tv Charlie Rose Bloomberg November 21, 2016 7:00pm-8:01pm EST
here which was recorded on thursday night. we talked about the entire article, we begin with the conversation of the president as he looked at the victory by donald trump and also his own legacy. here's the part of the conversation and the rest of the conversation and the rest of karl will be discussed with david. david: you can read it now online at new yorker.com. when president obama gathered his staff into his office and it came in waves, there were several groups on wednesday morning after the election, he told them and i want to read it for accuracy, he said, this is not the apocalypse. and he described -- he wants to buck up these young staffers who had big futures and were going to go out in the world and wanted to make buck them up.
defeat happens, defeats happen, the arc of justice, it doesn't lways bend in a straight line. and he told me the following, i apocalypse e in until apom lips comes. that's what he is saying publicly. but it is very obvious that he is deeply dissdushed. this is not losing to mitt romney. this is not john mccain, who is plenty right-wing on certain issues, but within the realm of imagination, this is something very, very different, aalarming. charlie: what do you think alarms him most about this? is it the conduct of foreign policy or the moral conscience of country?
david: keep going. keep going. it has to do with his feeling about the advancement of civil rights for his own people. african-american, hispanic or gays and lesbians and addition to which, i don't think barack obama ever ignored the notion that things were hallowing out in industrial cities and towns -- rural towns in this country. this is not somebody who was destined to the notion -- opioid addiction and globalization was taking a toll to all people, to all people. now, in his mind and he said as much and i'm summarizing here, now trump is not a campaigner, he's not a performer, this is
is theact of brandon, he president of the united states and occupies a position as the leader of the free world. what does he believe? does he believe -- was he issues saying things in the campaign or does he have core beliefs and convictions and the integrity of those convictions and inner core of decency. charlie: obama has said he is more pragmatist. this is what his hope is. perhaps he is saying because he wants to make sure people don't go off the deep end. david: it's an act of willful reassurance. he is not just a citizen now. the next 60 odd days he is the outgoing president of the united states and it's his job, even
though, let's face it, he has attacked donald trump in the past and humiliated like at the white house correspondents' dinner. charlie: a lot worse things he said during the campaign than in the correspond events' dinner. david: damn right. he wants an influence on donald trump while there is still time. in those few days of attempting to do that, of attempting to say our meeting was excellent and he seems to be properly awed by the -- charlie: awed. charlie: we are watching what is going in and out of trump tower and jeff sessions calling boy and steve bannon and mike pence who spoke up to the most
harshest degree of homo phobia. what is the normalizing effect here other than priebus and he is surrounded -- who is the main counselor? his son-in-law. his son-in-law. it's very important. charlie: let's stay with what might be or what is coming. he says to you, donald trump. donald trump is not an outliar. this is an important point he has made over. is a culmination, a logical conclusion of the rhetoric of the republican party for the past 20 years which the degree and tactics of the rhetoric completely jumped the rail. there was no one to say this isn't going too far. this isn't what we stand for
even with reasonable people like john boehner, who wouldn't push back. he is basically saying, donald trump is the culmination of something that started before. david: it's no joke that he -- what he is saying is that paul ryan looks like a statesman or mitch mcconnell and any number of people in congress. but rhetoric got harsher and harsher and rhetoric got fiercer and fiercer and political life became more -- and this is the outcome. this guy -- let's face it, pop you lift towns and i'm going to make it very clear, i understand that there are -- first of all there are only would vote for republicans and only people who
would vote for democrats. charlie: 35, 40. david: that's a lot. there are people that weren't responding to the racist aspect of it but the aspect of burn it all down. we are sick of what we have here and hole also didn't like hillary clinton, whether it was otherwise. that were i'm not a pollsters. i think there were people who were soured by the clintons and money. that's a legitimate point. this business of using your office and turning around and buckraking did not start with the clintons. ronald reagan made big speeches for big money in japan and the degree and they were going back into presidential politics. charlie: and so did george bush
41. here's what's interesting, too, how did he see hillary clinton and her campaign? he said watching her campaign quoting you, like a parent watching a kid in a sporting match and you feel like you don't have as much as control. and did he say oh my god. i heard this today without it being verified by the principals that bill clinton was upset about the direction of the campaign. he may have been saying it after the fact or may not have said it. david: people were upset the same reason as bill clinton. she didn't campaign as many events as trump. charlie: trump's thing was rallies. david: he is good at it. they knew she isn't the retail politician as bill clinton or barack obama. what confounded them besides the money stuff and besides comey
