tv Charlie Rose Bloomberg February 7, 2017 10:00pm-11:01pm EST
♪ announcer: from our studios in new york city, this is "charlie rose." charlie: president trump stirred controversy sunday with new comments about russian president vladimir putin. in a pre-super bowl interview with fox news' bill o'reilly, trump suggested what many saw as a moral equivalency between the united states and russia. bill: putin's a killer. pres. trump: there are a lot of killers. we've got a lot of killers. what, you think our country is so innocent? you think our country is so innocent? bill: i do not know of any government leaders that are killers. pres. trump: well, take a look at what we've done, too. we have made a lot of mistakes. charlie: vice president mike pence came to the president's defense on cbs's "face the
nation," insisting president trump wants to start afresh with president putin. joining me now from washington, julia ioffe of "the atlantic" and with me from new york, amy davidson of "the new yorker." welcome. julia, everybody wants to understand what is the resistance of president trump to criticize or separate out vladimir putin? julia: it is the one thing he has been remarkably consistent on. that, the wall, and who will pay for the wall. but to understand why, we have the intelligence community's report on the hacking of the russian government -- the intelligence community says that they think that the russians hacked our elections to help elect trump and i think there is a fealty there. and i think he just likes the guy.
i think there is this kind of affinity for this adolescent version of manliness. charlie: the thing on horseback did it for him, huh? [laughter] julia: in the same way that vladimir putin likes stephen seagall and john claude van damme and all of these action heroes. i think for trump, putin is that action hero. they seem to share this idea of what makes a manly man and a strong man, and a strong national leader. charlie: he always puts in some context about, he would be a leader for his country. not for ours, but for their country. sense of giving russia its own distinctive needs. julie: for whatever reason, either because the russians are instructed to because they have something on him, for which we need proof, or because he has understood what the russians want, and the russians hate being lectured to by the americans.
ever since the end of the cold war they want to be seen as being onrica's peer, the same level of power and geopolitical influence as the u.s. they want to very much be an equal partner. what you have heard from russia, from the foreign minister, this emphasis on when we talk to trump it is a conversation as equals as mutual respect, understanding each country has its own national interests and that there is no lecturing or moralizing. for them this has been a key point for a long time. i do not know how much donald trump understands that intellectually or he just stumbled into it and hit the tuning fork at the right place with them. amy: julia talked about the personal affinity that trump has way, but and the putin
there is also an ideological affinity that seems to be present and it seems to be of a more interesting and greater concern for americans because it says something about how trump might govern. existing for the press, something very personal about government come about the connections, about who is privileged and who is not privileged in a society. when you played that clip you talk about the intimations of moral equivalency in what trump said about us having killers, too. what i heard was even moral indifference. a sense that there was not really a moral aspect to his choices as a leader in the country in the same way you might imagine. what out of context might come across as something apologetic or some deep introspection about american mistakes and american
historical errors really comes context, in the trunk as a shrug. it is not that he really cares we might effort people. when trump uses the word, lot during the campaign, he often use it praising real estate lawyers. charlie: they were killers. amy: there a sense he would kind of like the chance to do things the way putin does them. i completely agree with amy. it is part and parcel with this kind of isolationist realism that trump and the people around him have espoused under the banner of america first. therein lies the ideological affinity. this is what putin and the russians have said for 17 years
that he has been in power, that you guys are no better than us. therefore, everything is -- it is because nobody is good. therefore, everything is permissible, every tactic, everything is allowed. because you take morality out of the equation and it becomes cynical and conspiratorial. i think that is another point of affinity between trump and putin. their inclination to conspiracy theories and not seeing that people -- if people come out in protest, they are all paid by the state department and hillary clinton. when people came out and protested donald trump, they are paid by george soros. the people who did not vote for him in the presidential election were all illegal. let's input a couple things.
