tv Charlie Rose Bloomberg January 9, 2017 10:00pm-11:01pm EST
♪ >> from our studios in new york city, this is "charlie rose." >> this video captures the moment after shots rang out at the baggage claim in terminal 2 of the fort lauderdale airport. a lone gunman opened fire on passengers, leaving five people dead and eight injured. >> paramedics, lower level, inside. a subject with a gun. >> some of the wounded found shelter outside while they waited for help. hundreds ran for safety onto the tarmac and airport roads, taking shelter near cars and against buildings. >> everybody took off.
>> an eyewitness was 10 feet from the gunman. >> he walked in the door, just started shooting. we thought it was firecrackers, then we realized it was gunshots. by that time, people were yelling and screaming and trying to get out, trying to hide behind luggage or anything else to get out of the line of fire. >> i heard a lady yell for help. then i just saw people running and i ran. >> the shooter has been identified as 26-year-old n santiagod -- eteba from alaska. he was carrying a military id. the gunman ran out of any -- out of ammunition and laid down when the police came to arrest him. one official said the gunman was a passenger on an incoming flight. he retrieved his luggage the baggage claim, walked to the restroom, loaded the gun, then opened fire. >> we have the shooter in custody.
he is unharmed. no law enforcement fired any shots. the subject is being interviewed by a team of fbi agents and and broward homicide detectives. ♪ charlie: we begin with the ongoing conflict between president-elect donald trump and american intelligence agencies about russian hacking in the united states. it's motivation and consequences. trump was briefed in new york by the director of intelligence , the director of the cia, the director of the fbi and the head of the nsa. the subject, russian hacking and other issues. following the meeting, intelligence agencies in washington report that president putin ordered a campaign in 2016 aimed at the presidential election. after the meeting in new york, president elect trump lisa
statement that acknowledged the possibility that russia had hacked american targets coming -- hacked american targets in the democratic national committee. joining me from washington is representative adam schiff, the democrat from california and the ranking democrat on the house intelligence committee. he is a member of the republican and democratic leaders and committee members that were briefed privately by the same group that saw president-elect trump earlier in new york. i am pleased to have you back on the program. who is the gang of eight? >> they are the top leadership in the house and the senate, nancy pelosi, senator schumer, the ranking chairman of house intelligence and senate intelligence committees. charlie: you are the minority member of the intelligence committee? >> exactly. charlie: what is your assessment of where we are?
i think this report is the best argument in finding on a conclusion i have seen in my years on the committee. if this does not persuade trump , i don't think anything well. the conclusions of the committee are well sourced, well thought out, and the report is carefully written. what this demonstrates, and the disclosures, it is incredibly impressed and the -- unprecedented in specifically tying this to a decision of vladimir putin, not only that there was an attempt to sow discord, but to tear down secretary clinton and an aspiration to help elect trump. those are consequential conclusions. beyond that, as we learned in the public report, there is a broader effort to not only influence things in the u.s. through media trolls and their media platforms and other covert
measures, but in europe, as well. congress on a bipartisan basis needs to be able to work with the new president to develop a comprehensive approach to push back against these operations, here and in europe. charlie: that is part of senator mccain's hearings at the armed services committee? rep. schiff: it is. i think senator mccain, many democrats like myself, want to work together on building a sanctions package. that is only one piece of it. it is an important part of the deterrent, an important part of the response to what russia has already done, but there is an attack on liberal democracy around the world. there is an effort by putin to tear them down, by contrast show that the western democracies aren't any better than the autocratic government in russia, to extend russian influence in malignant ways, and that calls for a broad, comprehensive push back by the u.s. and our allies.
charlie: why do you think donald trump is not totally accepting the reports of these intelligence agencies? rep. schiff: it is hard to say. it could be a variety of reasons. it could be as simple as the fact that he feels this undermines either the magnitude of his victory, or the legitimacy of his victory. he needs to understand that the election is over. we accept that. nonetheless, this is what happened and we can't ignore it. unless we are willing to accept what took place, it is hard to fashion a response, not only to deter the russians but make sure it doesn't happen again. it is difficult for him to accept even the premise. it is not unlike his invention of millions of illegal immigrants voting because he couldn't stand losing the popular vote, i don't think these are unrelated. charlie: here is what he said in a statement released.
