tv Charlie Rose PBS June 16, 2016 12:00am-1:01am PDT
>> rose: welcome to the program. we continue this evening, our coverage of the aftermath from orlando and talk to tim murphy, former deputy director of the fbi. >> if you look at the 9/11 commission report, they specifically talk about it was a failure of imagination which allowed this to happen. >> rose: and to look at the political ramifications we talk to john heilemann of bloomberg politics and also from "with all due respect." >> well, you know, again, as you know better than anybody. these waves in media generally come and go. we assume they can't keep going on like this for trump. so maybe will get a run of decent luck. maybe something bad will happen to hillary clinton, maybe the e-mail scandal or controversy, i should say, will turn for the worse with the fbi investigation. a lot of things could happen. the things we know trump could do well, hypothetically, copick
a running mate that reassured the republican establishment. >> rose: we conclude with anja manuel, her new book "this brave new world, india, china and the united states." >> china and india will have as dramatic an impact on the united states as any two other countries on earth, just to give you some examples. by 2030 they will be the world's largest markets for our companies. with three billion people between them and the world's fastest growing and largest middle classes. we used to think that we could solve some of the world's biggest problems such as climate change if just the u.s. and europe got along. but unfortunately, that's no longer the case. china is you no the world's largest carbon emitter and india is its fastest growing. so we need them to tackle some of the world's biggest problems. and what i argue for this the book is that we need to be clear where the lines are. we're going to have interests that are separate from theirs,
especially with china where we have all the issues that you pointed out. so we need to be clear and consistent. and keep the burn low. >> rose: tim murphy, john heilemann and anja manuel when we continue. funding for charlie rose is provided by the following: captioning sponsored by rose communications from our studios in new york city, this is charlie rose. >> rose: we continue this evening with our coverage of the shooting in orlando,ed tragedy has highlighted the by lone wolf
attacks. it also raised questions about fbi procedures and lessons going forward. the bureau had opened and closed two terrorism investigations into the shooter, omar mateen. his wife is now also the subject of a federal investigation. authorities are looking into the extent of her knowledge and involvement in his attack. joining me from washington, tim murphy. he's a former deputy director of the fbi and i'm very pleased to have him. welcome. >> thank you, charlie. >> rose: let me begin with the question, what is the portrait of omar mateen that we know so far? what is it that we see in this man in terms of influence, in terms of his own vulnerability to outside forces, ideas, ideologies? >> charlie, i think at its core you know, it's sim bol mattic of
some of the other things we have even in the united states of the lone wolf os ar director comey would like to call them, lone rats. he fits that similar profile, right. he is following muslim extremism. he believes in that ideology. he's radicalized. from what we know at this point there are some indications he was radicalized through different methods over the internet. he followed different terrorist groups. although there was a variety of terrorist groups that he espoused support for, some of them really didn't make sense because they might have been, you know, terrorist groups that were actually in conflict with one another. he did have, and what we're seeing, i think the picture so far is he did have those leanings towards, you know, violent extremism under the islamist name. >> rose: what do you make of the fact that he left so much nrvetion on his computer and his cell phone. >> i don't think-- you know, it
might be sloppy trade draft. he made the decision at the last moment. i don't have insight today, you know, exactly what was left on there, on his devices. some of these individuals, you know, they've improved their trade craft. and that you can see occurred over the last couple of years and that has to do with the snowden effect and the knowledge that how the western law enforcement intelligence collects information on terrorists, with this individual, maybe it's just sloppy trade craft. maybe he just wasn't prepared. maybe he had planned this and acted on more of an impulse over a shorter period of time. and where you have seen some of the others have actually had a longer planning period. i don't have insight to what his planning period was at this time. he's obviously showed from what we hear, indicators of violent behavior, hatred towards others. but at this point i think you have to let the investigation in, let the fbi and state and
local law enforcement, intelligence communities finish their investigation to map out motives, how long it took, what was his path towards radicalization. who he was in touch with. >> rose: so motive, what pathway, who he was in touch with. what was he watching, all of that are part of the investigation process on under way now by the fbi. >> yes, oh, absolutely. i mean they're going to look at the family investigation connections. the afghanistan and pakistan investigation. there will be leads cut worldwide that they're working on. obviously domestic, every place he traveled. they will put every effort, the bureau over the past couple of years seems to be occurring more frequently which is something we need to address. every one they do a complete after action and see if there were steps missed. and i think director comey has outlined that himself and said they will be reviewing this. not only the fbi but the department of justice. right now they're full steam ahead trying to figure this out. what motivated him. was there anybody else involved,
who actually inspired him. in any other connections he may have. >> rose: what do we know about frequent see? the ideas you suggested that these things are happening with more frequent see? we see the same patterns developing. we see the kinds of locations that are chosen. clubs, theaters, whether it's paris or whether it's orlando, florida. >> yeah, i think, you know, what we're facing in this country and we need to evolve quickly, that is my concern that we're not evolving quick enough, not agile enough to keep up with this threat. the threat is different than it was tief years ago or even four years ago. the al-qaeda threat and the other terrorist organizations, they had a command and control structure. the intelligence community and law enforcement could map that out. they could follow people, listen to communications. now with encrypted communications, now with isil or isis, it is decentralized. there is not a command and control. harm those in the united states, where you stand. you know, take up arms and hit
