tv Charlie Rose Bloomberg September 7, 2017 10:00pm-11:00pm EDT
>> from our studios in new york city, this is "charlie rose." reporter: china and japan remain an ever present competition, even as china surpassed japan as the dominant power. the growing power also calls into question the u.s.'s future an influence in asia. the book "asia's reckoning" calls into question these
powers. good to see you. >> thank you for having me. it is terrific to be here. jeff: you talk a lot about the concept of americana. is it over? >> it is not over yet. asiaericana in east shows america as the dominant power since the second world war and the policymaking power. let me give you an example. it is quite remarkable that 70 years after the war the u.s. still has troops in south korea. it still has troops in japan. it has troops in australia. it has facilities in thailand, singapore, the philippines and the like. interwoven set of security guarantees that the
u.s. provides for east asia and has provided for 70 years. i guess linked up up with the economic system the u.s. has built since the second world war and built along with europe, which is basically built around open markets and rules. the rules of the road. portrayed, for security. that is tax americana. jeff: we are 100 removed years from world war i. >> this is the legacy of world u.s.i, the legacy of the victory over japan in world war ii, a fight by the way the u.s. was allied with china in. it all flows from their. -- it all flows from there. when the u.s. returned sovereignty to japan in the 1950's, it did so while disarming it and taking over japanese foreign-policy for many decades. it also did so by forming alliances with all sorts of
other countries. , andhilippines, australia the like, which be japan. all of those alliances have survived today. jeff: i am not sure if there is a more interesting relationship in the world, then japan and china. theing little bit about history between his country is and how it got to where it is today. richard: for me, this is fascinating jeff, and it is why i wrote the book. i lived for a long time in both countries and i was always interested in their relationship. i was at a book stop last night and it occurred to me the going to most bookshops in the states, there is a cottage industry on china, in the middle east. there's there little on japan and china. this is a highly consequential relationship. asia's two superpowers.
with the really difficult emotional scarred history. where one considered -- china concert itself to be japan's big brother. it fell behind japan. it was brutally invaded by japan and really, only in the last 10 to 20 years out of the last 150 apan and china are getting back on top again. the two countries have always demanded the west treat them as equals, and the west always had racist policies. but japan and china struggled to treat each other as equals. extremelytself to an antagonistic relationship. jeff: for most of that history, china was the big brother. richard: they were the big brother. the so-called order in asia. but if you talk to the japanese, they would say, we were never
the little brother and we never will be. we are japan, not anybody's vassal state. iny calaimed -- many people japan think that china's mindset is to return to this form of, whereno centric order china is the middle kingdom and everybody else is a form of tributary state, which china allows to get along with their lives, as long as they are obedient to them. we are neversay like that and we will never be like that. and they are determined to stand their ground. jeff: talk more about the scars there weren -- discussions over what apology should be made over world war ii. richard: this is a really complex, fractured area, which you don't pick up the sensibilities from the day-to-day headlines of japan demands china apologize --
sorry, japan demands china apologize for the war. that chineseubt propaganda about japan, against japan, works because it is based on true facts. in other words, japan did brutally invaded china, there was a massacre, etc. but immediately after the war and in fact, decades after the war, china never asked japan for an official apology. they never wanted to talk much about the nanjing massacre. it was not a priority for them. but once they started to become more powerful, once they thought they wanted the respect that they thought should be afforded to them, that is when they started talking about history more. japan was very unprepared for that. japan thought they had settled all of those issues and japan struggles to have any form of
introspection about history. i have not written about the history wars, but the history of the history wars. once you look at it from that perspective, it is a matter of internal politics within both countries. that is how i have approached it. jeff: post-world war ii, one country does a better job at modernizing and appreciating technology. richard: absolutely. you might remember that when you were growing up, the number one e late to the u.s. in th 1980's and early 1990's was considered to be japan, when they were buying up all sorts of landmarks, like the rockefeller center and the pebble beach golf course and the like. this is considered to be a form of techno-nationalism. and u.s.-japan trade wars, which really went on from the 1950's for three or four decades, culminated in action by the u.s. against japan with semiconductors.