"there was no effect on the outcome of the election, including the fact that there was no tampering with voting machines." you are in agreement with that? rep. schiff: i am an strong disagreement of that. this is not the subject of the report. it is true that there was no evidence that was tampering with voting machines or tampering the counting of the votes. that is not the same thing as saying there was no effect on the outcome of the election. plainly, the daily dumping of derogatory information about secretary clinton was enormously beneficial to donald trump's campaign, and wishing it away doesn't make it go away. that daily dumping of information was made possible by this russian cyber operation. it clearly had an influence. whether it was determinative or not, we will never know. that is not something intelligence agencies should speculate about. but we can't ignore that that it was influential and that was the russian design. charlie: is it accurate to say most people believe it was not
sufficient to overturn the election? rep. schiff: the reality is, in an election this close, where 80,000 or 100,000 votes divided between three states could spell the difference between one candidate or another, there are many things that could have had a consequential impact. certainly this is one of them. director comey's decision was another, the decision to campaign where they did was another. the way they handled certain issues was another. any of these factors could have a determinative impact. charlie: could you tell anything about an intelligence report that says russian officials celebrated donald trump's victory? rep. schiff: i can't go beyond the four corners of the public report, but i think there were certainly images on television of celebrations. i don't think there is any question that this was the outcome the russians wanted. it was the outcome the russians got, and they would be crazy not
to be thrilled with it. charlie: does the intelligence suggest there was a direct link to vladimir putin, or is it more in the manner that the president expressed in his press conference, little happens in russia without vladimir putin's approval? rep. schiff: i can't go into the specific evidence, but i think -- i don't think the intelligence community believes this was directed by vladimir putin by a manner of mere inference. but the inference is very strong here, as the president said, putin runs this country, and by this country i mean russia. there is not a lot of freelancing. it is unimaginable that this would not come at his direction. charlie: can you tell us anything about the fact that that demanded on twitter
-- russian officials, asking that the chairs, the senate and house committees investigate top-secret intelligence shared with nbc prior to trump seeing at? rep. schiff: after learning about the most consequential cyber operation in the history, this is what he wants investigated? he wants the pre-release of information to nbc investigated? i think there are a lot of things that warrant our attention and right now i think that should be placed on getting to the bottom of what russia did in developing contra -- conference of -- comprehensive response. charlie: where does the story go from here? rep. schiff: the intelligence committees are charged with responsibility of building on this report, fleshing out the details, and i hope coming up
with a conference of response on how we can avoid this kind of russian operation in the future. i hope we will continue to make information public as we can without revealing sources and methods. i hope we will make public what our responses will be. i think the steps the administration took thus far need to be viewed as the first steps. charlie: clapper said agencies stand more resolutely behind conclusions they made last year. is that your own personal opinion? you see more conclusive evidence then you had seen last year in october. rep. schiff: senator feinstein and i were confident enough that we acted even before the intelligence community to disclose that russians were hacking and attempting to influence our elections. week by week, month by month, the evidence has grown, and i think that has cemented the
conviction that the russians did exactly what the report lays out. charlie: will you have hearings coming soon, as mccain is having hearings with armed services committee? rep. schiff: we will have hearings very soon in closed session. it is my expectation we will have hearings in open session. what i have been urging is that the house and senate intelligence committees do it inquiry, have a joint like we did with 9/11. the magnitude of what happened warrants us working together and avoids the duplication of effort by having different committees in house and senate hearing from different witnesses, or the same witnesses over and over. it will allow us to have a unified response and a unified conclusion. i hope that is what we do, but if we need to do it separately, that is a we will do. charlie: the president said after he saw putin personally in china, and you can correct me on that, putin stopped.
there have been either fewer or no efforts that they had seen of russian hacking. rep. schiff: i think what the president was trying to convey is that after his conversation, the russians did not escalate further in the sense that they didn't make use of their efforts to hack into state voter registration systems to monkey around on election day. i don't think it means they stopped their cyber operations, or that they are somehow deterred. i think the president was right to take steps within the last couple weeks to bring about sanctions and expel diplomats, but i think we need to do more. charlie: you said i think the steps the president took are important, but they should be viewed as the first step. what are additional steps that could be taken? other than sanctions. rep. schiff: what we have to
look at is, how did the russians do what they did in our elections? how have they influenced european elections? they have done this through a variety of means. they have involved social media and the bribery of officials, the support of extremist parties in europe, sometimes the propagation of fake news. we need to develop a response to each and every aspect of this russian covert influence operation. we need to do it for our own security, and we need to do it for the security of our allies. we need to be working with our allies, in a bipartisan fashion with our new president to develop this approach. this needs to go way beyond sanctions. charlie: what is it you think president-elect trump wants to achieve in terms of a new relationship with the russians? is that in any way in your judgment, tied to this controversy and his response?
