 -- THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT FOR 'THIS WEEK' ON June 5, 2016 and it will be updated.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE (voice-over): Starting right now on THIS WEEK WITH GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS: Clinton lets loose.

HILLARY CLINTON, FORMER SECRETARY OF STATE, PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: Do we want his finger anywhere near the button?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE (voice-over): Her ricovitz (ph) (INAUDIBLE) attacks straight out of Donald Trump's own playbook.

Will the hits get even harder after the California vote?

Hillary Clinton is here.

Trump doubles down:

He's a Mexican.

He's a sleaze in my book.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE (voice-over): Refusing to change the way he handles the press, his opponents and his policies.

How will that play with the voters and his party?

Plus: the jobs bombshell that could upend the election. Grover Norquist and Paul Krugman square off on the economy and the 2016 race.

And remembering the greatest of all time.

MUHAMMAD ALI, BOXING CHAMP: I'm fast, I'm pretty and can't possibly be beat.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE (voice-over): From ABC News, it's This Week. Here now, chief anchor, George Stephanopoulos.

GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS, ABC HOST: Good morning. The world is remembering Muhammad Ali this week. A legendary champ thanks to his fast hands, even faster mouth.

"I'm not the greatest, I'm the double greatest," he said.

"It's hard to be humble when you're as great as I am."

Ali knew how to get inside his opponent's head.

And all through the primaries Donald Trump showed he could do exactly the same thing with tough talk, taunts and labels that stuck.

The big question for him now: will those same tactics work in a general election?

Does Trump have to change to win?

In this week's latest round of the presidential fight, Trump declared he's not changing at all and Hillary Clinton is following his lead.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

STEPHANOPOULOS (voice-over): This week, fists flew in the streets of San Jose and Donald Trump combative as ever on the stump.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Is this what it's going to be like covering you if you're president.

TRUMP: Yes, it is.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: We're going to have this kind of confrontation in the press room?

TRUMP: Yes, it is going to be like this.

STEPHANOPOULOS (voice-over): Attacking the press…

TRUMP: You're a sleaze.

STEPHANOPOULOS (voice-over): -- Hillary…

TRUMP: I mean, I watched Hillary today. It was pathetic.

STEPHANOPOULOS (voice-over): -- even that federal judge.

TRUMP: This judge is giving us unfair (INAUDIBLE). Now I say why. Well, I want to -- I'm building a wall, OK, and it's a wall between Mexico, not another country --

JAKE TAPPER, CNN CHIEF WASHINGTON CORRESPONDENT: And he's not -- he's not from Mexico.

TRUMP: -- in my opinion --

TAPPER: He's from Indiana.

TRUMP: He -- his Mexican heritage.

STEPHANOPOULOS (voice-over): To anyone who thought they would see a different Donald Trump in the general election, this definitive answer:

TRUMP: Do you think I'm going to change?

I'm not changing.

STEPHANOPOULOS (voice-over): And late this week, Hillary Clinton seemed to steal a page from the Trump playbook, a volley of hard shots on Trump University...

CLINTON: He is trying to scam America the way he scammed all those people at Trump U.

STEPHANOPOULOS (voice-over): -- those comments about the judge in the case…

CLINTON: Judge Curiel is as much of an American as I am but he has Mexican roots. So to Donald Trump, that means he can't do his job.

STEPHANOPOULOS (voice-over): -- poking Trump for vanity and self-promotion…

CLINTON: It's all about him getting attention. It's all about him seeing his name in the newspaper and seeing his face on television.

STEPHANOPOULOS (voice-over): -- making the case he can't be commander in chief.

CLINTON: This is not someone who should ever have the nuclear codes because it's not hard to imagine Donald Trump leading us into a war just because somebody got under his very thin skin.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

STEPHANOPOULOS: And Secretary Clinton joins us now.

Good Morning, Madam Secretary.

CLINTON: Thank you, George.

STEPHANOPOULOS: Your supporters have been pretty fired up in the last couple of days as you've been taking it to Donald Trump and you also step it up, using words like "demagogue" and "dictator."

Have you concluded that the best way to beat Donald Trump is to be a bit more like him?

CLINTON: No, not at all. I laid out in my speech in San Diego the crux of my concerns and my case against him on foreign policy and national security.

And a lot of what he says plays into what I consider to be a very divisive and dangerous view of the world. And I think it's important that we call it for what it is.

STEPHANOPOULOS: You've also said that he's temperamentally unfit to be president and, in that speech, you said you're going to leave it to the psychiatrists to explain his affection for tyrants.

Are you suggesting that he's mentally unstable?

CLINTON: Well, no, I'm suggesting exactly what I said, that he's temperamentally unfit. He doesn't really have ideas. He makes bizarre rants and engages in personal feuds and outright lies.

He does apparently seem to have very thin skin and I think that those kinds of attributes, that temperament, is ill-suited for someone to be our president and commander in chief.

And he's already, as I recited in my San Diego speech, on record on so many issues that run counter to what Democrats, Republicans alike over many decades have thought was in America's interests in accordance with our values.

And that, to me, is cause for concern.

STEPHANOPOULOS: What's the biggest danger coming from his temperament?

CLINTON: I think he engages in so much scapegoating and finger-pointing and he is someone who doesn't tell the truth. He doesn't seem to be bothered by the constant inherent contradictions.