once japan faded as an economic threat, we kind of forgot about what an intense period that was. that is precisely what is happening with china now, but with one their important difference. the u.s. was always a security always sorry, japan was a security ally of the u.s. hence, that helps mediate the trade differences. china is a deadly geopolitical rival of the u.s. that is going to make the trade issues much harder to handle. jeff: you forget about the threats that a lot of people felt from the japanese economy, in particular. that economy in the 1980's -- that economy remains, as big as it is, remains stagnant to a large extent today. how did that factor into the japanese-chinese relationship? richard: to be fair, the japanese have done better than people think, but they have a bigger problem than increasing
economic productivity. they do that, but they now have a diminishing population, losing 250,000 people a year. we are going to go from 120 million people now to 90 million people in 20 years. the only do they feel they have lost their advantage against china as an economy, there's a big psychic turnaround. it was only 20 or 30 years ago when japan was on top. and in the face of a couple decades, that has really flipped. the chinese economy has grown 10% a year for 30 years. the last 25 years, the japanese economy has grown 1%. aggrievedeel sort of by the turning of the tables and it doesn't make for a psychologically healthy relationship. jeff: they both have aging populations though, right? richard: they do and one of the funny things about the century, really we are at the don of it
right now, every country in east asia has terrible demographics. japan might be the worst, or they might be first into it. china does as well because of the one child policy. south korea does and taiwan does. the problems japan has now with demographics china will have in spades in 10 or 20 years. that, without switching the conversation, will help the u.s. jeff: but trade continues to thrive between japan and china. this is marv of a political discussion we are having. richard: it is. it is one reason, i guess, the japanese-chinese bilateral trade, it is one of the biggest two way trade relationships in the world. not only that, the investment, japanese car companies have enormous sales in china and china represents the future for them. it is the same for japanese technology companies. it's japanese companies that
provide the factory goods when they build new factories in china. that's really the anchor of the relationship and it is really one reason why, for all their tension, for all the fact that they face off in the east china sea every day or every month, the relationship has never gone off the rails. they are both deeply pragmatic countries and i don't think they want to have a fight, because it is far too damaging. jeff: do you believe that war between these two countries is a possibility in the future? richard: it is a possibility. i have not written a book that says the coming more between japan and china. we have had a multitude of books declaring the coming war between so-and-so and so-and-so. i have not written that because i did not want to exaggerate the military conflict. having said that, the chances of some conflict are higher than they used to be. i guess the trigger point is
their disputed territories in the east chiana sea, the few small islands, which has become symbolic of their you political competition. the012, when japan changed status of those islands, it's my understanding, and they talk about this in the book, the chinese did consider at the time whether they should take military action to make their point, or regain the islands. one reason they did not is very interesting. two reasons. the chinese are still building their military up. japan has a formidable naval force and air force. but most important, china has to be sure of victory. it japan lost a battle to china, then the japanese government would fall. but if china lost a battle against japan, again, for the communist party's prestige
online, that is a regime change. china has got to be sure of winning and in some respects, that is why they won't five. jeff: in your estimation, who is more responsible for stoking fear, for stoking problems, over these disputed islands? richard: you are putting me on the spot there. the nationalists from both sides will no doubt pour in to attack me. i don't want to be sitting on the fence. i will say first of all, they fight on both sides. issuesandles history terribly. they have been revisionists on history and have resisted making amends for what happened a long time ago. that's definitely a problem. but i think the problem is bigger in china in this respect. partyis a single authoritarian country.
they do not have free speech in the way we understand for a speech. it's very difficult in china with that sensibility against japan for politicians, or anybody really, to stand up and call for a much more open debate about japan, not being an enemy of japan. not only that, but in the early 1990's when the chinese started this intense patriotic education system of education in their primary schools and high schools, japan was the number one target. so, for all japan's faults, and there are many, i think it is the chinese propaganda system which drives really vehement anti-japanese sentiment in china. once they wind that up, it is difficult to wind it back. i think that is at the core of the problem. jeff: are the grudges carried mostly by the older generation, or does this crossed them a graphics?