rep. schiff: i do think there is an aspect of the president-elect that, if you are with him and you say nice things about him, he is not going to bite the hand that feeds him. the hand that fed him during the campaign was the russian hand. i think he is reluctant to cross them, for the same reason he has been complementary of someone he once said hot -- should have the death penalty in julian assange. wikileaks was in a roughly -- enormously helpful to him. he wants to work with the russians in counterterrorism operations. charlie: lindsey graham said, "i criticize the obama administration's reaction to the russian attack, they launched mere pebbles in retaliation it -- retaliation. when it comes to interfering
with elections, we had better be willing to throw rocks." do you agree with that? rep. schiff: we have to be stronger in pushing back against the russians. the history with putin is that the only thing he respects is a strong response. anything else, he views as an open door. i think he viewed an open door in terms of hacking in the u.s. and not paying much of a price. frankly, and i said this at the time, we needed to have a stronger response when north korea hacked in and attacked one of our companies. i think people pay attention to the kind of responses we have, and unless we push back hard, they invite further intervention. we do need to be tougher and we need the president-elect to work with us. charlie: adam schiff, ranking democrat on the house intelligence committee. we invited senator mccain and senator graham, they couldn't
president-elect trump seemed to a knowledge the possibility in a statement released shortly after he received the report. mr. trump continues to insist that if there was hacking, it did not affect the outcome. joining me is michael shear of "the new york times" and david ignatius of "the washington post." michael, you met some folks by telephone, talked to trump. what was his demeanor, attitude, sense of talking about this meeting that was going to take place today and the controversy between him and his advisors in -- his advisors, and the intelligence community in washington? michael: i had a brief conversation with him. it was on the phone, about 10 minutes. i initially talked to him about comments that had been made on his behalf about the wall, building the wall on the border with mexico. i quickly asked him about whether he was eager and looked
forward to the meeting with the intelligence officials that was happening later in the day. really, once i asked that first question, it filled out. he was eager to talk about it, eager to talk about, to say repeatedly how much he felt like the motivation behind all of this discussion and focus on russian hacking was really, what he called several times during the conversation "a political witch hunt." he said he respects intelligence people, but came back to the idea of motivation. that is what he really wanted to talk about. charlie: david, you know the intelligence community has had a meeting with donald trump. he said it was constructive but it didn't seem to indicate he had changed his mind. do you know more? david: i don't. all we have is the initial readout of the meeting. the tone was slightly milder than his comments to michael
earlier in the day. but it is clear that he is still fundamentally rejecting the breadth of the argument being made by the intelligence chiefs, and he doesn't seem to understand that the argument they are making isn't about the outcome of the election. he was quick in his comments after the meeting to say that there was no evidence the outcome was affected, the fact that his victory was diminished. the argument that james clapper and the other chiefs are making is that the russians conducted a political, covert action intended to intervene in and destabilize american politics in the presidential election. whether they succeeded in that or not, i think to most observers and analysts is secondary to the fact that they
tried to do it and the danger that poses. that doesn't seem to connect with trump, at least in terms of the initial comments he has made. it is more about him. this doesn't diminish my success, my victory. charlie: we don't know why. why is he refusing to accept it when he is assured no one is questioning his election? michael: charlie, that is one of the fundamental mysteries of this. after his election victory, donald trump had an opportunity to really pave the way towards inauguration, towards being the kind of president who could lead the country, he initially seemed by his statements and cabinet choices to want to do that. then he got in an increasingly sharp dispute with the intelligence agencies that will serve him when he is president. there is no part of our government that works more closely with the white house