I said that he had said that he would not mind having other countries have nuclear weapons, including Korea, Japan, Saudi Arabia. He said he didn't. A lot of news outlets, of course, easily pulled up the video of him saying all of that.

His unpredictability, his putting everything in highly personal terms has rattled -- and that's the word President Obama used -- has rattled our closest allies, has caused a lot of serious concern around the world, because people are not used to seeing anyone, a Republican or a Democrat, running for president, who is so loose with the truth, so divisive and so dismissive of very legitimate concerns about safety, security, our values and who we are as a nation.

STEPHANOPOULOS: As you know, he said several times over the last few days that he thinks you should be going to jail over the e-mail issues and on "Face the Nation" he's just given an interview to John Dickerson, where he said he would look at this when he becomes president. Listen.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

TRUMP: I would have my attorney general look at it because everyone knows that she's guilty. Now I would say this, she's guilty but I would let my attorney general make that determination. Maybe they would disagree.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

STEPHANOPOULOS: Your response?

CLINTON: Well, it's a typical Trumpism. And I don't have any response, you know; when he attacks me, I am not going to respond.

But I think it is in keeping with his very vicious public attack against the judge, the federal judge, who is hearing the case against so-called Trump University, a judge who has an impeccable record as a prosecutor, who actually spent, as I'm told, nearly a year in hiding because of threats from criminal drug cartels against his life, who was appointed first by the Republican governor of California, Governor Schwarzenegger, then appointed by a Democratic president, President Obama, because of his extraordinary legal record.

And what Trump is doing is trying to divert attention from the very serious fraud charges against Trump University, that have basically been confirmed by some of the highest officials who worked with him.

So this is typical. He does have that thin skin and, you know, Judge Cureil is as American as I am and certainly as American as Donald Trump is. And Trump's continuing ethnic slurs and rants against everyone, including a distinguished federal judge, I think makes my point rather conclusively.

STEPHANOPOULOS: Madam Secretary, on the e-mail issue, as you know, the State Department inspector general report was quite tough on your practices and it concluded -- and I want to show it right here -- that Secretary Clinton had an obligation to discuss using her personal e-mail account to conduct official business with their offices and, according to these officials, diplomatic security and the information resource management offices did not and would not approve your exclusive reliance on a personal e-mail account to conduct department business because of the restrictions in the foreign affairs manual and the security risks in doing so.

Do you now accept their conclusion that your exclusive use of a personal account was not allowed, that you broke State Department rules?

CLINTON: You know, look, George, I thought that the report actually made it clear that the practice I used was used by other secretaries, other high-ranking State Department officials.

STEPHANOPOULOS: No one else had exclusive use --

(CROSSTALK)

CLINTON: -- if I had to -- if I had to do it over again, I certainly wouldn't. But I think that the rules were not clarified until after I had left, because it had been the practice of others. There was certainly reason to believe -- which I did -- that what I practiced was in keeping with others' practices.

STEPHANOPOULOS: But you were the only one who had exclusive use of a personal account. Secretary Powell did have a personal e-mail account as well and they were very, very clear.

(CROSSTALK)

CLINTON: You know --

STEPHANOPOULOS: Go ahead.

CLINTON: Well, George, I have to tell you that -- that, you know, I -- I will say it was a mistake. I would not do it again. But I think that the rules were not clarified until after I had left and the first secretary of State to use a government email account was John Kerry, some months into his tenure. Those are the facts.

STEPHANOPOULOS: But the -- the reports -- so you don't accept the conclusions of the report, because they say you were unmindful of the rules.

CLINTON: Everybody in the department knew that I was e-mailing from a personal address. Hundreds of people knew it. People around the government knew it. And, uh, you know, that was what the practice had been and that's what I did, as well.

STEPHANOPOULOS: So I'll take it that you don't accept their conclusion.

Just one other question on this.

Has there -- have you had any contact yet with the FBI, you or your agents, over this matter?

CLINTON: I -- I have not been asked to come in for an interview. I've said I am more than willing since last August and I would like to do that sooner instead of later and get this matter wrapped up and behind us.

STEPHANOPOULOS: Let's talk about the Second Amendment. As you know, Donald Trump has also been out on the stump, talking about the Second Amendment, saying you want to abolish the Second Amendment.

I know you reject that. But I -- but I want to ask you a specific question.

Do you believe that an individual's right to bear arms is a constitutional right, that it's not linked to service in a militia?

CLINTON: I think that for most of our history, there was a nuanced reading of the Second Amendment until the decision by the late Justice Scalia and there was no argument until then that localities and states and the federal government had a right, as we do with every amendment, to impose reasonable regulation.

So I believe we can have common sense gun safety measures consistent with the Second Amendment, and, in fact, what I have proposed is supported by 90 percent of the American people and more than 75 percent of responsible gun owners.

So that is exactly what I think is constitutionally permissible.

And once again, you have Donald Trump just making outright fabrications, accusing me of something that is absolutely untrue. But I'm going to continue to speak out for comprehensive background checks, closing the gun show loopholes, closing the online loophole, closing the so-called Charleston loophole, reversing the bill that Senator Sanders voted for and I voted against, giving immunity from liability to gun makers and sellers. I think all of that can and should be done and it is, in my view, consistent with the "Constitution."

STEPHANOPOULOS: And the "Heller" decision also does say there can be some restrictions.

