Skip to main content

tv   Charlie Rose  Bloomberg  June 12, 2017 6:00pm-7:01pm EDT

6:00 pm
♪ announcer: from our studios in new york city, this is "charlie rose." charlie: we begin this evening with developments following james comey's testimony yesterday. earlier today, the president responded to questions during a press confident -- conference with the visiting romanian president. the president accused comey of lying under oath to congress and insisted he failed to prove collusion or obstruction of justice. in a tense exchange, president trump said he would be willing to offer his version of events under oath. president trump: go ahead, john.
6:01 pm
remember how nice you used to be before iran? such a nice man. >> mr. president, i want to get back to james comey's testimony. you suggested he did not tell the truth in everything he said. he did say under oath that you told him -- you hoped the flynn investigation -- president trump: i did not say that. >> he lied about it? president trump: i did not say that. there would be nothing wrong if i did say that, but i did not say that. >> did he ask for a pledge of loyalty? president trump: no, he did not. >> would you be willing to speak under oath to give your version? president trump: 100%. i hardly know the man. i'm not going to say i want you to pledge allegiance. who would ask a man to pledge allegiance under oath? i hardly know the man. it does not make sense.
6:02 pm
no, i did not say that and i did not say the other. >> robert mueller? president trump: i would be glad to tell him that. >> you seem to be hinting there were recordings. charlie: he said there was no evidence of collusion and no obstruction. president trump: no collusion, no obstruction. we want to get back to running our great country. charlie: for the latest on this developing story, here is the report from the cbs evening news. >> today, the president volunteered to testify to the special counsel investigating russia's tampering with the u.s. election. in a rose garden news conference, president trump denied yesterday's testimony by james comey, the f.b.i. director he fired last month. comey told the senate intelligence committee the president directed him to drop the f.b.i.'s investigation of
6:03 pm
former national security investigator michael flynn. today, he said he lied under oath but his testimony proved there was no collusion between anyone in his campaign and russia and the president himself did not obstruct justice. our coverage begins with margaret brennan. >> president trump said he would be happy to speak with special counsel robert mueller about his conversations with james comey. momentd be a significant in an investigation that has gone from examining the trump campaign's ties to russia to whether the president -- he denied the accusation he f.b.i.ed the do them -- director. he also said he did not ask for his loyalty. president trump: there would be nothing wrong if i did say that, but i did not say that. >> the president attacked comey
6:04 pm
for leaking details of their conversation to the press. comey testified yesterday shortly after he was fired he gave memos documenting his conversations with the president to a friend who gave them to a reporter. >> i thought that might prompt the appointment of a special counsel. >> now the president's lawyer plans to file a complaint with the justice department inspector general and senate judiciary committee. he argues comey released sensitive information. threatening legal action is a tactic often used by mr. trump. mr. trump hamas to file at least 24 lawsuits during the course of the campaign. putin we are going to have we are going to have people see you like never before. the president suggested he might have recorded tapes of their conversation. today, the president would not confirm the recordings but said
6:05 pm
he will discuss the tapes in their future. -- the near future. charlie: joining me is jonathan karl. i just listened to what you said. the viewers at home saw what you said. of what wascap in your mind and what you think you heard from him and what he intends to do. >> his lie your responded to the commie testimony and said point blank that comey lied on two critical points. it struck me comey was under oath when he said that before the senate intelligence committee. i wanted to see if the president would also accuse comey of line. be if so, with the president willing to sit down under oath and give his version of what happened in those conversations he had with comey. i was quite struck when he said he would 100% be willing to testify under oath, even to the
6:06 pm
special counsel, robert mueller. thought his lawyers did not like the fact he came out and said he would be willing to testify. charlie: it seemed it was something he had thought about it was not so much a surprise because he said it was such -- with such emphasis. it seemed like something he wanted to make clear. whether he has some nuance to this i did not appreciate, i don't know. >> it seemed to be blunt and straightforward in terms of his accusations that comey lied about those conversations and that he is willing to go under oath and tell his version of events. and then there is the question that was first raised about a aboutago when he tweeted whether there are recordings of his conversations with comey. mine, heestion before