than the intelligence community. he belittled them and called their findings ridiculous. he was dismissive. why he has done that is hard to understand. each time he has been pushed on this, he doubles down and draws the circle tighter, as in his remarks to michael this morning about the political witch hunt, as he sees this. michael: can i just add i think , david is right. one of the things that struck me talking to him today, my initial question to him about the upcoming meeting was really focused on, the meeting with these four or more individuals, these intelligence officials and what he expected, he quickly broadened that out to the motivations much more broadly beyond even the intelligence
community, but really, this whole kind of national conversation and global conversation we are having about his election and the validity of it, and kind of, the attacks that russia made against it. i think it reflects a sense, from his perspective, that we may be interpreting this as an attack on the intelligence community, and clearly, there have been things he said that were specifically directed against them, but for him, i think there is a broader sense of feeling like he has to push back against the entire conversation, that he really feels de-legitimizes his election. that is fundamental to him, that idea that he won the presidency fair and square and he will do everything he can to push back against the idea he didn't. charlie: i keep asking the question to kellyanne conway and others around him, what would it take for him to be convinced
that the russians did attempt, or hacked, for whatever purpose, they hacked, and secondly, what is his relationship with russia? does he have any interest, any reason to believe because of a future effort to use russia as a leverage against somebody else? whatever it is, something he sees down the road that he doesn't want to get into accusatory mode with respect to the russians? i get no satisfactory answer to those questions. david: you are posing the right questions. through the campaign, one of the striking features of trump's presentation was this desire to improve relations with putin, putin says nice things about me, i will say nice things about him. this, at the time of deepening confrontation between the united states and russia, at a time when the obama administration, not known for being hawkish, was
getting increasingly strident in its comments, when russian warplanes were buzzing u.s. ships in the baltic and the black sea. all this time, trump is talking about how he wants a friendly relationship with russia. there is a sort of russia-philic theme going on for months. that is the issue that has concerned people. this kind of covert action, if you believe what our intelligence agencies are arguing, is a pretty aggressive move. it is what states due to destabilize each other, and trump, as the president elect, should be taking that seriously in his preparation to be commander-in-chief. this is what commanders in chief have to worry about. that has been the biggest puzzle for the intelligence community, why is he so ready to
defend russia, ready to side with russia's friends and allies, even seemingly saying nice things about julian assange, head of wikileaks, who was dismissive of the idea of these hacks being russian orchestrated. it is all, to observers, seeming peculiar. the question is, what kind of policies towards russia will he adopt as president? charlie: where is he going to shift? michael: it is possible that over the next couple weeks, now that he has his briefing, he becomes a little bit more accepting of the notion, at least as david said, he will not accept the notion that the election results were changed by any of this, but that he may, there were a few signs today in the statement that maybe he is more willing to accept at least the conclusion that russia was involved in the hacking. charlie: director clapper, david, you have a piece about him. director clapper said, there is a difference between skepticism and discouragement.
david: he said that yesterday in his congressional testimony. for your viewers, jim clapper is an interesting figure. he has been an intelligence officer for more than 50 years. he is kind of a gruff, grumpy old guy. he tells everybody who talks to him, he is sick of doing the job. he keeps a clock in his office that tells him how many seconds he's got left until he gets out of there. this is not somebody who is going to be intimidated by donald trump, or owes him anything or wants anything from him. i would have loved to be a fly on the wall of that room as clapper looked into trump's eyes and basically said -- charlie: russia did it. to "theccording washington post" story, one of
the things we know is that we had intercepts of senior russian officials jubilantly congratulating each other on their success with trump's election. they briefed him on those sensitive details. did they tell him other things we don't know about? none of that is clear, but it must have been a remarkable meeting. if trump changes his line, that would certainly be sensible in terms of his political position, but -- because he has a growing number of republicans, starting with senator lindsey graham and senator mccain, who are upset about the kind of things he has preserve his republican base, he been saying to needed to make changes.
