tv Charlie Rose Bloomberg November 21, 2016 10:00pm-11:01pm EST
>> from our studios in new york city, this is "charlie rose." charlie: david is the editor of the "new yorker." he recently sat down with president obama two days before the election and two days after the election. the two delve into the campaign, the media, and the president's legacy. he offers a firsthand look into the mind of president obama, as he reflects on his successor and the future of the united states. the piece is called "it happened here" and is the lead issue of "the new yorker", which opens on monday. i am pleased to have david back
here, which was recorded on thursday night. we talked about the entire article, but this evening, we begin with the conversation with the president as he looked at the victory by donald trump, and also his own legacy. here is that part of the conversation. the rest of the conversation and the rest of the article will be discussed with david on david: you can read it now monday. online at newyorker.com. charlie: what are your thoughts on this? david: when president obama gathered his staff into the ,ffice, and it came in waves wednesday morning after the election, he told them, and they want to read this for accuracy. he told them, this is not the apocalypse. he described to them. youngted to buck up these staffers, who have big futures, potentially. he wanted to buck them up and history does not always move in
a straight line. defeat happens. reversals happen. the arc of justice, it does not always bend in a straight line. dly brutalize the metaphor, and he told me the following, i don't believe in apocalyptic until the apocalypse comes. nothing is the end of the world until the end of the world. that is what he is saying publicly, but it is very obvious that he is deeply disturbed. this is not losing to mitt romney. is, is not john mccain, who you know, plenty right wing on certain issues, but within the realm of imagination. this is something very different. something alarming. charlie: what do you think alarms him most about this? is it the conduct of foreign policy, or the moral conscience of the country? keep going.
david: all of it. it has to do with his feeling about the advancement of civil rights for his own people. whether they are african-american or hispanic or gays and lesbians. and in addition to which, i don't think barack obama ever ignored the notion that things ine halloween ouing out industrial cities and towns, rural towns in this country. this is somebody who was destined to the notion that opioid addiction, for example industrialization and globalization was taking a toll to all people, to all people. now come in his mind and he said as much and i am summarizing here, now trump is not a campaigner. he is not a performer. this is not an act of branding.
he is the president of the united states and occupies a position in a world as the leader of the free world. what does he believe? justhe believe -- was he saying things during a campaign to arouse emotions? or does he actually have core release and convictions -- have core beliefs and convictions? has said, hebama is more of a pragmatist. david: i think this is the triumph of hope over experience. charlie: so, this is what his hope is. or perhaps he is saying and to make sure people do not go off the deep end. i think it is an act of willful reassurance. david: he is not just a citizen now. days he is the outgoing president of the united
states and it is his job, even though, let's face it, he has attacked donald trump in the past. he has even humiliated him things like the white house correspondents dinner. he is gone after him over and over again. charlie: he said a lot worse things during the campaign then during the correspondents dinner. david: damn right. he wants an influence on donald trump while there is still time. meanwhile, charlie, here is the thing. in those few days of attempting to say, our meeting was excellent and he seems to be what'sy awed, happened? out jeff going in and sessions, who has called black attorneys "boy." steve bannon is sitting in axelrod's old office.id
and we have mike pence, who spoke up to the most harshest degree of homophobia. what is the normalizing effect iebus?ther than pre 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 and what is. we have seen this coming, he says to you, donald trump. this is before the election. donald trump is not an outlier. he is a logical conclusion, a point he has made over and over. nation a logical conclusion of the rhetoric and tactics of the republican party for the last 10, 15, 20 years. was apprised me was the degree to which these tactics and rhetoric -- what surprised me was degree to which these tactics and rhetoric jumped the rails. this is not what we stand for,
but we have seen it for eight years, even with reasonable people like john boehner, who would not push back. he is basically saying, donald trump is the culmination of something that started before there. was no one to say this -- he is basically saying, donald trump is become a nation of something that was started before. david: yes. he is saying that paul ryan looks like a statesman or mitch mcconnell, or any number of people in congress. but rhetoric got harsher and fiercer and fiercer. and this is the outcome. this guy, who has, let's face it, populist towns and i want to make very clear, i understand that there are -- first of all, there are people who would only vote for republicans as there are people who would only vote for democrats, and then we are
talking about the middle here. charlie: about 35% and 40% on each side. david: that is a lot. there are people that were not responding to the racist aspect of it, but the aspect of, burn it all down. we are sick of what we have here. and there were also people who did not like hillary clinton, whether it was for reasons that were misogynistic, or reasons otherwise. 'm not a pollsters and pollsters have proven their fallibility. i think there are people who were soured by the clintons and their money. this is 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, but the degree of it, and the fact that they were going back into presidential politics. and so did george bush, by the way. david: he is done, though.
