Week #2 (8/30-9/4)- Is Gun Violence Due To Dangerous People or Dangerous Guns? (NPR)

Is Gun Violence Due To Dangerous People Or Dangerous Guns?

AUGUST 31, 2015 8:37 AM ET

TANIA LOMBROZO

A candle burns in front of a memorial for two slain journalists, Alison Parker and Adam Ward.

Jonathan Drew/AP

The killings of two journalists in Virginia last week have reignited a national conversation on mass shootings and gun control.

No one wants dangerous people with dangerous guns, but different parties point in different directions when it comes to laying the blame for gun violence or proposing appropriate policies moving forward.

Some point to dangerous people. In an interview with CNN, the father of one of the journalists who was murdered last week called for "sensible laws so that crazy people can't get guns." In a radio interview after the shooting, Sen. John McCain argued that the government needs to identify people who are mentally ill and more effectively keep them from obtaining guns.

Others point to dangerous guns. In an interview in the wake of last week's shootings, a survivor of the 2007 Virginia Tech massacre highlighted America's unusually easy access to hazardous firearms: "We don't have a monopoly on people disgruntled at work or people suffering from mental illness. What we do have is unique accessibility to dangerous firearms that we allow in this country to exist."


Last year, President Obama suggested that the U.S. follow Australia's example by adopting a strict ban on semi-automatic and automatic weapons. Australia hasn't had a mass shooting since it enacted the legislation in 1996. Meanwhile, by some counts, America has had a mass shooting approximately every two weeks, with 2015 being the most deadly year yet.

Framing the debate in terms of people versus guns isn't just a matter of emphasis. The National Rifle Association, for example, has typically gone for the former approach, which cuts against the idea that ownership of dangerous guns should be restricted for all people. Instead, the group calls for a national database to better track "lunatics" who shouldn't buy guns.

On the other hand, mental health professionals worry about the impact of emphasizing mental illness as a causal factor in mass shootings, which could — to quote an article by David Crary — lead to "setbacks to their efforts to de-stigmatize mental illness."

In fact, epidemiological evidence suggests that people with serious mental illness are somewhat more likely than the general population to commit violent acts toward others. Yet the vast majority do not do so. And when they do, other factors are often involved, such as substance abuse and violent victimization in their own lives. If the comparison between the U.S. and Australia is an apt one, there's good reason to think that policies targeting dangerous guns will be more effective than those targeting the mentally ill, who are not — for the most part — dangerous people. (At least, not dangerous to others. Suicide is much more common among those with serious mental illness.)

Putting issues of effective prevention aside, emphasizing dangerous people versusguns could have a real impact on people's attitudes toward gun control and toward the mentally ill. A nationally representative survey with 1,797 respondents, conducted in 2012 and reported in a 2013 paper published in the American Journal of Psychiatry, set out to investigate precisely this issue.

In the study, respondents answered a series of questions after hearing one of three news stories (or, in the control condition, after no story at all). The three news stories reported a mass shooting perpetrated by a man with a history of serious mental illness. However, two of the stories went on to provide additional information, emphasizing either dangerous people or dangerous guns. For instance, the news story emphasizing dangerous people included the following:

" 'With more than 65,000 Americans shot in an attack last year, we have to do something to keep guns out of the hands of dangerous people,' said Kim Jones, the spokesperson for the group. One proposal currently being considered by Congress is a good start, Jones said. Congress is considering legislation to require states to enter people with serious mental illness into a background check system used by gun dealers to identify people prohibited from buying guns, or face a penalty. According to Kim Jones, 'Getting this law in place is one way to protect the public from dangerous people.' "

The news story about dangerous guns instead included the text below, with the key differences indicated (here) in bold:

" 'With more than 65,000 Americans shot in an attack last year, we have to do something to keep dangerous guns off our streets,' said Kim Jones, the spokesperson for the group. One proposal currently being considered by Congress is a good start, Jones said. Congress is considering legislation to ban large ammunition clips, which are military-style high-capacity magazines that can shoot 30, 50, or 100 bullets without requiring the shooter to stop and reload. According to Kim Jones, 'Getting this law in place is one way to protect the public fromdangerous guns.' "

The researchers were interested not only in whether reading these different news stories would influence people's views about appropriate gun legislation, but also whether they would have different implications for people's attitudes toward the mentally ill.