But that's what I asked.

I said do you believe that their conclusion that an individual's right to bear arms is a constitutional right?

CLINTON: If it is a constitutional right, then it, like every other constitutional right, is subject to reasonable regulation. And what people have done with that decision is to take it as far as they possibly can and reject what has been our history from the very beginning of the republic, where some of the earliest laws that were passed were about firearms.

So I think it's important to recognize that reasonable people can say, as I do, responsible gun owners have a right -- I have no objection to that. But the rest of the American public has a right to require certain kinds of regularity, responsible actions to protect everyone else.

STEPHANOPOULOS: How far would you go on that?

Back in -- back in 1993 -- I don't want to show it right here -- you actually came out in support of the gun tax.

Let's listen.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: How do you react to a 25 percent sales tax on hand guns and on automatic weapons?

CLINTON: I'm all for that. I just don't know what else we're going to do to try to figure out how to get some handle on this violence.

We will look at your proposal and be happy to talk with you about it. I'm speaking personally, but I feel very strongly about that.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

STEPHANOPOULOS: Do you still believe that?

CLINTON: What I was saying back then was that we have a lot of public health costs that taxpayers end up paying for through Medicaid, Medicare, through uncompensated care, because that was in the context of the push for health care reform and that we needed some way to try to defray those costs.

And I'm not going to commit to any specific proposal. I was speaking personally then. I would have to consider any proposal in light of how it interacted with all the others that we want to continue to advocate for, particularly, as I said, comprehensive background checks.

But that was in the context of health care.

When you have mass shootings, you not only have the terrible deaths, you have people who are injured. You know, I was just in San Bernardino yesterday. And I met some of the survivors. One woman who was shot twice, who's had a series of surgeries. Two other women who were cowering in abject terror by the terrorists' unbelievable assault on their co-workers.

What they talked to me about is where do they get the financial support to deal with both the physical and the emotional trauma?

You know, is it workman's comp support, which is one of the arguments?

Is it private insurance?

Is it because they work for the county, something the county should pay for?

There are real costs that people incur because of the terrible gun violence epidemic.

And we have to deal with it. And I'm going to be looking for ways to deal with it. I'm not committed to anything other than what I've said in this campaign.

But I do want people to ask themselves, can't we do better than have 33,000 people killed every year by guns and many thousands more injured?

And I take we can.

STEPHANOPOULOS: Finally, Madam Secretary, several more states voting on Tuesday, including California, where you are right now.

Is this race against Bernie Sanders over whether or not you win California on Tuesday?

CLINTON: Well, I take if you look at the popular vote, if you look at the majority of pledged delegates, I should have captured those by Tuesday. But I'm going to keep fighting hard here in California and in the other states that are voting on Tuesday, because I want to get as strong a -- a vote as I possibly can.

But I -- I take, given where we are in this race, that I will have not only more than a three million vote margin, but I will have a significant majority of pledged delegates by the close of voting on Tuesday.

STEPHANOPOULOS: Madam Secretary, thanks for your time today.

CLINTON: Thank you.

Thank you so much.

Bye-bye.

STEPHANOPOULOS: And when we come back, the Republican response from the chair of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. He's advised Donald Trump.

Senator Bob Corker joins us live.

Plus our Powerhouse Roundtable.

And after a dismal jobs report, how will the economy shape the race?

Paul Krugman and Grover Norquist debate.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DONALD TRUMP (R), PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: The world is a mess. We helped make the world a mess. Going into Iraq was a disastrous decision, maybe the worst decision ever in the history of our country.

Nub two, getting out of Iraq the way Obama did it, he didn't have a clue.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

STEPHANOPOULOS: There's Donald Trump laying out his views on foreign policy last night.

We'll talk about that with the chair of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Bob Corker, next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SEN. BOB CORKER, (R) TENNESSEE: He's challenging some of the status quo, if you will. It is causing these countries to -- to think a little bit differently about the U.S. and I say that in a positive way.

We had a good conversation about those types of things, other foreign policy issues.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

STEPHANOPOULOS: That is the chair of the Senate foreign relations committee Bob Corker after his meeting with Donald Trump last month.

Senator Corker is a supporter of the Republican nominee. He joins us now.

Senator, thank for for joining us this morning.

I want to talk about foreign policy, but I have to begin with those attacks on Judge Curiel from Donald Trump that have gotten so much news this week. He says that when he questions whether the judge can be fair because of his Mexican heritage that is not racist. Do you agree?

CORKER: Look, I don't condone the comments. And we can press on to another topic. I think we have to move beyond that and I think he has a tremendous opportunity to disrupt the direction that Washington is moving in and create tremendous opportunity. And I hope he's going to take advantage of that and I think that he will.

STEPHANOPOULOS: But you just heard Secretary Clinton says this is one of the reasons she thinks he's temperamentally unfit to be commander-in-chief, she also talked about how he is loose with the truth and divisive and doesn't have any real ideas. So, she made the case why he is not fit to be commander-in-chief. Can you make the affirmative case? Why are you confident he'll be a good commander-in-chief?

CORKER: So I listened to the speech and I heard a little bit of the interview in advance, George. And my take on it is this, I think that her team feels that her service as secretary of state has made her incredibly vulnerable. I think you talked to her about some of the judgment issues she made in actually running the department, but if you think back to the decisions that were made in 2011, they were really disastrous and she played a central role in really creating a home for where ISIS resides today.