6:07 pm
said at some point you will have an answer to the question about whether the recordings exist. that seemed to me to be at least a hint these tapes are out there, that he was recording the conversation. when i followed up with him, he did not answer. he said you will see shortly. at the very end, he said you will be disappointed in the answer. i guess that means there are not recordings, but i don't know. that is such a big question. i have been unable to get an answer from anybody at the white house. that is why i asked the president himself. you will be disappointed he was right and you were wrong? >> right. can you imagine if there are recordings? charlie: just think about watergate for one moment. >> what is interesting is the conversations he had with comey took place in a number of
6:08 pm
different venues. there was the conversation at trump tower during the conversation. there was the conversation over dinner in the green room of the white house. there was the conversation that took place on february 14 in the oval office. there were several phone conversations. with the watergate tapes, those were oval office conversations because the oval office was wired. ifthere are conversations, he was recording these conversations, what kind of system does he have? charlie: interesting question. what kind of system did he have to record conversations? is his phone the way he can record conversations or is the green room wired for that kind of thing? where do you think this is right now being as close as you are to covering the investigation? >> i will tell you my sense from the president's team, his legal team and the team at the white house is they did genuinely seem to be relieved by comey's
6:09 pm
testimony. i think there was fear it would be worse for them. in the way president he was answering my questions, in the way he was today at the department of transportation and even in the speech towards the end of comey's testimony, he seems to have more of a pounce in his step. like he thought there would be something worse. he seems to believe there is some vindication. i think there is a question about whether there is vindication at all. of course, he is taking part of comey's testimony and saying it is true and claiming vindication. and the rest of it he is portraying as a lie. he is cherry picking facts from comey's testimony. my sense is they feel they dodged a bullet. overall, this is very early in this process. i think the commie testimony -- comey testimony and the
6:10 pm
president's response shows we are in for a long, protracted investigation and legal battle. charlie: it has been a long day for you. thank you for joining us. jonathan karl, chief white house correspondent, abc news. back in a moment. stay with us. washington ism michael smith. i'm pleased to have him back on the program. let me begin with how you assess the comey testimony and what the president said in his press conference and declaration he is prepared to go under oath to saying what he has been recently and i assume all along. >> what we saw from comey yesterday was a thorough laying out of the facts of his relationship with trump and how truly uncomfortable comey says he felt during that time.
6:11 pm
we learned about how uneasy he was from the beginning with trump, how even after the first he starts trump tower pounding out a memo to memorialize it and how you memorialized all the meetings. i think a lot of the senators left that meeting yesterday on capitol hill fairly convinced by what they heard from comey. today was the first time we really heard from trump. he sort of picked and chose what he wanted to believe from what comey said. he said some things he said were likeate and some of them how he said he wanted to drop the investigation into michael flynn were not true. then he went so far to say he was willing to go under oath and to provide what would be contradictory testimony and give his side of the story. that sets up an incredible thing. if you are bob mueller and you
6:12 pm
interviewed trump or put him before a grand jury, you would have opposing stories about this and it would mean someone was lying. a recovering sports reporter, i can only think of roger clemens versus brian mcnamee, his accuser many years ago, when they went before congress and told completely different stories about whether roger clemens used drugs. charlie: suppose the president is determined to be lying, what then? >> if the president were to go under oath and bob mueller were to look at the evidence and concluded comey was telling the truth and the president was not, that would set up a perjury falseigation into whether statements were made under oath. in an f.b.i.e interview or before a grand jury. those are things the government takes very seriously.