first, what nikki haley said was to the u.n. about what vladimir putin has done in the ukraine and crimea should not stand. trump has not been talking like that. amy: it reminds me a lot of the political national convention last summer. you had rudy giuliani, chris christie, all of these republicans talking about how evil putin is and how evil russia is. i remember thinking, have a talk to their candidate? -- have they talked to the candidate? it is funny to think about the dissidents and lack of coordination and lack of policy. is flirting very publicly with lifting sanctions. then a senior member of his administration says in the u.n. that they will not lift sanctions. trump did not know until george stephanopoulos corrected him that russia was in crimea. nikki haley says it is part of ukraine and always will be. people joked that
she was reading former u.s. ambassador samantha powers' speech. what people are not seeing is there are very real consequences to this, and that is why fighting has flared in the eastern ukraine again. now well over 30 have been killed in the last week and tens of thousands of people have been evacuated from their homes and in subzero temperatures there is no more heat or electricity. ground, actors on the pro-russian rebels and ukrainians starting to maneuver because there is a lack of certainty, and they are trying to use this window to clawback more territory and a bigger bargaining position. charlie: they would also run head-on to john mccain. julia: but he does not have any actual influence on what happens. he has said for years we should
give weapons to the chretien army and give them aid. ukrainians know that it is just beautiful words and it doesn't mean anything, practically. charlie: why did barack obama resist providing aid to the government? julia: i think it is the n+1 theory. if we give them 15 thanks, russia will give than 16 tanks. the russians want it more. if we give the ukrainians something, the russians will give them that, plus one. they want it more and there is no will here, especially in europe. charlie: this is for amy, do you said,that what putin has is read -- his reading of the reaction from trump would be more likely to move against baltic countries and create what
he has done in the ukraine in the baltic countries? amy: i think we have a good sense that putin is attuned to confusion on the other side. it will definitely widen his range of options whether he thinks it is a wise idea. just to pick up on something julia said that i think has an effect on this, on how putin s trump, thet on republican convention and reaction there was disquiet and discomfort. ultimately there was deference. you saw that also this weekend when mike pence, who has said all things in the past about american exceptionalism, seem befuddled when he was defending trump's, as an backing away from clearly saying there was a moral superiority to the american position. charlie: he could not quite say
it. amy: who knows what was in his mind, but it looked like he was not sure what would please his boss. that is what is what mattered to him, ultimately. that is where a lot of people in the republican party are. we saw moments like that at the convention. theave not really seen republican party, when it were -- whatever its reservations, take a stand. these of the arguments why donald trump has not been critical of vladimir putin. one is that there is something there and another is that he has a geopolitical idea that he can use putin or he can join with russia infighting isis. amy: there is that but i think there is also a lack of interest in some things that have hitherto weighed very much in
the equation. europe, the nato alliance, our commitments there, the message we send it to our allies there. isis is worse, when i do all the work with russia? julia: because the russians are not fighting isis, and have not been. amy: yes. charlie: just a little bit later with the turks. after the u.s. was there. amy: i do not think trump is really saying it is tough but i need him to fight terrorism. i think it is something -- it is an ideological issue, it is an issue about how little he values the relationship with europe. think we have really a sign that he is sitting there saying what saves the most
american lives, and how can i deal with putin in that way? charlie: do think that tillerson and the people who say that they need to talk tough to russia will make a difference? amy: i personally do not. -- julia: i personally do not. mike mattis said he was against a muslim ban and that he is standing there has see signs a ban.m rex tillerson will be more of what we saw at the republican convention. saidid what needed to be in the senate foreign relations to get the votes to get out of there. but after that i'm sure there will be deference to the trump administration. one thing i want to say about