charlie: in a word, they believe he's soft on russia. david: i think people are mystified. here's evidence of their interference, and here is the president-elect seeming to minimize their activities, to say that good was achieved by publicizing the dnc emails, etc. if trump is now trying to speak to those concerns, that's probably politically sensible move. michael: go ahead. charlie: my sense is he must have been getting information. he had been getting briefs -- not trump himself, but general flynn has been. a lot of this information i'm sure must have been conveyed. what you have now is the report that was prepared for the president is now prepared for the president-elect. michael: right. i think there was certainly more information than you and i or
your viewers have been privy to. i think the report was much more comprehensive and detailed about the actual methods, as david noted, the post story about the intercepts. those details were not provided to the president until yesterday, and the president-elect today. keep in mind, there's one other pressure point coming up, which is that next week the hearings , for some of mr. trump's appointees start next week. there are something like five hearings next week, including for rex tillerson. there is an incentive for the president-elect to try to move past some of these questions to the extent they can. obviously, they will come up, like senator mccain and senator graham will bring these up. but to the extent that donald trump says i have dealt with this, i met with these guys, i have moved on, that will be helpful in terms of the hearing process, to the extent that he
can't move on or that the controversy is still swirling, it will inflame those hearings more. charlie: what is the conclusion that the russians did? what do we know from private sources or public testimony yesterday with respect to -- there is no dissent from the idea, or is there at all, from any intelligence agency that there was hacking of the dnc and podesta and whatever else they may know that they have not disclose, correct? david: i believe all the agencies, including the fbi, are now in agreement that there was a russian attempt to intervene in the u.s. presidential alsoion, and there is now agreement that the intent of that intervention was to hurt hillary clinton's campaign. the russians, vladimir putin in particular, think hillary clinton has been a strident
adversary of theirs, to hurt her, and benefit trump. one thing that came out in yesterday's hearing, which has not been set as clearly, was that in addition to the hacking that has been so widely reported -- the hacking of john podesta, the campaign chairman z males, dnc,campaign to hack the there were other activities. there was the generation of fake news, other disinformation, deception activity. they have not specified that in public. maybe that will come out next week. yesterday's hearings told us that this was a broader campaign even than we had known from the previous statements that had been made by the intelligence community. charlie: michael, what do we know from what other intelligence agencies believe, whether from europe or anywhere else, about what the russians were doing? michael: i don't cover
intelligence. david would know the specifics a lot better. i do know there has been a kind of global concern over the past several years that russia has expressed interest and has shown a willingness to do these kinds of activities, not only in the united states, but in other places where they have interests throughout europe and eastern europe, and other examples, in which intelligence agencies have traced the kind of meddling directly back to russia, and russian government or intelligence sources. that is, when you think about, for example, the concerns senator graham and senator mccain have, it extends more broadly to a concern about russia's ambitions globally, not just here in the united states. for us, that's the most critical. charlie: go ahead, david. david: just to add briefly to
what michael said, again, that is something that trump has not seemed in his previous statements to have recognized, that the activities that took place in the u.s. last year are part of a broad russian political action effort that has been conducted, in particular in europe. in a column this morning, i quoted the head of a german intelligence service and the head of the french information security agency, talking about russian hacking and other efforts to destabilize politics in germany and france as they approach elections there with the same intent to disorient and undermine those western democracies, key allies of the united states. in the view of all of these intelligence chiefs, not just
atlantic's" 14th top editor since its founding nearly 160 years ago. a few weeks after his appointment, donald trump was elected president, or as goldberg says, the world's biggest story just dropped in our lap. this month, the magazine features an in-depth investigation of president obama's legacy. earlier this year, goldberg received wide acclaim on a series he did with president obama about his foreign-policy. jeffrey goldberg joins me from washington. welcome. jeffrey: thank you, charlie. charlie: you have spoken a lot about president obama's legacy. tell me about the moment you think we are in, as we shift from an obama presidency to a trump presidency. jeffrey: is it a copout to say wholly are in a
original moment? not only on foreign policy, obviously. i don't want to reduce this to clichés right away, but it is the uncharted territory sort of thing i have been feeling lately, especially with the news of this week, the notion that the intelligence community, to a person, seems to be behind the idea that russia actively tried to sway our election here. we are in a zone of unreality. to put that aside, we are also in a zone of unreality, or at least a novel experience, because we have a new president coming in who does not conform to any known school of foreign policy or national security. thought. there's no think tank in washington that one would say, that's where his ideas come from. his ideas come from his immediate experience of reading and assimilating the news, then putting out on twitter his reaction to that news. that's where it seems to be
coming from, so it is, very, very hard -- people joke with me, "when are you going to write the trump doctrine?" and i say that it would not be a very long piece right now, because i'm not sure donald trump has an understanding of the world that you can call a doctrine. the one thing you can add to that, he does seem to have, putin being the most obvious example, he does seem to have a feeling on behalf, for strong leaders. define strong leader however you like. there doesn't seem to be a great amount of sympathy for traditional ideas of democracy promotion, or the spread of freedom, or the idea of america being a shining city on the hill. charlie: what would you say if someone were to ask you, what are the principal influences on his international thinking?