6:13 pm
the f.b.i. in particular when they get lied to in an investigation tend to turn over every rock in your life and look at everything. me as muchplain to as you can about the fact the trump response was delighted about the notion the retired -- the fired former f.b.i. director, james comey, had taken these memorandum and sent them to a friend. and the friend released them to the "new york times." it is unclear whether he read them and gave some of the others. what can you help us understand about that and what the "new york times" responses to the accusations by the trump administration? >> what comey said yesterday was his friend who he told to put out this information had a copy
6:14 pm
of one of the memos. from comey's understanding of it, those memos were not classified. they were simply his recollections of his interactions with trump. we have never had copies of the memo. as we pointed out in our stories about the memos, parts of them were read to us. the contents were read to us and we cited parts of them in our story. most prominently the story in may about how trump asked comey to end the flynn investigation which led to a day later bob mueller being appointed. we ourselves do not have any of the memos. there was an incorrect accusation yesterday from trump's lawyer that said we had the memos before trump tweeted accusing us of colluding with comey. but that was not true. charlie: the only thing you had was a reading of the memos by the friend of james comey who is
6:15 pm
at columbia university. >> i will leave it at what comey said yesterday. he said he asked his friend to put out this information and that friend had done so. i don't really want to get into the particulars of all the sourcing on our stories beyond that. i feel we have a duty to try and talk about this as much as possible and be as transparent as possible about it. people we cover to talk about it, but there are some things we cannot get into. charlie: i am not asking you to tell sources. times"ing about "the response to what the lawyer said and what donald trump said about leaking today. "the times" essentially says the story we have reported we stand by. >> there were accusations about another story of hours, the family 14 story, that comey said has been mainly false.
6:16 pm
today in the paper we wrote a full story about why we were standing by our story and why we believe it was true. this was a story we wrote about contacts between trump associates and russian intelligence officials. we laid out why we believed the story to be true, the information we have learned since then about contacts between russian officials and trump associates, including statements on the record i the former c.i.a. director. and we pointed out what others have reported on it, how other reporting has backed up what we said. in regards to that, we stand by that story. we stand by all of our stories we have written. complementb woodward complementedrk -- "the new york times" for the coverage of the story. bob pointed out in terms of the russian probe, we are hardly 10% in understanding what happened. do you share that?
6:17 pm
>> i think that is true. i think that is something the public has to keep in mind. last week, mark warner, the ranking member on the senate intelligence committee, went on tv and said there is a lot of smoke here but we do not really have fire. here we are essentially a year into the investigation, and this leading democrat who is leaving one of the investigations into it says there is a lot of smoke but we have not found actual collusion. that is something to keep in mind as we go forward. a collision investigation is very difficult. it would require the f.b.i. and the department of justice the on the ground in russia doing interviews. we know that is certainly not going to happen. even in the public sphere, there has been an enormous amount of reporting about trump and his associates in russia. none of that public reporting has shown any type of collusion either. that is the interesting thing here about what happened with
6:18 pm
trump. as we know from comey's statements, trump was not under investigation as part of the russian meddling in the election. the question now is whether mueller is looking at the obstruction, the cover-up, how he tried to influence comey. that is something we have to remember, how we got to this place in the story. charlie: you are listening to these people come forward. who is it you most want to hear from? who what it i -- most want to hear from? i think i would most want to hear from michael flynn who had these contacts with the russian ambassador during the transition. those conversations were picked up by the f.b.i. then he was interviewed at the white house by the f.b.i. there was yesterday an investigation into whether flynn made false statements. flynn is fired for misleading the vice president, at least that was the story the white
6:19 pm
house put out about it. and then we learned it was the flynn investigation that led that.to ask comey to end i would really want to hear from plan -- flynn because when was it trump was so concerned about. was he concerned about being loyal to one of his lieutenants and say he was fired, he should not be investigated? is there something more michael flynn knows? he has had this relationship with russia that dates back sometime. he went there to speak a few years ago, sat next to vladimir putin. this is also someone we have rarely heard a lot from when he was in the white house and certainly we have not heard from since. my guess is at some point in the congressional investigations, he will testify. i think that will be particularly dramatic and insightful. charlie: someone said earlier on this program they are confident bob mueller in his investigation
6:20 pm
will get donald trump's tax returns. >> i guess that is the question of how much mueller will look at trump. said trump wasey not under investigation. if he was not under investigation it is hard to believe the f.b.i. would be looking directly at his taxes. they cannot just rummage around in your files and look for different things, look into your taxes. i am not sure this is something that would become the focus. if mueller starts looking at financial ties between trump and russia, the tax returns would probably be part of that. even if it was just an obstruction investigation into trump, i am not sure how his taxes would relate to that. i think the federal government, especially mueller who will have a lot of scrutiny, will not go after documents he does not have a reason to have a subpoena to have them. i am not sure about that.
