tv Charlie Rose Bloomberg August 2, 2016 7:00pm-8:01pm EDT
♪ >> from our studios in new york city, this is "charlie rose." charlie: we begin with politics. in an interview this weekend, donald trump suggested the u.s. should accept russia's and accession with crimea. the deal runs counter to the obama administration. it is now believed that the might be responsible for the research and testing from this dnc campaign.
administration has cap short of a actual accusation, john brennan says interference in the election progress is a serious matter. i'm pleased to have him here at the table. welcome. let's talk about that. let's talk about tod's interview ukraine. who did it? why do they do it? how do we retaliate? >> all fascinating issues. as strange as this election has been, it does not seem likely would try to putin
interfere with the u.s. election. they've tried to interfere there. to be fair they united states has not been a bus in messaging in other countries election. david: that's right, in 2009 when there was going to be a backlash. here is what we know. we know the dnc got hacked and they lost large amounts of e-mails and other data includes fundraising data. it was embarrassing to them in terms of the campaign against bernie sanders. it resulted in w wasserman schultz using her position.
that is what's known. if you follow the forensics s beforehe document keeley did it. they were coming out. 2.0.lled himself goose for charlie rose: there is some indication that they were not satisfied with the response to that so they may have given documents to wikileaks or someone else. david: that's right. we don't know the transmission fail. we don't know how wikileaks got the document or who he really was. if you look at some of the documents that got released. what do you find?
upestamps that would line with doing the work in moscow. that areip addresses identical to ones used in previous hacks by the ga you and another russian intelligence agency when they attacked the german parliament and there was the investigation that revolt -- revealed this. wouldrensic evidence strongly suggest that this was done. more consistent on this than on any issue i have seen since the north korean hack. charlie rose: why do they do it? david: this gets to a new layer of fascination. was in june of
2015 when nobody in russia and nobody was predicting donald trump would emerge as the nominee. were they doing this to collect things in general. where the predicting that hillary clinton would eventually get the nomination? are they looking for material on her? you get to an interesting theory of motive. there was a parliamentary election put in place and solidified by the hold on the government in russia. there were lots of signs of fraud in that election and she called it out as secretary of as frequently as officials do. couldn't -- vladimir putin
believed that she was encouraging people to come out and protest. charlie rose: he hates nothing like chaos. david: especially open objection to his rule. be thatind, it may well the united states started this. this is all theory but it is a theory that was laid out in public the other day. the point here is this is not to have donald trump elected. it may be to see hillary clinton nonelected. there was a second hack that came we believe
in the spring of this year. it is bad hack that something was going wrong. that is when we called the and it investigators looks like it is in the documents that we are beginning to see now. it is not clear that these russian intelligence agencies were in the system. they do not communicate. the ssp is the inheritor to the kgb. the cheer you up the military intelligence unit. there are people who say if in why they could do that, wouldn't they have hijacked hillary clinton's server?
we asked this question endlessly. that they comments that theyngress are have no direct evidence of their was any foreign power in her server. he also says if they were and they were highly sophisticated. it is not at all clear that they would see the evidence. does that tell you that they weren't in the server. they have no way of proving who they were and who weren't. charlie rose: the assumption is that they had them, they would release them. we don't know the totality.
the u.s., we hacked. we retaliate how? what is the difference between this hack? david: this is a really difficult problem for many in the intelligence agency. they do not like qualifying the theft of data as a cyber attack or necessarily a great sin. in a cleveland organization. would be considered a legitimate target and the russianse here is that just a beaded this for a political purpose and to
manipulate the selection. u.s. government has been very careful and not accused the russians of doing this. their standard of evidence has to be a lot higher than the standard that individual companies would have. president is going to have to make it decision. how much more certainty do they need? what can they do that the private companies can't? the idea is to put implants in computer networks around the world. think of them as the cyber equivalent that are set up around the world. to do that we have to break into someone's system and installing implant that is good enough. keep it going, care and feeding
of it and make sure we are in the right place. in the end, the u.s. may or may of who orderedce this for what happened when he came back. they may see something that all the rest of us don't know. that is what happened in the sony case. they had a very good direct evidence that they had ordered the attack. we don't know it may have been set yet. charlie rose: in this circumstance, you don't want to know what you have, just stop doing whatever you're doing. that used to happen with cell phones. it was not the new york times.