richard: that is a very good question and it often seems in china, it's like the balkans. all these young people have these great memories of wars they never experienced. many elderly chinese people having living memories, less and less so now of japanese atrocities. i think that was very important in the 1980's and 1990's when policy started to change. but these days it strangely seems to be younger people who feel most intensely about japan. i think that's for a number of reasons. the education system, which i talked about before, and the fact that japan is one area they can speak out on an express their patriotism. they can take to the streets. there are not many things you are allowed to hold a street protest on in china, the protesting against japan is one of them. i think a lot of sort of
disgruntled people channel their antigovernment or anti-establishment sentiment in china into anti-japanese protests. and it builds from there. call princeville croft japan once the most of the country the u.s. had to deal with. he said, idle think we understand the japanese people and i don't think they understand us. has anything changed? richard: that was during my research for the book. the u.s. and japan have a close relationship now, particularly a close security relationship. the pentagon and the japanese military. we have forgotten the trade wars before, what a difficult relationship this has been for a long time and many different u.s. officials do not like dealing with japanese. henry kissinger is a prime example.
brent scowcroft dealt with hardened political officials around the world. this was telling about the problems this alliance has experienced. jeff: if you are the united states today and first of all, you appreciate the externa early complicated relationship between china and japan, have you approach the pacific theater? -- how do you approach the pacific theater? richard: it is a difficult balancing act. if the u.s. muscles up in asia , it runs the risk of precipitating conflict. in fact, getting ahead of its asian allies, which want the u.s. to be there and keep the peace, but not necessarily fight
wars. thatf the u.s. withdraws, is potentially even more damaging for asian countries because if the u.s. does leave any kind of vacuum, china will fill it. acquiring thisy salami slicing policy in the east china sea of the community influence in a way that makes it hard for the u.s. to push back. as long as the u.s. is committed to its position in asia, they have to strengthen alliances. that is the most important thing. the second thing that is going to happen, if people are to push back against china, there it dot necessarily involve the u.s. it involves other asian countries joining together. instead of what the old americans used to call a hubs and spokes relationship, it's
now a kind of network arrangement. so, you have japan and india, japan and the philippines, vietnam and inda, japan and australia. all sorts of u.s. allies or allied countries, joining together in new source of security partnership. u.s.his will bolster the old alliance system. jeff: china wants the u.s. there, just on their terms. richard: yes, but the fascinating thing about china is they have been a huge winner from pax americana. the u.s., as the security guarantor in asia, has provided the platform for the chinese economic miracle. that is not to say the chinese did not do it themselves through good policy, hard work and the a peacefulithout
international and regional environment, which the u.s. provided, that was the sort of platform, the runway on which china took off. of course, the wto. china did not do anything in building the system, they simply plugged into it in the year 2000. the u.s. helped build that as well. once again, china took off. i think quite naturally, china wants eventually to be the dominant power itself in asia. they don't want, now that they are a big power with a big economy, maybe in 10 years the biggest economy in the world, they don't want to rely on the u.s. anymore for their security. they are building their own blue water navy. they have got their own aircraft carriers. they want the u.s. to reduce th eir influence. but i think it is slowly. they don't want anything to happen precipitously. jeff: is president trump going to get the cooperation he wants from north korea and china?
richard: i would say, no. china has a number of calculations on north korea, but the prime one is the one that has held sway for quite some time now, and that is, what does china prefer? do they want a north korea that collapses into south korea? in other words, china would have a u.s. ally on their border with u.s. troops. do they want to have a north korea that collapses and sends refugees spilling into their territory? or, to they want to have a dictator who they think can be deterred and contained? they have consistently gone for the latter. we also should be clear, and i think this is not always clear outside of asia, that china and north korea do not get on. they do not trust each other. that applies in spades to the current leadership in both countries. xi jinping has never met kim jong un.