6:21 pm
charlie: they might be relevant if there is some case to be made that because of financial transactions the russians had some leverage to use against the president. >> correct. but that would mean the facts would have to have changed since one comey was running the f.b.i. that would mean there are new facts about trump's relationship with russia. we know the f.b.i. has a dossier compiled by a former british spy that had a lot of allegations about what the russians may have on trump. we know that itself was not enough to prompt an investigation of trump. if that were to happen, it would mean there would have to be new information that would lead f.b.i. investigators to believe there was more there on what the russians have on trump. charlie: is it your impression the dossier is hardly relevant
6:22 pm
because of its questions about its origins? >> i think the dossier was initially dismissed as a very salacious document that had pretty off-the-wall accusations in it. my sense from talking to folks at the f.b.i. since then is that they did not necessarily dismiss it and they actually were able to corroborate significant portions of it right off the bat based on intelligence they had. these were not the most salacious parts of the report. it was more basic stuff about things going on inside of russia and russia's attempts to meddle in the election. a certain part of it was corroborated. the more headline grabbing things had not been corroborated. i have always thought the f.b.i. was taking it more seriously than the media was. charlie: that is an interesting point. when you look at comey's testimony, other than those people within the white house
6:23 pm
and surrounding the president, have you seen people who have risen up to say off the record or on the record they have doubts about james comey's ?estimony we don't know what he said behind closed doors. >> the only statements about the accuracy of comey's testimony have come from the white house and from trump's very close supporters. even the speaker of the house yesterday sort of try to explain donald trump's behavior saying he was new to being president and may not have understood the lanes of the road and the unique place the f.b.i. has in the executive branch, and the independence of the f.b.i. you have not had folks at the department of justice were f.b.i. folks were other folks in town calling us and saying we think jim comey made all of that up.
6:24 pm
there does not seem to be a lot of accusations about that except from the most ardent trump supporters. charlie: i have had people on on,program i work interviewing the former head of special operations, basically saying he has known jim comey and he would believe anything james comey told him. >> yeah. charlie: a lot of character testimony for comey. the problem comey had in washington was his extreme independence and willingness to be transparent in public. it was that he may be told the truth a little too much. he holds the press conference about hillary clinton last july and not only says we are not recommending charges, but also lays out a series of facts the bureau found in the course of their investigations. those facts were never in question.
