tv Charlie Rose Bloomberg January 5, 2017 10:00pm-11:01pm EST
♪ announcer: from our studios in new york city, this is "charlie rose." charlie: we begin this evening with this, the new congress convened on tuesday, a tumultuous first day. house republicans reversed their plan to strip the house of ethics of its independence. the review came from president-elect trump who question why lawmakers were making it a priority. the focus today shifted to repealing obama care. vice president elect mike pence met with republicans to rally them for the fight. meanwhile president obama met , with democrats to discuss their strategy for presenting and preserving his signature legislative achievement.
joining me from washington is bob costa of the washington post and carl hulse of the new york times. i'm pleased to have both of them on this program. is there high anticipation because we are looking at a new president. we are looking at a congress that is controlled by republicans, as to how this whole thing might unfold? carl: i think everybody is a little bit on edge and onto the on their toes. the republicans got off to a strong start in the house. that was encouraging for the democrats. it is sort of like boxers maneuvering and checking each other out. i think that it is going to be an extremely tumultuous time. the real business has started today. the republicans are moving forward on their plan to repeal obama care. at the same time, they are
finding out is not going to be so easy to replace obamacare. the democrats are drawing the line. they came out with their new slogan today, "make america sick again." chuck schumer, the democratic leader now and great communicator and political strategist, i think came up with that, so everybody is sort of testing it out to see what is going to happen, but a lot of stuff is going to happen over the next few months. charlie: bob, same general question. before we get to the fight over a obamacare, i want to talk about the ethics committee and the reversal there. robert: the ethics committee is run by the members in the u.s. house. and there is also this office of congressional ethics, an independent watchdog that keeps an eye on members of congress. over the last few years, and i'm sure carl would agree, a lot of members have grown frustrated with the office of congressional
ethics. they think it is true to intrusive. they don't like how allegations can be floated and they have to spend money to defend their names. they want to gut it. on monday night, a representative from her junior proposed an amendment to a rules package to get rid of the office of congressional ethics. in the ensuing 19 hours, that whole an amendment fell apart. republican saw a huge public outcry. lots of calls run constituents to offices. and he president-elect tweeted at 10:00 a.m. on tuesday and said he is not really encouraging of the idea of gutting this office. it all fell apart on a big day that was supposed to be about pomp and circumstance. charlie: we will get to obamacare in just a moment. what do we expect from chuck schumer and the democrats? they have created a special resistance war room. robert: i was on the house floor a few minutes ago. i talked to one of the
democratic leaders there, steny hoyer of maryland. way he framed how he looks at this new administration is that there is pence, a conventional conservative, different temperament, ideological, and then there is trump who is disruptive in a lot of ways politically and not as ideological as the president vice president-elect. what the democrats are trying to do is figure out is this a really conservative republican administration, or can they play ball on something like infrastructure in the senate? the democrats are trying to get ready for 2018. they're trying to get democrats excited in this post obama and post-clinton era to protect the affordable clear act and protect president obama's legacy, but they do recognize that trump is a wild, and maybe he will put some things forward that paul ryan or mike pence would not support. but truck, so different, a
populist on the outside, maybe they can work together. they more likely to come on those kinds of issues where they are likely to find some common ground with the , spending issues like infrastructure and that kind of thing over foreign-policy issues? robert: foreign policy will be strange from the republican senator. hawks like senator mccain are unhappy with trump's coziness with russia. on domestic issues, you do thedemocrats surprised by willingness of trump republicans to spend more surprises some. senator rand paul said he does not recognize his own party anymore. it is not like the party seems to be moving in this direction of high spending on the military and perhaps on infrastructure. charlie: i assume mike pence as is a man of the house and now vice president, which means he will now be a man of the senate.