If you look at the Libyan incursion, which I think will be textbook case for what not to do in making foreign policy decisions, unbelievable decision. Then you look at the precipitous leaving of Iraq and then you look at encouraging the moderate opposition in Syria and never following through, I think that they feel that she's very vulnerable and I think that's why these attacks are being made.

STEPHANOPOULOS: I understand that is your case against -- what is the affirmative case, though, for Donald Trump? Why are you confident he's going to be a good commander-in-chief?

CORKER: So, look, I think he's at a point where he's at his fingertips now. He has an opportunity to transition. He's talking to people that I respect greatly -- Secretary Baker, Dr. Kissinger are people that two of the most -- the greatest foreign policy experts in our nation, so he's talking to the right people. And it's my hope that now that this primary decision -- process is over, it's like moving from the major leagues to the World Series, it's my hope that he's going to transition into that phase.

He has an opportunity to really change the trajectory of our country and it's my sense that he will take advantage of that. I hope that he will, but we'll have to see.

STEPHANOPOULOS: He said this week he's not going to change.

CORKER: Well, I think that he's going to have to change. And the fact is -- I'm not talking about him necessarily changing his views, but I think that he's now moving into a different phase. He's talking to the right people. My sense is -- I talked to both to Dr. Kisssinger and Secretary Baker prior to the meetings, I've talked to them after the meetings. My sense is he's asking all the right questions. He's talking with people all around the country that are experts in this regard. And I think they know that they're at a place where this campaign has to evolve.

But let me go back and say, again...

STEPHANOPOULOS: Go ahead.

CORKER: I think, again, if you go back and look at Secretary Clinton, who I had a professional relationship with, the fact is that she's already shown that her judgments relative to foreign policy have much to -- much lacking.

She made decisions back in 2011 that really created a home for ISIS today. And I think -- I think that they are trying to obviously paint him as someone who is unstatable, because they really realize the vulnerabilities that she has and the judgments that have made in the past have made her that way.

STEPHANOPOULOS: Senator, let me go ahead. Let's talk about his ideas. You are the chair of the Senate foreign relations committee and you've said his call for a temporary ban on Muslim immigration is not a serious proposal. The former head of the CIA Michael Hayden just said this morning it's a recruiting tool for ISIS.

If Donald Trump is president and moved to impose that ban, would you support it or try to stop it?

CORKER: No, I would not support it. And I've already issued statements to that effect and what I understand is he has stepped away from those statements.

STEPHANOPOULOS: Well, he has said he still supports those statements. He's also said in every speech that he talks about building a wall on our border and getting Mexico to pay for it. Is that realistic and what would it do to our relations with Mexico?

CORKER: You know, obviously we do need to have good relations with Mexico and Canada. We do. That's one of the things that makes our country in such a stable environment having two friends on our borders, unlike many countries around the world.

There is a security issue. I authored an amendment during the immigration debate that actually makes building a wall look like Ned in the first reader, meaning it was even more difficult. And by the way I mean a tougher security border measure.

By the way, every Democrat in the Senate voted for that measure.

So there's no question that we have agreement in our country that we need greater security. It's strongly bipartisan and I hope that we will implement that because it is a security threat to our nation.

STEPHANOPOULOS: But is it realistic to expect Mexico to pay for the wall?

CORKER: Again, I think people agree with that -- what's that?

STEPHANOPOULOS: Is it realistic expect Mexico to pay for that wall?

CORKER: Well, again, I don't want to get into a debate about the nuances of that. I mean it's a statement that he has made. I thought this interview was going to be more about the foreign policy arena. I think he has a tremendous opportunity there.

STEPHANOPOULOS: Well, our relations with Mexico is foreign policy.

CORKER: Okay.

Well, look, as to how the wall is paid for, that's something that congress certainly will debate. My guess is there will be additional debates regarding how the actual security measures will be put in place, but securing our border has been something that people on both sides of the aisle have supported for years. And we need to do that. And it's understandable that it's become an issue because it's lingered for so long.

We had an opportunity to deal with this years ago. It wasn't dealt with. It needs to be dealt with now. And hopefully we'll move beyond that very quickly.

STEPHANOPOULOS: Well, you're also -- also on foreign policy, you're a strong supporter of trade deals including the new TransPacific Partnership. Donald Trump is opposed to those. He's saying, also, that he's prepared to impose 45 percent tariffs on imports from China is they don't change the way they do business.

You'd have to vote on that in the Senate, is that something you could support?

CORKER: The fact is that, look, we were involved -- we are involved in globalization, every person who picks up their iPhone in the morning deals in globalization.

The fact is that trade agreements set the rules of the road and sometimes we negotiate trade agreements that are good. Some of them are not as good as they should be.

The TPP agreement is something that strategically for our nation is important to get right. There are flaws in it that need to be stiffened. And so I hope that we'll move through that.

I do believe that having a trade agreement that works for our country is important, as we have countries that want to move our way. China is pushing them our way. It's my hope that we'll be able to negotiate something that works. The flaws in this agreement have been pointed out. There are things that need to be resolved.

But obviously having an agreement with countries in the China area, in the Southeast Asia area, is important for our nation. And I hope that we'll get to a place where we have an agreement that Americans can support.

STEPHANOPOULOS: So which specific ideas of Donald Trump on foreign policy are you enthusiastic about, are you ready to fight for?