6:25 pm
the question was, did comey disclose too much? charlie: michael schmidt, thank you so much. back in a moment. stay with us. ♪
6:26 pm
6:27 pm
charlie: we turn now to my gallon. allen. , as id he was prepared under oath for robert
6:28 pm
mueller, and investigators, what he has said before. this seems to be a declaration by the president that he is prepared to meet this head on. .> in both words and manner what you quoted the president saying is hitting with their strategy and their posture. after yesterday's back and forth, the amazing cinematic testimony by former fbi director comey, somebody sent me a text and said i think aaron sargon wrote his opening statement. you have this mesmerizing testimony where people were watching it on their phones and everybody catching up with the amazing detail. he is such a great storyteller, down to the grandfather clock that was in the room when he was
6:29 pm
meeting with the president. after that, you have the sayingnt's lawyer out that comey had said something that was untrue and accusing him of being a leader, so what i said after that is game on. to have a war. this is so surprising for us because in washington, we are used to people rounding the edges. we are used to people backing away from confrontation, but here, you have two sides going at it. jim comey making it plain that fired.itter about being he has a motive for really inflicting pain on this white house, and he is not afraid to twist the knife. he is not holding things back. that piling on the detail could be damaging to this president or the white house on the other hand -- comey is saying that he is a leader we are going to fight him. we saw that continued today with the president's willingness to
6:30 pm
go under oath. i can tell you, around here, -- i can tell you there is a lot of speculation that the fact that both in the statement yesterday by the president's lawyer, when he denied saying something that comey said the president said, asking for his loyalty, there is a suspicion that there is not taped. thee the president -- does president really want to get into a fight with the former fbi director? comey saying "i hope there are tapes." and if so, i give my permission to release them. charlie: why would the president dangle the idea that there are tapes out there if there on a tapes? mike: who knows, charlie. right? maybe there are in some parts of the white house. it is not surprising given how they have been doing things, but it is illuminating and it instructive that from the podium
6:31 pm
, the white house press office is not willing to say whether or not there are tapes. you think that would be fairly easy to clear up and they would want to clear it up. this is part of the president's strategy. he watched this with his own staff. he likes to keep people off balance. it is part of his thing. here, he might be paying a big price for that. some people wonder if he is comeyg checkers and jim and bob mueller, the independent counsel, are playing chess, because we had a fascinating revelation this week that the reason that jim comey leaked the account of his memos and his conversation with the president was after the president had put out his tweet threatening him raising this idea of tapes. the president has brought a lot this on it. think of all the information we know now that we would not if he
6:32 pm
had not canned jim comey. look at what is coming next week. next week, as you pointed out, jeff sessions -- it could be on the senate side of the capital. what was going to be a budget hearing for the justice department, a pretty routine and not exciting thing, of course, jeff sessions being questioned by senators? that is going to be high drama. great point. a member of the club who is coming back and who has used questions about him, including -- so, during the testimony this onk, intelligence officials wednesday and director comey on thursday, so many times, they tantalizingly said "i cannot say that in public session." they are inviting conversation .f the private session yesterday, director comey, after , amazing testimony
6:33 pm
in front of the cameras, he goes behind closed doors, and we quickly learn, quickly leak, that he said there was yet another contract with russian officials that the attorney general had not disclosed, so now, the attorney general has his own issues. week,e the surprise this the news that the president was not happy with jeff sessions and had apparently been yelling at him about recusing himself on this russia probe. the attorney general, so unhappy that he -- depending on the telling -- either threatened or offered to resign. now, more problematic information about himself. the new york times reporting this morning that one of the things that the independent counsel, bob mueller, is looking at, is whether just the conversation that the president had with comey -- could those be obstruction of justice? it is like we have a big sweater, and the president has
6:34 pm
been pulling all of the threads, and now, investigators both on the hill and the feds, are going back and looking at each of those threats. charlie: bob woodruff told us that in terms of the whole investigation, we probably only know 5% to 10% of what is out there to determine exactly what happened between the russians and their hacking and the contacts they may have had with americans. mike: coming from bob, that is so fascinating. as you know, he wrote in journals when he was a young metro reporter who pulled off the stories of the century, and in the amazing books he has written. by the way, crazy stat that bob hedward told me is that has written books about 20% of the president's that have ever served. that is how long he has been on the public seat. his theory is the mosaic theory. andfill in the tiles,
6:35 pm
eventually, you see the picture. that is why we only know the 10%. we have some of the tiles. so many more to come. a report this week that jared kushner, the president's son-in-law, west wing official closed, also behind doors with some staff on the hill. there is so much more to know. and one theory of this is that during the transition, they just were not used to governments. they were not used to public life. charlie, they did not expect to win. they were maybe having some of these conversations during the transition the way that they would do in their business, and donald trump had never had a board. he is not used to public scrutiny, and now he is in the most scrutinized job in the world. that is why maybe some of it, they did not account for. i can do something that our reporting, including by jonathan swann, is that comey was inside the white house, processed much
6:36 pm
more as a nuisance or n as a gravetha threat to the office. they are worried about bob mueller. they know that that could be a huge problem for them. the view in the white house about the coming testimony is that yes, it was a devastating visual, but it had no cataclysmic effect on the president told on the office -- president's hold on the of fice. we thought jim comey would hold back a few cards. if you agree with his impression that what he said in the hearing, and this is probably due to great reporting that has gone on, what he said in the hearing was basically what we expected. it was a lot more gripping and colorful, but the problem for the white house was optics, not substance.