charlie: here is what is interesting, too. how did he see hillary clinton and her campaign? he said watching her campaign, quoting you, it is a little like a parent watching a kid during a sporting much and you don't feel like you have as much control. did he look at that and say, oh my god? i heard this today without it being verified by the principles that bill clinton was upset about the direction of the campaign. he made a big thing after the fact. david: i think people in the white house were upset for some of the same reasons as bill clinton. she didn't campaign nearly as many events as donald trump. charlie: trump's thing was rallies. david: he is good at it. but one of the things that people in the white house -- they knew of course that she was not the retail politician that bill clinton is or barack obama. and hillary said that over and over. what confounded them, besides the money stuff and what confounded them besides james
comey and wikileaks, which is another matter was, why aren't you in michigan? charlie: didn't go to wisconsin. charlie: why didn't you go to wisconsin? what are you thinking about arizona? why are you 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 antiestablishment insurgent. the president-elect was able to make an argument that he would blow this place up. hillary was viewed as an insider. ,nil think it is fair, he says but that is how it played itself out. i think you might be right about that. david: 30 years in washington and she would have been following somebody for whom she was secretary of state. charlie: and that would have
been three terms, which is very unlikely in american politics. david: nevertheless, but it seemed likely to all of us, to pollsters, to journalists, to ordinary people. charlie: we did not believe that donald trump could be elected president because of all the things he said and secondly -- heid: because he seemed and is, until this point of our history, outside the realm of discussion in terms of his behavior as a human being. charlie: is that why you were so both angry and depressed in piece after the election? charlie: yes. -- david: yes. i will be perfectly honest about how that came about. in the online world, you could wait a few days and you could have a good presence on election night. and i wanted to do my bit. and in the morning, i wrote a
at relative leisure, a piece about the first woman president and elizabeth stanton and how important this was not only to women, but to men. and how long this had taken and the history of seneca falls. and that was already to go and with a push of the button that was going to run online at night. do,i was, as lots of people they go to an election party and have a little bit to eat, possibly a little bit to drink, and by about 9:00, it is starting to become clear that not only is the election going to go another way, but that in theas trotsky said, ash heap of history. and i called the editor running the show that night at newyorker.com and said, i think we need something else. and i wrote that. i sat at that party and wrote about what a disaster i think
this is, how deeply alarming it is, and how we should not rush to normalize it. not rush to normalize it. and what do i mean by that? donald trump, in the way he campaigned in his history, and the way he has conducted himself, is in no way mitt romney, or a kind of conventional conservative. remember, the republican intelligentsia in this country rejected donald trump wholesale. "the national review." the american enterprise institute. all of these people. and i don't agree with them, but demagoguesaw him as a , a fraud, dishonest, somebody who was not honest enough to put his tax revenue -- we have a
president of the united states won't even tell us about his tax a.urns, who has of lawsuits against him. this is not normal. charlie: your point is, we can't forget that and cannot normalize it. and therefore, we do what? david: as a journalist, to do what we always do, which is to be clearheaded and accumulate the facts. charlie: truth to power, fact to fiction. david: absolutely. but remember, we are living in a world in which the president-elect feels no compunction during the campaign about lying at a rate that we have never seen before, by any meter, by any scoreboard. charlie: the point to underline about that. it is one thing to exaggerate and it is another thing to live. david: it was not once or twice and it was not here or there. it is just a pattern.