Overall, they found that hearing any of the news stories about the mass shooting increased support for a ban on the sale of high-capacity gun magazines and had a negative impact in respondents' attitudes toward the mentally ill: They were less willing to have a person with serious mental illness start working closely with them on a job, and they were less willing to have a person with serious mental illness as a neighbor.

But the news stories with different emphases weren't equivalent in their effects: Those who read the news story that emphasized dangerous guns supported a ban on high-capacity gun magazines more strongly. The two texts did not, however, have significantly different effects when it came to attitudes toward the mentally ill or gun restrictions for people with serious mental illness. This could be because the baseline levels of support for gun restrictions for people with serious mental illness were already high across the board: More than 70 percent of the respondents who didn't read any of the news stories supported increasing federal funding to enable such restrictions.

The researchers also suggested more subtle ways in which an emphasis on dangerous people over dangerous guns could alter attitudes toward policy. Previous research has found, for example, that people are more likely to support policy efforts when they hold society — not isolated individuals — responsible for the issue the policy aims to address. "By focusing respondents' attention on serious mental illness as a causal factor," the authors write, "messages about gun restrictions for persons with serious mental illness may lead the public to see mass shootings as isolated events, perpetrated by a small group of individuals, which gun control policy cannot prevent."

In fact, Pew polling data collected shortly after the mass shooting in Newtown, Conn., in 2012 found that Americans are split when it comes to their beliefs concerning the root causes of mass shootings: 44 percent said they are "just the isolated acts of troubled individuals"; 47 percent indicated that they "reflect broader problems in society."

Whether those broader problems concern gun regulation, our mental health system, or both, these findings suggest we might do well to shift our focus entirely. If it isn't just a matter of dangerous people or dangerous guns, but of dangerous structural problems at the level of society, that makes all of us responsible.

---

Tania Lombrozo is a psychology professor at the University of California, Berkeley. She writes about psychology, cognitive science and philosophy, with occasional forays into parenting and veganism. You can keep up with more of what she is thinking on Twitter: @TaniaLombrozo

Week #2 (8/30-9/4)- Ferguson Forging New Normal 1 Year After Shooting (Los Angeles Times)

Ferguson forging new normal 1 year after shootingGrade Level 9Word Count 970

Ferguson Has Changed, But Is It Enough?
Backlash Prompts Other Cities To Make Changes
Businesses Rising From Ashes After Protests
New Faces Occupy Some City Positions But Mayor Still In Place
Continue On Path Toward Reform, Councilman Says
A Sea Of Small Towns With Similar Woes

By Los Angeles Times, adapted by Newsela staff

08.14.15

Michael Brown Sr. (center) leads a march in remembrance of his son, Michael Brown, Aug. 9, 2015, in Ferguson, Missouri. That day marked one year since Michael Brown was shot and killed by Ferguson police officer Darren Wilson. Photo: AP Photo/Jeff Roberson

The sound of a white police officer’s gunshots in Ferguson, Missouri. A black 18-year-old named Michael Brown killed on a street in his own neighborhood.

Angry black residents — tired of poverty, tired of getting pulled over, tired of being fined for seemingly senseless traffic stops — finally hit their breaking point as Brown lay in a pool of blood.

Officer Darren Wilson’s shooting of Brown after a struggle in the street was only the first chapter of a story with no end in sight.

A year later, Brown’s death and the protests that overwhelmed the mainly black St. Louis suburb have changed hundreds of lives. They also unleashed a national debate on race and policing that continues to dominate headlines today, while Ferguson quietly struggles forward.

“Things have changed, a lot,” said David Whitt, a father of three who lives in an apartment complex near where Brown was killed. But, Whitt said, “the issue still remains that somebody was killed by police, and people say, ‘We haven’t got justice.’”

The shooting on August 9, 2014— and the clashes with police that followed for days — enraged a group of young people who have helped turned the slogan “Black Lives Matter” into a national movement. This movement is now putting pressure on the 2016 presidential campaign.

A U.S. Justice Department investigation found that Ferguson’s city justice system was driven by racial profiling, and ticketing and jailing poor residents. That led to reforms throughout Missouri and deeper discussion of the issues.