and wikileaks, which is another matter, was why aren't you initiating? charlie: didn't go to wisconsin? david: didn't go to wisconsin. what are you thinking about arizona. why are we having conversations about texas turning blue. this is fantasy. charlie: another point. obama said trump was less of a champion of working people than as an amendment establishment insuring ent. the president-elect was able to make an argument that he would blown this place up. hillary was viewed as an insider. i don't think it was fair, but that's how it played itself out. and she said 30 years in washington. david: and she would have been following someone for whom she was secretary of state. charlie: and that was three terms which is unlikely in
american politics. david: nevertheless, but it seemed likely to all of us, pollsters, to journalist -- charlie: that donald trump couldn't be elected because in all the things he said and secondly -- david: because he seemed and is, until this point in our history, outside the realm of discussion in terms of his behavior as a human being. charlie: is that why you were both so angry and depressed in the online piece after i read in the election? david: yes. i will be perfectly honest how that came about. in the online world, in the old new yorker, you could wait a few days and could have a good presence on election night. and in the morning i wrote at relative leisure, a piece about
the first woman president and elizabeth stant ton and how important it was not only to women but to men and how long this had taken and history of seneca falls and that was ready to go and tt going to run online that night. and i was -- people go to an election night party and little bit to eat, possibly a little bit to drink and by about 9:00, it's becoming clear that not only is the election going to go another way but the piece is going to be in the ash heap of history. and i called a colleague who is editor who was running the show that night at new yorker.com and i said i think we need something else and i sat at that party and wrote about what a disaster i
think this is -- how deeply alarming it is and how we should -- normalizeormize it. not rush to normalize it. what i mean by that is, donald trump in the way he campaign and the way he has conducted himself is in no way mitt romney or a kind of a conventional conservative. the republicans in this country rejected donald trump wholesale. "the "national review." he american enterprise institute. i don't agree with them, but ey just saw him as a demagogue, a fraud, dishonest,
we don't even know the president of the united states who won't tell us about his tax returns, who has myriad of lawsuits against him. this is not normal. charlie: your point is, we can't forget that or normalize and therefore, we do what? david: we have to be clear-headed and accumulate the facts. charlie: truth to power. david: we are living in a world in which the president-elect feels no compulsion during a campaign about lying at a rate that we have never seen before by any meter, by any score board. charlie: one thing to exaggerate but another thing to lie. >> it wasn't once or twice or not here or there, it's a
pattern. on the level of appointments, we are hearing people about whom the president-elect himself denigrated during the campaign. but we cannot allow ourselves to be diluted that it is wrong necessarily that somehow by magic, by the normalization of becoming president that he will suddenly become dwight eisenhower. i hope that's the case and if it happens, charlie, i want to be the first to acknowledge it. charlie: let me turn to obama, where is he what he does in terms of the remainder of his term? and i thought about these initiatives. the cuban initiative. take one example. the iran nuclear deal. health care. for sure, there will be some
modification. he, he in speeches in europe was talking about pop lism and talking about globalism and thinking about modifying it and maybe not taken a hard as look and maybe trump struck a nerve that was in fact real. david: there was a globalist -- the world is flat, everything's great. what was not taken into account nearly enough -- it's interesting in the 1990's we had this view. democracy was on the march. soviet union was fallen. tee emnen square was great. and now a lot of these things were advances. but unfortunately, there are winners and losers to this and some measure, this, in some
measure and i don't think donald trump is going to do anything for these people, but some of the losers of the globalization have risen up and said no. the internet's great, but my coal factory shut down and the town in which i made a middle-class wage, i'm now bagging groceries at wal-mart. charlie: because the company i worked for left town. david: will donald trump be able to change the world that that man or woman goes back to his or her old life, i don't know? i get that. and i want to acknowledge to people that of course not all those people, maybe not even close a large percentage voted because they were responding to after can-american