and we are now by the way, on the level of appointments, we are hearing people about whom the president elect himself denigrated during the campaign. charlie: your point is that we cannot -- david: we cannot allow ourselves to be diluted that it is wrong necessarily that somehow by magic, by the normalization of becoming president, as opposed to being a candidate, that he will be suddenly become dwight eisenhower. i hope that that is the case and if it happens, charlie, i want to be the first to a knowledge it. charlie: right, let me turn to obama. where is he in terms of what he does for the remainder of his term? i thought today, think about these initiatives. .he cuban initiative take one example. the iran nuclear deal. david: health care. charlie: for sure, there will be
some modification. he, in speeches in europe was talking about populism. and he is talking about globalism and talking about maybe we need to think about modifying it. maybe we have not taken as hard a look at it as we should have and maybe trump struck a nerve that was in fact, real. david: but there was a certain translation, that maybe the world is flat and everything is great. what was not taken into account nearly enough was the 1990's. it is interesting. in the 1990's we had this view, democracy was on the march. the soviet union was falling. tiananmen 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 will necessarily do anything for these people, but some of the losers of globalization and industrialization have risen up and said no. the internet is great, but michael factory shutdown in the town in which i made -- the internet is great, but my coal factory shutdown, and the town in which i made a middle-class wage, i am no backing groceries at walmart. 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 really want to a knowledge those people that of course, not all of those people, maybe not even close to a large percentage of those people voted first and foremost because they were responding to the anti-african-american sentiment for the misogyny. to of them, it was
spite them. charlie: exactly. david: i hope you are right and a think you are right in the overall percentages. what you cannot deny his bigotry was there during the campaign. charlie: what of his legacy is he worried most about? david: where to begin, charlie? a lot of socially things got enacted over the last eight years, despite a lot of congressional opposition. twocially after the first years in office. and in foreign affairs, where could that happen? take the iran nuclear deal. trump has gone to the campaign saying, this is a horrendous deal and, we are going to make great deals. if you break the deal, suddenly iran is able to make nuclear weapons. even israeli intelligence, a country whose prime minister was ferociously against the iran nuclear deal, will be the first to tell you the iran no longer
has what is called breakout capacity. do you really want to reverse that? charlie: there is an indication that some people who were against it now says we do not want to abdicate this. david: in other words, this is what one can hope for. this is what obama has bargained for himself. i will keep my head cool and try to encourage what good instincts they are among trump and his people and hope for the best, because what else can he do? his job is not to be a political firebrand. the question is, what happens on january 20 with obama? had hillary clinton won, i think you would have gone off to a ahu and had a good long rest, started writing his memoir. he is awfully friendly with a lot of people living in silicon valley. charlie: did he give you an indication of what he wants to do? david: he is pretty reticent about it.
charlie: and he might do something different now. david: he will not run for public office again. charlie: but his causes are that she is going to great sentiment. rhetorically, and in fact, what he is interested in doing is treating the next barack and michelle obama. charlie: you mean somebody who could inherit his politics? david: he is a political organizer in many ways still, 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 probably. does he want to play a role in that? david: who is the leader of the democratic party now? i asked barack obama, i said, so, what have you got? what is the bench? another election in four years. he said, well, harris has been a senator in california.