soft targets. that has been the instruction over using their recruiting tools, over their messaging back and forlt. so that is what they are seek the shift on. there is a lot of criticism i hear already about the fbi and this individual was under investigation. but there's a lot of reasons for that, why they investigated certain period of time, under the legal requirements they have. so the threat is different. we haven't evolved quickly enough to change those requirements that the fbi sunday when it comes to the attorney general guide lines and domestic investigation operation guide lines. those need to be mod-- modified. and they need to be modified so they can take a longer look at some of these individuals that may be terrorists. >> rose: you know t is the basic question of journalism that everybody is looking here, who, what, when, how and why. >> yes, most definitely. so if you look at the-- the fbi can do three types of investigation. and it's all based around not violating u.s. citizen's civil
liberties in this country. that is what the fbi stands for. so when they work this investigation, if they don't find that this individual is an immediate threat and what they say, someone that is going to commit an act do harm or material support, and they don't have enough evidence in a period of time, and that period of time varies on what level of investigation it is, they can go from 30 days to six months to a year. and if you don't find anything in that period of time, under the requirements and under the guide lines set down, the fbi agents have to close the case. >> rose: but at the same time i would assume, and i'm speaking to someone formally from the fbi, i would assume that you learn from every person that commits an awe tro shus act and then we go through this sort of analysis and investigation. and everything you learn adds to the body of knowledge about making a judgement about who is
a risk. >> yeah, but this is where the key point comes in. when we say and i've heard that quite a lot, you are hearing it up on the hill. already they are moving bills forward to get the fbi more money and to change some of these requirements that they are under the legal requirements and policies and procedures, but when we say judgement, an agent can have a strong suspicion. an agent can have what you would call a sense that this individual is not right. however that does not answer the bell when it comes to the legal requirement over what fb,-- the standard they are held to to continue the investigation. so you are right, they learn each time. and in most of these investigator-- investigators have come in after 9/11 in the fbi and they are very experienced in counterterrorism. they get a sense but they have to put some meat on the bone, if you will, to make sure there is a strong case and enough justification to continue to investigate a united states citizen. because then we get back into if they just do mere suspicion or they make a judgement on risk, we fall into that trap of
looking at everybody because we have a sense that they might be doing something wrong. i don't think that is where we want to go. >> rose: you are suggesting it is a constitutional questions that have real impact in terms of how these investigations go. >> because if you don't have anything, you can't continue the investigation even though you may have something. >> absolutely. so they're under strict guide lines on time frames. i think will you see this review by the department of justice and fbi, those are strict time lines they are under to conduct these investigations if you will. and they're supposed to use the least intrusive means necessary so we don't fie late someone might have called in a prank call that this individual is a terrorist. and the fbi has to figure that out. they are supposed to use the least intrusive means. we may want to right now go back immediately, be agile enough to increase those times that we have people under suspicion so this type of event doesn't
happen. if it would have been in this case, if you could have extended it and he was still on a terrorist watch list, the fbi would have been notified of a gun purchase and they could have gone back out and really intervened at that point. but they were not allowed to do that. this is worse, we have to look at some of these policies and procedures and also some legislation on making some changes. we have to do that very quickly because will you see more of these attacks in this country. >> rose: do i hear you saying the fbi has enough resources to do what is necessary to engage in these investigations. it has all the resources and no-how that it needs. it simply has to do what? >> no, i-- you i hope i didn't misspeak. i think number one the threat is totally changed. and number two, there is a finnity number of resources. i recently read today and the director comey said he has a resource to the job. now they might have had the resources in this particular case. and the miami division applied the right resources to the case and that mile be what he is referring to. but if you are asking me today,
does the fbi have fluff counterterrorism resources to address this threat, absolutely not. right after 9/11, i think ron kesler wrote an op ed and we had 10,000 investigators, he wrote an op ed that said if you want the fbi to tackle this problem, they need another 10,000 agents and they need them tomorrow. we had 10,000 agents then, they are now about 13,500 to cover not only the united staitle but the rest of the world. and those agents all aren't working counterterrorism there are so many other violations they work with, the cyberthreat, all the violent crimes, organized crime, white clar crime, public corruption. so think of that 13,500 agents and now start cutting that in half. there is not enough resources to cover this current threat. i absolutely believe that and they need more resources and they need it now. >> rose: what does it have to do with? or is it simply agents and time? >> i think it's agents, it's not just-- the organization has
become depend ent on other individuals supporting the agents. so it is a whole picture of the number of resources. when i say time, yes, they do need more time. we do need to be able to-- you know, we probably have to look at additional authorities. because there are certain activities that you can do under certain levels of investigation. and if it's a terrorism investigation, we might want to expand those authorities some what. and i think you know, that's something for d o.j., the fb-i, the legislators to look at. should we in terrorism cases should the fbi give,-- be given more expansive powers to continue the cases and do other investigative means to determine if the individual is going to be a threat to the united states and a terrorist. >> do you believe it is the lone wolf or the lone rat theory as james comey said or simply acting because of changes in their own motivation and influence perhaps from the internet. or do you believe the threat
will come from more directed attacks from isis? >> i think it's going to be-- i think it's going to be from the lone wolf or lone rat. directed attacks are very hard to pull off at this point because of the effective job that law enforce. , intelligence agencies around the world and the five ist and the united states have done with their partners globally. but it's very easy to recruit over the internet, to recruit through their media arm and get these individuals that are either like-minded or disenfranchised with the current country they live in. you see it. and really if you look at this over the last 15 years, and you saw we're actually following yeump and some of the issues that they had. they had this problem before we had it. we seem to be following them by three to five to seven years on the same type of problem.
