tv With All Due Respect Bloomberg March 3, 2015 8:00pm-8:31pm EST
>> if iran threatens to walk away from the table, and this often happens, call their bluff. they will be back. because they need the deal a lot more than you do. my friends, for over a year, we have been told that no deal is better than a bad deal. well, this is a bad deal. it's a very bad deal. we are better off without it. >> offering a counterpoint a little later in the day, president obama said basically you ignorant prime minister. >> if they cheat and engage in a cover program, we are more likely to see it in time to do something about it.
if we don't have a deal, as prime minister netanyahu suggested, if he is right that they are not trustworthy and they continue to pursue a covert program and they cheat, we will be less aware of it until it is essentially too late. >> after the smoke has all clear, what as the impact of benjamin netanyahu's speech today? >> i think you made it less likely that the administration and the allies can accept a deal and more likely that congress can block a deal. i think you made it more likely he will win reelection and marginally more likely that history will view him as someone who blew the whistle on iran when others were trying to make a deal. >> yeah, ok, i will agree with all of those. i think the main thing on top of those things is, as you can see obama had an irritated response, they have been irritated for a while, they are more angry than they were before.
he has broken the bipartisan nature of the israel alliance. >> there will be no deal and they will get back together in support of more sanctions and bogus continued negotiations. that's what i think is going to happen. that big story in your e-mail inbox last night, it turns out hillary clinton was not a big fan -- how dumb was it of her to use her personal e-mail address? >> it's like godzilla with mothra riding on his back dumb. everyone said it's a disaster politically for her. she needs to do something much more dramatic than what they have done today, releasing a
bunch of reversal e-mails and putting them in the archive, this could drag out for a really long time and be really bad for her. >> it demoralizes democrats because it divides them between those that are blindly loyal to the clintons, no matter what and those who say she is going to run and win and govern effectively if she wins. she's got to change doing things that make her look entitled. >> jay carney said at a white house briefing several years ago while she was secretary of state, it is our policy not to use personal e-mails. except for that, i think she has a good argument. the way she handled it might have been ok, but it was politically ironic. >> whether actual voters care about this or not, there's a whole industrial complex on the ride that is looking for the -- nefarious, secretive stuff.
we have already seen some of that. this just furthers that narrative and gives more fodder to opposition researchers. >> if she was serious about preserving her political viability, someone every day should forward the mail from her personal account and archive it carefully. that is not what was done. it was at best a haphazard effort to preserve the record. >> there has never been any doubt in anybody's mind that she was likely run for president and win. if she were trying to be cautious and careful, you're absolutely right, that is what you would have done. that is not what they did. we just found out that there were donations to the foundation from foreign governments. >> people telling you the press is mean, the republicans are
attacking you, if she is smart and wants to be president, she is saying to her people, someone have the courage to tell me i messed this up and it will never happen again. >> to republicans, the hillary e-mail story is like new year's eve. a little unbelievable and you never want it to end. jeb bush milked by tweeting this. "transparency matters, unclassified hillary clinton e-mail should be released." then he posted a link to his own released e-mails. what is the subtext of his text? >> his family and the clintons are all pals. they are going to look for opportunities to go after her. he will do it in a very
admirable and politically smart way. he believes this and it's very dangerous for the clintons. >> i saw jeb bush in las vegas yesterday. he took three shots, not the way the bush is normally talk about the clintons. one voter stood up and set i voted for your father once and your brother twice. he said there was ross perot. jeb bush said good for you, you got bill clinton. he normally will not talk about the clintons. can see he is looking for the jugular. >> and not a big political attack, just an elliptical thing. when is hillary going to take shots at jeb? here is what the clinton camp is actually concerned about. it's the gray lady herself, on a
scale of one to godzilla, how big of a problem is the times for hillary clinton? >> a pretty big problem. the clintons and the new york times have had a historic nemesis like relationship going back to the whitewater stories. the last time hillary ran for president there was a huge blow up over a story about the clintons personal life. there was a big reader backlash about in that story. i do not trust the new york times. there is evidence the new york times is going to put a lot of reporters on this story. >> investigative reporters certain columnists -- i know if there is an irony,
that the republicans best friends, when the times writes an investigative piece about the clintons, it harkens back to the age when i started out where a front-page new york times story drove an entire news cycle. there are things in the times story that if they are not flat out wrong, are really misleading and unfair to the clintons, they are right to be mad. this is now their hometown paper and they are in big trouble, because no paper will be more aggressive on the clintons than the new york times. >> and there has been no paper historically that has done more stuff on them. no one has been tougher on the clintons and no one is more intent on being tough on the clintons. it was a busy day in congress after netanyahu finishes blustering, they passed a crystal clean bill to fund the department of homeland security.
every democrat voted for it and 75 republicans joined them including john boehner. he voted with the democrats? amazing, right? >> he might as well call her madam speaker. every time there is a tough boat, john boehner is going to basically have to turn it over to the democrats. they do not have a plan right now. >> he is going to rely on nancy pelosi spoke in the future. >> he cannot find any help in the senate. the senate is not going to bail him out. all the budget issues, raising the debt ceiling, i don't see right now mitch mcconnell-john boehner plan to avoid this happening again and again.