your earlier question about the baltics, for putin, investment in trump, investing in hacking and helping trump, however marginally, get elected -- which i do not think he thought would happen. i do not think the russians thought trump would win. but it has been the best investment they have made, because now they do not have to invade the baltics, they do not have to invade moldova. they do not have to test nato and see if nato will hit back. now they can use much softer methods. thethat method is, it is inverse of western soft power. after the end of the cold war all of these eastern european baltic states, which festered under communist rule, they are now striving for the western style economy, western-style governance and democracy because
it was seen to be better, more moral, more prosperous. putin exacerbating the chaos in europe and the u.s., it shows people that there is one firm hand here and it is not the west. these countries that we haven't striving towards do not want us and we do not know what we are striving for anymore. they are chaotic, their economies are not doing well, they are overrun with muslim migrants. so you see countries like moldova -- in 2014 everyone thought moldova would be next. now they elected a man who ran as a mini-putin. he ran on it platform of tearing up their economic agreement with the eu and sunny one which russia. -- and signing one with russia. he never had to send a single man to moldova, and i think we
will see that with the baltics as well. it's funny that trump talks about him being a pragmatist who opens up new avenues by being able to negotiate. but really what he has done his close down options for u.s. foreign-policy and open them up for russian foreign-policy. he has given the u.s. fewer choices and fewer avenues while putin has more. whether he intended to or not. julia: absolutely. charlie: hold on one second, go ahead. amy: whether he intended to or not, whether he thinks that putin can offer him or not, that has been the effect, to narrow americans options. julia: i completely agree with amy. "wrote" the who has art of the deal and has been a public dealmaker come he has
been publicly flirting for months with russia. russia is in saying, ok, you can lift the sanctions. you put them in place, you lift them. you are not getting diddly squat from us. we're not going to talk about anything. it was a unilateral on your part, there will be unilateral action again. in flirting with this option he has simply be given up any leverage, any bargaining position the united states would have had going in. believe theyou vladimir putin by his actions and the absence of a response from donald trump has a lot of nations in europe looking to him and saying, there is a stronger leader, there is the place we're going to make sure we do not offend or find common ground, economic or otherwise? when: in the middle east putin went into syria,
effectively filling a vacuum by the obama administration left there by having an awning -- hemming and hawing. you have seen traditional u.s. allies circuiting towards russia. saudi arabia, israel, making more trips to russia. this is benefiting putin. he has used his increased profile in the middle east by negotiating the first ever russian opec deal to cut production and boost oil prices. that directly helps his bottom line. he is playing this for all it is worth. charlie: he is playing a bad hand well. julia: absolutely. amy: it is worth remembering that and a lot other world, it is not just look to the u.s. or look to russia. australia in the wake of the conflict last week over trump's china, which is
also an option for a lot of countries, not just in asia, as , a place thatower seems to have a little more of a plan at the moment then perhaps we do. there is also the possibility of countries not looking anywhere. when they get embroiled in civil conflict within their borders or with their neighbors, that there is not an idea of an arbiter, and international voice they would listen to or turn to. and these conflicts become much more internally it are -- noernally bitter, with referee, no one they trust. charlie: do you think that the obama administration was retreating from leadership? amy: i do not believe that was the effect of the obama administration.
you can say the what if's -- does obama lead to trump, and therefore does everything obama did get counted in the trump column? these things were set in motion before president obama were set in office. -- president obama was in office. because of the red line, because of one thing after the other. and begun to say we are not sure if the united states has the same kind of -- have our back like they used to. amy: particularly in the period when kerry was secretary of state to deserve more credit for having the u.s. be a voice within our alliances and relationships that people still can turn to. but a lot has been going on with our allies at the same time during the obama years, the whole questioning of the european project.