it was published and he stopped using cell phones. true in theng is implants and this was a big issue during the snowden revelations three summers ago because we saw they were inside china. we published a lot of that. well they warned not to buy this communication equipment. is not just here anybody spy on each other? of course they do. if you use that material believe american officials --charlie rose: that really is
going beyond the pale. david: if your vladimir putin, tommy how it is different from secretary of state and her actions. when theose: government does it for private .oncerns that was a big issue and my impression is this. the rules the u.s. has set up was with the chinese. it has been stealing intellectual property. it should be, there should be a norm against that. effort by the u.s.
to import a norm that not many and we also won't interfere with the response people who tried to get you back online. all is coming down is we are not going to mess with each other's nuclear codes. that could lead to such a huge problem back-and-forth. watch -- one that .eal he has asked the ei to investigate and release the termination whether the russians did it or not.
she is an intelligence member on the house side. here is the concern. there have been two very major hacks. the government has never stepped out and accuse them. the first was the the theft of state department e-mails. believed to have been the work of the same to russian intelligence agencies. you know what they are doing at home but what they are doing back in washington is comparing the signatures on the dnc hack the state department white house
suggesting they have an organized approach to this. it is highly -- highly organized. in both cases, the u.s. government made a decision not to reveal what they knew. if you have evidence here, you find a way to make it public. charlie rose: the fbi is not responding? it is not the fbi's decision. you are going to have a fight that will come up. i don't know this, i can predict it between intelligence
community people that say they cannot reveal their sources and methods. and you'd better be ready to back it up. charlie rose: do you assume we will retaliate? assuming that the president is persuaded that this evidence is as good as we get is, it is hard that heo imagine couldn't avoid doing something. as in the case of sony, this goes beyond. sony was important because he believed they were going after free speech and threatening theatergoers. system.toral
is this being done with the approval knowledge of what --?ican david: it could well be done by one of these intelligence officers were a freelancer hired by them in which they are trying -- in the old nuclear world, we knew that 20 or 30 people could launch nuclear weapons. in the cyber world, it is very easy to go higher outsiders and have them do an attack that is from a different location. how sloppy.
i ask you because you interviewed him. charlie rose: what is your impression of what he knows about russia? it is our to know what he said because he said so many things. i met him, i talked to him. i don't know the guy. henry talks about crimea, they have to pay their bills. got toi think you've separate out two sets of issues. i talked to them for a total about three hours.
if you saw the russians. he says i would basically check first if they have been main -- making their own contribution. then president obama came back and said this is an alliance. it's like your house is burning. let's check where your tax payments are. what i think he is trying to do and to scaring more.
♪ charlie rose: we continue our ss,versation with richard ha from the council on foreign relations. twohink there are dimensions. the idea that foreign policy is something of a drain is that the real policy is to conserve the economy. ore version of minimalism isolationism. he once to dial down dramatically on what it is we do. he wants to spare us the problems of international involvement and put aside a big
pile of resources. charlie rose: that is much more sophisticated thanhe wants to se problems of international i imagined. it is more transactional. richard: again, if you take a step back. it reflects a larger mindset that the equivalent domestically. the world is ripping us off and allies have cost us more than they have helped us. it is not just the price of leadership. after checked, we won the cold world and have had an extraordinary 75 years of world leadership. because of the way the world war ii turned out the way it did. since then, we have done quite well. :he only mistakes we have made
going north of the 38th parallel in north korea. vietnam and then her back. those are all examples of american overreach. it was not our allies that misled us. those were all self-created. charlie rose: you think you think he would be voters to isolationism? richard: he's much more conscious of the cost. what happens if we dialed that? what about the conflicts. he's thinking things as a businessman. he is not looking at what happens then to the revenues. what he is missing is the lost revenues. when you look at what he said about ukraine, explain that to me. does it make you wonder what does he really know.
he seems to operate on instinct. richard: he takes pride in that. the only way i could think of defending him. andhave had uniformed guys then what happened in crimea was a fundamental threat to the basic principle of international relations. the one thing we can all agree on is that you cannot use military force to change borders. it is the one idea of sovereignty. tried it inhussein kuwait, the world came together. charlie rose: you can't use military force to change governments? richard: no, borders. what russians a place clearly a threat.
the fact that he's not have the military option to resist them. we have resisted with sanctions and that makes great sense. het he's adjusted is that was going to look at the sanctions policy. they're talking about appropriate assistance, whatever that means. what seems to be missing is a willingness to push back on russia when russia violates this. there seems to be a benign of putin and what he has done in the middle east. what is odd to me is this focus with a one-dimensional
economy. it is not a great power. it is exercising more influence. is looking for foreign policy to compensate what they don't have. he is good at exploiting opportunities. there was a new york times piece of office two. what you saw was speaker after speaker that he is no comprehension of american values. democrats take on the american exceptionalism argument that have been frequently expressed by republicans. left but i am a george herbert walker bush republican. a realist who believes in institutions.