sentiment. charlie: it was exactly that. david: i hope you're right and i think you are right in the overall percentage of what you can't deny is that bigotry. charlie: what of his legacy does he worry most about? david: where to begin? where to begin, charlie? got of socially things enacted. charlie: especially in washington. david: in foreign affairs, where could that happen? take the iran nuclear deal. trump has said this is a horrendous deal and going to make deals. if you break the deal, suddenly iran is able to make a nuclear weapons. even israeli intelligence, a country whose prime minister was against the iran nuclear deal will be the first to tell you that iran has no longer its
breakout capacity. do you want to reverse that? charlie: some people hoe were against it says they don't want to abdicate it. david: this is what obama has bargained himself with. i will keep my head cool and encourage what good instincts there are in trump and his people. a job is not to be firebrand, the question is what happens on january 20. had hillary clinton won, i think it would have gone off to hawaii and good long rest and thinking about what good works he can do, he is friendly with people in silicon valley. charlie: did he give you an ndication what he wants to do?
he might have done something different than what he would do now. david: he's not going to run for public office. david: my brother's keeper. and what he is interested in doing is creating the next barack and michelle obama. charlie: someone that could inherit his politics. david: in which you get people involved in public life and doing good in the public realm. charlie: there is a huge split in the democratic party. does he want to play a role in that? david: who's the leader of the democratic party now? i asked the president, i said, so what do you got? what's the bench? another election in four years. has been all, harris
senator in california. the mayor of south bend, indiana. arlie: african-american in south bend indiana. david: elizabeth warn is 70 or around there. and bernie sanders is closer to 75. and they are not in power in the house, the senate, the white house, the supreme court is sure o have appointments now. ♪
charlie: we continue with more news about the transition from the bow bauma government to the trump government. president-elect trump has made important choices. the transition team has confirmed three new positions. michael flynn, a retired intelligence officer as national security adviser. c.i.a. director and senator sessions as attorney general. a front runner for defense secretary if hillary clinton has been elected.
co-founder of the center for new american security and pleased to have her on this program. what do we make of these appointments in the national security field? >> it's an interesting collection of coming together. in mike flynn, you have someone who was a very creative and brilliant intelligence officer, who was serving in afghanistan, but more recently, he said a number of things that i think many people in the mainstream of foreign policy and defense has found concerning or disturbing. in mike pompeo, top of his class at west point, harvard law review and a serious member of the house intelligence committee, clearly very qualified person, who, again, will bring professionalism to
the c.i.a. but had his moments where in the benghazi investigation where he sort of took some positions that were outside the norm. charlie: general flynn got a lot of attention during the time that general mcchrystal was leading our forces in afghanistan and leading principal. >> the question is which mike flynn will show up as adviser to president-elect trump. creative rilliant and intelligence officer that made improvements to our forces there. when he got to d.i.a. his record was more mixed and controversial. and then showing up as a political figure as part of the trump campaig i think he said some things that have caused
many people some alarm in terms of how he has spoken about the muslim community, about russia and so forth. charlie: what has he said about the broader muslim community and what has he said about russia that we ought to look at? >> on the broader muslim violent he has cited islamic extremism but said harsh things about the broader muslim community in terms of our community partners and allies. and laying blame on muslims in general as opposed to focusing n the tiny percentage to the hijacking of the islamic states and prosecuting acts of terror. i think that lumping of together has sometimes caused some
concern certainly. and on russia, i think the main concern is he hasn't said much. if you go over to the pentagon today and you ask the senior military leadership what is the challenge that most worries you today, they will talk about a resurgent russia, you know the occupation of ukraine and the and exation of crimea. and terrible behavior in syria and will talk about that and we don't hear much of that from mike flynn so far. what are his views on russia and does he understand the very real challenges that putin's russia poses to the united states. charlie: has he said anything in terms of russia in terms of the threat to the battleic regions or the absence of any kind of ability to get the russians to as the president has tried hard