he should to say, oh, have just yelled at all the europeans. i do not know that that would have done anything. but i think that in the in the obama period, obama was a voice that people listened to in a considered way that people don't know what to make of. charlie: he certainly didn't call nato obsolete. [laughter] julia: but we have gone from one extreme to the other. i wonder what practical difference there is, in the end. because we have gone from a president who may be overanalyzed, over thought things. he would think himself into a pretzel. to a president who does not seem to think at all. just thinks with his amygdala. to go back to the point -- charlie: i think you know more
about sign for any of us. [laughter] than any of us. i think that was the first reference to the amygdala in terms of a political discussion. amy's point back to about countries turning to china, this is another point where trump the great negotiator has handed over the whole deck of cards to the other side by getting rid of tpp in giving china everything it wants. julia: do julia's question about whether there is a difference in the playing out of the over and under thinking, i would say yes. if you think someone is overthinking, you think, too, and you engage in that way. if you think someone is not doing it at all, where does that leave you to even enter the
comeback in super bowl history after trailing 21-3 at halftime. quarterback tom brady led the charge on his way to his fourth super bowl mvp. the victory was the fifth super bowl win under tom brady and bill belichick. joining me from los angeles is bill cowher. analystrrently a studio for nfl today on cbs. and from palm springs, how michael's. he is the lead play-by-play announcer of sunday night football and has called nine super bowl's for network television. i am pleased to have them both here as you look back at a remarkable football game. bill, let me begin with you. what happened to atlanta? are: well, i think there two parts to this game. after thethey respond first four of the game. i think they would be fine if
they got past the first quarter. and they did. there were some technical errors in the fourth quarter and it left a little bit of an opening for tom brady and tom brady took the opening and he ran with it. guy whohe effects of a has been in that kind of setting before, that arena before and he absolutely seized the moment. aboute: but just think this. the largest lead overcome before in super bowl history was 10 points. this was 18 or more. how much was it? 25. bill: a 25 point lead. there were circumstances, think you go back to the fourth quarter and i posted in the fourth quarter when you have a lead, the clock is your ally. you do not coach the same way. it is all about finishing the game. i think a couple of situations, third and one pass in the fourth
quarter that led to the sack fumble. i'm ok with that, i understand that. but if you are julio jones, acrobatic catch, less than four minutes, ball is on the 22, you ofe a kicker who has made 28 , youou kick the field goal have an 11 point lead you have your first championship. [laughter] charlie: al? al: number one, it is the greatest unscripted drama in the history of television. this is why people love the nfl. i would be very curious to hear what bill thinks about the following. is score is 20-3, but now it 28-9 because he misses the extra point. new england is racing down the field again. or 10 yarde the five
line. a penalty moves them back. i thought it was very interesting that bill belichick went for a field goal. granted it was fourth and a lot of yards at that point, he is try to make it a two possession game but it is one thing when you're down by 14. it is another when you're down by 16. pointuchdowns, two two conversion speared i think he did the calculus that way. i was surprised that with that few minutes remaining on the clock that he might go for even on fourth one long. -- fourth and long. the julian edelman catch, that is going to be forefront in our minds. julio jones made in a possible catch -- made it impossible catch. i don't understand how they shut down julio jones. he caught four.
charlie: i don't know how to shut down jones. he is who he has -- who he is. how do they shut him down? >> there is a stat that becomes glaring and the falcons are one-eight on the way down. it is hard for them, particularly as the game goes on and the offense has not been on the field. there was a lot of time where they held the ball and they were not scoring. you saw atlanta's scoring and you go back to the fourth quarter with time on your side and you are snapping the ball, running the football, building the lead. clock management is a thing that comes up and al will tell you that. it is something that is not
always mastered by many. >> the momentum factor and the momentum is a cliché, but you can feel it yesterday. there was a fumble and, if they had scored here and got the ball back, you could feel it coming and they snatched defeat from the jaws of victory. atlanta, they ran 95 plays. they are going to be gassed. >> what did brady do? >> what he has done for many years.
he is 39 years and i think he is enjoying football more than ever and he realizes that the end, who knows, he could play other four or five years, but it is a thing where you see the athletes come down and it is almost like they appreciated more. there was an email exchange i had after the game that said, in my mind, you are the greatest of all time and he said, i am not the greatest of all time, i am just blessed to -- all time. i'm just blessed to play with good coaches and a great team. he loves to prepare the game and
he is enjoying it more. >> also, he has the perfect coach for him. >> yes. he does. i texted bill and i told him, congratulations. you talk about resiliency and a team that plays with tremendous focus and he responded back by saying there were a bunch of tough guys. you talk about the patriots and bill belichick and they win with humility. this is going to be about the organization and the people around him and i think that is what it is. it is a selfless place and this permeates down and through and this is a football team where you check your ego in at the door. there are a lot of of players
who have done that and walked away with a ring. >> that catch. have you seen anything like it? all of the things that look like miracles to those of us with limited ability. it was extraordinary. >> the karma comes back and it works in your favor. there was that catch and it led to the giants wrecking a perfect season and there was a phenomenal catch along the sidelines that led to a victory and jones made a catch and you have so many catches go against
them and they got a huge one to go for them. >> what was the genius of ill belichick? >> he was continually coaching and he did not overreact at the half. i think that time was against them and there was a tactical error or turnover that took place and they seized the opportunity. that is what the great coaches do, staying focused and i don't think you saw a sense of panic. >> what should matt ryan take away from this game? >> this is a tough one and this is a stinging loss for the falcons.