i like talking about it. it is the kind of thing that creates on the rest of the world. we should be in rather than talk about it. we should be who others want to work with. that,e rose: if you take they say they don't grasp america. they were attacking his of the history and constitution of america. richard: you have one candidate hillary clinton who is operating within the 40 yard lines of foreign policy and donald trump is not. he is the first major party candidate that is working far beyond. i think it's connected to foreign policy.
if you look at his visa and they are not part of the traditional governing consensus. and 70% of america thinks we're headed in the wrong direction, he is clearly tapping into that. charlie rose: they believe we are in the wrong track. obama is nowthat experiencing a rise in his ratings. as part of the dilemma for hillary clinton. .ou want to argue continuity then easy 70% of americans say we are on the wrong track. that isrose: continuity, not change. richard: that is the argument for the clinton campaign.
the country is divided. that might be the only explanation is different numbers. hillaryrose: was clinton a good secretary of state? richard: the biggest thing she was the pivot. the idea that the united states is not going to spend a disproportionate amount of shares in the middle east. to adjust to a part of the world: asia. i think that was the big idea of obama's foreign policy. he says that he copied bush 41. richard: it was too limited. he would have argued further retrenchment. international leader but he did not retrenched. obama has retrenched and he went too far. charlie rose: retrenchment is
the hallmark of his foreign-policy. when history is going to be rough on obama is that the retrenchment got out of hand. he went too far things in dialing down. there is also putting mores in the asian basket. is of the big pieces of it the transpacific partnership is sitting there on my support in the american congress. both parties believe that free trade is not desirable. the strategic consequences of that. charlie rose: i suspect that the -- pivot wast it given more rhetoric.
richard: it was more dialing down in the middle east. we tried to create a level of cooperation and we made our presence there felt. we do things differently. the trade deal is a big thing that has not been consummated. a little more military presence. charlie rose: if you wanted to call the jake sullivan of the trunk can see, who would you call? we would have to call him. there is no james baker. i see various people there but i
do not see anything like a large orange policy. the scale a difference between hillary clinton. as political as well. richard: it is also consistent with the fact that she is arguing for more traditional foreign-policy. thathad people tell me what is at play here is not that he favors donald trump which you may. he dislikes that hillary clinton. she has done things to him. richard: i don't have a relationship with him and i can say things what motivates them here.
my point is that if you are him and you have a candidate that is says theyestions that are going to reap visit the issue. more appealing a out -- outcome. charlie rose: he said to me on , for him everything is transactional. it is an opening bid. that may well be true. whatever he opens with, don't expect that to be they expected. foreign-policy is not about transactions, it is about relationships and predictability.
withave got to be careful opening bids if they suggest a degree to change. countries are counting on us. they have basically franchised out a big chunk of the national security to the united states. they have got snow that that is a rocksolid commitment. they will either a piece stronger neighbors or they will go their own way and develop their own capabilities. those are two outcomes we have to guard against. afford an we cannot open bid on foreign-policy. to be a great car, it is essential that companies know there are certain things to take for granted. charlie rose: apart from donald trump, are there any new big ideas on policy? for the last 20 years,
there's been a debate. bush and thee h w transformers like the people who and to create democracies safe people. and is printed big debate that is over. we now have a different debate between internationalists and shades of isolationism. he is gone from the debate about ambition to pulling back. they used to be big government are not. and now it is either open or closed. richard: it used to be between big and medium for policy. now is between medium and small. to the democratic platform and donald trump, what
charlie rose: jimmy walker is here. he let the tournament from start to finish. the victory was walker's plaguerist major -- first major title on tour. i am pleased to have him here. welcome. looking atabout this these names. the great ones are here. you knew you would win this. i did. myself thatelief in this was possible one day and for it to come true yesterday is a dream come true. once you get arose:
, the likelihood of winning more is more likely. jimmy: once you know you can do the gates can open. settlement thinks it's tough. some of us like, you can do that. i think that is the same way. it came very quickly. charlie rose: has your game changed between this and when you won your first tournament? jimmy: it is about the same. i've not played quite as well as i would've liked to. i knew it was right there. i felt like some stuff was really starting to materialize. charlie rose: that is sort of
happened? jimmy: it is from practice. better thinking and staying in a positive frame of mind and not getting so down. it is been a bit of both. charlie rose: things to say that he had a mental edge that his father had drilled that into him. jimmy: i think so. what separates from the great players is that ability to mentally dominate the field. ca, 67.rose: could you hear the footsteps of jason day? footsteps.w the
being of the last, you are in the driver seat. you're leaving everyday. being there is huge. anything you want to change about your game? for me, it is more about finding more fairways. [laughter] i've not been the straightest driver of the golf cart. how many times were you on the fairway? jimmy: i hated three times. i hate it in the water once. it was a great shot. that is what i would like to improve. i'm not talking about a lot.