quite remarkable. china's leverage is limited. they have got it. they could use it, but it is the kind of leverage that could have enormous blowback for them if north korea did fall apart. jeff: people forget that. they think china and north korea get along. they just don't. richard: that is the old propaganda line about lips and teeth. it is not like that. north korea, always in the cold war days, used to play china against the soviet union. they've got their own way of doing things. it's the kim family business and dynasty. that is what drives them. it is not being nice to china or anybody else. jeff: using people underestimate the kim dynasty? richard: clearly they have. we have had collapse theories for years. it did not happen. we had this guy come in and take over the country at age 30. about't know very much
north korean internal politics, but we know he did not know how to run a country. he has done it absolutely ruthlessly. he is building a lot of potential rivals, or locked them up. he's accelerated the nuclear bomb building program and the ballistic missile building program. in other words, the core power in internal politics in north korea are the scientists, all the people with technical qualifications to do what they are doing. kim has clearly given them their head, while eliminating all other rivals. so, it's so far been -- maybe it will all crumble in front of us one day, but so far it has been, to talk about it in a very cold fashion, a remarkable performance. jeff: what is interesting here is that when we talk about north korea, people talk about the u.s., china, and russia. japan does not get discussed a
lot. should it be? richard: yes and no. japan struggles to play a conciliatory role on the korean peninsula because of its colonial record there. aren and south korea imported and u.s. allies, but they have a fractious relationship themselves. with the election of a new government in south korea, which is a bit more antagonistic in japan, that is even more so. they will not be the honest broker on the korean peninsula. and this is pretty much an open secret. i think up and support korean unification either -- i don't think japan supports korean unification either. they don't want an even stronger korea across the waters. but japan is important in this respect. the chinese military buildup, and now the excel or and provided by north korea, is transforming japanese security politics. most people have this idea that japan is stuck with this
pacifist constitution, etc. well, that's changing rapidly and gradually. japan changed its constitution to allow, to fight more easily alongside the u.s. they are now getting offensive weapons, in a real sense for the first time since 1945. the big change would be of japan went nuclear itself. i don't think that is about to happen, but that is down the track of north korea continues to destabilize the region and japan continues to feel threatened by china. jeff: it is amazing how this one, lone, small rogue nation is driving the discussion right now. richard: and nobody knows what to do about it and nobody can talk to him directly either. jeff: richard mcgregor, the book is called "asia's reckoning." i really appreciate your time. richard: thank you, jeff. ♪
jeff: charlie rose is on assignment today. i am jeff of cbs news. investigators from major league uncovered perhaps the most sophisticated scheme in spying on opposing teams in professional sports. in a stunning revelation, mlb disclosed that the boston red sox used technology in the apple watch to illegally steal hand signals in
games against the new york yankees and other teams. joining us is michael schmidt from "the new york times." he is also an msnbc contributor. michael, welcome. michael: thank you for having me. jeff: as far as you have been able to gather, when did teams first notice something might be amiss? happened here is that the yankees for some time had been deeply skeptical about the red sox, thinking they were stealing signs from them. but they cannot figure out how they were doing that. the general manager had the guys that looked for him -- worked for him and video analyst looking at things the red sox were doing, and try to figure it out. was it the bat boy, third base vote, how are they doing this? they were able to figure it out last month in a series game in boston that someone in the red sox dugout, the team trainer was using this iphone watch as a way of receiving information.
it is against baseball's rolls to have any kind of electronics in the dugout. and to use them to steal signs -- you can steal signs, but you cannot use electronics to do it. jeff: a long history of stealing signs. to the yankees ink this one back months or years? i think they think it goes back months. they noticed it earlier this year. the red sox when they had to talk to major league baseball in -- when they were confronted last week, they said it had been going on at least a month. they had been using this system with the apple watch since at least there were other teams the july. red sox play against they used this equipment with. jeff: who do the yankees or major league baseball believe was involved in this? michael: it looks like the team trainer and several of the players, and the team's video
analyst. the video staff that looks at the footage that is coming in throughout the game. pedroia, the star second baseman, was injured, but in uniform. in the footage the yankees talking, he was seen with a trainer and taking information and passing it to other players. this was a key part of this detailed complaint fired by the general manager of the yankees. --f: presumably a veteran young guys are one thing. but veteran mike dustin dreier should know better. michael: correct. it is known in baseball you cannot have electronics in the dugout. it is something they know about. is part of the game, something that happens.