they had a huge immigration problem with their terrorists and disenfranchised youth and following and being radicalized. we're now faced with that same problem. which if you ask everybody 1e7b ten years ago, the answer was that wouldn't happen here. but that is what is happening. so you will see a lot of these individuals being recruited that are unhappy with their current place. they may have mental issues. you know, i think you're also seeing the uptick in the mass shootings, right n this country, just because they weren't tied to an ideology, it is a mass shooting. but when they are tied to the ideology, that is when we have the terrorism angle. and you have seen a lot, an increase in the mass shootings in this country as well. so i think we'll see both. and i think we're going to see more if we don't, increase our capability and the terrorism front to head some of this off. >> why did they do it? >> you know, i think the recruiting arm is so effective, and that they've been at least conditioned or brain washed to
think that you know, the yeunded states is evil. its people are evil. the way our life is not the way you need to live your life, according to their ideology. and i think they want to bring the most harm and pain to the united states. and what a way to do it, to attack soft targets. >> rose: how much progress are we making in trying to combat them in the battle of ideas and the war of ideas about these kinds of acts and all the questions that arise from that? whether it is a misreading of islam, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera. >> and the answer is no, we are not. i think that is where we have failed as a government and community. we have failed tremendously over the last ten years. i can remember eight years ago talking about programs we were going to use to counterthe narrative. to counterviolent extremism to work with our communities, to get into the communities, to educate the youth, and it's
just, there has been fits and starts over who was going to run that, how it would be connected to state and local. our communities of these populations where they seem to come from which now adays seems to be everywhere. how do you get in there and how do you counterthe message. there has been work with social media companies. they haven't been very cooperative. when you look at what is on twitter and how that is used and on facebook and some of the other social media companies, we have failed miserably at that. and i think you're right. that is another leg in the stool. besides the authorities, besides the enforcement side, the long-term vision is how do you counter that narrative. i will tell you, the europeans, london, u.k., they also recognize that they had to do some of that. i don't have the visibility into how effective that was in london. but they brought people early on after a number of attacks, particularly after the july attacks in i believe 2005. they brought a number of experts in to start working with the
community and trying to get a better understanding and counter the narrative. we need a lot of work to counter the narrative for our youth. and you know, for the people in some of these communities that just feel they don't fit into america and our society. >> rose: we were talking to the director of homeland security on a program this week. and he basically said, i think for the first time i heard him say it, that access to guns is now a home security issue. do you agree with that? >> look, you know, i think when these events happen, we get focused on issues like this. you know, was this a gun vainlt problem? do too many individuals that want to harm other individuals in this country have weapons and they shouldn't have weapons? absolutely. but i think that it is a focus. but i'm not sure it's the
primary focus of what we need to do. you can get weapons in this country, every state, states have different laws. there's private gun sales. so even some of the effective methods that they're currently talking about t would help mitigate the risk to a degree. but if bad people still want to get weapons in this country, unless you turn it totally 180 degrees and nobody can get any weapons ever, i don't think that's going to solve the problem. solving the problem is really looking at a holistic look at this, what do you do on the investigations, the intelligence gathering, countering violent extremism message. you know, and maybe on the margins, making sure that people that are on a suspected terror list don't get a weapon or at least they are on a list that they can't buy a weapon or at least the fbi is notified, whether or not they have been under suspicion and they're-- i wouldn't say cleared but the investigation is closed. there should be some indication, if we have had enough evidence
to understand that someone is actually a terrorist threat to this country but not enough to continue an investigation because of civil liberties we certainly need to make sure they don't get fire arms. >> rose: do we have to ask ourselves, is there enough outreach. and i don't mean by this sort of monitoring, but is there enough outreach with the various communities, so that there is a sense of if someone is behaving in a way that suggests a profile that we ought to have some conversation about that. >> absolutely. and look, like i said there's fits and starts, there are pockets in this country where the government has done a very good job of that. the fbi has tremendous outreach, vhs has a tremendous outreach to the community and to different im-- imams, they run citizen academy, they educate the people