you wonder if you can come back and how you do. i talked to the coach of the san diego chargers when they lost to the 49ers in the 1990's and we had them on in a monday night game. the super bowl had been played and i said, how long did it take to get over this loss and he said he was not over the loss. if you are coaching this team, you want to put it behind you and look to the future. >> you are right that it is stinging and ross beat us the year before. the one thing is that there is a very young football team with a
good nucleus of players and it is another thing to get back there and this is not the end of something. this is the start of an expectation that has been set and you look forward and you know what the feeling is and it motivates you. charlie: it is a young team and they showed how to get to tom brady. >> there is you on the field and you see the experience pay off. the pressure that you can feel is here and you are going to seize the moment. >> what do you do and what does a coach do?
>> the one thing i would say is that there is a good scheme early in the game and i thought that tom brady looked confused and off, at times. i felt that, the more he plays, the more he gets comfortable and, at some point, you have to adjust. so, you become more deceptive and you make adjustments in the third or the fourth quarter and you are not getting pressure and i would love to see some chances in this and i felt like he got away with the early success. maybe later in the game, you get back and you change it up. >> charlie, that is a great
point and, in watching the game, there was a pressure on tom brady and there was no pressure, suddenly. you begin to wonder. obviously, what you are doing is you are giving a receiver a chance to get free. the offensive line took over and there was no pressure. >> you covered a handshake between roger goodell and tom brady. what would you have been saying? >> probably nothing. to me, when it is television, you let the picture tell the story and you do not try to put into the minds of people what you think could be there. i think robert kraft did a side door thing about how special this was and tom brady, and a lot of people said he was extra-motivated, and tom brady
charlie: we are joined now by the chief international affairs columnist of politico. jim baker is the subject of her new article. please to have them back on the program. what makes jim baker jim baker? >> that is why we started this project. he was the secretary of state and the gold standard for the chief of staff and he had run five different republican presidential campaigns. it is difficult to marry politics and foreign policy in the way that baker did and i attribute this to the fact that
he has skills to read a problem and is always -- you have this new guy who talks about the art of the deal and i think it is interesting to jim aker, trying to work through this puzzle of donald trump, attracted by the possibility that donald trump offers and the critique of how you make a deal with mexico, when you are busy angering them. >> when he was the secretary of state for george bush and the gulf war was upon them, he said, i went to see assad's father and i went 13 times and he said, i am not joining you.
he went 14 times and, on the 15th, he said, i will. it was because baker had the focus in the sense of, if i just keep at this, i will obtain my objective. >> that is where the early critique of the trump team has come down. there is also flouting what makes good policy in the white house and he is blown away by a white house with sue may be -- with so many power centers. he said, one power center is too many in the white house, if you are the chief of staff and it is not you. >> the interesting thing about baker is that he understands power. does he think that they misused the power?
>> i don't think the critique is around executive overreach. it is on the idea of alienation of core institutions in washington is not how you get things done. he was quick to criticize the comparison of ronald reagan. ronald reagan did not want to blow up the system. he wanted to use it to his ends and he thought that that is a lesson that people that the trump team -- in the trump team have not absorbed.
you have to figure out how to work with people and what political constraints are. >> he says that they should not act as the lawyer of israel. >> this is the view of jim they care. he was an advisor to jeb bush and he gave a speech, saying this point and he felt that the settlements by israel, which are moving ahead, have a big obstacle to peace. it makes many in the netanyahu coalition. it's and trump has suggested politics are changing. the point by baker is that, if the united states wants to broker a peace deal and peace between the israelis and palestinians. how can you be a semi-honest broker?