6:37 pm
new substance. that is important. charlie: this is not only an issue of questions of legality and criminality, but it is also issues questions of public opinion, because public opinion -- if you cannot love the public in terms of support for your position, then you begin to lose at every level. viewers, this is an important insight you do not necessarily pick up from the daily coverage. when this white house looked back to the campaign, and when they got in trouble, and goodness knows, this campaign has plenty of low spots, what did they do? they doubled down. they were aggressive, and they went after their base, their supporters. they kept those people with them, so that is why you see the white house on the permanent war footing and what you see the president being so aggressive and basically saying "you want a piece of me? i will talk to you under oath."
6:38 pm
that is one hundred percent and that his voters. charlie, i know you agree that so little has been done by this orte house to talk to support the 54% of people who did not vote for the president. i can tell you, the mood in the west wing is that they absolutely have to keep those core voters, and if they get impatient or soft, that is when you can lose the hold on the office. right now, republicans on the hill, including speaker ryan yesterday, with a firmness that was surprising to me. the reason republican lawmakers are very much with this president, it is not because they love the idea of trump or everything that he has done, but at the moment, he is not hurting them in their states or districts, and he is strong back home for many of them. as long as he is strong that home, he's going to keep old on these legislators -- keep that hold on these legislators with
6:39 pm
all the other things going on, or just probably frustrated unhappy by how little is getting done. the possibility we go in the fall with the you to complement justiceupreme court gorsuch, but after that, no signature piece of legislation. there is a lot of frustration about that, that they are going to stay with trump until he starts to fall in their districts. that is why you are going to hear him going after even more of the media. i get the males, the campaign since to their supporters, going after the media, going after comey as a leader is big. eaker is big. that is all to talk to their people. charlie: let me go through who will be up for committees. the attorney general will clearly be there. he is coming before the senate intelligence committee. mike: yeah, he is going to be going before a budget and appropriations subcommittee. that is why it is a funny,
6:40 pm
even boring ministerial topic, but now high drama because he absolutely will be asked about the russian probe. charlie: when will jared kushner be called? mike: nbc news reported that soon, within the month, we are told the timing may not be worked out, but the moment the agreement is just to talk to staff. this is not even a closed hearing. no guarantee we will see him in public. these conversations are continuing. next week, soon, we may also see the intelligence officials that we saw last week. charlie, this is why for months, even years, the president is going to be living with this. if you look up past scandals, if you look up past independent prosecutors, if you look at the timeline for them, nothing is fored, and the real peril the president is the one thing
6:41 pm
we know about federal investigations -- and charlie, you have covered so many of them over the years -- may take time. they do not rush. here is the thing people in the white house worry about and why they worry about mueller so much more than comey. a federal investigation never ends where it starts. they start with the topic and that gives them license to look at your email. in this case, they are even looking at the president's business. i bet they wind up with his tax returns. your viewers know how much effort he has gone to, how much of a price he is willing to pay, to avoid that. charlie: mueller is most likely to end up with the tax returns, is he not? mike: he might already have them. [laughter] charlie: you are great. thank you, mike. perfect to have you here. mike: happy weekend, charlie. charlie: back in a moment. ♪
6:42 pm
6:43 pm
6:44 pm
charlie: early elections took place thursday night in the united kingdom. theresa may and her conservative party lost their governing majority. the result is a major setback for may. the prime minister announced this morning that conservatives would remain in power by forming a minority government with a democratic unionist party of northern ireland. >> what the country needs more than ever is certainty.