>> our guest tonight is david sanger of a publication we were talking about earlier. we have nothing but nice things to say about your paper. thanks for joining us from harvard. let's talk about iran nuclear talks. we heard benjamin netanyahu's beat today. we heard barack obama speak today. they seem to have very different ideas about where things currently stand in these negotiations. give us an overview of where we
are. >> i think they agree on where to expand. where they disagree is where we are standing in a place that is sustainable. prime minister netanyahu has consistently said that what you cannot allow is to have iran with the capability to build a weapon. that is to say to be able to walk up to the threshold moment. that means for him, you cannot have any nuclear enrichment facilities. you cannot have a nuclear reactor such as a plutonium reactor they are building. you cannot have any infrastructure left. president obama has always said look, i'm going to keep iran from having a bomb. but the only way to do that is to allow them to have some level of infrastructure. they are not going to give up everything and under the nonproliferation treaty, they do have the right to have some nuclear enrichment capacity. that has been elevated to a much
larger political dispute. while the prime minister was talking at the joint session you had secretary of state john kerry over in switzerland, trying to negotiate the last bits of the deal. we don't understand some critical elements of that, including, for example, how intrusive the inspections would be. we basically need to be able to go anywhere anytime to make this work. we don't understand whether iran is fully going to answer all the questions that the international inspectors have put to it about efforts over the past dozen years to do what looks like designing a weapon. and so for for the past for a five-year's, iran has declined to answer those questions. those are all parts of the deal the president will have to make sure is bulletproof to get past the prime minister's objections.
>> from a practical or political point of view, doesn't seem likely are even possible that the iranian government could agree to the kind of rigorous inspections at the american governor would insist upon? >> inspections are the hardest kind of thing to put into an agreement, because you can say the inspectors can go anywhere anytime, but if the iranians blocked them, then you have to decide, are you willing to go use military force merely to get inspectors where you want to have them? the most recent time we did that was iraq, and of course the outcome was less than ideal. interestingly, we did not force that issue on the north koreans, and as prime minister netanyahu said today in citing an example, even though inspectors believe they were moving plutonium took place for they could build a weapon, we didn't do anything.
we were busy invading iraq at the time. to force an opening that would have shown that weapons construction. and a few years later the north koreans set off a nuclear test. so the issue is, do you go the obama route, which is half as full inspection as you can get away with 14 years, or do you go the netanyahu route and insist on it maximal is position at any facility. is there any space between those two? president obama is arguing the only space between those two is a military attack, and that would only by you of few years. >> we know where president netanyahu stands and sort of where president obama stands. what is your sense of where iran is now relative to where the talks stand and what their psychology is, relative to the endgame here.
>> there are different iranian positions, depending on who you talk to. president rouhani and the chief negotiator in these talks, who is the foreign minister, clearly very much want a deal. he was elected on a deal of getting rid of those sanctions which have kept iran from shipping a good deal of its oil, cut them off from moral financial networks, it has made young iranian people feel like they cannot leave the country, come to study in the united states, do all those things that citizens of a normal nation could do. on the other hand, the deal has two pass both the clerics, including this supreme leader, and the iranian military which runs the military side of the nuclear program. just as president obama has to negotiate with the republican party on this, president rouhani
has to go argue with the supreme leader and the military leadership. so tehran could say there is no way, we are not allowing that. >> you wrote this morning that part of netanyahu path problem is that he has yet to present as a scenario if we reject the deal that does not involve a military option. i thought he was suggesting the possibility of no deal intensified sanctions, and continued negotiations, and hope for regime change our regime collapsed in iran. isn't that likely what will happen if there is no deal? >> it's interesting because you've now had the iranian foreign minister, president obama, and secretary kerry all
say publicly that if there is no deal, they cannot imagine another extension. but you are right, it's hard to imagine allowing a breakdown either. let's say there was a breakdown, either march 31 came or june 30 came and they said we just cannot get there. would everybody walk away from it? i doubt it, because to the iranians, that would leave the sanctions in place. to the u.s. and the europeans, it would free the iranians from the restrictions of the current interim agreement they are negotiating under which has kept them from enriching it higher levels. for the iranians, they would just rev up the enrichment again. the difficulty is if there is no deal and no extension, you don't get the status quo. it get a reversion to iran racing for greater capability and the u.s. and its allies wrapping up the sanctions. if anything, it would draw them
further apart. that's why there is pressure on now to strike a deal, a basic framework by the end of this month, and the final agreement by the in june. >> i want you to answer a two-part question. what do you think the percentage of likelihood is that a deal will get struck? and what is the likelihood that president obama could get it through congress? >> i think the chances the deal could get struck word about 50-50. but the two sides seem to be coming closer together at the negotiating table. i think the chances of it blowing up either in congress are back in tehran are pretty great. if you combine those together, i would say there's about a 75% chance that it implodes in one of those two places.
>> hello, everybody. a lot of people are upset because i use my personal e-mail address at work. so in the spirit of the law, if i show them to you, will you get off my freaking back? dear hillary, when are you going to run for president? well, liz i guess i will run for president whenever people like you stop e-mailing me every five freaking seconds. dear mrs. clinton, you have emerged a winner in the international watery draw -- lottery draw. deleted! dear hillary, i used my personal e-mail. hang in there. colin powell. ps i stopped getting my morning security briefings. take you for your support. i have today's security briefings right here. g chat you later.
dear hillary, you should release your e-mails like i release my. transparency matters. oh, nobody has ever told me that before! thank you so much for on classifying your sensitive e-mails. ps my book is better than yours. dear secretary clinton, we received 55,000 pages of e-mails, but most of them are linkedin invitations. where are the e-mails about benghazi? oh, i'm so sorry! i guess i should take your guidance to heart -- delete! honda snapchat joe biden. -- time to snapchat joe biden.
>> this is "taking stock" for march 3, 2015. i am pimm fox. we begin with benjamin netanyahu's warning about a nuclear deal with iran. >> we have been told that no deal is better than a bad deal. well, this is a bad deal. it is a very bad deal. we are better off without it. >> there is no deal yet but president obama says the negotiations are open. >> if it is a deal i have signed off on i wi