on what the fbi can and can't do and other government agencies. they get into the communities. they work with them and say, you know, this is what we are looking for. we need you to call us. we need you to tell us. and quite frankly there's been a lot of success. there are a number of subbing siss if you look back. and people coming forward and saying even family members coming in and reporting, say, this just isn't right. i just wanted to let you foa about it. and then you know, the government can take some type of action. remember that intervention, maybe this is an investigation. maybe that's referring them to some type of community involvement and community help to help counterthe way they're feeling or that the message that they are receiving from the recruitment arm of isis or isil oral quieda or any one of the other terrorist groups. so there is a lot of outreach being done. but what i also say, it's not enough. and it's not done on a consistent and systemic broad wide basis across the united states. i think there are pockets probably of excellence and
allots of areas where the resources aren't there time and effort is not there, and understanding is not there. there is a lot of work to be done on this. the lead up to the 9/11. look at the 9/11 commission report, they specifically talk about it was a failure of imagination which allowed this to happen. what i fear now is because this threat has changed and because the way they are recruited has changed, and because of the home groan extremists here in the united states, i think we're at another failure of imagination point. we need to get our arms wrapped around all those different things that you and i just talked about tonight, and put this plan in place. and really taker it seriously. because the longer we wait, another tragic event happens. and i guess, i don't want us to get to a point where we're numb about this. >> rose: fair enough. and important enough. so where does that start? who is responsible for making that happen? >> i mean it obviously starts with the president, with the fbi
director and the justice department. >> it's such a high priority at this point. are you exablgly write where it has to come from. this group they would put together, just like they would do any other high profile, usually on a reactive basis, this was some what reactive but more on a proactive, they had to have this group, whether they would lead the of the, with the law enforcement, intelligence community, department of state, community groups, governmentwide, countrywide, community groups and state and locals, it's-- you need to put this group together. they need to have someone really shep hearding it through every day. weekly meetings on this. what are we doing, what kind of progress, what of our metrics. they really need to set up a whole strategy for us. what i am afraid is we don't have a holistic strategy to cover all the things we talked about. we have people running out and doing one off instead of a complete strategy. it has to start with the administration it has to cascade down to all the agencies in order to help mitigate some of
this risk. >> rose: tim murphy, thank you for joining us. >> thank you. >> rose: pleasure to have you. >> we'll be right back. stay with us. >> rose: we turn now to politics. this morning the presumptive republican nominee donald trump said he would meet with a national rifle association to discuss gun laws. their meeting, trump said, via twitter will concern not allowing people on the terrorist watch list or no fly list to buy guns. at a rally in atlanta today trump also reiterated its claim the orlando tragedy could have been prevented or mitigated had more people been armed. >> if some of those great people that were in that club that night had guns strapped to their waste or strapped to their ankle, and if the bullets were going in the other direction, aimed at this guy who was just open target practice, you would have had a situation, folks,
which would have been always horrible, but nothing like the carnage that we all as a people suffered this weekend. >> rose: at a townhall meeting in hampton, virginia, hillary clinton focused on national defense. >> i do not underestimate the extent. challenge we face. but mi absolutely confident that we can keep our country safe. and i'm sure if we work together and make this not a republican or democrat debate, but an american mission, that is exactly what we do will do together. >> rose: she also release a video in which she criticized trump's proposed ban on muses limbs and suggestion that president obama is on the side of the terrorist. joining me now is john heilemann. he is a managing editor at bloomberg politics and the cohost of "with all due respect." i am pleased to have him back on this program. trump. >> yeah.
>> rose: did he drill down, did he modify, did he do what? >> well, he said an extraordinary thing today which was not what we captured here with that video clip, important to the discussion that we're now having over gun control as trump's posturing is. he said this extraordinary thing today. in the face of the wide-spread panic that is now gripped the republican party, as republican establishment arians, elected officials and others are looking at trump's poll numbers falling, looking at hillary clinton opening up a double digit lead in this bloomberg national poll, 11, 12%, the sense that he is in free fall which is the view among most republican political operatives, people with polls in the field, private polling, public polling. he now hears shall it-- he sees paul ryan, mitch mcconnell, others running away from him on the politics and how he handledded orlando shooting. is he seeing all this. today he came out and said i want them all to just be quiet.