>> you also said they should not be isolationist. >> that is what is amazing about the traditional republicans supporting trump. there is an issue of and he is a classic internationalist. they are really disturbed and they do not know what to make of the america-first rhetoric, which seems to verge on a new isolationism. it is not what jim baker wants. >> this personal motto of proud preparation prevents poor performance. >> working on the book about him, you see that he is a model of that. he has come prepared, testing
things out, with a combination of legal training and recognition that, if you really want to run an airtight process in washington, it requires tremendous discipline. i am not sure what he would make of this overwhelming social media and twitter era. there are media inputs that everybody is dealing with. >> he knows the secretary of state. >> he does. rex tillerson is a hunting buddy. they have gone hunting together and he has talked, at some links, about the job. he has concerns about rex tillerson being the secretary of state, when he has just met donald trump. >> he said to me that the most important qualification for the
secretary of state is to have a strong relationship with the president and he and george bush had a strong relationship. >> exactly right. it was unique, in many ways. he and bush went back decades. bush was the godfather of his daughter, as he reminded me. this enabled him to seamlessly work in a chaotic moments, when the cold war was coming to an end and the soviet union was breaking up part. he said that the test of the relationship is if the president defends you, even when you do something he doesn't like. that is where rex tillerson is going into this new relationship with trepidation. >> did jim baker have any
imports with bush 43 in his closeness to the family? it was baker who helped in the efforts with the court case that got the presidency. >> a good question that we are still unraveling. in the podcast i did, he is very antiwar and he mentioned vietnam and iraq in the interview and he was cautious, unlike brents go croft, who came out and baker made it clear in a baker-fashion, not causing an open rupture with bush. in hindsight, it is clear he was opposed to the invasion of iraq.
he has maintained a closeness and i think that he has always identified as being bush's friend and confidant. i think both of the bush sons need to be loyal to the family partners, like baker, but want to be their own men, when it comes to political careers. at key points, baker was conducted by bush and there is no doubt in my mind that bush was aware that baker did not think invading iraq was a good idea. charley: because baker is different, unconventional,
campaigned differently, transitioned differently, taken his -- because trump is different, unconventional, campaigned differently, transitioned differently, taking his first two weeks differently, that he will do good things? >> baker strikes me as a deal maker and he is optimistic, always looking for possibilities. he sees possibilities with trump and there are possibilities to reset the foreign policy areas that baker was critical of and i think that he is not one to pronounce that the door is slammed on trump and compiling a new record. i think that he is interested in the ways he can reset foreign policy. he is a pragmatist and she is a
realist and it is hard to see diplomacy getting a big boost. >> does he understand the relationship between vladimir putin and donald trump? >> we did not talk extensively about that and he did make a point to say to me that he has worked with vladimir putin and so has rex tillerson. it is not necessarily a disqualification. you want american leaders engage with counterparts. by the way, neither do i or any of us. nobody, at this point, can really unravel the mystery of why donald trump continues to
praise vladimir putin and is critical of american allies and partners. it is a mystery. >> he thinks that settlements on the west bank are not a good idea. >> he has been clear that settlements are a way of foreclosing a possibility of a deal and he has always been conscious of israel and the palestinian state having to trade some of the territory to create new facts on the ground. today, there was a bill that would retroactively legalize a number of settlements and it was inflammatory. it comes before netanyahu comes here next week and i think that there are expectations that are sky high in israel and they finally have a president who will break with jim breaker -- jim baker.
>> also, moving the capital. >> that is right. people were really bracing that and i had lots of people say to me that they think there could be bodies in the streets, depending on how trump chooses to handle this. >> what is the title of the biography? >> in no, we have not worked it out. the frame for the book is, "the man who ran washington when washington ran the world." charley: thank you for joining us. see you next time. ♪