CORKER: So I think -- here's what I have seen in many of the statements that he's made. It's something that Secretary Baker would -- it's a degree of realism coming back into our foreign policy.

For years, we've had neocons on the Republican side. We've had liberal internationalists on the Democratic side. And I think bringing that maturity back into our foreign policy is something that's important.

That doesn't mean us being isolationists but it does mean selective engagement. And we've had some great hearings on this topic. It's bringing a maturity, looking at our U.S. national interests, realizing who our friends are, relationships, things like throwing aside Mubarak so quickly after decades of a relationship and not figuring out a better way for him to be eased out, the thing we did in Libya, I mean, again, that was one of the most immature excursions.

That will be used, George, again as an exhibit in international policy schools as to what not to do here in America.

So I see a degree of maturity stepping in. I've obviously encouraged that. I want to see good things for our nation.

George, I think the thing that has caused people to be tantalized, if you will, to a degree, by the Trump candidacy is they realize that the two parties, acting as they are today, will continue to enable each other to go down a path that is really degrading our nation's greatness. It is.

And what they see in Donald Trump is a disrupter, someone who can change that trajectory.

STEPHANOPOULOS: OK.

CORKER: It is up to him now. It is up to his campaign now to take advantage of that, to pivot and move in a direction that shows that they have the ability to do that.

I am hopeful that that is going to occur. But they're at that point right now, as they move beyond this, the primary process this week, to the World Series of the election. And I'm hopeful that that is what --

STEPHANOPOULOS: And that's what we will be watching for.

Senator Corker, thanks very much.

STEPHANOPOULOS: Roundtable is up next. Plus President Obama is talking up the economy this week in Elkhart, Indiana. Paul Krugman and Grover Norquist standing by to debate the state of the economy and the candidates' proposals when we come back.

(MUSIC PLAYING)

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

STEPHANOPOULOS: Roundtable is up next. Plus President Obama is talking up the economy this week in Elkhart, Indiana. Paul Krugman and Grover Norquist standing by to debate the state of the economy and the candidates' proposals when we come back.

(MUSIC PLAYING)

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(MUSIC PLAYING)

STEPHANOPOULOS: And we're back now with our roundtable, joined by our own Matthew Dowd; Roland Martin, host and managing editor of "News One Now;" E.J. Dionne, columnist from "The Washington Post" and Republican strategist Sara Fagen, also CNBC contributor.

Welcome to all of you.

Matthew, let me begin with you. What a week. I think we say that just about every week and we just heard -- you know, Donald Trump declared again and again this week he's not going to change.

You just heard Senator Bob Corker, Republican, say he's going to have to.

Who is right?

MATTHEW DOWD, ABC NEWS SPECIAL CORRESPONDENT: I think -- I mean, believe Donald Trump when he says it because he hasn't changed in the course of this campaign.

I'm fascinated by Donald Trump and very successful in all this. But usually you see politicians grow as candidates or grow as leaders in the course of this.

Donald Trump has stayed exactly the same he was when he came down the escalator and when he -- where he is today, he's the exact same person saying the same things. Been quite successful in winning this, the Republican nomination in the course of this.

I think it's very problematic if he doesn't grow as a candidate and grow as a leader for the 45 million or 50 million people that will ultimately decide this election.

STEPHANOPOULOS: Sara?

SARA FAGEN, REPUBLICAN STRATEGIST: Well, he hasn't grown as a candidate not only on the policy side but on the political side.

I mean, think about the fact that he spent five days in California over the course of the last two weeks. He's now the Republican nominee. This general election is going to be decided in Virginia, Ohio and Florida. And he's spending time in a state that he doesn't need to be spending time in, unless he's raising money.

STEPHANOPOULOS: He says he can win.

FAGEN: Well, "The Los Angeles Times" had Hillary Clinton up over 20 points on Donald Trump. I don't think California is going to be in Trump's column...

(CROSSTALK)

MARTIN: Washington, DC, they now can smoke marijuana. Republicans will need that in Congress if he continues doing what he's doing. At the end of the day, what you have a candidate who refuses to understand that people will now judge you based upon stature, based upon how you present yourself.

And when Secretary Clinton hits him saying, about his temperament, that simply raises more flags and when he -- what he's doing to this federal judge is beyond shameful. I don't see how Independents will say, yes, that's my guy.

STEPHANOPOULOS: And you -- you saw, E.J. Dionne, of course, the Republicans coming out saying they can't condone what he said about Judge Curiel.

But on the same day that he's making those charges, on the same day that Hillary Clinton is giving that speech about his temperament, Paul Ryan, speaker of the House, endorses Donald Trump.

DIONNE: Yes, no. I think he may have picked the worst day of the year. Some people have speculated he's getting in the way of Hillary's speech.

I think he has no idea how effective that would be or that the very next day, Ryan would have to say, oh, I'm for Trump, but I don't believe in what he's doing with that judge.

I think this was a real turning point week, because Hillary Clinton's attack on Trump laid out the entire -- almost the entire case against him in detail. She was calm. And she finally solved -- or at least began solving this authenticity problem. And she's not really authenticity problem. And she's not really comfortable attacking Bernie Sanders. There's too much cost to that.

But she believed every word she said about Donald Trump, because he so offends her notion of what a president looks like.