“We are making progress,” said Jerryl Christmas, a St. Louis-based attorney who represents several activists arrested during demonstrations in Ferguson. “A lot of issues have been raised and a lot of conversation is going on, but we still need more action.”

Federal and grand jury investigations found that Wilson had done nothing criminal. But now police shootings around the country are being examined closely as public officials look at their policies and push for body cameras in hopes of keeping their community from becoming another Ferguson.

The nation saw what happened in Ferguson and attitudes changed. Surveys showed a sharp increase in the number of whites who now agree with what black Americans have long been saying: Race is still a problem in America.

But in Ferguson, pain mixes with optimism as the city has tried to make its way back to normal, or toward something better than normal. The results have been mixed.

“I think we’re going to come out of this, and eventually we’re going to come out of it even stronger, in my opinion,” said Wesley Bell. He is one of two black members newly elected to the formerly white-dominated Ferguson City Council.

The businesses burned down by arsonists after the grand jury’s decision in November not to indict, or charge, Wilson have been swept away. Some shops on West Florissant Avenue, once the site of nightly clashes between demonstrators and police, have welcomed returning customers.

“We’re starting to get back into the swing of things, people starting to come slowly but surely,” says Antonio Henley, a barber and the owner of Prime Time Barber Shop, which lost a lot of business when protests began. “We were down 20, 40, 50 percent when it first happened. But we survived.”

Near where Brown died, a memorial plaque has replaced a pile of signs and stuffed animals, but Whitt said that some in Ferguson would just as soon forget what happened last August.

“They’re trying to erase this memory of this tragedy that happened right here,” he said.

Change has also come to the city government, though nothing resembling the revolution many protesters sought.

After a Justice Department report revealed racist emails sent by city officials, several resigned. Now Ferguson has a new police chief and city manager, but it still has the same mayor, James Knowles III, who is white, and who has resisted calls to resign.

The six-seat city council had only one black member before Brown’s shooting. Now it has three. During the April election, more than twice the number of people voted, but candidates backed by activists largely failed.

City officials remain locked in negotiations with Department of Justice officials pushing for an agreement that would probably reform the city’s police department.

The city spent $1 million related to the street protests and rioting. Officers also handed out about $1.1 million less in tickets, city Councilman Mark J. Byrne said.

He said the city had already put reforms in place to cut down on the number of arrests and fines. “I think we’re on the right path on everything — we just have to get it done,” he said of justice reforms.

Thomas Harvey is the executive director of ArchCity Defenders, a nonprofit group that seeks an overhaul of St. Louis County municipal court systems. He says that Ferguson’s new municipal judge, Donald McCullin, is treating people with respect.

Nonetheless, Harvey added, “it doesn’t change the fact the people are being pulled over and ticketed for essentially what amounts to being poor and black.”

Ferguson is just one small town surrounded by other small towns with their own police departments and their own municipal courts and with many of the same problems.

“If you ask a person who lives in St. Louis County what’s different, they’ll say nothing,” Harvey said.

Brown’s parents have filed a lawsuit in hopes of holding Wilson accountable for the death of their son. Many activists remain angry at Wilson despite investigators’ doubts that Brown had his hands up when the officer killed him, as some witnesses have claimed.

Week #2 (8/30-9/4)- LEGAL EXPERTS SEE NO CRIMINAL TROUBLE FOR CLINTON THUS FAR (Associated Press)