jeffrey: well, you know, i would go back to the idea that he's fundamentally jacksonian in his responses to the world. the jacksonian american response i think was developed by walter russell, the political scientist. the jacksonian response has two main components. it is named after andrew jackson, pugnacious president of a bygone era. the first component is a kind of anti-imperialist notion, not really interested in engagement in the world and a lot of ways. you can call it veering towards isolation a little bit. the second component however is the part that says if you mess , with the united states, we will, and kill you. it is not isolationist in the sense that it doesn't believe in military force. it actually believes in crushing military force. that's win, so you see two pieces of this. one is, when donald trump says
we will not rebuild the middle east, we are not going to do this or that. , we aresee it also in going to build a wall. that is the physical manifestation of his feeling, let's keep the world at bay. you see the second half of that jacksonian idea, when he talked about crushing or annihilating isis right away. you can see it when he says, when he suspects china of getting the better of us on trade, and basically threatening all-out trade war with china at the get-go. it is a kind of leave us alone, quasi-isolates them as don'thip on the shoulder, mess with us or we will, and hurt you. these are the outlines of it. charlie: i agree with you, from where i sit.
today in "the financial times," there's a piece from martin wolf, who writes primarily about economics, but says "can a , divided west hold onto global ?"wer thereestion is are divisions within the west that are now significant?" many have argued that when a vladimir putin's objectives is to expand russian influence, and to do that by dividing the west. jeffrey: well, what does putin need in a order to do that? he needs an america that is not emotionally gripped by the tales of the plucky eastern europeans who are trying to escape the russian bear. he needs an america that is disengaged from the drama of ukraine, the threat to moldova, of believing that the independence of the baltic states is a core national moral
interest of the united states. the things he wants to put back together require the united states to be neutralized in terms of its interest in that. part of that will be very, very difficult obviously, because we have nato treaty obligations. you can be an enthusiastic pro-nato president, or a president who acknowledges nato exists, but not be that into it. charlie: what's also interesting is that vladimir putin has said that russia's relationship with the united states is at an all-time low. is that the view of the obama administration that you have chronicled? jeffrey: i don't think so. i think that would be an overstatement, obviously, on putin's part. the vertigo-inducing quality of these last months has been the following. remember in 2012, people around
president obama were mocking mitt romney for calling russia serious threat, or the most serious threat to the united states. mitt romney can go take a victory lap on that one, by the way. now you have a situation in which the president who said we are shedding all these cold war paradigms, he is the counterpuncher now against russian malign, attempts to influence our election, and malign attempts to reorganize europe. the incoming republican president is what you might call in the soft on russia camp, at least so far, which has split the republican in a very , very interesting way, right. one associates the republican party with that kind of, let's doubt the kremlin mode of thinking.
so everything is upside down. charlie: left over from the cold war. jeffrey: left over from the cold war. also, it's not just a left over. the republicans were more exercised about what putin did in dismembering ukraine. the obama administration, they made the right noises concerning that, but they didn't take as much of an effort to stop that as a lot of republicans wanted them to. charlie: the president has his farewell address coming up. part of it will be a valedictory in which he will take note, which i think you are and howng, his journey he identifies it with an american journey, and the journey put him eight years in the white house, and what he dreamed of and believes he accomplished. it probably also includes admonishment of what he worries about for the future of the country, not for a political
party. what might that be? jeffrey: on the domestic front? charlie: i don't know, you know him much better than i do. jeffrey: well, i don't know him that well, but i would say -- one of the interesting questions to me, is how far will he go down a road in admitting that the vision that he he laid out for america, not a red america, not a blue america, but one united america, how much of that is gone with the wind? charley: let me interrupt you, and how much of it does he take responsibility for? jeffrey: right. it is one thing to acknowledge this phenomenon did not happen. it's another thing to say, i should have done more. i don't think in that second half, i don't think he will come out and say, "yeah, if i had only tried harder to unite americans together, it would have worked a lot better."