leave me alone. i will do this on my own. i don't need them. if i have to do it on my own, i will do it on my own. and it probably, at this moment, encapsulates more clearly than anything. he came right out and said it. that was not a direct quote but not far from a direct quote, what i just gave you. encapsulate, instrail-- illustrates his mindset better than anything. is he not looking at-- is he not seeing what is going on around him and saying i better modify my behavier. is he saying if i have to do this on my own, and they all don't want to be with me, forget the republican party. i will go and written this election on my own. >> rose: i won their nomination do doing it my way and i will continue doing it my way. >> right. >> rose: and will they please not give me any more advice. is that what he said. >> yes, that is exactly what he is sayings. you got it exactly right. and in the face of what i think by any objective measure, and i say that not in a partisan way, this is what republicans think and democrats think, have been a horric two weeks for him t is reflked in the polling numbers, right. >> rose: what does it mean to him, let's is just say i want to
do it my way, i don't need you what are the consequences of that from a political campaign standpoint? >> well, there is a whole variety of consequences. one consequence is that it suggests that all of the republican hopes that trump would modify his behavior, be more presidential, modify his tone, et cetera. those have been blown out of the water. he has extended a thick middle finger which in trump's case people say he has small hands, basically he is flipping the bird to the party saying i'm-- that is one thing. it suggests-- he doesn't at this moment have really a campaign around him. so you know, hillary clinton is building operations in the battleground states. prioritiesu sa, her superpact is running millions of dollars in ads against trump in those states, there is no trump campaign. is he doing it his old way, doing it rally by rally. not on the air, not on the ground. >> rose: do you think. >> there is no precedent for it. >> rose: you can't say that he
created some new political jugger naught that show he's going to be diminished in the general election because the general election is is so very different than the primary. >> i think you can say that again, obviously the trump model was enough to win him the republican nomination against 16 relatively weak opponents. he dumb doazed the field in his own way, that is fueling his sense that he doesn't have to listen to peevment he defied them before. but it is a much bigger electorate, much more complicated thing to be elected president. right now he's out there all alone. hillary clinton, barack obama, elizabeth warren. >> rose: bernie sanders. >> joe biden, bernie sanders, all of them voices against trump. but big time figures. whatever you think about hillary clinton and barack obama and their policies, you can dislike them all you want, they are major league political players and when you see as you saw this week, hillary clinton and barack obama double teaming trump as
they did yesterday, you look at that and you realize he has no one to speak for him, no one to defend him. it's just trump. that go-alone strategy is hard to win with. it suggests he will not moderate in significant ways, that has huge implications for the rest of the republican party. because it imperils down ballot republicans in the senate, in the house. and that's what is causing a lot of this panic right now. not just that they see trump in free fall, they think trump in free fall could drag the entire republican party down with them and cost the house and the senate. that is why mitch mcconel and paul ryan are in such a bind. >> rose. >> who has now become the republican project. it used to be their consolation was we don't have the white house but we have the legislature. >> rose: so what would trump have to do to turn this free fall around? >> well, you know, again, as you know better than anybody, these waves in media generally come and go. we assume they can't keep going on like this for trump. so maybe he will get a run of
decent luck. maybe something bad will happen to hillary clinton. maybe the e-mail scandal or controversy, i should say, will turn for the worse with the fbi investigation. a lot of things could happen. the things we though that trump could do well, again, hypothetically, he could pick a running mate that reassured the republican establishment. >> rose: who wants to run with him? >> unclear at this point. you know, someone like, for example, one of the piece of collateral damage is bob corker, the chairman of the senate foreign relations committee, was on everybody's idea, thought he was on the short list. trump seemed to like him, he praised trump's foreign policy speech a month and a half ago. he came out and trashed trump in the last 24 hour, not trashed him, but distanced himself pretty dramically so discouraged. he disagrees with trump's reaction to the or landsor shooting. who is on the list, newt gingrich in our bloomberg poll, voters said they thought beginning reich-- gingrich was the most likely republican running mate. gingrich said the jeuj cur yell comntds were the biggest, most significant mistake trump had ever made. even the people on his short
list, seemingly, paul ryan, someone who would be a-- they are all running away from him in various ways. >> rose: anybody running towards him. is anybody saying other than the base that he built in terms of white males? >> i don't see a republican-- right now a significant republican elected official who would under normal circumstances be someone who you would put on a list as a vice presidential nominee. who is running towards him. at best therrary trying to stay quiet. but there is no one out there, literally there is no one out there of consequence who is out there mawking the case for trump. >> rose: saying i support the ideas and expresses. >> correct, in this moment n this key moment, following what we all would acknowledge was a huge national trauma with what happened in or landsor, in a moment like benghazi, for mitt romney. these realtime moments of testing for a candidate are big moments. >> rose: the question is coming up now, also k he be derailed at the con vengsz by anybody? >> that's the other answer to
your very good question about what the political ramifications of this are. we have seen that, the never trump move am, then the dump trump movement. first when the nemp trump movement famed it became the dump trawmp, we have seen that wax and wane. right now triefer atly it is waxing, not wanting. it doesn't take much to change the rules of the republican convention, in theory to keep him from et going the nomination am you say that the rule which is if he has a simple majority, you change that rule and say he needs two thirds of the delegates am and that would keep him from winning on the first ballot, then you have a contested convention. >> rose: the party could do that. >> the party could easily, the rules committee could pass that rule change like that. but the political consequences of that, what that would mean, if you alienated all those millions of trump voters. >> rose: is this an issue, we would rather-- we would rather lose on principle than lose with someone who is damaging in their judgement, what the republican party should stand for.