to get the russians to be of some help in restraining assaad certainly on the attacks in aleppo? >> he hasn't said that much directly, but i think many people assume that candidate trump's views, the president-elect's views on the campaign trail were very much influenced by the briefings and advice he was getting from general flynn and the tendency to downplay the russian role in the cyberattacks we experienced here in the united states and led up to the election, the endency to downplay the very harmful actions they have been taking in syria and bombing civilian populations in aleppo. they have been bombing civilians on behalf of the assaad
government. the failure to call russia on its bad behavior, that's the concern. charlie: what did he say in his speech at the convention that might cause a real consideration of what he might say, do, or recommend as national security adviser? >> the focus on terrorism is certainly warranted. my caution would be that we should not tag in the entire international or domestic muslim with supporting terrorism, which they do not. tough on iran. im concerned about the notion of ripping up the rand deal. deal.n this is an international agreement. iran, from what i can see, is actually abiding by important
elements at this point. want to get tougher on iran, that's fine, but ripping up the agreement that would remove the constraints on them without the ability to reimpose the kind of effective sanctions we had before, that's not a smart approach. we hear that from allies and others who were part of putting that deal together. trumpe: has candidate suggested he would tear up the iran deal? >> he has. he has talked about tearing up the deal. you will hear even from states like israel that they would not recommend that course of action. there are lots of other ways to increase our strength with allies in the region, to push activity.stabilizing tearing up the agreement should not be on that list. we know aboutdo
pompeo's worldview other than andhe feels about benghazi that that had political connotations? >> i don't know much. a has a reputation of being serious member of the committee. a lot of people believe he took responsibility seriously. he is a student of intelligence. he has come to understand how the community works. inside the agency so far has been positive. there a sense that the cia needs change or needs new leadership? >> interestingly, john brennan, -- current erector has
current director has spent the last year and a half reorganizing the cia, taking it organization and putting analysts and operators together in cross functional teams. that has been controversial within the agency. the matrix say approach is the right way to work in the 21st century. forrs have criticized it being complicated or ineffective. one of the first questions that will confront the new director if he is confirmed is due you continue on this road that the previous stricter began or do you try to reverse that in some way? charlie: you and i have had conversations in different forums. what do you think is the urgent agenda for the trump administration? all, they are going to inherit a set of ongoing
military operations around the world, particularly in the middle east. there is talk of starting an the capitalocco, cities. that will mean americans in harm's way the day of the inauguration, and trump and his team will inherit responsibility for that. they will need to get up to speed on those issues very quickly and decide whether they want to continue on that path or make other adjustments. the broader syrian situation is .bviously going to be important ongoing carnage, humanitarian disaster, unprecedented refugee flow, internally displaced people and so forth. and the big question is russia. will president trump try to cut some kind of deal with russia on syria or on ukraine?
will he put reducing tensions with russia -- make that the in a way thative potentially compromises u.s. interests? one way to get a better relationship with russia is to his seed to their notion that russia should be a great power with -- a seed to their notion that russia should be a great power with global influence. that might reduce tensions, but it's certainly not in the interest of the united states or our allies. charlie: and then there is china. >> china is an important relationship, a critical partner economically and on climate change and so forth. and they are all so a competitor
in the economics fear and in the security domain. how this administration postures its self these of the china will be very important in the long term. warfare if you ask how is changing, what is the principal consensus? would it be ciber? >> we certainly have warfare into new domains. key among those are the cyber domain, but also space. space is becoming a much more contested environment. both the russians and the chinese are developing capabilities we should be worried about, given our dependence on satellite communication, surveillance, and so forth. we have always benefited from having a technological edge over any
competitor. now, more and more, the commercial technologies we have relied on are commercially available and available to others. nextve to make, in the four years, some very targeted, smart investments to keep that edge. so, once you focus on the defense department, you're going to need leadership there that is focused on not only making sure we have a ready, appropriate military for today, but very sure weused on making are making the appropriate investments for the military we are going to need tomorrow. charlie: thank you so much for joining us this friday afternoon. we will be right back. stay with us.