the mayor of south bend, indiana. and we pretty quickly ran out of names. remember, elizabeth warren is around 70. i don't want to age her prematurely. bernie sanders is -- charlie: she is 65. david: i'm sorry. in bernie sanders is closer to 75. they are not in power in the house, the senate, the white house, supreme court is sure to have appointments now. that will change of for quite a time to come. ♪
charlie: we continue with more news about the transition from the obama government to the trump government. president elect donald trump has made important choices for the senior government. the transition team has confirmed three new positions. michael flynn, a retired intelligence officer as national security adviser. congressman mike pompeo from kansas, a graduate from west point and harvard law school as cia director. attorneysessions, the from alabama. she was considered a front-runner for defense secretary if hillary clinton had been elected president. she is the cofounder and ceo of
the center for new american security. i am pleased to have her on this program. thank you for joining us on this friday afternoon. >> charlie, it is great to be with you. charlie: what do we make of these appointments in the national security field? >> well, it is an interesting collection that is coming together. flynn, youn mike have somebody who was a very creative and brilliant intelligence officer when he 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 have found concerning or disturbing. i think in mike pompeo, you clearly have a very bright guy, top of his class at west point, harvard law review, somebody who was a very serious member of the house intelligence committee, clearly very qualified person, who, again, will bring a lot of professionalism to the cia.
but he again, has had his moments, for example, during the benghazi investigation where he took some positions that were outside the norm. charlie: general flynn got a lot of time when general mcchrystal was leaving the forces afghanistan. >> the real question is, which mike flynn will show up as national security advisor to president trump? in afghanistan, he had a reputation as being a very brilliant and creative intelligent officer who made a lot of really extraordinary changes and improve the performance of our forces there. i.a.ink when he got to d. his record was more mixed and controversial. he was not promoted out of that position. and then showing up as a political figure as part of the trump campaign, i think he has said some things that have caused many people some alarm in
terms of how he has spoken about the broader muslim community, about russia and so forth. charlie: ok, what has he said about the broader muslim community come and what has he said about russia that we should look at? >> on the broader muslim community, he has cited the obvious problem of violent islamic extremism, but he has really said some very harsh things about the broader muslim community, in terms of many of our international partners and allies. and also muslim communities here in the united states, sort of laying blame on muslims in general, as opposed to really focusing on the very tiny percentage that are sort of andcking the islamic faith the prosecuting acts of terror. and i think that lumping together has sometimes caused you know, concern, certainly.
and on russia, i think the main concern is that he has not said much. if you go over to the pentagon today and you ask the senior military leadership, what is the military challenge that most worries you today, they will talk about a resurgent russia. you know, the occupation of ukraine and the annexation of crimea. russia's terrible behavior in syria. and they will talk about that and we do not hear much of that from mike flynn so far. so, what are his views on russia and does he understand the very real challenges that putin's russia poses for the interest of the knotted states? charlie: -- for the interest of the united states? charlie: has he said anything in terms of russia in terms of the threat to the baltic regions, or
the absence of any kind of havety to get the russians tried hard to get the russians to be some help in restraining assad, certainly on the attacks and aleppo? >> he has not 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 advise he was getting from general flynn, and you know, the tendency to downplay the russian role in the cyber attacks we experienced here in the united states in the run-up to the election. >> the tendency to downplay the very harmful actions they've been taking in syria, where they've been basically bombing civilian populations in aleppo. isis.aven't been fighting they've been bombing civilians on behalf of the assad government. just the failure to be critical, the failure to call
russia out on its bad behavior, i think that's the concern. he say in his speech at the con investigation, that the convention, that might cause consideration as to what he might say or do or as national security advisory? >> well, i think, you know, the is certainlyorism warranted. again, my caution would be we shouldn'tow, tag the entire international or community with that -- you know, supporting they do not.ich i think he was very tough on iran. about the notion of ripping up the iran deal. international agreement. iran, from what we can see, is actually abiding by the most important and i think all of the it at this point. if you wanted policy that is