that is why in baseball you see a lot of times the catcher running out to the mound to talk to the pitcher with his mitt over his face, because he is trying to basically tell the pitcher how he will change the sign so they can communicate. this is part of another problem with baseball where the games are too long. if you watch the playoffs, the second half of the game is the catcher running out to the pitcher and talking to him to stop signs from being stolen. looking back you can see why some teams thought something was going on. i think over the summer there were an excessive amount of visits to the mound, right? there was a concern on the part of the catchers or managers? michael: correct. the yankees knew something was going on. they were trying to take every measure they could to stop it, to stop them from doing it. secondid it would be the
sign, they are putting down different numbers. the catcher could be telling the pitcher, whatever i put down, throw this pitch. it is part of the game. that is when the commissioner in boston yesterday by coincidence, when he spoke to the press he said, stealing signs as part of the game. you cannot stop people from stealing signs. but what you cannot have is people with electronics in the dugout. that is what helped the red sox. jeff: it is a 21st century object here, the iwatch, but ultimately just guys, one person relaying something else and eventually getting it to the batter. michael: some people were joking with me that they didn't know they still had iwatches, or that there was a use for them. the red sox would have analysts looking at the video footage. at fenway park there is apparently a big distance
between where the video footage is taken and where the dugout is. to move information more quickly they were sending it to the trainer who had the watch on. the trainers were interviewed by major league baseball and the trainer said, look, we were just doing what the players told us to do. they gave us this watch. they were just following what we said. the same thing came from the video guy, it was the player doing this. this is a common theme we have seen. it was this clubhouse personnel, people with less power on the team succumbing to the athletes the wanted them to do different things and going along with these schemes. jeff: there was immediate counter accusation from the red sox that the yankees are stealing signals from using the television network there.
is there anything to that? michael: as we know the yankees and red sox are long-term arrivals dating back to babe ruth. it is a long-standing thing. the interesting thing is the rivalry hit a peak about 10 years ago when they were both very good, both winning world series big personalities , on both sides. just epic him a great baseball games. the rivalry has cooled in the past two years and become less exciting and less intense. the rivalry has cold and it has become less exciting. it's like they said you're going to file a complaint against us, we're going to file one against you. they raised the ante on it. it is not clear that it is as substantial as the one the yankees filed. the red sox admitted to it. jeff: they admitted to it but
said the players were not involved at all. michael: they said they did not know about it. is,question for rob manford how far do want to push the investigation? do you want to know if they know about this? how much does it matter question -- matter? if it were to come out, it would give it a bigger conspiracy cast , a bigger shadow on this. the red sox says look it's just the players, it is part of the game. the interesting thing is that ager, the nfl commissioner, decade ago, confronted similar allegations about the new england patriots. he moved very quickly to penalize the patriots.
he fined them, took away draft picks. new allegations about the patriots came out a new questions were raised. they made a decision before they knew the findings to get it out of will -- to get it out of the way. they said, you are going hard on brady for going too easy on spy gate. they have to be careful not to fall into that trap. jeff: do you have any idea how long that process is in determining any punishment? and if one is made, when it might be issued? michael: the problem is that the yankees' complaint will delay this. my sense is the commissioner's office will want close this in fell swoop.
onethey will look at the different allegations. they do not want to cast a shadow on the playoffs, either. they have a month left in the season. jeff: the red sox made this allegation on monday? michael: yes. they fired it against the yankees on monday, about a week and a half after the yankees had filed their complaint. it is not just the yankees. r 13 is that noticed this as well? are there other teams that
have noticed this as well? philliesin 2011 the were accused of using binoculars to steal signs. they said they had cameras used on their field at home to steal signs. the big thing in the 1950's with it veryts, you had detailed system that allowed them to come back and overtake the dodgers. that came out a few years ago by the wall street journal in a piece they did. this has gone on for a long time. it is not a new thing. what is new is the technology. manfred said that baseball has never sanctioned a team for this. so that would be new.
