of us about whether information that we're seeing in video or image form is AI generated or not.

So we're working on solutions. And within the governance and responsible AI Lab at Purdue, we are thinking about ways to make sure that people find watermarks and labels on AI generated content trustworthy, and they feel like they can believe the information that's coming out through those signals.

[09:30:18]

SMERCONISH: Professor, fascinating. Thank you for all that expertise. I appreciate it.

Here are some social media reaction now from the world of Twitter, now X. What do we have? Did you forget Corey said in front of Congress he isn't obligated to tell the truth on TV? Why give him an audience? Hey, did you not hear me say we asked the Trump campaign for a senior representative, and we asked the Harris campaign to do likewise? In fact, let me just serve notice, because from now until Election Day, I intend to continue to say to both campaigns, give me the highest- ranking person you have, including the candidates.

Last week, speaking of artificial intelligence, CNN aired a number of segments that briefly showed an image of former President Donald Trump and Laura Loomer taken from social media. On review, this image had been digitally altered by a third party and should not have been included. We regret the error.

I want to remind you, go to my website. It is Smerconish.com this hour. Is the United States at greater risk from those within or outside our nation?

Still to come, more of your social media reaction to my commentary and my guests. And we use our phones for almost everything. Is it time that we use them to vote in our elections? Don't forget to sign up for my newsletter at Smerconish.com for which Scott Stantis drew this.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[09:35:00]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

SMERCONISH: More social media reaction to the program thus far. "Smerconish, you open the show with an issue that is not in the news and surprise, it benefits Trump." Hang on. Let me just stop right there. You open the show with an issue not in the news. Can you put that camera on me? Can you put that camera on me? Not in the news? Here is the print edition of today's New York Times, OK, above the fold, page one. Israel says Beirut strike kills Hezbollah leader who is wanted in the U.S. Like, you lose me in your social media comment with your very first line. If you think discussing global affairs and the planet being on fire is to Trump's benefit, that, I think, that's your judgment, not mine.

Next, what else came in? It's just unbelievable. Come on. Let's go. PONY UP MICHAEL! Corey NEVER Answered ONE Of Your Questions & You NEVER Challenged Him To Do such. Why Interview anyone If That's What You're Gonna Do?

So, Corey, people's heads are exploding, apparently, because Corey Lewandowski was on the program, and of course, you know me. All that makes me want to do is have him back next week. What did I ask him? I said to him, is your candidate going to disavow the Lieutenant Governor of North Carolina for saying all of those things that are completely unfounded? Why in a race where it's 0.1 percent that separates Donald Trump and Kamala Harris? Would you want to be associated with this guy, and why not do what Thom Tillis, the Senator, the Republican Senator, recommended, which is demand that either Richardson file a lawsuit because it's bogus, or that he takes some accountability. Let's see.

Then I followed up with Mike DeWine, publishing an essay and begging Donald Trump and J.D. Vance to stop spreading mistruth about Springfield, Ohio. What else did I do with Corey? I think the third thing that I did with Corey was I said, why are you ruining an otherwise good message? Like, it seems to me it is campaign malpractice. If the border is your primary concern, why throw into the mix things that aren't true? Instead, focus on the very facts. Now, do you think that that was a poor use of our time? Because I don't. All right. Well, I enjoy your social media reactions, and I hope you'll follow me on Twitter, now called X.

Still to come, should you be able to vote on your phone? My next guest is a political strategist with a new book about how mobile voting could work. Please don't forget to vote by phone on today's poll question. You can use the QR code with your phone. Is the United States at greater risk from those within or outside our nation? Be sure to sign up for my free and worthy daily newsletter when you're there. Steve Breen drew that fabulous cartoon. Come on. Check that out.

Here is another from Jack Ohman. Look what Jack drew for us this week, hysterical, speaking of Springfield, Ohio, not typically a laughing matter, but his take is --

And by the way, hang on, hang on. I want to say one other thing. If you love the cartoons, why not order the book that will contain all of the cartoons drawn for me for the 2024 election only available at Smerconish.com, and know this, 100 percent of all profits will benefit the Children's Crisis Treatment Center. Go buy a book right now.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[09:40:00]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

SMERCONISH: The Teamsters, one of the most influential unions in the nation, decided to take the pulse of their 1.3 million members this week by asking them to scan a QR code on their phone and vote for their choice for President. Internal data provided by the union shows about 60 percent of their members backed Donald Trump, 31 percent wanted Kamala Harris. Ultimately, the Teamsters chose not to endorse a candidate for the first time in nearly three decades. But, it got me thinking, wouldn't it be nice if we could all vote by phone?

Bradley Tusk, CEO and Founder of Tusk Philanthropies, tested mobile voting in seven states. Members of the military, their families, voters outside the country and those with disabilities, were able to cast their ballots by simply tapping the screens on their devices. The project is not trying to eliminate in-person or mail-in voting, but make voting more accessible. Joining me now is Bradley Tusk. He is a Political Strategist who once was Deputy Governor of Illinois, and former Campaign Manager for New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg. He is also the author of this book, "Vote With Your Phone: Why Mobile Voting Is Our Final Shot at Saving Democracy".

Bradley, you have put 20 million of your own dollars, $20 million into this project. To what end? What is the upside you see for society?

BRADLEY TUSK, FOUNDER & CEO, TUSK PHILANTHROPIES, & AUTHOR, "VOTE WITH YOUR PHONE": I believe that right now our politics are broken because they're controlled by the extremes.