supporton iran, it's for terrorism, other proliferation actives, that's fine. up an agreement that would move the constraints on them, without the ability to reimpose the kind of effective sanctions we had before, that's not a smart approach. think they hear that from our parts and others who were of, you know, putting that agreement together. >> has candidate trump suggested that he would in fact tear up the iran deal? >> he has. he has. up thelked about tearing iran deal. i think you will hear even from that theye israel would not recommend that course of action. there are lots of other ways we can increase our cooperation with allies in the iranianto push back on support for terrorism and their destabilizing activity. should up the agreement not be on that list. it doesn't make sense for u.s. interests. >> what do we know about pompeo's world view other than how he feels about benghazi and
was, you know -- that connotations?ical >> i don'you know, i don't know. have a what he does reputation -- he does have a reputation of being a very theous member of intelligence committee. i think many of the professionals at c.i.a. believe took his oversight responsibilities seriously, that he was a student of that he has come to understand how the community works. and i think the response within far has been pretty positive. >> is there a sense that the kind. needs to have a to-- needs change or needs have new leadership? i think, interestingly, john brennan, the current director, has spent the last year, year and a half, fundamentally reorganizing the kind oftaking it out of vertical stove pipes and putting
and operators together in cross-functional teams. that's been controversial within the agency. that matrixsay approach is absolutely the right century.rk in the 21st others have criticized it for being complicated or ineffective. and so one of the first questions that he will confront as the new director, if he's confirmed, is, do you continue thehis road, that reorganization began, or do you try to amend or reverse that in way? >> i very much want to do this too. and you and i have had anversations before, in different forum. what do you think is the urgent agenda for the trump administration? >> well, i think that, first of to inherit a going set of ongoing military and intelligence operations around but particularly in the middle east. we have an ongoing offensive
mosul. there's talk of starting an the twoe against raka, capital cities of the islamic state, if you will. mean that americans in harm's way, the day of the inauguration, and president trump and his team will inherit responsibility for that. up toy will need to get speed on those issues very quickly. and decide whether they want to continue on that path or make other adjustments. is broader syrian situation be important.g to unprecedentede, refugee flows, internally displaced people and so forth. big question is russia. you know, will president trump cut some kind of deal onh russia on syria, or ukraine?
he, you know, put reducing tensions with russia, make that primary objective in a way that potentially compromises interests?ant u.s. here i'm thinking, you know, one relationshipbetter with russia is to accede to that russia should be a great power with a sphere of influence, so let us dictate terms on our periphery, inluding in the baltics and ukraine. reduce tensions but it's certainly not within the interests of the united states or our allies. is a very complex relationship, a critical partner for us, economically, in terms of issues of climate change, nonproliferation and so forth. they're also a competitor in the economic sphere but also in the security domain. this administration sort of
postures itself will be very tomorrow.in the long how is warfare changing, what is the principal consensus? be cyber? >> i think you certainly have doeare expanding into new mains. i would say chief among those domain but also in space. space is becoming a much more contested environment and both the russians and chinese are we should be worried about. in addition, though, we have aways benefited from having technological edge over any competitor. of the, more and more technologies that we've relied on for that edge are
andercially available available to others. and so we have to make, in the some veryyears, targeted smart investments to technological edge. and so when you -- once you focus on the defense department, you're going to need leadership thosethat understands challenges and that's really focused on not only making sure a ready, you know, well-used appropriate military very much focused on making sure wei we're makinge militaryts for the we're going to need tomorrow. >> michelle, i thank you so much for joining us on a friday afternoon. we'll be right back. stay with us.