electshe president representatives in congress. robert: he is friends with paul ryan and knows mitch mcconnell. he knows how things work there. you saw him there today. he spoke at both leadership events for the republicans. that was pretty unusual. dick cheney used to spend a lot of time on the hill but he did , not speak at their events. mike pence is going to be there their go-to guy. i want to say something about chuck schumer. chuck schumer sees himself as a great master strategist of on political communications, so they are really going to work the message side of these things. in some ways, chuck schumer was disappointed he did not become majority leader, but he is the minority leader. on capitol hill, sometimes you can be more effective in the minority because your job is to , tangle things and create roadblocks. i think they will be pretty good
at that. we will see going into next week as these nominations start coming up for hearings, how successful democrats can be at slowing them down? that is something they want to do right now. they do not want to be rolling over for trump. charlie: how effective was the president on the hill today? carl: from what i heard, he was very effective. the members came out of there. they seemed pretty fired up. he told them to try to hold their ground. it was probably a little bittersweet too. this was his last meeting with the democrats. i think they think that they have a good hand to play on obamacare. paul ryan was up today saying obamacare is wrecking the health care system, but democrats are going to come back and say there are millions of people that are getting health insurance from this, and we are not wrecking the health care system. let's see what your replacement is. you're the here rand paul saying
he does not want to move to quit because a lot of people in his state are depending on obamacare. i think the president got his point across. the democrats seemed very united in trying to fight the republicans on this. charlie: where is the country on on this, bob? on obamacare? robert: there is such an appetite on the american right to get rid of the affordable care act. you saw mike pence working in the capital basement to plot out the next moves, to have a good executive action, to move the moment the president is inaugurated to start moving on this. trumps tweets the moments that pence was meeting with house members are indicative. trump himself is saying maybe we should let the democrats own obamacare. let's not rush to much to own it ourselves. that is trump's political
antenna up in the air. where did he win? he won in a lot of these rust belt states where security is popular with voters across the board. and also in health care, where you have kentucky and other states that have more health care coverage. he recognizes the popularity. charlie: do the republicans have an alternative? robert: you have to watch tom price. his confirmation fight is going to be a battleground. senator schumer said he wants to make sure that price has to answer about the future of obamacare. republicans tell me what tom price is envisioning working with pence and trump is some kind of new system of tax credits. none of it has really been fleshed out. house republicans have their own plan. if price cannot make it through this confirmation with a coherent idea on the country for about where trump once to go will be ah care, it
battle loss for republicans. carl: democrats see this as the best issues that they could possibly have. they are going to beat him up on that. but the answer to your question, charlie, is that republicans do not have a replacement. it is going to be hard to replace with the standards they are setting right now. no one can go off, no one who currently has insurance can go off insurance. let's keep the kids on your parents insurance until they are 26. my own kids are on there. and no pre-existing conditions. i mean it is going to be hard to come up with a proposal that cost less, has more choices, and still does that. they know they are in for a rough time, which is why they are delaying it. fact, then president-elect has said in at least one interview that he would consider the no pre-existing conditions. carl: it is hard to do those things without the mechanisms that were established in obamacare. the foundation of obamacare, people always forget this, was really a republican plan and
announced it was making final preparations to conduct its first test of a nuclear weapon. donald trump tweeted that it will not happen. such a test would present one of the first big national security challenges for the trump administration. intelligence officials will brief congress of their investigations of russian hacking on thursday ahead of a briefing for donald trump friday in new york. david sanger is the chief washington correspondent for the new york times. i am pleased to have him once again. welcome. when did we first start talking about hacking? david: we started talking about it in june or july in terms of the election. and of course years prior to that with what the chinese, russians, and iranians were doing, and what the united states of course has done to other countries, but in terms of the election cycle, the first big development here was in june of 2016 when the dnc announced it had been hacked.
what they did not tell us was that they had been notified by the fbi in september of the previous year and did not do much about it. charlie: why did they not do anything about it? david: there were failures on many sides here, but the f eei went to a fairly junior person who had been the cyber security expert hired on the cheap by the dnc. he did not believe they were talking to an fbi special agent. the fbi did not escalated up. -- escalate it up. the leadership of the dnc did not become aware that they had been hacked until april. by that time, the russians had been into john podesta's email. and who knows where else. charlie: so you say the russians have been into john podesta's emails. why does the president-elect of the united states seem to continue to resist? david: that is a fascinating question. i wish i knew the answer.