i think he probably says to himself something close to the opposite, which is i came into office thinking i could actually work with these guys, but when someone like mitch mcconnell for instance says the goal is to thwart the president at every turn, he eventually -- you have book, thesethe chapters, the education of barack obama, but there were various tipping points along the way where he probably said, it's a nice campaign vision, but it's not going to happen. there obviously are a lot of people, including democrats, who blame him for not trying harder, certainly in congress, not trying to play the politics of washington and befriending republicans and all of that. charlie: i had this conversation with my guess last night, in terms of presidential leadership and working with other people. whether the shaping influences
of his life determined whether he would be good in terms of lessrship traits, les good, in terms of being able to get people to do something they did not necessarily want to do. that's one definition of leadership. not that he didn't want to, not that he didn't try, but he failed in part for whatever reason. jeffrey: there's an interesting point in that, which is that he believes that an enlightened self interest combined with reason will lead people to certain obvious conclusions about the way the government should be organized, about the way the world should be organized. he doesn't have a great deal of patience for people he deems to be illogical or overly emotional, right? it is famous inside the white house, he talks about how his favorite countries are the scandinavian countries, their leaders, because they don't ask for much, they don't emote, they
just kind of get the business done and that's it, and if every country could be like a scandinavian country, the world would be an easier place. he doesn't, he also has -- i think this is fair to say -- he has an impatience for people who are not as smart as he, or who he judges are not as smart as he is. since he's very smart, and he knows and believes he is very smart, that doesn't actually work so well when you are talking to people in congress, and trying to get them to bend in your direction. charlie: the other interesting point to make is that in a sense, the president thinks a lot of things, about what he did or did not do in syria, but seems to come to the same conclusion. he thinks a lot about it. he knows it's out there. he knows there are people who believe that all of this might have been different if he had made different decisions.
and he has to live with that because of the tragedy of syria. he will basically say things like, i wish i had the intelligence of -- the skill of fdr, the skill of winston churchill. i wish i had all of those skills. maybe i could've done something different. no one else has those skills either. jeffrey: you set up a straw president in a kind of away. i believe him when he says that. i also believe that this is a president who came into office with a very, very definitive idea of what he was not going to do, and that was to invade an arab country, and get into a full-blown shooting war inside an arab country. charlie: you said this to john dickerson on "face the nation." "the story is of the outs going in and ins coming out.
the story is explaining to the people what has happened to their two main parties, and the deeper story is globalization and technological disruption, and anxiety borne of rapid change, rapid destabilizing change, the fragility of institutions. all of that is there, undergirding the larger story, which is how donald trump became president of the united states. and what does it mean for not only do we america understands itself, but for the way the world understands america?" jeffrey: that is a lot of words. charlie: but that was on live television, so there you go. but the point is, you are right. you're right. jeffrey: thank you. charlie: therefore, the question is, what is the responsibility, and how does journalism exercise that responsibility? jeffrey: well, that's the $64,000 question there. you know, one of the things, i think, my own opinion here and i
am a novice editor, one of the things that we have to do is not doubt the importance of what we do, and also not doubt the importance of a fact-based discourse. charlie: right. jeffrey: and not to go into this postmodernist everything is fake, your facts don't align with my fax and that is ok. i think there is an empirical reality that we can describe, and we have to keep describing it. i always say that the cheap shots are useless, but hard, justified shots are worth taking. and so, we have to do that. we are in a different position. we are a magazine with a huge website that is there to not only tell people the news, but to try to explain it and contextualize it. what you can do is go deeper and
explain what is the anxiety or the desire for a wall between the u.s. and mexico for instance? it is born out of a fear of globalization, and destabilizing a workforce that has already been disrupted by technology. we have to help people understand these deeper anxieties, sometimes anxieties that people only are experiencing subconsciously. and so, we, i think it's a big responsibility, and i think it's a big job, but things are changing so fast. these questions about whether the role of social media and the role of instantaneous news, and this leveling of what was once a hierarchy, how does that affect democracy? there are enormous questions, questions that go well beyond the daily question about what is
♪ >> the dollar slums as second day, continuing its slide, oil advances following monday's retreat. fromf: more diverting data china, factory gate prices rise the fastest in five years while consumer price growth slows again. investors test the government's resolve to defend the currency, rate speculation is growing. yousef: saudi arabia said to have begun