>> we continue our analysis of the trump transition team with karen deyoung of the washington david sanger of the new york times. they join me from washington. begin with michael flynn. what should we expect from him security advisor? >> well, charlie -- i'm sorry. ahead, karen. >> no. i was just going to say, you know, certainly general flynn has a lot of experience in intelligence and a lot of experience in the military. he's a controversial character on a number of fronts. to i think it's important remember what the national security advisor is supposed to
the job?is the job is to give advice to the president. not morely, if important, it is to serve as the synthesizer of the dviews of other national securiy the secretary of defense, the secretary of state, the intelligence agency, and be kind of good-faith conduit of those views to the president. now, general flynn has very strong views of his own. i don't know that those come intoy will conflict with those of the principles,urity because those that we know of right now would indicate that is not necessarily a team of rivals. that general flynn is very outspoken. he has very firm views. the questions of will be, to what extent he can forion himself as a vessel
collating disparate views and the beste president possible and broadest advice. >> we'll talk about his style and views in a moment. what would you add? >> well, i would agree completely with what karen said. running the process of the nsc complicated than it was in the era of kissinger or skrocough. the reason for that is not only has the nfc grown larger, and in operational, which it was never intended to be initially, but because it's the place where dissent has to get aired out. you sometimes want, in a national security advisor, fromody who can pull back the natural instincts of the president, pose them with a contrarian set of views or, in some way, mold that. yet whethert sure
flynn is the kind of person willing to do that. i've known him for a number of when he was running the defense intelligence agency, one of the largest but least of the intelligence agencies. i think he had a reputation as a good anl itself. but as -- analyst. verys karen said, he's got strong views, and the main you've heard most about are his muslim religion really being a cover for a political movement in his mind, is that ther view existential threat to the isis and, to as lesser degree, but al-qaeda. these kind of, islamic extremist groups. the we don't know is hierarchy of his other sets of interests for the united states. meshes with his views of china, of russia, about which
number of questions i'm sure we'll get into, in a bit. of nato and ofce to asia.he pivot and these are the things that, as real aople, pose set of challenges to american interests as any. and they're frankly just not the the diaissues that at he had to go deal with. >> number one, the role of the advisor canurity also depend on how powerful the white house wants to run foreign policy and sometimes you could have one like kissinger, when he was nsc advisor before he was secretary of state, where they almost dominate the secretary of job.'s jim baker would be different from that, because he was as bush as anyone would possibly be and had been his campaign manager. one of the questions that will this, i assume, is who will be secretary of state want tostrong does he
overwhelm him. karen? >> well, you know, it's a sort theruism that you -- president runs foreign policy and regardless of what arguments have and who is up and twho whoown -- who is down and is strong, what usually happens is what the president wants to happen. so i think you're right that one questions will be to what the national security advisor sees his job to put a aske on the president opposed to not only being a counselor toand the president but someone who has very strong views on his own. controversies about heeral flynn are that since left the government, and he did leave the defense intelligence aency under something of cloud, in private life he has consulting firm.
he has worked closely with a of russian entities. ishas appeared on r.t. which the kremlin's essentially t.v. station in the united states. went to their gala in moscow putin. next to he has been working for the elements of the turkish government, and just in -- i was election day, published in an op ed, calling on the united states to iman.ately extradite this the justice department has said, the president, obama, has said there cannot be any decisionization of a like this. you can't just get up there as a say, youficial and
know, this guy needs to go. we need to send him, because and there arety all kinds of legal norms. so the question is, to what is general flynn willing to and able to moderate his very lot ofviews about a these issues and overcome some of the positions he's taken in the past? published a book this year that brought up some of the points that david mentioned charging that intelligence about terrorist totally politicized and manipulated for political outlining a very, policy towardher terrorism along some of the lines that donald trump has advocated. >> that's one of the interesting questions, because he's been out on the campaign trail. been a strong advocate, probably as strong as anyone in
the national security field for almost a been surrogate for him on the campaign trail. what has he said on the campaign that suggests what he might be telling trump? know? do you >> well, for one thing, he made a big appearance at the national convention and gave a pretty fiery speech. thes on the floor of convention during that speech. of the "lockome her up" chants about hillary i think is one of to things that gave pause other military veterans, including some former members of the joint chiefs, who asked the about whether that was over-politicalizatiopoliticali. there have been lots of military officials who have been very good national security advisors. skocough versus