>> yes, that is part of it. and also to go back to the thing we were talking about before, it's not purely prinsz pal versus the practical. it is partly the practical versus the practicalment because their fear now is is they are damned if they do damned if they don't. if they let strump be the nom nee and continues on this path t could damage them across the board and they are fearful if they were to remove him, that could damage them because there are millions of trump voters who do love the guy, right. so that would be a huge-- a republican establishment not well loved by the base of the party giving the back of its hand to the base of the party in that way by stripping the nomination from trump that he earned. there is political fallout and consequences in both directions, which is why i think probably the notion of dumping trump will not happen. but right now at this moment, there's a lot of discussion about it. among republican elected officials, and party grandese. >> rose: any talk in the political community today about doing something about gun,
understanding the power of the nra. >> yes, well, you know, you saw mitch mc-- mcconnell come out and say he was open to having a conversation now, first time i have ever heard that from the senate majority leader about some form of what he considers sensible gun regulation. >> rose: trump himself said. >> he said we don't foa exactly what that tweet means but it is ambiguous but he seems to also be suggests he would have a conversation with the nra about it. you know, on the gun show loophole, and particularly on this question of trying to not allow people who are on no fly list to buy weapons, that would seem to be an area where, you might be able to pass a bill through the senate. it's a little still in question about whether you could actually pass it through the house or not. but there does seem to be right now movement on this front, even among some republicans and certainly the fact that democrats today over the course of the past couple of days staged this protest on the house and the senate and are filibustering the senate today,
hillary clinton is emboldened, because she has been so strong on this issue, rhetorically so strong, she is emboldened the rest of the democratic party to go further than it has gone on 20 years on this question and some republicans, at least in the senate seem open to discussion on this. but again the house still is a huge problem. i think that though that whether we get any kind of change in gun safety, gun control legislation, in the immediate future, she is by embracing this issue so much, and going through the cycle we're now going through, she is laying down a pred cat. if she wins the presidency and democrats take down the senate and the house or even really substantially reduce the republican majority in the house, you could see gun control legislation, some kind of modest gun control legislation next year. >> rose: political question, bernie sanders, now my understanding is that he is in some point creating a set of continues that are necessary for him toned his campaign and support her, is that a fair appraisal? >> that's a fair appraisal, yeah.
>> rose: what are his conditions likely to be. some participation in the convention, some future in the democratic party. >> he wants debbie wasserman shutlez the head of the democratic national committee to be fired. >> rose: that doesn't seem like a hard thing to do. >> hillary clinton had an interview today in "u.s.a. today" in which she rather pointedly refused to say that she would stand by deb yee he-- debbie wasserman shutlez. she pownted out in interview that she did not appoint chairwoman wasserman-schultz and we could have a scutionz about the commute on that maryt. she threw a sharp elbow at the chair woman. sanders wants same-day registration in democratic primaries, he wants open primaries so independents can vote. he wants to get rid of superdelegates. all of those things in terms of reforming the democratic nominating process in the future are again things secretary clinton would easily give away. >> rose: why don't they give it done. >> it will take a little time. i think we will get. there and he wants, he says he wants changes in the platform. my understanding is that what
sanders cares most about is getting rid of wasserman-schultz and feakk the future of how democrats nominate their nominees, that would be a legacy they could be proud of. and he wants her to be against fracking and $15 minimum wage. >> rose: he wants the party to be more like him. >> more liberal. the platform doesn't really matter. will she concedes some of those, she might. they will be meaningless. the strk ture things though i think will get. and i would bet every dollar in your bank account, and we know that's a large amount, every dollar in your bank account, i would et about, that bernie saningers between now and philadelphia will endorse hillary clinton and that we will have something very close to democratic unity by the time we get to philadelphia. >> rose: i i think you're right, thank you for coming. >> thank you. >> rose: back in a moment, stay with us. anja manuel sheer, lech walesa turer at stanford university,
she previously served in the state department from 2005 to 2007. in her role she was responsible for south asia policy. also a partner in the strategic consulting firm rice, hadley, gates, her new book is you will cad "the brave new world." it addresses the rise of india and china and how the united states can bring them together. i'm pleased to have her at this table for the first time. welcome. >> thank you very much, charlie. >> rose: all of us know that there has been, you know, a signal mark of what happened in the last 20 years, has been the rise of asia, china, india, vietnam and other places. we also know that the united states was recently visited by the prime minister of india, mr. modi. we also know that there is an ongoing die log with china which has problems having to do with the south china sea which has to do with cyberspace and which has to do with other issues. how can we bring the three of them together?