[09:45:00]

The vast majority of elections that matter in this country are primaries. Primary turnout is around 10 percent. That's the far left. That's the far right. Those are special interests, and that's who controls who wins office and what they do. And if we want to move things back to the middle and get politicians working together again and get things done, you need a lot higher turnout, and you're only ever going to get that if you make voting easier, and that's by voting on your phone.

SMERCONISH: OK. Well, I love the argument that says, let's dilute the fringes. I'm all for that. How would this actually work?

TUSK: You would -- it would be an app on your phone that you would get from your local Board of Elections, and it would be end-to-end encrypted, end-to-end verifiable. There would be multi-factor authentication, biometric screening. It would be air gapped. There would be -- it would be open source code, and effectively, it would look a lot like any internet ballot if you're voting for Dancing with the Stars, or the NBA All-Star Game, or whatever it is. But, the technology will be very sophisticated to ensure that your vote is encrypted. It is air gapped. Paper copy is printed out after it's been decrypted, and therefore has all the security that you see with things like banking.

SMERCONISH: OK. I don't know that I understood all that. But, I think you said there would be a paper backup.

TUSK: Yes. So, the part of the system is that once the ballot is received by the election office, they take it offline. So, it's no longer attached to the internet. That's when it's decrypted. A paper copy of it is printed out. So, then it just gets mixed in with all the other paper ballots and mail-in votes and everything else.

SMERCONISH: So, in the book, "Vote With Your Phone", you go through the top 10 or so concerns that have been raised about this --

TUSK: Sure.

SMERCONISH: -- number one being ballot security.

TUSK: Yeah.

SMERCONISH: What's the explanation? What's the answer to those who are concerned about ballot security?

TUSK: The answer is two-fold. One is, we have built a system that meets every recommendation that the U.S. Vote Foundation put out there for secure mobile voting. Our plan is to start small. Let's start in municipal elections, city council races, school board races, things like that, see what's working. And also, we're submitting this both to NIST (National Institute for Standards Technology) for their review, and because the code is open source, that means any expert at any time can go into it and look for bugs or abnormalities or anything else. So, it's all philanthropic and it's all online and it's all available.

The second argument is more political, which is the status quo doesn't work. Our country is falling apart. It is controlled by the extremes. And most people, even if they want to, are just not going to vote in state and local primaries, and that's why things are the way they are. And yet, they all have cell phones, and we've got to meet them where they are.

SMERCONISH: I know from the conversations you and I have had on my Sirius XM radio program, and when I've raised this independently, that conceptually, people say they love the idea. But, even some who move money on their phones and buy --

TUSK: Yeah.

SMERCONISH: -- concert tickets and airline reservations and go to the TSA checkpoint, it's like when you get to voting, there is still this hang up. Address that.

TUSK: Sure.

SMERCONISH: Why that concern, and what would you say to those people?

TUSK: Well, look, I don't blame them at all. Look, your listeners, your viewers, are really smart, informed people. That's why they're watching you and listening to you. And so, of course, they have good ideas and questions and concerns. I would have had them too if I hadn't been building this system for the last seven years. And the answer is, it's a new thing. Obviously, we should start small. And so, like I said, school board elections, city council elections. Let's see what's working. It may not be that we're voting for President this way for 10 years. That's OK.

We just have to start getting on the path of making voting easier, because if we don't, we're always going to be stuck in this paradigm where we either get completely dysfunctional government, like we have in Washington, D.C., or totally one side of government, and that could be the city of San Francisco on the left or the state of Texas on the right. In my view, none of that is good.

SMERCONISH: OK. I agree. Let's give it a shot. "Vote With Your Phone" is the book.

TUSK: Thank you.

SMERCONISH: Bradley Tusk, thank you.

More of your social media comments, and you've still got time to vote on today's poll question. It's Smerconish.com. This is going to be really interesting to see where it ends up. Is the United States at greater risk from those within or outside our nation? Hey, use your phone and use the QR code and cast a ballot. While you're there, subscribe to the newsletter. You're going to get exclusive editorial cartoons. This was drawn for us by Rob Rogers.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[09:50:00]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

SMERCONISH: So, there is the results so far. 37,000, damn. Is the United States at greater risk from those within or outside our nation? 78 percent, like an 80:20 split, saying the greater threat is coming within. Keep voting. If you've not yet voted, I'll leave it up at Smerconish.com for the rest of the day.

More social media reaction from today's program includes this. "The reason the Harris campaign didn't send a representative is because you -- your show -- you show is blatantly biased against her. No matter the subject, your spin always toward Trump. Face it. You're not that relevant. You've lost your independent bonafides", says QBAN. If I'd lost my independent bonafides, we would not have read aloud your tweet.

Next is this. "The cartoon of Vice President Harris is unacceptably sexist. (Cackle, really?) Not based on fact, misleading, unfairly playing up sexist tropes that women can't be both serious and joyful. Shame on you." Sarah. First of all, I don't tell the cartoonists what to write. I respect their independence. All I ask for is their balance.

[09:55:00]

But, her laugh has become an issue in the face of her not answering a lot of questions that have been asked of her in the course of this campaign, especially where she is repetitive in some of the non- answers.

One more. I think we've got time. What do we have? Here we go. "Too many of our politicians are no longer serious people who deal with serious problems, and it's our fault." Man, look at that. A substantive reaction to my opening commentary, where I was arguing that we are caught up in so much of the petty minutia that we're not focused on a planet that is really perilous to us now, because of China, because of Iran, because of North Korea, because of Russia, and I agree with you. And here is hoping that we've been able to spark some dialog. I thought Richard Clarke was great on today's program, and hopefully, he has been able to reorient our focus so that we think in much larger terms before we all go and cast our ballot.

Continue to vote on the poll question. I'll see you next week.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)