Aug 31, 12:45 PM EDT LEGAL EXPERTS SEE NO CRIMINAL TROUBLE FOR CLINTON THUS FAR BY KEN DILANIAN  AP INTELLIGENCE WRITER

AP Photo/Charlie Neibergall WASHINGTON (AP) -- Experts in government secrecy law see almost no possibility of criminal action against Hillary Clinton or her top aides in connection with now-classified information sent over unsecure email while she was secretary of state, based on the public evidence thus far. Some Republicans, including leading GOP presidential candidate Donald Trump, have called Clinton's actions criminal and compared her situation to that of David Petraeus, the former CIA director who was prosecuted for giving top secret information to his paramour. Others have cited the case of another past CIA chief, John Deutch, who took highly classified material home. But in both of those cases, no one disputed that the information was highly classified and in many cases top secret. Petraeus pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor; Deutch was pardoned by President Bill Clinton. By contrast, there is no evidence of emails stored in Hillary Clinton's private server bearing classified markings. State Department officials say they don't believe that emails she sent or received included material classified at the time. And even if other government officials dispute that assertion, it is extremely difficult to prove anyone knowingly mishandled secrets. "How can you be on notice if there are no markings?" said Leslie McAdoo, a lawyer who frequently handles security-clearance cases. Clinton's critics have focused on the unusual, home-brew email server Clinton used while in office and suggested that she should have known that secrets were improperly coursing through an unsecure system, leaving them easily hackable for foreign intelligence agencies. But to prove a crime, the government would have to demonstrate that Clinton or aides knew they were mishandling the information - not that she should have known. A case would be possible if material emerges that is so sensitive Clinton must have known it was highly classified, whether marked or not, McAdoo said. But no such email has surfaced. And among the thousands of documents made public, nothing appears near the magnitude of the Top Secret material Petraeus and Deutch mishandled. Trump, last week, argued differently, saying Petraeus' case involved "far less important documents." Clinton's documents, he told Fox News, "were more highly secret, they were more important, there were more of them. It's really General Petraeus on steroids." Petraeus, a married former four-star general who headed the CIA from 2011-2012, admitted he gave his biographer and lover, Paula Broadwell, journals containing Top Secret information. These included "the identifies of covert officers, war strategy, intelligence capabilities and mechanisms, diplomatic discussions, quotes and deliberative discussions from high-level National Security Council meetings . and discussions with the president of the United States," according to court documents. Petraeus also admitted lying to the FBI, while his emails showed he knew the journals contained highly classified information. He pleaded guilty to one count of unauthorized removal and retention of classified material, a misdemeanor. Though eligible for up to one year in prison, he was sentenced to two years' probation and a $100,000 fine. Broadwell didn't publish the material. Deutch ran the agency from 1995-1996. He took Top Secret information home and stored it on computers connected to the Internet, something he also did when he worked at the Pentagon. In January 2001, he agreed to plead guilty to a misdemeanor charge of mishandling government secrets, but Bill Clinton pardoned him before the Justice Department could file the case. Another Clinton administration official, Samuel "Sandy" Berger, pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor in 2005 after admitting to removing five classified documents involving a terrorism study from a National Archives facility. Berger served four years as Clinton's national security adviser. Hillary Clinton, the Democratic presidential front-runner, now says her use of home email server for government business was a mistake. Last year she provided about 30,000 emails to the State Department, which is public releasing another batch Monday. The department is only publishing documents after scrubbing them of any classified or sensitive information. Two government inspectors have told Congress they found material in the emails was secret at the time it was sent to Clinton and "never should have been transmitted via an unclassified personal system." The State Department and the Clinton campaign dispute that the material was classified at the time. At least one email involved the CIA drone strikes, government officials have told the Associated Press. The counterterrorism program is a poorly kept secret, but a secret nonetheless. Another email appeared to reference a highly classified matter, the officials said, though there was some question about whether the information came in through classified or open channels. Emails posted on the State Department's web site, made public under the Freedom of Information Act, show diplomats commonly slipping and discussing classified information over email. Unlike an intelligence agency, the department seeks to operate in the open when it can. But arguing that violations are common isn't a valid defense for ordinary government employees, said Bradley Moss, a lawyer who often represents such people. They face discipline "all the time, in far more nuanced disputes than this," he said. Although political controversy has centered on Clinton's use of private email instead of an unsecured government account, the distinction matters little in the context of classified information. Clinton says State Department rules allowed her to use private email and officials knew about it. But another law could be relevant. Under the Federal Records Act, destroying official records can be a crime. Clinton ordered around 32,000 emails deleted from her server because she said they were personal. The server was then wiped, making the emails unretrievable. "If one person has a copy of one of those deleted emails, and it was about government business, the whole game changes," said Kel McClanahan, a lawyer and expert in government records. -----

Week #1 (8/23-8/28)- Donald Trump takes on Clinton, Bush and the Pope (CNN)

Donald Trump takes on Clinton, Bush and the Pope

By Tal Kopan, CNN

Updated 8:40 AM ET, Thu August 20, 2015 | Video Source: CNN

Story highlights

• Trump compared Clinton's situation to that of Gen. David Petraeus, who pleaded guilty to giving some classified information to his biographer and lover
• Trump said he predicts his campaign will "do very well" and said he also beats Clinton on their records

New York (CNN)Republican presidential front-runnerDonald Trump took on an array of subjects and political figures during a lengthy interview with CNN's Chris Cuomo on Wednesday, including Hillary Clinton, Jeb Bush, Pope Francis and even Caroline Kennedy.