6:45 pm
and having secured the largest number of votes, and the greatest number of seats in the general election, it is clear that only the conservative and unionist party has the legitimacy and stability to provide that certainty by commanding a majority in the house of commons. pm may: we will continue to work with our friends and allies in the democratic unionist party in particular. charlie: joining me now is: and cohen and jillian. >> theresa may scored an extraordinary earned goal. is threehad really things happening. firstly, millennials came out in howl of protest similar to what happened with bernie sanders last year. secondly, you had a lot of the professional people who are against brexit, who indicated
6:46 pm
there and happiness as well because they wanted to vote for a much more open form of exit. one of the most -- form of brexit. one of the most telling was that it was so close to call because so many people voted for labor that we do not know the result of that. it has gone to labor, has it? >> first time ever. jillian: absolutely extraordinary. we want to remain very much part of the european union, and in addition to that, you had the party.ablishment freedom the people who wanted to have more independence did not go for theresa may, splitting between labour and the conservatives. charlie: interestingly, some people that we know in british politics lost their seat. others that do not come to mind right now. brexit?vote about
6:47 pm
did you think manchester and london made a difference? >> i don't think they made a huge amount of different in the end. traditionally, they would favor the incumbent and prime minister may could say enough was enough and come over as tough and a time of crisis. do you really want change? she had been home secretary for secures and she had done nothing to reinforce the police. if anything, opposite. those balanced out and did not really have very much impact in the end. , really ahuge setback humiliation for prime minister way. said britainy she needs continuity, she does not have a lot of credibility, and i think she is honorable. certainly, -- she is vulnerable. she does not have any mandate for the hard brexit that she
6:48 pm
seems to have envisaged. i think there was a moment of vulnerability. she had a disastrous campaign. it was inept, it was flat. all she could go on saying was "britain needs a strong and stable government. she repeated it like a mantra until people were mocking her. people saw her as brittle and ineffective, so that is the image she is going to carry forward, and she could at some point become vulnerable. gillian: i could see a lot of parallels in the campaign theresa may ran and that of hillary clinton last year. hillary clinton's slogan was "stronger together." in theory, they sound great. in practice, they are about saying "i am these days grow. let us carry on with the status quo." if there's one thing we have learned in the last year or two,
6:49 pm
it is that trying to sell yourself on the basis of being the status quo simply does not work. bring we have had to goals right now. david cameron and theresa may, from the conservative party, and it seems in government, but it is a very weak government. not just the democratic unionist party from northern ireland, it is a majority of two, i think. gillian: you went back a couple of years and remembered the won anative party unexpectedly strong victory in the last election and it was only two years ago. as a lesson in how to mess things up, with extraordinary speed, frankly, future political historians are going to be looking back at this period and saying "how on earth were they so stupid?" charlie: they were expecting a 100 vote majority. roger: huge majority.
6:50 pm
she is a flip-flop or. remaininghe was for in the european union and now she is leading the budget negotiations. she would not call a snap election, and that she did. wasconservative party completely unable to benefit from the collapse of the far right party, and a big setback for the scottish national party in stalin, because that was completely offset by a tidal wave of young people, change,als, who want who want disruption, and were prepared to vote for the radical leftist that jeremy gordon is -- jeremy corbyn is it he ran a pretty good campaign. mistakes.made no his slogan "for the many, not the few," which he barred from tony blair, captured something. why is there this disruption at any cost movement?