is it a 100% sure case that all these leaks came from the russians, no. because once the russians are in, it means someone else can come in as well, but there is i there is as about a persuasive case as i've seen both on the on the record and off the record evidence that it was a very well known unit affiliated with the russian , military intelligence agency. it is well known in washington. it is not like these guys just have shown up for the first time. they had been into the state department and the joint chiefs of staff's emails. they had been into the white house unclassified system, and their techniques and their tools are pretty familiar. could somebody have replicated each one of those techniques and tools? but it surely,
would have been an awful lot of work. charlie: i've been told that the process of attribution has gotten much better. david: it has. it is not perfect. and when you think about attributing a cyber attack, you sort of have to think about three big categories. number one is an you trace the electrons and go back to the ip addresses where this came from? sometimes you can and sometimes you cannot. people are good at putting up false flags coming at you from a strange place. when the new york times was hacked by a chinese unit it , looked like it was coming from a university in the southern the united states. that was just a way station. the second thing you look at is the motives. and in the case of the russians, they have not been terribly subtle. they shut off power in the ukraine. they have done political operations in europe and here as well. so the techniques are fairly similar, but just because they motive does not
mean they did it. the third part, and this part is going to be the hardest for american intelligence officials to talk about in public, is that the nsa has put implants in tens or hundreds of thousands of computer networks around the world. think of these as basically software bugs sitting in systems. they can watch what is coming by. they can do surveillance from that. they can also be used to launch a cyber attack. that is one of the reasons that american intelligence is so worried about making it clear that they have a node in someone's system. because one day they may want to use it for their own purposes. charlie: do they have to get a legal document to allow them to do that? david: if they do it in the united states they do. , but if they are doing it abroad, they just need the president's signature.
charlie: how long before they are testifying in front of congress? david: they are doing some public testimony first tomorrow in front of the senate armed services committee. that is john mccain, who has really been the one pushing. charlie: he wants to make cyber espionage and cyber security one of the main investigations of the armed services committee. david: that is right. the oddity that we saw today was that this morning the president elect woke up and saw the headlines about julian assange, who had given an interview to fox news. charlie: sean hannity. david: two sean hannity, and mr. assange said he did not obtain published,l that he that wikileaks published, from a state source for a russian source, something he has been fairly consistent on.
now, who he obtained it from and who actually broke in and got it are not necessarily the same person. so it is not clear that mr. know what the ultimate origin of this was. when he saw the president-elect tweet out approvingly that julian assange made the point that a 14-year-old could have hacked into john podesta's computer. that is probably true because john podesta did not have factor authentication on it. so he was siding with a man who the republican party was looking to extradite just a few years ago. for what he had done that had led to the deaths of americans by what he leaked in the state department and military cables. charlie: so we have this meeting coming together with the republican armed services committee. and then they come up here -- i still do not know why the president is so resistant?
what is it that he believes other than his explanation that the cia has been wrong before in as it was in iraq and weapons of mass destruction? david: certainly the cia has been wrong before, as they knowledge, and the list goes beyond iraq and weapons of mass disruption. just because they were wrong -- charlie: he has to have a reason to believe this too. david: so that is the big question here. do we have a president-elect who starts from the fact-based and says present all the facts to me, and then i will judge whether or not i think you have a conclusive case? or do you have a president-elect who says this is what i believe and then selects the evidence , approvingly? that he approves of, and that he doesn't. if he has not had a full briefing, and i think he has had full briefings that he is not been impressed with, i'm not
sure why he would select what julian assange knows right now over what the cia knows. that does not mean that the cia, nsa, the director of national intelligence are right, but i'm not sure i would not have any more confidence in julian assange. charlie: let's turn to north korea. how close are they to having icbms? what is intelligence tell us? david: we know that they have worked for a long time to build on icbm. they have been very successful at various points with short range and some medium-range rockets. they have also had some truly spectacular failures. charlie: they say they always learn from their failures. david: and they do. this is the history of the american missile program. on youtube you can find some pretty spectacular failures in the 1950's and 1960's as the army and air force tried to go figure this out. it is hard science to begin with.
what is particularly interesting in this case though is that their dream back to the days of the country's founder would be to have a missile that could reach the united states. because they view that is the ultimate protection against an adversary who they see has an overwhelming nuclear arsenal. they say they are just learning from us, the russians, the chinese. they have been a fair distance away from that so far. most intelligence estimates you hear say they could reach the united states within five years. but bob gates, the former secretary of defense, told me and others five years ago that he was about five years away. what was interesting about new year's day with that kim jong-un said in the course of a prepared speech that we are in the final stages of preparation.