>> sth is the core question in the book. it's not going to be easy. but china and india will have as dramatic an impact on the united states as any two other countries on earth. just to give you some examples. by 2030 they will be the world's largest markets for our companies with three billion people between them. and the world's fastest growing and largest middle classes. we used to think that we could solve some of the world's biggest problems such as climate change f just the u.s. and europe got along. but unfortunately thration's no longer the case. chien a is now the world's largest carbon emitter and india is its fastest growing. so we need them to tackle some of the world's leggest problems-- bige problems. what i argue for in the book is that we need to be clear where its lines are, we're going to have interests that are separate from theirs. especially with china where we have all the issues that you
pointed out. so we need to be clear and consistent. and keep the burn low. for example, on the south china sea, we did freedom of navigation exercises for a few years, then we stopped. now we're doing them again. if i'm the chinese military i'm confused about that. we should be clear and consistent and keep it going. at the same time and what i-- . >> rose: i assume they have gotten that message. >> they have gotten that message. but you definitely talk to some folks in the pla and they thought well, obama isn't so interested and now president obama is interested again, what is going on. the most important thing, however, and what i argue for in the book is that we need to find as many areas for cooperation as possible. whether its' on climate change, whether it's our businesses doing work together, in clean tech, in education policy. >> rose: cyber. >> cyberis difficult. cyberis very, very difficult. >> rose: but if there they can cooperate, my understanding is the last time that they met that there was some promises maids
with respect to certain kinds of things taking place that the chinese made some promises. >> that's right. the real concern for, and i live in silicon valley, for our companies, especially our tech companies has been the chinese cyberstealing of our industrial secrets. it's real, it's unprecedented. >> rose: doing things for private companies. >> yeah. >> rose: maybe state owned. >> which maybe state owned. it's a little unclear who is doing it. can t could be folks employed by the chinese government by day and they're moon lighting by one quite knows, it is a real problem. >> rose: have they stopped since they promised they would limit that? >> from what i hear it is better, not perfect. but the fact that there is a dialogue and they are taking the dialogue seriously say very important development. sometimes when we talk about foreign policy we are he looking for big wins and looking for it to stop right away. my view is that just talking about it in a real way is a real step. >> rose:ed china development
for numb beijing not so long ago. there is a clear discussion on all these issues with an equal number of people around the world and equal number of chinese leaders. so that there was a conversation about it. that is not a dialogue-- it a dialogue among government people and private people and but it's at the same time they have to be knowledgeable that these are issues that have to be-- that need to be engaged and need to be the fore runner of even the more intractable problems. >> that's exactly right. and the more we engage, the more we practice practice cooperating the better. let me give you an example with india, now we don't hear much about india partly because we have a positive partnership. we're doing welling to. there were decades of mistrust, especially between diplomats on the endsia side and the u.s. side. india was part of the non-aligned movement clinton
kind of broke the ice but going from '99 2-rbgs thousand. george w. bush doubled down on that when he did the civilian nuclear deal which i was one of the negotiators. and then obama has really promoted the partnership. but it took a decade of getting over the mistrust. and it's only now that i think our government and the indian government feels very comfortable working together. let me tell you, some of those negotiations we were ready to throw in the towel and i think the indians were ready to throw in the towel. >> rose: it was achievement to pull them away from the russian orbit. >> it was. i think of course india defined itself as being nonaligned. and not in anybody's orbit. and many of the older diplomats in india still feel that way. so india of course has a long history of colonialism under the brits, they only gained their independence in the late 1940st. and they wanted to be the-- representative in the world of the down troden. not aligned with the u.s. or
with russia. >> rose: you say that the chinese are in a defensive krowch. do they fear and do you hear this, and specifically from military leaders in china, that they think the united states is engaged in a policy of containment. do you think that is a serious issue for them. >> it absolutely is a serious issue and every time i go to china that is what i hear. they believe that we are trying to hold them back, bring them down and contain them. >> rose: courting vietnam and india and everybody else, who can provide a circle and them. >> that's right. and of course this is a difficult dilemma because from our perspective the chinese are being very aggressive. they are pushing into parts of the south china sea. that the world doesn't think they own. but looking at it from their perspective, when you hear them say it, the ocean is their lifeline to the world. most of the goods coming in and out of china go through the ocean. 82% of chinese oil goes through the mall aka strait, tiny little narrow strip of water next to
singapore. if we shut that down, their economy has a real problem. so they see us as threatening because they also see the sigh landses off our coast, they see our aircraft carriers sailing close to the chinese coast and they worry about that. so thases' not to justify their actions. but when you are dealing with someone you need to also take their view points into account. and we shouldn't be feeding into their paranoid. >> rose: turn that around though, where have they been aggressive in addition to the south china sea that causes us concern? >> i'm glad you asked that question. because it actually goes well beyond the south china sea. one important example is the high himalayas, so there is a long border between china and india that is not very well defined. and just in the last few years the chinese have made repeated incursions over that border. there are actually really interesting youtube videos because these days everything is on youtube of chinese and indian
soldiers throwing punches at each other. they are not allowed to shoot but they are punching each other and recording it for all the world to seevment the indians are worried about that. the indians are also worried about chinese sub marines that are increasingly active in the indian ocean. and as one indian admiral put it sneaking by the indian coast. so that has the south esh asian states worried, its indians are worried and to some extent, all of the flood of chinese investment into africa and latin america has some of those countries worried as well. >> rose: what is your assessment of xi jinping. >> is he a very strong leader, is he thoughtful and splart. he is, i believe, a reformer on the economic front. but anyone had any illusions that he was going to be a political reformer and loosen up the chinese system, i think is mistaken. whenever i go to china and talk to folks there in the government and out, the mantra now is about
pure fying the communist party so it can rule for another century. >> rose: the idea of launching an attack encore rungs. >> yes. and that is what, when you hear the anticorruption czar talk, he stiffens advicably when he's talking about there issue. and he says this line, we are pure fying the communist party so it can rule for another century. >> rose: and therefore when there is any threat they think to the communist partied, they come down hard on that threat. >> that's right. and they see a lot of threat beyond corruption to a whole range of organizations, human right activists an others. >> that's exactly right. and the crackdown on desent has been quite broad. there are different forms of desent in china. what we tend to hear is crackdown on human rights activists. but of course there are religious minorities that have always had problems, the weakers have always had problems. there is the broadways of the chinese pop louse, 180,000
protests a year. but those are mostly about bread and butter issues. you have taken my land for the factory, or there's too much smog in the city or i'm not earning enough. that is the second basket. and the third bas kelt which-- basket which i think sin creasingly powerful is this again racial of chinese millenials, mostly only children weren't alive during tiananmen square so they have never seen a crackdown. and they are as outspoken on the internet as most of my stanford students are, and i'm always surprised with the things they are willing to stay. >> rose: when you look at the chinese economy, the questions of where it is going, we just saw the release of a five-year plan, several months ago. clearly they laid out what they hope to achieve. in some cases it's con tra dik other. but there is a lot of as operational tone in that five-year plan. other people question exactly what are the real numbers about the chinese economy.