Asked first about his standing in a recent CNN/ORC poll, Trump said the controversy surrounding Hillary Clinton'semail use is "devastating," and that it's not surprising that he came within 6 points of the Democrat in a head-to-head polling match-up.

"I think it's devastating for the election, but I think her bigger problem is not the election. I think her bigger problem is going to be the criminal (problem)," Trump said.

Clinton email scandal

While he said Clinton is not his "focus right now," he predicted she would struggle to get over the bad headlines generated by the investigation into her private server and the possible transmission of classified information in her private email, as well as the money she has raked in for speeches since leaving office.

"I think that Hillary's going to have a hard time being in the election based on what's going on with the emails, the servers, maybe even the speeches," Trump said. "I think it's going to be a very hard thing for her to overcome."

RELATED: Trump competitive with Clinton

Trump compared Clinton's situation to that of Gen. David Petraeus, who pleaded guilty to giving some classified information to his biographer and lover.

"When I look, Chris, at what happened with Petraeus ... great general, wonderful guy, everybody loved him, and it destroyed his life over much less," Trump said. "It would seem hard to think that somebody could have a much worse situation than him and escape."

Cuomo countered that Petraeus knew the information was classified and intentionally passed it along, but there has been no indication to date that the Justice Department believes Clinton intentionally shared information she knew was classified. She has not personally been declared the subject of the investigation into her emails.

"It certainly looks like it was high-level information," Trump said. "It's always skirting the edge. What's the purpose of it? ... What is she doing, why is she doing it?"

He acknowledged that the investigation hasn't named her, but he said he believes what she did was criminal.

RELATED: Fact-check: Trump misstates support from Rousey, Marines

"I don't think I'm the only one. The FBI's involved, they only do criminal," Trump said. "Now maybe it's somebody on her staff. But look, it's ether criminal or incompetent, it's one or another ... either gross incompetence or criminal, and neither's acceptable to be president."

On Tuesday, Clinton told the press at an adversarial news conference that the email story "has nothing to do with me," made fun of questions about whether she "wiped" the server and said "no one" asks her about the emails and the servers but the press.

Trump said he predicts his campaign will "do very well" and said he also beats Clinton on their records, reiterating that he came out against the Iraq War in 2004.

"Hillary's record as secretary of state was a disaster," Trump said. "She was in favor, totally in favor, of the Iraq War, which is obviously not a good soundbite."

Trump on immigration: 'I have to do the right thing" 03:10

Immigration

Trump isn't backing down from his call to revoke automatic citizenship for children born in the U.S. to undocumented immigrant parents despite concerns he'll turn Hispanic voters off to the GOP.

"I have to do the right thing," the mogul said in an interview with CNN's Chris Cuomo Wednesday, when asked about his immigration plan being under fire.

Trump has called for building a wall along the border with Mexico, revoking the right to citizenship to children born the U.S. if their parents aren't documented, and for deporting undocumented immigrants and then allowing "good ones" to re-enter the country.

He has been hit with criticism from some Republicans while taking and heavy fire from the left.

He even took flak as he sat down for the interview with CNN in Trump Tower, when an onlooker in the lobby of the building shouted: "You will never win the Latino vote. The Latino (voters) don't like you."

RELATED: Trump's immigration plan: the specifics

Trump didn't respond to the heckler, and after the interview finished taping, two people watching from the crowd told Trump they were Mexican-American and would gladly support him, which he relayed to Cuomo.

"You know, this country is so politically correct. Nobody wants to take a stance on anything," Trump told Cuomo. "Now they like to use the word undocumented because it's more political -- I don't use that word. They're illegal immigrants. They came over illegally. Some are wonderful people, and they've been here for a while. They've got to go out. They've got to leave."

He did say there were "a lot of good ones" among immigrants, and that he would try to bring them back.