on a number of friends. it's important to remember what the national security adviser is supposed to do. what is the job? to serve as the of the and synthesizer views of other national security principles, the secretary of defense, the secretary of state, the intelligence agencies, and be a good-faith conduit of those views to the president. general flynn has views of his own. i don't know that those will come into conflict with national security principles because wouldwe know of now indicate that this is not necessarily a team of rivals, but general flynn is very outspoken. he has very firm views. one question will be to what extent he can fashion himself as
a vessel for collating disparate and giving the president the best possible and broadest advice. hislie: we will talk about style and views in a few minutes, but david, what would you add to karen's opening remarks? david: i would agree. is a lothe process more complicated than it was in the era of kissinger or even brent stoke off, who was probably considered to be the model and fc advisor. the reason is that not only has the nfc grown far larger than it was ever intended to be initially, but it is the main place where dissent has to get aired out. you sometimes want in a national security advisor somebody who can pull back from the national -- natural instincts of the
president, pose them with a contrary and set of use, or in some way mold that. we are not sure yet whether general flynn is the kind of person who can do that. we are going to have to see. i have known him for a number of thes when he was running central defense agency, one of the largest but least discussed intelligence agencies. he had a good reputation as an analyst. he has strong views, and the main views we have heard the most about our his views about the muslim religion being a cover for a political movement, and the other view is the existential threat to the united states being isis and to a lesser degree but similarly al islamichese kind of extremist groups. what we don't know is the hierarchy of his other sets of the united states,
how that meshes with his views of china, of russia, which has a number of troubling questions we will get into in a bit, of the importance of nato and of europe , and of the pivot to asia. these are the things that, too pose as real a set of challenges to americans as any, and they are frankly not the kind of issues that at the dia he had to deal with. charlie: the role of the national security adviser can also depend on how powerfully the white house wants to run foreign policy. sometimes you can have someone ,ike brzezinski or kissinger where they almost dominate the secretary of state's job. be differentld than that because he was as close to george bush is anyone -- as anyone can possibly be and was his campaign manager.
so one of the questions that will come out of this will be will be secretary of state and how strongly does he want to overwhelm him? karen: it's a sort of truism the president runs foreign policy and regardless of what arguments you have, who is up, who is down, who is strong, what usually happens is what the president wants to happen. you are right that one of the questions will be to what extent advisoronal security sees his job to put a brake on the president as opposed to not only being a spokes and counselor to the president, but someone who has very strong views. among the controversies about general flynn are that since he government -- and he did leave the agency under -- ining of a cloud
private life, he has his own consulting firm. he has worked closely with a number of russian entities. he has appeared on the kremlin's tv station in the united states. he went to their gala in moscow and sat next to putin. he has been working for elements , ande turkish government on election day, published an op-ed calling on the united states to immediately extradite am the turkishn im government claims is responsible for the failed coup attempt last summer that the justice department and president obama have said there cannot be any
politicization of a decision like this. you cannot just get up there is a public official and say this guy needs to go. there is a treaty. there are all kinds of legal norms. the question as to what extent is general flynn willing and able to moderate his very strong views about a lot of these issues and overcome some of the positions he has taken in the past? he just published a book this some of theought up points that david mentioned that really charging intelligence about terrorist groups has been politicized and manipulated for political purposes, and outlining a much terrorismlicy toward along some of the lines that donald trump has advocated. is one of the
interesting questions. he has been on the campaign trail, a strong advocate, as strong as anyone in the security field for trump, almost a surrogate for him. what has he said that suggests what he might be telling trump? david: he made an appearance at the republican national convention and gave a pretty fiery speech. i was on the floor of the convention during that speech. he also led some of the lock her ts about hillary clinton that gave pause to other , includingterans former members of the joint chiefs, who asked whether that was in over politicization of the role of summary who had been a general in recent times. generals havery