So I think that was a kind of two-fer for her. And the Republicans knew it. It was shocking that Trump had nothing ready in response to that speech.

(CROSSTALK)

FAGEN: And it was -- it was shocking, because there is a great case to be made against Hillary Clinton and her foreign policy.

(CROSSTALK)

FAGEN: And Bob...

STEPHANOPOULOS: -- Senator Bob Corker making part of that.

FAGEN: Exactly. Bob Corker just did it.

Donald Trump should have given that response to her speech...

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Yes.

FAGEN: -- instead of talking about this judge and attacking this judge and putting all Republicans on the defensive against his comments.

(CROSSTALK)

MARTIN: But it's not shocking. It's not shocking. We're talking about the death of Muhammad Ali, what did he do against Sonny Listen?

He attacked a bully. And when you attack a bully, what did Sonny Listen do?

He quit.

The bottom line is, Republicans...

FAGEN: But Hillary Clinton is not going to quit.

MARTIN: No, no, no, no. Follow me here. Follow me. Republicans in the primary were afraid to go after the bully. They ran away from him. The smartest thing in the world is to hit him and then when he says she lied, they went no, here are all the things you said.

(CROSSTALK)

STEPHANOPOULOS: Hold on a second. Let me bring this question to Matthew Dowd, because one of the things you're seeing -- and we saw it in the Bob Corker interview there, as well. You've seen it from Donald Trump.

Uh, when they're asked about -- when they're asked about Donald Trump, they talk about Hillary Clinton.

Is he going to need people out there making the affirmative case for his candidacy?

DOWD: In -- in any normal year, yes. But this is not a normal year in the course of this.

I think part of the problem -- and I think this is evidence of it, is is most of the people that are voting for Hillary Clinton right now are voting because they don't want Donald Trump. And most of the people that are voting for Donald Trump right now are the voting for that because they don't want Hillary Clinton.

So the negative case is what each side -- Hillary Clinton is going to spend 80 percent of her time talking about why not Donald Trump?

Donald Trump is going to spend 80 percent of his time talking about why not Hillary Clinton?

That's the problem in this course of this election, is we have two candidates that are -- that -- and we talked about this before. It's as if somebody came to me and said listen, you're going to move into a house, you get a roommate. But the roommate is somebody you don't like and don't trust. And you're going to have to move in and live with that person in the course of this.

At some point, the voters are like, I'm going to steep -- sleep in my car.

That's the -- that's the choice in this course of election.

I think the biggest beneficiary this week, from all the things that happened, is Gary Johnson (INAUDIBLE).

STEPHANOPOULOS: (INAUDIBLE) libertarian candidate.

DOWD: I think he and Bill Weld have an opportunity to get into a high enough percentage to get in the debate. And if they're in the debate, they're not going to win this election. But it could change the nature of (INAUDIBLE).

STEPHANOPOULOS: And who does that help, who does that hurt?

DIONNE: You know, in a normal election, the libertarian candidates hurt the Republicans.

The question in this election is does their vote get high enough that they start taking away votes from Hillary Clinton, from people who really, really hate Donald Trump but can't quite get to her.

So I think the third party candidates and also those -- the Green candidate, Jill Stein, which would draw from the Democrats.

MARTIN: And don't forget...

DIONNE: So I think there's a risk there. But here's the thing about what Republicans couldn't do with Trump that Clinton can. There are arguments she can make about immigration that Republicans were afraid to make in the primaries. And the most striking thing about her speech was this optimistic Reagan-esque view of America, you know, quoting Lincoln, the last best hope on Earth.

Republicans have been selling an idea of decline for so long, that it was very hard for them to make the argument she made in the primary, because some Republican, Jeb Bush, perhaps, should have given the speech Hillary Clinton gave during the Republican primaries.

FAGEN: Well, I think he -- he did. I don't think it got...

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Toward the end.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Yes.

FAGEN: It didn't have the -- the coverage that this speech obviously got.

But look, Donald Trump does have some things going for him. You're going to have a segment next on the economy. And the economy is not good. And that is a -- usually very beneficial to the party out of power. He has a record turnout. He has enthusiasm and a wide enthusiasm gap among Republicans in his favor.

There are things going for Trump. But you're right, he has got to pivot and he has to pivot quickly.

STEPHANOPOULOS: And Roland, Roland, he still has a divided Democratic Party. Hillary Clinton had another victory in the Virgin Islands yesterday, probably going to do well in Puerto Rico today, almost certainly is going to have -- have the pledged delegates, the delegates she needs by 8:00 p.m. on Tuesday night.

So how does this end on the Democratic side?

Is there any way to get Bernie Sanders out before the convention or is he in all the way?

MARTIN: Well, first of all, Bernie Sanders, this is about leverage. You need to go back to 1988, Reverend Jesse Jackson, Sr. and Michael Dukakis. I know for a fact that Reverend Jackson has been -- has been trying to reach Bernie Sanders to have a conversation with him about how he should operate.

When I interviewed Reverend Jackson on TV One, he said point blank, how Bernie behaves is critically important to what kind of leverage he has.

Remember, Reverend, that's how you got proportional delegation, that's how you actually got an increase in super delegates, that's how Ron Brown became chair of the DNC.

So Senator Sanders does have leverage, but his behavior and how he responds over the next couple of months will determine...

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I...

MARTIN: -- whether the party listens to him or not. '88 is the blueprint for him.