"These people -- the really good ones, and we have some great ones -- we're going to try and expedite so they can come back," he said. "But they're going to come back legally."

RELATED: Trump's immigration plan: the specifics

The candidate also reiterated that he believes in changing birthright citizenship -- which grants automatic citizenship to all children born in the U.S. -- though he said he wouldn't need to amend the Constitution to do it.

"No. 1, the 14th Amendment is very questionable as to whether or not somebody can come over, have a baby and immediately that baby is a citizen. OK?" Trump said. "Amending is too big a deal. It's going to take -- it'll be two terms. I'd be in my second term or my eighth year by the time -- assuming everything went smoothly. ... I believe you can win it legally."

He said people can't be allowed to just "walk over" the border to give birth.

"You have people on the border and in one day they walk over, have a baby. And now all of a sudden we're supposed to pay the baby ... medical, Social Security," Trump said.

Trump on military: "Nobody's gonna play games with us" 02:44

Military advice

Getting military strategy by watching current and retired generals talk on TV isn't just OK with Trump -- he says it's better than any team he could assemble to personally advise him.

The mogul made the comment on NBC's "Meet the Press" on Sunday -- earning derision from one of those frequent TV pundits, retired Gen. Michael Hayden.

But Trump defended his comments in an interview Wednesday with CNN's Chris Cuomo, saying it allows him to get a lot of advice quickly.

"I watch your show. And I watch other shows. And you have the best generals, the best everything ... frankly probably better than I could get," Trump said. "What do I know? I'm a man that made a great fortune. I'm gonna make our country rich and I'm gonna make our country great."

RELATED: Trump defends doing 'right thing' on immigration

Rousey slams idea of Trump Presidency 01:18

Trump said he watches shows as well as reading The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal and other newspapers and magazines, which allows him to "get a lot of information in a very short time."

He acknowledged that other candidates, including former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush, have a team of advisers, but he also dinged Bush for being "very low energy" and not moving as quickly as Trump.

"You get the best people," he said. "Even the generals wanna be on television, right? Or they're retired generals in many cases. But I see a lot of good things by watching your show and other shows. And it's really nothing to be laughed at or scoffed at."

In fact, Trump said his military savvy could be one of his biggest strengths in the general election.

He pointed to a CNN/ORC poll that had him more trusted than other Republican candidates on fighting terror group ISIS.

"I think that I would be a great sleeper on the military, because people wouldn't think it's my strength, but I think it would be one of my strengths," Trump said. "One of the things I noticed in your poll, I came out way, way ahead of everybody on the economy, and a lot of people weren't surprised to see that, but I also came way out ahead on the military ... and ISIS."

He added: "I would build up our military so strong, so powerful that nobody will mess with us."

Trump: Yes I'd scare the Pope

Picture this: Trump and the Pope, face-to-face. And the Pope tells the mogul that capitalism can be toxic. How would Trump reply?

"I'd say, 'ISIS wants to get you,'" Trump said, when asked by Cuomo about that hypothetical scenario.

"You know that ISIS wants to go in and take over the Vatican? You have heard that. You know, that's a dream of theirs, to go into Italy," Trump said.

Cuomo, taken aback, asked if Trump would actually scare the Pope, who is coming to the U.S. for his first visit next month.

"I'm gonna have to scare the Pope because it's the only thing," Trump said. "The Pope, I hope, can only be scared by God. But the truth is -- you know, if you look at what's going on -- they better hope that capitalism works, because it's the only thing we have right now. And it's a great thing when it works properly."

Trump said right now, capitalism was not working properly in the U.S. because of over-regulation of industry.

The real estate mogul said that though he is a Protestant, he generally likes Pope Francis, who has been outspoken on a number of politically sensitive issues including poverty, climate change and judging gays.

"I have great respect for the Pope," Trump said. "I like the Pope. I actually like him. He's becoming very political, there's no question about it. But I like him. He seems like a pretty good guy."

Trump also noted he doesn't believe the Pope is actually opposed to capitalism.

Meet the Trumps

Trump says his famous family is totally ready to hit the campaign trail -- and they will be great at it.

In fact, he said before he jumped into the race, he sat down with his family to talk it over.

"My wife said something very interesting," Trump said. "She's my pollster, OK? She said, 'You know if you actually announce you're going to win.' I said, 'I don't know that.' But the response has been pretty amazing."