6:51 pm
people believe the systems are ratigged. charlie: jeremy portman, wasn't even popular in his own party. gillian: no, he wasn't -- roger: no, he was in a lot of people were expecting the humiliation of jeremy corbyn. himleft could have replaced and tried to create some more corbyn, ieft wing -- think, it will be pretty hard to dislodge him at this point. the millennials stay involved. one of the things students of politics across the western world need to look at when they look at the british experience, is what is happening to the millennial vote. i have gone around colleges in the last year. "are you political?" "yeah, we tweet."
6:52 pm
do you vote? weet.ut we t celebrities came out and rallied the vote. it was remarkable. what americans should be asking themselves right now is what if that was happening in america right now, if all those millennials who had not been voting properly actually get to the ballot box ? roger: gillian: there is a lot of ideal of -- roger: there is a lot of idealism. and socialism, you may find that strange, but you have to respect the idealism of the young people. when you think that all these old people with 10 years to live on the actuarial tables, voted britain out of the european union, and thereby condemned people with 70 years to live to accept a britain that they do
6:53 pm
not want, i think that was terrible. they could have tried to. they could have helped. charlie: let me read this. [laughter] roger: this is always a delicate moment. [laughter] charlie: i just like corbyn's anti-americanism, his long flirtation with hamas, his left over marxism and anti-zionism, his nato bashing, his unworkable tax and spend promises. he believes soviet moscow was probably not as bad as washington. roger: he was the better alternative. elections in place in the real world. that was an agonizing choice for me because a lot of what corbyn has done and what a lot of the people around him -- their attitudes toward israel, their flirtation with hamas --
6:54 pm
troubles me deeply. i do not like it. i do not like it at all. felt that theresa may and what the conservative in this british exit to the european union, their responsibility to that, the campaign she had run. the fact that young people were behind corbin and power would temper the extremes, at least i i felt that he was marginally the better choice. i took a lot of heat from my friends in britain on that. charlie: one thing he said -- the next line was something like "still, he has not been coddling donald trump." roger: really, the fact that theresa may -- she said she wants global britain. is the first step for global britain really to take britain out of the single market of the european?
6:55 pm
the huge single market, and to comes here lull, she and coddled donald trump, invites them to a state visit which is supposed to happen in october, and i found all that shameful. and why after president trump withdrew the united states from the paris climate accord, why was there scarcely a british whimper from the government? even though people like foreign secretary boris johnson, if anybody believes a word he says, claims to believe strongly in the need to combat climate change, why was there not a whimper? because the british, under theresa may, the british government is falling over itself to caudal the u.s. the u.s. -- coddle president as a possible alternative to the european union, hoping for some kind of trade accord with the u.s.. charlie: where are the negotiations? gillian: frankly, a complete
6:56 pm
mess. this morning, a tweet from head of the european commission. he said there is basically a two-year deadline. people know when the clock will run out of time for the negotiations for britain's relationship with the european union. no one knows when they are actually going to start. they were supposed to be starting june 19. that can clear whether happen. it is going to be very hard for theresa may to have a clear stance. the one thing we do know is that if she is indeed relying on them to keep control of parliament, they have made it clear they want to keep borders open with the rest of ireland, and that means essentially many of the ideas of having a hard brexit are going to have to be revisited. roger: i saw that her chief negotiator, mr. davis, has conceded after what has happened. we may have to stay in a single market after all. that raises the question, if you
6:57 pm
want to be in the single market, what do you do about the free movement of people that is supposed to go with that? charlie: on that note, roger, thank you. thank you for joining us. see you next time. ♪
6:58 pm
6:59 pm
7:00 pm
anchor: wall street pessimism set to spread to the asia-pacific. tech continues to drag all the market down. anchor: ge among the winners. the company veteran is known as mr. fix it. betty: big u.s. bank so with those regulations. yvonne: more optimism about prospects for china. honeywell says it is the place to be. we have got the worl

5 Views

info Stream Only

Uploaded by TV Archive on