for a test of the icbm, so i went around to our intelligence sources and ask them what does that mean? they said, got me, david. they do not think it is highly imminent, but they have been surprised before. my own view is that there is value to kim jong-un in keeping us guessing on this, and he takes a very big risk and in actually setting off the launch. right now he is the best of both worlds. we think he will soon be able to reach the united states. he does not have to go through the risk of having a spectacular failure. if you launches this thing and it fails, he looks pretty embarrassed. in fact it was unacceptable for iran to have a nuclear weapon that they could deliver, is also unacceptable for north korea to have a nuclear weapon they could deliver? david: i cannot imagine any american president, any american president living with that , possibility. charlie: therefore what are the
presidents options? david: the options are not great. what was the difference between iran and the north korean case? in iran's case they do not have , nuclear weapons yet. focusing on keeping them from getting them to that point made on an enormous amount of sense. a combinations of sanctions and sabotage that we have talked about before delayed the day and allowed a negotiated settlement. in north korea's case, they have the nuclear weapons. there is no doubt about that. they have done 5-6 nuclear test. the last ones have looked from what little we can tell to have been pretty successful. charlie: that doesn't mean the warhead -- david: it doesn't mean the warhead could survive reentry on an icbm, but it does mean that it is too late to focus on the actual weapon, so you have got to focus on the means of delivery and the combination of
whether you can actually make a weapon. charlie: so what is the red line? david: i would think that at the moment kim jong-un put a missile a few hundred miles off of the california coast, did something better than just reach guam, the united states would be motivated to some pretty severe action. we are almost back to the question of the early bush years about preemption. are you willing to risk a very bloody conflict, one in which you could easily lose seoul, korea, because the north koreans could attack it with conventional weapons very easily. are you willing to put that at risk in order to stop the hypothetical that north korea could bring a nuclear weapon in? charlie: could south korea
be obliterated? david: there is no way north korea would survive a prolonged conflict with the west, south korea, the united states, perhaps japan all involved, but the blaze of glory for 24 hours could have extra ordinarily high casualties. charlie: what is the nature of our defenses? the president, when i talk to him in germany about this, i was raising the question of north korea, and he said every time they make an attempt, they learn something. but he said don't forget that we also have nuclear shields. david: we do it we have some short range missile defenses, including one we're trying to put in south korea. but it is not there yet. it was approved by president park, who is right now , andgoing an impeachment
her successor, if she does not survive that impeachment, and it seems unlikely she would, is not as likely to be as friendly as having that missile there. so the system is not there yet. we have pretty good systems that run off of the coast of south korea, but that would not help you much against an icbm if that came along. it is pretty effective against some short range missiles. and then we have a missile defense system that is in alaska and california of about three dozen or a few more missiles whose reliability is not that great, and i do not think anybody wants to be fully dependent on that. charlie: it's unlikely that the chinese would risk a confrontation over the south china sea, even though they have been putting weapons on the island. david: that is right. you look at those islands, and they are increasingly militarized. runways, emplacements, but that
may be more show of force than any intent. in the north korean case, the question is how much does kim jong-un think about regime survival? what has kept us from another conflict, another korean war for , so many years is that you have three leaders, who have been unwilling to push the united states or south korea so far that it would lead to an armed response that could destabilize their regime. so what have they done? in the old days, minor actions a u.s. after intelligence ship. in modern times, going after sony entertainment and response to making a movie about kim jong but they have not on above
that level that would bring about an armed response. that is important to know, because if you can keep them below that level, that is great. the problem is if they actually get an icbm that can reach the united states, then they could make a judgment in the future. that the u.s. would not dare step in. charlie: thank you. back in a moment. stay with us. ♪
charlie: i am pleased to have isabelle huppert back at the table. welcome. there is something about you that all people who love film are fascinated. it is the diversity of the roles. it is the emotional quality that you bring to the portrayal. it is, what? what is it? isabelle: it is also all the great directors i have been working with. and the possibility i have had to tell a woman story. a complete story. women surviving, a woman's
destiny. it was a great privilege that is what happened to me in most of my films. charlie: it was a great privilege to work with a director who was telling stories about women survival. isabelle: yes. most of the films have been evolving around female centered characters. that you follow throughout all sorts of events. they can be positive or negative. just being true and being real and being nasty just because the situations are nasty. also, being survivors. charlie: and you look for those kinds of roles? isabelle: they look for me. actually. charlie: that's the point. those roles look for you.