from 52-60, that would be huge. ,harlie rose: there he is today the modern offer. -- gulf for it. it is almost like team walker. jimmy: there are not a lot of teams and that has happened with golf. it is been a while since i worked with a sports psychologist. charlie rose: what did she teach you? jimmy: we are just really getting into it. died to super deep into it. the stuff that we have been talking about, trusting yourself and what you are doing and believing it. it has been great.
i do have an chapter. fabric with harmon for the first four years now. he took me in and in his been a great ride. charlie rose: what is it safe for someone who hits the ball as well as you do? for me it was just a few little finds him being the body a little more crowded. keeping it shorter, i have the hague and long's swing. i've a tendency to let it run off. we get stuck behind it. when you have the best doctor in the world telling you how good you are. charlie rose: the core and the fundamentals are right there. they can take you where you want to go. talk aboute:
strategy. tee,you approach the first it is one of the famous courses. what are you thinking? jimmy: mine was yesterday, i'm going to do this right in the middle. i did. we will continue that the rest of the day. i will keep it in front of me. charlie rose: did you make any mistakes? technically, no. charlie rose: why do you think you are good? as your performance as a golfer. it, i known't think
i'm good. only good day, i can beat anybody. charlie rose: you have to have everything in order to beat anybody. jimmy: sometimes. sometimes you don't eat anything. sometimes you don't have it all everyday but you need something to kind of shine. something to pick you up. you work on everything. you're going to make a putt. it that balance of being on. i don't know where this question is coming from. the often most overlooked shot is the second shot. that is the most overlooked
productive shot. i can see that. the second shot can really help set up if you're going to make a birdie. the tee shot is important but the second shot has much more strategy involved. do i want the uphill putt? can i hit it. no you don't want to hit it long. there is a lot of strategy of where to hit it. charlie rose: did harmon refuse to take your shack? -- check. he kind of day. i went and saw him and paid him and him that he couldn't work with me as turn into kind he ki. of ended up doing that. he had other people.
he saw me at charlotte and it worked. dealersknow what your but let me know what iou. he said nothing. he came out and watch me play and we practiced. after the week, i had a great week. he said nothing. i said i can't do this. i knew from just talking to him that he enjoyed it. -- fine wine. charlie rose: a bottle of margo was on the way. [laughter] said this is another. -- when didie rose: you know when golf was your passion? jimmy: when i beat my dad for the first time.
i was 15. charlie rose: you knew you had what it took to be a pro? i knew that is what i wanted to do. i realized how good i was becoming in college. my senior year at baylor. i learned how to play golf and to really play the game and to shoot good scores. i put that up. charlie rose: you knew you were in the right lane? did he know it? did he say you beat me. in a sense, yeah.
it is something that he and i have done forever. we would always talk about wanting to be out there. wanting to play on a pga tour. you're aose: photographer? jimmy: astrophotography is taking pictures of deep sky objects at night. anywhere i don't do any planets but mostly deep sky galaxies and nebulous. charlie rose: how did you come to this? this started about six years ago, i had a telescope in the backyard. there is not much to see. it just got crazy from there. i did become obsessed. i had a lot of fun doing it.
i was much more than just a golfer. it is a form of art. they still love drawing and now it is on the computer. it is still our, what we do. it is not just a technical thing. it is an art form. has nasa bought some of these photographs? they were chosen by nasa. it has a thing called astronomy picture of the day. ms. low one of the oldest running websites. they pick a picture a day. there's thousands of submissions day. to get one a year is a treat. anymore is 3-4 year. when you snap it, you know may be it will make it. i think so.
we have put a lot of time into the pictures. jimmy: i have a partner in california. the equipment is mine. he is awesome. he lives right close to a telescope and we partnered up. we share the data that comes in. anything we take i get. we just have fun with it. it has been an amazing ride with that. i've really enjoyed it. i try not to put anything out anymore but i'm not 100% proud of. i've kept stuff back. charlie rose: great to have you here. and congratulations. distant think you're right there. jimmy walker.
♪ mr. trump: i like people that weren't captured. you could see there was a blood coming out of her -- wherever. i don't know what i said. i don't remember. this judge is of mexican heritage. i am building a wall. maybe she was not allowed to say anything, you tell me. you can get the baby out of here. ♪