DOWD: I agree with Roland on this. I think this is much more contingent on Bernie Sanders than it is contingent on Hillary Clinton. Everybody knows she's going to have -- she has the math. She's going to win the delegates. It's all there.

Bernie Sanders does not -- which he's put himself in this place -- he does not want to be the populist candidate who has run against a rigged system that says, oh, but why, I want a bunch of elite super delegates to overturn the results of the election...

DIONNE: It's his only argument anymore.

DOWD: -- and give it to me in the course of this.

FAGEN: Right.

DOWD: He does not want -- and the question he's got to ask himself is, does he want to be part of the Democratic Party like candidates in the previous years, like Hillary Clinton did in 2008, or does he want to leave and start another -- and push this movement outside the party?

STEPHANOPOULOS: E.J. What's the answer to that question?

DIONNE: I think the answer is that if Bernie Sanders wants an effect in the long run, he's going to have to support -- start supporting Clinton, because there are plenty -- there are already Bernie people out there saying look, we know that Clinton is going to be the nominee and we can't risk having Donald Trump as president.

If he does that, I think he increases his influence in the party in the long run...

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Yes.

DIONNE: -- because he has...

FAGEN: He...

DIONNE: -- built a big movement out there.

(CROSSTALK)

STEPHANOPOULOS: That's the last word.

FAGEN: Her speech was important for two reasons, not only because she started to define Donald Trump, but she gave Bernie Sanders the pathway to come to her side of the aisle and coalesce the Democratic Party.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I believe she (INAUDIBLE)...

FAGEN: She laid that out very well.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I think he has more power outside the party than inside. Actually, if I were average him, I'd say stay outside the party.

STEPHANOPOULOS: OK. We'll see what happens.

Thank you all very much.

And next, that jobs report and this year's crucial debate on the economy.

Nobel Prize-winning economist, Paul Krugman squares off with tax activist, Grover Norquist.

That's next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

BARACK OBAMA, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: America's economy is not just better than it was eight years ago, it is the strongest, most durable economy in the world.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

STEPHANOPOULOS: President Obama in Elkhart, Indiana this week.

But that argument took a bit of a hit with Friday's job report. In May, U.S. companies hired at the slowest pace in more than five years, adding just 38,000 jobs. The unemployment rate did continue to drop, 10 percent in 2010, just 4.7 percent now.

But here's a less encouraging trend. In 1995, median household income $52,600.

Twenty years later, just 2 percent higher. A 2 percent raise in 20 years.

Today's debate, can the next president do anything to turn that around and what's the state of the economy right now? I'm joined by Paul Krugman, the Nobel Prize winner from "The New York Times" and the City University of New York, and Grover Norquist, long-time president of Americans for Tax Reform.

And -- and Paul, let's begin with Friday's jobs report, does it undercut the president's argument about the economy being so strong over the last (INAUDIBLE)?

PAUL KRUGMAN, "NEW YORK TIMES": Well, I happen to have a chart which I made this morning which is -- it gives you a little perspective. This is private sector jobs under Obama and under his predecessor. And this report has got a little thing at the end there, that little sort of flattening out.

So the perspective is still that you've had a long run of pretty good job creation. And then you had a bad month, which was not -- part of that was the Verizon strike. So the number would have been about twice what we saw if Verizon had not striked.

STEPHANOPOULOS: Had 35,000 workers.

KRUGMAN: That's right.

Even so, no question, job growth is slowing. The economy is slowing. That happens. There's no particular explanation that -- you know, I think it has a lot to do with missteps last year, but that's bay the side.

The question is if the economy slows more, what can we do about it? The answer is, well, we know very well what to do, the problem is political.

The question is will the next president -- well, actaully, if the next president is Donald Trump he'll probably send out a bunch of tweets at China and Mexico.

STEPHANOPOULOS: Let's hear about the Trump plan to turn it around.

NORQUIST: Where are we on this? 660,000 people walked out of the workforce last month, not only with 38,000 people got jobs, but 660,000 said we're not looking for work anymore.

One challenges that we've had is the Obama recovery is so weak, the Reagan recovery from the end of the recession to out the to the years was 4 percent growth each year out. It's been 2 percent average under Obama.

If we had grown at Reagan rates and job creation there'd be 14.7 million more Americans working.

The reason why people are so unhappy, why Trump gets support, why Sanders gets supports, why people are grumpy is the economy sucks. This is not cheerful news, there are -- again, 14.5 million more people would be at work -- fathers, mother, sisters, brothers with jobs. They don't have jobs.

STEPHANOPUOLOS: But what's Trump's answer to turn it around.

NORQUIST: Well, two things, I'm very happy with his tax plan. He said step one, we're going to take business taxes, both corporations and people who drive Uber, independent contractor, 15 percent tax, not 35 percent corporate rate, which is 10 percent higher than the European average, stupider than France, is not where you want to be on corporate and business taxes -- a 15 percent rate, extremely good step in the right direction and he's competing with Hillary Clinton who outlined six major taxes, three of which she admits will cost a trillion dollars.

KRUGMAN: It's kind of pathetic, actually that we're still saying, oh, look at Ronald Reagan. You know, we had a Republican president before Obama who got tax cuts, who controlled congress, who got everything he wanted pretty much on economic policy, and Obama has outperformed him.