they have dealt with it from general manager to general manager. they have dealt with it behind the scenes. jeff: boston fans are saying it is just part of the game. i did hear comments from the yankees' manager yesterday and he said technology is just part of the world we live in. he was talking about whether their night -- there might be technology to encourage or help sign stealing, that could potentially stop this. i wonder, if you have heard anyone talk about what might be advanced signt stealing or cheating techniques from taking place. michael: we would essentially need a new way of communicating
in baseball. part of baseball is the signs, the third-base coach touching his cap and ear. it is the catcher putting numbers down and visits to the mound. these are things that are just part of the game. the question is is there a way , the picture could communicate with a catcher without anybody signals? fictionyds of science to me. at the end of the day, baseball is entertainment. that is why i think some people find this story particularly interesting, because it is a rivalry. teams are trying to get the upper hand on each other. this is not an existential threat on baseball. i cannot imagine it having a huge impact on the game unless things are handled poorly from here. who knows how technology would impact that or what that would mean. part of it is serious, part of it is funny. it is an enjoyable side pursuit
for people to discuss right now. and you're right, it is hard to imagine pitchers having microphones. they would have to communicate telepathically at this point. michael: this is an interesting thing we see in national security in washington. let's say you had some type of superduper technology. then you open it up to hacking and other things. we had a hacking issue in baseball just two years ago where one team broke into another team's computer to steal scouting information. people are going to try to get the advantage to matter what. when you raise the ante there are other ways to come at it, what the system be encrypted. how could one team get the advantage on the other? it is part of the game. several years ago i covered the steroid scandal and that cut to the integrity of the game, statistics, and what was going
story, but have also broken news on james comey and the investigation into potential russian collusion and the trump administration, that trump campaign. i want to talk about that as well if i could. you are in washington. what is the latest on the mueller investigation? michael: my day job is trying to figure out what is going on with that. that is perhaps more serious and the little harder. the mueller investigation is going forward. mueller has taken an aggressive stance so far. he executed a search warrant at the home of paul manafort. they are putting folks in front of the grand jury. it feels to be a serious thing that is going on. we don't have a ton of insight into what he has or what he has learned. we reported last week that he now has this letter that trump wrote before he fired comey, the unvarnished thoughts about why he wanted to get rid of the fbi director.
the white house counsel head stopped trump from sending the letter, found a problematic, got the department of justice to draft a different document to rationalize the firing. that is the kind of stuff we are looking at. we are china to uncover as much as we can to chip away what is there. we do not necessarily know exactly the significance of it and what it will mean in the larger picture. we're trying to understand what went into the comey firing. and how much does mueller understand about what trump was trying to do? that is the stuff we are focusing on. -- manafortnna for freeze is a huge part of this. what is the latest reporting you have on what is happening with paul manafort? michael: they said he was
cooperating with government. julyut of nowhere in mueller went in and they executed a search warrant at his house. the thing that is unusual about that is that lawyers try to work things out, the government will ask can we have this document, can we subpoena this? but it would only be in a situation where the prosecutor thought the witness was destroying evidence, something may be lost, where they didn't trust the person they were dealing with that they would execute a search warrant. it was done early in the morning, a knock on the door waking people , up. it is intrusive. that was a substantial move. it gave us an idea. why would mueller do this? we do not know. we do know that mueller would like to finish the investigation as much as he can, and learn as much as he can. he thinks there is a larger issue for the country.