there are so many that you identify with. it is the years and multiplicity and complexity of each of all of those roles. isabelle: and then they choose to be nice, they are not likable person's and sometimes they are not likable, that is what makes the individual. it is dependent on situations whether it is historical, political, sociological. i was also privileged to work with many great french directors who want to render -- have a vision of the world, no matter how good it is or how bad it is. just how true it is.
and real it is. i get to work with the portrayal of that vision in most of my films. charlie: you love acting. isabelle: i love acting because i do not think that i act. most of the time people think acting is such an ideal. i might have a different idea. acting is not acting, it is more being. it is not trying to indicate, it is just trying to be. it is very organic. charlie: how do you do that? that is my point. isabelle: it is a lot of concentration. it is forgetting about the reality around you and just being emerged into the present time. that is what moviemaking is about. digging the present moment and present time. that is why you cannot anticipate acting. you can think about it, you can dream about it, but you cannot
anticipate it by preparing because it is there. it is here and now like some philosophers said. charlie: do you live the roles after you leave them? isabelle: i do not. i do not even live them as i do them. charlie: you get to the stage or you get to the shoot and you become? isabelle: i become the other. and the other becomes made. charlie: there is a merge of you and the character. : it is a great pleasure. it is very pleasurable no matter what you do, painful situations, emotional situations, traumatic situations. it is very exciting. the pleasure is not the same as the spectator. charlie: is this the best time for you?
100 films. here you have 2 films that people are noticing in america. that is pleasing? isabelle: it is very pleasing. very pleasing. yet. -- yeah. last night i was awarded for both films. i was amazed actually. really, i felt so grateful. those are two french-speaking films and my work is being acknowledged and understood like it is. in a different country from europe, that is what you make films for, to break down the borders and create circulation between people and countries. it is very rewarding. charlie: let's talk about the two movies. tell me about your character.
in "elle". isabelle: she is a multiple character. she is many many people in one person. that is why the character is so interesting because she is very complete. she has so many layers, like every individual. every individual has layers. you can be a mother, daughter, son, man or woman of power, lover, a wife -- and that is what she is. she is really everything, you know. she is sometimes strong, sometimes weak, sometimes happy, sometimes unhappy. she is always fearless and that will -- that is what makes me
like her. charlie: is this film about revenge or something else? isabelle: i think she certainly has a plan and is about revenge, but she also has a quest. she wants to seek through the revenge. charlie: what is that? isabelle: that is up to everybody to make their interpretation. charlie: what she is looking for. what she needs. isabelle: there are many gaps in the film that people can fill up. the film gives you information, not explanation. it does not really explain, it just informs you. it is like a mosaic, gradually you have a woman's life -- where she comes from, what tragedy initiated her --
her childhood. serialthe daughter of a killer. charlie: she is the daughter of a serial killer. isabelle: yes, so she has a certain relationship to violence. whether she is attracted to that violence, where she wants to understand where violence comes from? whether she just wants to take revenge? charlie: the daughter of violence becomes a victim of violence? charlie: so to be a victim yet to see yourself as a victim. isabelle: she has this ability to -- for that one situation, to acknowledge her neither as a victim nor as a classical
avenger following male patterns. she is more -- she makes her own way. charlie: she is on an exploration. isabelle: yes, and that is how i took it. exploration is a really nice word. i used to say it is like an experience. it was an experience for me as an actress to. i was really following what she was following in a way. charlie: you were discovering and exploring yourself, as she was. isabelle: that is what acting is about. as you do a role you explore some situations and some behavior. and you do it together with your own personality. charlie: part of acting is understanding your own exploration of the character and
how your character's life proceeds. we are not giving too much away to say that she has a relationship? isabelle: no, that happened. charlie: was that the plan? or more? was there a traction? isabelle: well i think that's -- it was revenge too. she did not -- i think she enjoyed revenge, until the end. the ending of the film is what gives the film its integrity. the film has a great integrity. charlie: what is the integrity of the film? isabelle: the integrity is there is something of an existentialist quest in the way things happen for her. there was an integrity in the
film in the way that the story is handled as well. it is a nonemotional character. if the character was emotional, i think the movie would be creepy. charlie: is the contribution that the director makes an important contribution in the edit room, on the set, or in the text? isabelle: a little bit of everything honestly. editing the text is a crucial moment. charlie: so it differs by directors? isabelle: yes. it has a lot to do with how much a director is able to watch these actors live. a a director is a spectator to his own film i think.