Trump's third wife, Melania, hasn't been a huge presence on the campaign trail -- yet. But Trump said she's ready for that and, potentially, being first lady.

"Yes, she's ready," he said. "She has been (quiet so far) and purposely. You know, I haven't asked her to do anything. And she would certainly like to."

Melania would be interested in working on women's health issues, for example, Trump said. And so would his daughter, Ivanka, who he acknowledged could be president in her own right.

"She could be president -- she'd be great," Trump said. "She will be fantastic. My boys will be fantastic. ... They wanna be out there. They believe in what I'm saying."

Trump has five children: the four adults -- daughters Ivanka and Tiffany, and sons Eric and Donald Jr. -- and 9-year-old son, Barron.

He also dismissed questions about whether Melania, who was born in Slovenia but moved to the U.S. amid a successful modeling career, has any issues with the Republican's hard-line immigration policies.

"She actually agrees with me because she went through a long process to become a citizen," Trump said. "She thinks it's a wonderful process to go through. And when she got it, she was very proud of it."

Trump on Bush

Trump took several jabs at his opponent, former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush, in an interview with CNN on Wednesday -- including Bush's Planned Parenthood flub on women's health spending.

"When I watch Jeb Bush a week ago not wanting to fund the women's health issues ... I thought it was terrible," Trump said.

Trump was referring to Bush's comments earlier this month on wanting to defund Planned Parenthood.

"I'm not sure we need half a billion dollars for women's health issues," Bush said. His campaign later said he misspoke.

Democrats seized on the line.

"I watched him make the statement," Trump said, alleging that only after Bush spoke to his pollsters did he say he misspoke.

"But, how do you misspeak about something like that?" Trump said. He said his wife and daughter both encouraged him to talk more about women's issues after the controversy.

"They said, you know, 'The one thing you should do is talk a little bit about women's health issues, because you're so good on it,'" Trump said. "'You know about it. And you cherish women. You want to protect women'. ... I will protect women more than anybody."

Trump has faced criticism of his treatment of women, exacerbated after he clashed with Fox News' Megyn Kelly in the first GOP debate over the epithets he has used for women in the past.

But Trump didn't just beat up on Bush, who is running second in the polls to Trump, nationally, on women's health. He also hit the former governor -- who has himself joked about being a "joyful tortoise" -- for his style.

"He's a very low energy person, Jeb Bush," Trump said. "He's got very low energy, which is okay. It's good, if you want (to) lead a long life. But he's a low energy person."

Trump on trade

Trump says his administration would tap American businessmen Carl Icahn and Henry Kravis as top international negotiators -- pledging they could do a better job than the diplomats currently in office. He also predicted he would be "the greatest jobs president that God ever created," and get tough on countries like China, Mexico and Japan.

Pressed by Cuomo on how exactly he'd get American companies to stop building factories overseas, where labor is cheaper, Trump said he'd slap the companies with tariffs and communicate with them.

He also said current U.S. efforts to improve its standing in the world were failing -- and given overseas consumption of his products and real estate, Trump predicted his presidency would be the opposite.

"We are getting killed on trade," Trump said. "We have diplomacy now. They're killing us, and they don't even like us. ... With me, they'll like us and we'll beat them, OK?"

He said the nation's top businessmen are on his side.

"Carl Icahn agrees with me," Trump said. "And Carl Icahn, as you know, is a great negotiator. And I have many other great negotiators. They are dying to get involved."

Trump said he would "absolutely" put Icahn in charge of China and Japan.

"You take a guy like Carl Icahn, you take Henry Kravis, you take so many of the guys that I know and you say, 'You know what, I'd like you to watch over the deals that are being made with China because we're getting killed on trade.' Believe me, we will be so good," Trump said. "He'd do it in two seconds. He's already told me he'd love to do it."

Trump said Icahn would be better than the current U.S. Ambassador to Japan, Caroline Kennedy.

"We have the greatest business people in the world, we don't use them," Trump said. "We use people like, I mean, she's a very nice person, my daughter likes her ... Caroline Kennedy. OK, in Japan. She didn't even know how she got the job."

CORRECTION: This story has been updated to reflect the onlookers of Trump's interview were Mexican-American.