it has put a cloud over the presidency. they say, go as quickly as you can to resolve this because it has cast a shadow on trump. it is a constant distraction. he is constantly asked about. it is something the white house has to answer questions about and there are stories in the paper about. is preparing to do interviews, he needs documents from the white house about these different things, the comey firing. that will create more stories. this will likely go on for many, many more months. i have been looking back at the special counsel for other presidencies and the iran-contra special counsel went on for six years. we are just four or five months into this one. who knows how much longer it will go. jeff: it is interesting you say that. i was thinking about that,
about previous investigations in previous special counsels. these investigations don't necessarily always end quickly or cleanly. michael: no. the problem for mueller is that he does not want to close up shop and then a day later there is a story in the paper about something he missed. they want to turn over every rock and make sure there is nothing there. if we were to say ok, we're done, then something comes out and it raises russians about the investigation. are going to be painstaking -- raises questions about the investigation. they are going to be painstaking. that is sort of the way we read what is going on. jeff: what leverage does the president have to try to get them to end this or finish this sooner rather than later. could tryhe president to fire mueller or clean out the
justice department put people , in there and try to fire mueller. i think that would send congress through the roof in congress would go back to the special prosecutor like we saw in the clinton administration and appoint congress, i'll point someone to deal with this on behalf of the justice department. trump could thought survive firing comey. even fewer people think he could survive firing mueller. that would be a very, very aggressive mood -- move. cane are not other ways he move mueller along. his lawyers have gone and met with mueller and provided him with the documents to layout argument for why trump could not be charged with obstruction of justice. he could pardon anyone at any time. because of that, they lay out an argument for them. my guess is that mueller is
going to work on mueller's time. jeff: we have not heard much from don, jr. or jared kushner, two relatives that have been mentioned a decent amount around this investigation. what is your sense that their team is thinking right now and how to they figure into the future? michael: don, jr. is going to be interviewed by the senate in private tomorrow. we will not have access to what that looks like. it will be behind closed doors, and we won't really know. but of course don, jr. is at the , center of the meeting where russians reached out to the campaign, said we have information on hillary clinton. don, jr., kushner, and manafort met with them.
the administration has told different stories about this. first they said it was about adoption, then it was more about derogatory information the russians had on clinton. that was only after they were forced to answer those questions, that they changed their story. don jr. part of this. is trying to understand, who were the russians they were meeting with, why were they doing this, was there more to this story than what the white house said? they met and said the stuff they had wasn't of interest. sits.s where the don jr. it will be interesting to see what he tells the senate tomorrow. jeff: to the extent mueller's investigation has gone beyond russian collusion, i know there has been talk about a redline and the president's comments on that are whether or not it would involve family financials. where else do you understand mueller's
investigators have gone? we went in and the president said this redline thing, if mueller was financest the personal of him and his family that would , be the redline. he explained what would happen if he crossed the redline. the assumption is -- and he did not say this directly -- that he would get rid of mueller. it is not clear how much he is looking at trump's finances. trump's business ties to russia? that is the thing about the russia story. it is a large story, many different aspects. there is manafort, flynn, potential business issues, stuff that went on during the campaign. there are meetings between campaign officials and russians. then there is all the stuff that has gone on in the white house, the comey firing. how it was handled, why they did that.
there are these different parts of the story. there has been accusations mueller is hiring democrats the donated to hillary clinton's campaign. has mueller done anything that you have been able to see to mitigate some of that? michael: no. the white house has taken a look at the folks mueller has hired and tried to see where they could poke holes and get people disqualified and off of the investigation to throw hurdles in mueller's way, and find a way to maybe get what they would think would be more impartial -- more impartial folks working on it. the thing we know is mueller went out and hired the best of the best, folks that work in the justice department are now in private practice. folks that know criminal law well, folks that are experts in financial stuff, counterintelligence, know how to
deal with appellate appeals and filing the nitty-grittyness of filing as part of trials. it is a team of about 15 prosecutors and largely the best of the best. one member used to be the head of the enron task force a very , aggressive prosecutor. someone the defense attorneys are not a big fan of. someone playing a big role in the mueller investigation. jeff: it is more fun talking about baseball. michael: yeah. it was a nice diversion to work on this story but i , have to get back to the figuring out of the mueller stuff. jeff: i imagine you do. nice work with regard to the latest story that came out. always good to speak with you. michael schmidt from "the new york times" joining us from the washington, d.c. bureau. thanks for your time. michael: thank you for having
alisa: i am a alisa parenti in washington and you are watching "bloomberg technology." donald trump jr. told senate judiciary staff that he didn't inform the president about the 2016 meeting trump campaign members held with a russian lawyer. that is according to a person with knowledge of what was said in today's staff interview. trump jr. also said he went along to gauge the fitness of hillary clinton. british, french and dutch rescuers are rushing aid to caribbean islands after hurricane irma left at least 10 dead and thousands homeless. the monster storm is tracing a course for a potentially catastrophic strike on florida. irma blew by puerto rico this morning leaving thousands without running water