NORQUIST: Completely disagree on each of those points.

KRUGMAN: Okay.

NORQUIST: We go to Reagan, because he had Reagan policies.

KRUGMAN: Anyway, the point is that the recovery has been disappointing, I will admit that, but it's been disappointing largely because we have had incredible cutbacks in public employment, public spending, which Obama didn't control. And the way forward is not more tax cuts for the rich, which haven't worked in Kansas, hasn't -- have never been shown to do what they do. What we really need is a big infrastructure build, that would make total sense given extremely low borrowing costs given that we need it the infrastructure and given that it would be a job creator. But that's not going to happen with a Republican House.

STEPHANOPOULOS: Donald Trump agrees with that. The question is, how to pay for it.

Well, and will the house support it?

NORQUIST: The argument is growth.

But we had $800 billion thrown at this issue and we were told that was going to create jobs and none of the jobs that they said were going to happen, the economy continued to do poorly with all of that debt that was built up, $800 billion for the stimulus package. That policy doesn't work. It's not going to work.

If you have pro-growth policies and you talk about states, look at Taxes, look at Florida, look at states -- North Carolina where they're reducing taxes and spending.

Kansas has a challenge where the Supreme Court tells them they have to spend money and then people say, oh my goodness, you cut tacks too much. The Supreme Court demanding -- so, but look at the states with higher tax, Illinois, versus states like Texas without and you see different job creation.

KRUGMAN: I think the point is we actually know extremely well what to do. We know exactly what is needed and the problem is the people -- the ideology that Grover is giving here is what stands in the way. The fact that you'll have complete rigid adherence to that ideology, which has failed again and again and again, but nothing has changed, nothing has been learned from experience.

NORQUIST: Look at Reagan and Obama, and Reagan created more jobs and Reagan...

KRUGMAN: They've got to go back 35 years to a completely different situation. We had Bush, got all this stuff, none of it delivered. And it's kind of an amazing thing how Bush has become a nonperson.

NORQUIST: Well, no, but he is a significant spending increases in the last two years of his administration. Democrats did the budgets, not Republicans, so you're looking at a number of challenges and he didn't have a supply side approach to economics the way Trump is looking at.

I mean, Trump's proposed -- he's also talking about regulation.

KRUGMAN: Trump is completely incoherent on economic policy. I mean, you can find him on any given day supporting almost anything.

Well, he said he wanted to -- maybe he wanted to raise taxes on the rich, then he said he wanted to cut them. I mean, to actually try to suss out what Trump means, god knows.

NORQUIST: It's written down. And I think the proposal that he has -- getting rid of the death tax, getting rid of the AMT finally, taking the corporate and business takes to 15 percent, he's actually going to be a great advantage to the gig economy, the 1099 economy, the sharing economy, which Hillary Clinton is actually bared her teeth at. She said she's going to crack down on independent contractors, which basically make Uber and AirBNB illegal in this country.

Hillary is on the wrong side of the future, on the wrong side of the gig economy, the sharing economy, and Trump has a tax plan to make it easier for people to be self-employed.

STEPHANOPOULOS: That's all we have time for today. Thank you both very much.

KRUGMAN: Thank you.

STEPHANOPOULOS: Up next, the late, the great Muhammed Ali after this from our ABC stations.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

STEPHANOPOULOS: All weekend long, we've been celebrating the sport's legend who called himself the greatest of all time.

Tributes to Muhammad Ali pouring in from all over the globe. And we end this week with the personal reflections of our own Pierre Thomas.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

PIERRE THOMAS, ABC NEWS CORRESPONDENT: Ali, beautiful. That smile. That twinkle of mischief radiating from his eyes. Brash.

MUHAMMED ALI, BOXER: I'm handsome. I'm fast. I'm pretty and can't possibly be beat.

THOMAS: So powerful, so graceful, and so crafty.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Ali a sneaky right hand.

THOMAS: We all remember him outfoxing the titan George Foreman, tricking himself into pumping himself into exhaustion. Champion again.

So much sweeter because we knew his history: principled, refusing to fight in the Vietnam War at a time when his native country still struggled with issues of equality and poverty.

ALI: You're my opposer when I want freedom, you're my opposer when I want justice, and you want me to go somewhere and fight but you won't even stand up for me here at home.

THOMAS: As playful as he was controversial.

ALI: I'm amazed you famous enough.

THOMAS: I can remember him teasing the great Howard Cosell even playing with the man's toupee. Laugh out loud.

But human, not a perfect man -- at one point rejecting integration.

At times cruel to his opponents. When he said he would fight a gorilla in Manila I could not believe such a champion for justice could say that about another black man with all the ugly symbolism.

Yes, human, not perfect.

Yet, subject to growth and redemption, a champion who first inspired his own people and eventually the world to be unafraid, proud, defiant, evolving to become a symbol of love and peace even as he fought a disease that took so much of the physical and verbal poetry we so revered. Unsteady yet still graceful.

Parkinson's tried to silence Ali, but never really did. He won. An example of the indomitable human spirit. He was the greatest.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

STEPHANOPOULOS: Thanks to Pierre for that.

And now we honor our fellow Americans who serve and sacrifice.

In the last four weeks, two service members died overseas supporting operations in Iraq.

And that is all for us today. Thanks for sharing part of your Sunday today. Check out World News Tonight. I'll see you tomorrow on GMA.

END