he is not only making the film, he is the first viewer. he has to be constantly the one who doesn't and the one who watches it. to watch it means to be active and passive at the same time. as you watch it, you let things happen. charlie: you have said you did not understand her when you first saw this text. it makes sense in terms of everything else that you said. i assume that is very appealing to read a character you do not understand because that makes it more interesting to you as an actress. isabelle: yes, i got an award last night and the man who gave it to me quoted a line that said when you do things you do not know what you do. that is inspiration when you do not know what you do. i really believe in that. you do not have to know why you are doing it. it is a different kind of
knowledge. you do not have to know by giving explanation. charlie: if what you said about her a new york times magazine, you said she did not use instinct or intuition, it was almost blind. isabelle: that is her. that is a lot of people. it might be you too. charlie: how is she different from the other character in "things to come." isabelle: those are two completely different story. different family members. i have lots of people that i manage or try in some various ways sometimes. i am a philosophy teacher so i
manage my young students also. i believe in what i do. i believe in the world of ideas. the great quality of the film is that you show certain people in certain intellectual circles, she was a philosophy teacher. but philosophy in the film was never abstract. philosophy is a way to watch the world sensually, to catch the beauty of the world, to be -- to give birth also to a new person. through the events she goes through. someone leaves her, her mother dies and she finds herself being a new person. this shows her understanding of the world. it shows, not only her intelligence -- charlie: her mother died and something happens to her career.
isabelle: enter publisher does not want to publish her book anymore because they want to rejuvenate the collection. they have a tendency to make it younger and more accessible. charlie: here is what you said about her as you said earlier to me. philosophy is more like a project of life that leads to natalie's sensitivity to beauty. it gives joy to her in a few quotes of philosophical texts that run through the film. it makes you think about things like do we need people? or how can we be happy? that is what philosophy is about. so you have a deep interest in philosophy? there are a lot of philosophers in france. you are philosophical? you are a philosophical person?
you ask yourself about meaning. isabelle: i think everybody asks themselves questions like what am i doing here? where am i going? charlie: you seem to be on the deeper question. isabelle: i am not a thinking person. i wish sometimes. charlie: that you were more of a thinking person? isabelle: yes because in the film you see a person like that. charlie: you are attracted to that part of her personality. isabelle: at some point she says i am completely fulfilled by my interior life. that is beautiful. charlie: are you filled by your acting like? -- your acting life? isabelle: my acting life has a lot to do with my thinking life. charlie: you said i am an actress from the roots of my hair to the tips of my toes. i know what it is to suffer for a character.
to hate the character and to love a character. although as an actress it is completely different. you do not suffer the same way as a spectator suppers. when you suffer as an actress, you do not suffer, you have pleasure. pleasure is? is suffering like the character? isabelle: pleasure is doing it. it is nice to cry. it is nice to shout. it is nice to suffer as a character, not as a person. i am not a masochist. as a character, it is really nice. it has nothing to do with -- people sometimes think it has to do with identification and you take the suffering from the character. i do not think so. charlie: what do you do? isabelle: i do it and i have pleasure doing it. charlie: you have pleasure doing
it because it is a mark of the talent that you have. isabelle: even if i did it badly, i would still have it. charlie: if you get it badly you would not get pleasure format which you? you would know. isabelle: i am not sure i would know. charlie: don't you know when you nailed it? when it is beyond? isabelle: it is not really something i ask myself. when you do a movie and you work everyday, you do not wonder am i -- am i good? am i bad? charlie: what do you wonder? isabelle: you just feel like you are in the right place every day and that is my feeling. i feel legitimate when i do it.
>> it is an here in hong kong. a record weekly rally. tona's central bank raised its daily fixing less than projected. a two and half -- 2.5% surge in the last two days. goldman sachs says it may be the time to once again that against the yuan. australia, well, recording its first trade surplus in almost three years. as higher chinese demands helped boost prices. it is the biggest positive trade