what is your own assessment of the status. >> last fall there were so many headlines here in the united states about the chinese economy. five signs of the chinese economic apocalypse, the doom dragon. i think all of those prog no cease are two negative. the chinese imhe is in a slump it is very hard to trust the official statistics. so i think the best guesstimate of economists is they are growing like four percent, rather than the sick or seven they claim. but i don't see a hard landing where you have a crash landing and it's over. you have two very different economies in china. just like you have in the united states. so if i travel to a second and third tier steeltown and coal mining city, those are devastated. the chinese leaked recently that they're going to have to layoff about five million coal and steel workers in the next counsel elf years.
>> rose: because of overcapacity. >> because of massive overcapacity. so that part of the economy is-- . >> rose: they all promised that they will have social welfare programs to take care of them. >> they did they put 23 billion dollars for that. but that still doesn't amount to that much pr person. so it's difficult. but yoamp all, the chinese economy is going to pull out of the slump. maybe not back to 10% growth but probably six percent growth. >> rose: how about the role of women in chinese society. >> it is in some respects surprisingly positive. so the communist party wadge always very proegalitarian and very prowomen. >> rose: hoo. >> mao said they hold you up half the skynd especially in the business sector chinese women are doing incredibly well. >> rose: billionaires. >> billionaires, more self-made women billionaires in china than anywhere else on earth. 30 million chinese women entrepreneurs. women-owned businesses. it's a stark contrast to india
where you have all of the right laws on the books, it say democracy, its constitution protks women's rights there are good laws on sexual harassment and violence against women, but especially for the lower castes, they are often not very well informed. not very well enforced and in true indian style, often civil society takes things into their own hands. so i describe in the book, a story of the grksu labi gang which say group of indian less affluent and lower caste women who had just had enough of the domestic violence. and so now they dress up in hot pink saris. and whenever they hear a man is et booing his wife in the village, they go in, all in their hot pink saris and with sticks and they beat the guy until he stops. a very indian story. >> rose: in the end is the competition between china and india, will it be determined by the nature of their government? >> in terms of the form of government, one-on-one hand in india democracy on the other
hand, a to tal yarrian rule by party? >> absolutely. india is certainly more resilient because of its democratic form of government. people were fruses traited, two and a half years ago with the congress party government that wasn't accomplishing reform, so they threw the bums out and they have prime minister modi and his pjp that makes the system much more resilient. the chinese system by contrast is rigid, authorityian, and i is going to be able to predicts ether the chinese government will fall or when it will fall, no one predicted the fall of the soviet union. but there are some signs that are what in the intel community would call chatter. for example, in march there was
an anonymous letter sent airnlgd calling for xi jinping to resign because of his-- personal. there have been numerous rumors on attempts on xi life and the anticorruption czar's life. so there are rumblings under the surface. whether that will actually amount to anything remains to be determined. >> rose: thank you for coming. >> thank you very much. >> rose: the book is called "this brave new world, india, china and the united states." anja manuel, thank you for joining us. see next time. >> for more about this program and earlier episodes visit us yp line at pbs.org and charlie rose.com ssm captioning sponsored by rose communications captioned by media access group at wgbh access.wgbh.org
this is nightly business report with tyler mathisen and sue herera. >> on hold. the federal reserve may not have moved on interest rates but the central bank did say about where it sees the economy heading. ? profit problems. why investors can add one more thing to worry about. and senior scams. millions of older americans fall victim to financial fraud. but there are things you can do to protect yourself or those you love. all that and more tonight on "nightly business report" for wednesday, june 15th. good evening. tyler mathisen is on assignment tonight. the federal reserve stands pat. not only does central bank unanimously decide not to raise interest rates but it