been good national security advisers. colin powell and others. i think the big question about twofold.lynn is first, whether he is the kind of person who encourages a --ersity of view and debate and a lot of that will depend on who is secretary of state, who is secretary of defense. in an ideal world, any administration wants to think about its national security team holistically. you will remember it was condoleezza rice and bob gates who teamed up to try to get guantanamo closed in the second term -- at the end of the second term of the bush administration. they workmics of how together are extremely important. the other big question is -- i when reportingk
about the national security council's processes, the degree to which they spend time on legal questions. can we do this? is this authorized by existing law? even if we want to do it, does it stretch the law too far? this comes up in using offensive cyber, questions of interrogation. i don't know if those are the kind of questions he is accustomed to asking. who is mike pompeo? karen: a relatively junior .ongress member from kansas he has the backing of the tea party. he has been on the house intelligence committee. he was also a member of the select committee that investigated benghazi. he is supported by the koch have given a lot of money to certain republican candidates, and i think if you
as a cia chief, the people inside the cia i think are a little bit relieved because he is somebody they know something about. they have dealt with him on the committee. i think the best comparison may copper george w. bush's cia director at one point thewas also taken from intelligence committee. did not have a great tenure, lasted a couple of years, and there were problems with people under him that caused him eventually to have to leave. you talk about the iran deal, pompeo is one of the people who called for completely renegotiating the iran deal. on the benghazi committee, he outspoken against
hillary clinton. committeember of the under trey gowdy issued its issued ad pompeo dissent saying the report was not tough enough, and being very critical of hillary clinton and the obama administration overall. he graduated first in his class at west point and then went to harvard law school, intoned to kansas and went business. david, what you know about him and his views? david: karen had it exactly right. one of the things i find -- heng about his views came in in 2010 in the tea party wave. he was extremely critical of president obama for closing the
black sites the cia had used to interrogate prisoners in iraq and afghanistan. he has been very critical of any move by the cia backwards on the and whatterboarding the bush administration delicately called enhanced interrogation and president obama called torture. the big question is if he tries to move the cia backward on this, if you tries to go back to where was, is he going to run into the resistance -- if he tries to go back to where it was, is he going to run into resistance from john brennan who said he did not believe that employees of the cia would ever return to the moment where they techniques even if ordered to do so. a reallyd well set up fascinating confrontation head of the cia
and a staff that has moved reforms insiderable the past eight years. karen: i think there is pretty widespread agreement, even among , that intelligence could be better. in syria, it has not been as good as it could be in other places in the middle east. i think there is room for a in and boostome morale in the agency and get things going. what people in are nervous abous precisely what david said, that they would be asked to step back to this era that i think many of them feel uncomfortable about an , andion the legality of were hit -- and were afraid they were going to be held responsible for the legality of.
what trump himself has been a little vague on would require probably some kind of legislation, and we don't know if that is a battle trump wants to fight. senator jeff sessions is not necessarily in the area you cover. he was the first senator to endorse donald trump. he was a close advisor during the campaign. he has strong feelings about immigration. what about his selection as the next attorney general? of thein the course confirmation hearings you're going to hear a lot about the civil rights investigations that took place when he was up for federal judgeship more than 20 years ago. time.as a pretty brutal and i think those same questions are going to be raised. he is going to take over the
of theights division justice department and he has been extremely critical of the american civil liberties union. it would not surprise you that alleged he has called them a communist organization at various points and so forth. you are going to see a battle between two very different visions of what the justice department is supposed to stand for. on the issue we were just discussing, the attorney general plays a very critical role in the issue of drone strikes in is withinon of what the realm of legality and interrogation techniques. are we getting someone who will sign off on whatever the white house once or will there be some pushback? s, or willouse want
mark: i'm mark halperin. john: and i'm john heilemann. and "with all due respect" to donald trump, maybe having a bit of a honeymoon, but not everyone wants to shake your hand. ♪ john: there has been a magnitude 6.9 earthquake off the coast of fukushima, japan, causing a tsunami warning. we will monitor that throughout the show and report any updates. there continues to be a lot of interest in conflicts of interest when it comes to donald trump's sprawling business empire. so far he has done next to nothing to assuage this concern, and in some respects is only exacerbated it.