collin powell and others. i think the big question about flynn is whether or not he's the kind of person who encourages a diversity of view debate. and as you said before, a lot of that is going to depend on who of state, whory is the secretary of defense. administration wants to think about its nocial security national security team holistically. wasll remember, it condoleezza rice and bob gates getteamed up to try to gitmo closed in the second -- at the end of the second term of the bush administration. so those dynamics of how they work together are extremely important. struck when reporting about the national security council's processes, the degree
spend time on the legal questions of, 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. it comes up in questions of interrogation. i just don't know whether those are the kinds of questions he's accustomed to asking. is mike pompeo? relatively junior congress member from kansas. of the teabacking party. he's been on the house intelligence committee. he also was a member of the select committee that investigated the benghazi attacks. supported by the coke a lotrs, who have given of money to certain republican candidates. and i think that, if you look at
c.i.a. chief, people inside the c.i.a., i think, are relieved, because he's somebody they know something about. with him on the committee. i think the best comparison may bush'ser goss, george w. c.i.a. director at one point, who was also taken from the house intelligence committee. have a very great tenure. it lasted for about two years. withhere were problems some people who worked under him, that caused him eventually to leave. you talk about the iran deal. of the pompeo is one people who has called for -- not completelybut renegotiating the iran deal. again, on the benghazi was very, very tough and outspoken against the obama administration, particularly hillary clinton. he and jim jordan, who is another republican congressman
of the benghazi committee, when the committee gouty issued its report, pompeo and jordan issued kind of dissent, saying the report wasn't tough being very,again, very critical of hillary clinton and the obamaing administration overall. >> he seems to be a bright guy. he graduated, according to his website, first in his class at west point, and then went to harvard law school, then intoned to kansas, went business and became a congressman. david, what do you know about him and his views? >> well, karen had it exactly right. things i foundr striking about his views is that, as soon as he came in in 2010 as part of the sort of tea party wave, he was extremely forical of president obama closing the black sites that the to interrogate afghanrs in the iraq and
wars. and he has been very critical of any move by the c.i.a. backwards bordering and what the bush administration enhancedy called interrogation techniques and what president obama called techniques. the big question is, if he tries to move the c.i.a. backwards on he tries to go back to where it was, is he going to run the the resistance that current head of the c.i.a., john brennan has talked about when he did not believe that employees of the c.i.a., partly because of their own legal would ever return to the moment where they were using those techniques, even if ordered to do so. and that could well set up a really fascinating confrontation the c.i.a.ew head of and a staff that has moved
considerable reforms over the past eight years. >> go ahead, karen, anything him?on >> no. i think there is pretty agreement, even among democrats, that intelligence better, that in syria, as good as it could be. in other places, in the middle room so i think there is for a director to come in and, know, boost morale in the agency and get some things going. are nervous about is precisely as david said, that they would be asked to step back era that i think many of them feel uncomfortable about and question the legality of, and were afraid that they were held responsibility for the illegality of it. techniques,te those which trump himself has been a would requiren,
probably some kind of legislation. know if that's a battle that trump wants to fight. >> okay. senator jeff sessions is not necessarily within the area that you cover. u.s. senator known to be the first senator to endorse donald trump and been close as an advisor during the campaign. feelings about immigration. what about his selection as the general, david? >> well, he's got -- i think in the confirmation hearings, you're going to hear a rightsut the civil investigations that took place, when he was up for a federal judgeship. 20 years ago.han and that was a pretty brutal period. think those same questions are going to be raised, because take over the civil rights division of the justice department. critical oftremely
the american civil liberties union. you.n't surprise they've turned out, just in the past hour or two, alleged that called them a communist organization at various moments and so forth. in thate going to see nomination fight, a real battle between two completely different what the justice department is supposed to stand for. we were just that discussing, i think the attorney a very critical role in the issue of drone question ofthe what's within the legal capability and interrogation techniques. and so the question here is, are you simply getting an attorney general who will sign off on whatever the white house wants some pushback?ve what could be interesting is end,the pushback, in the might come from, of all people,
>> donald trump lays out his policy aims for day one, dumping t.p.p. and scrapping restrictions on energy. a third daybs for on renewed optimism that opec will clinch a deal on output limits. a powerful earthquake hits japan but there's little damage and warnings have now been downgraded. china's bond market braces for a triple whammy. next few weeks may be termed dark december. it's 8