tv Charlie Rose The Week PBS February 4, 2017 5:30am-6:01am PST
>> rose: welcome to the program. i'm charlie rose. the program is "charlie rose: the week." just ahead, president trump's nominee and the future of the supreme court. concerns over the president's national security team. and director rile peck looks at race in america through the words of james baldwin in the new documentary film, "i am not your negro." >> in america, i was never free to rest. we need to take action, any kind of action, by any means necessary. >necessary. our leaders are going to kill us all off. >> rose: we will have those stories and more on what happened and what might happen.
>> rose: funding for "charlie rose" has been provided by the following: >> and by bloomberg, a provider of multimedia news and information services worldwide. captioning sponsored by rose communications >> rose: is it luck at all or is it something else what's the object lesson here? >> it opens the door to a demagogue. >> rose: tell me the significance of the moment. >> rose: this was the week president trump nominated judge neil gorsuch for a seat on the supreme court. the administration announced new sanctions against iran. and in tennis, serena williams and roger federer took top honors at the australian open. here are the sights and sounds of the past seven days. six die in a terror attack on a canadian mosque. >> canadian investigators have charged a suspect in a deadly shooting at a quebec mosque. >> a french soldier opened fire on a man trying to enter the
louvre museum. >> a surge in violence has brought ukraine balk baek on into the stage. >> judge gorsuch has outstanding legal skills, a brilliant mind. >> this is a very bad decision. >> i'm mucho happy about this pick. >> democratic senators staged a boycott, refusing to vote on confirming several of mr. trump's cabinet pick. >> 76 dakota access pipeline protesters are under arrest. >> inmates have taken over a prison in delaware and they're holding guards hostage. >> we are all human beings, and we are all together on this horrible, painful, joyous, exciting, and mysterious ride that is being alive. ♪ a hero comes along >> who's my hero? that's a great question. my dad. >> you're fired. president donald trump giving a pink slip to the acting attorney general. ♪ we didn't start the fire >> rose: protests over
breitbart at berkeley. >> it started as a peaceful protest but at one point felt like a riot. >> the presidency is supposed to age the president, not the public. ♪ ♪ >> rose: protests greet president's travel ban. >> we say to president trump rescind that will ban. >> he's already moved the country back to 2004. if this keeps up, pretty soon i'm going to launch "the colbert report." ( cheers and applause ) . >> rose: we begin tonight with iran. on friday morning, the trump administration announced new sanctions against iran. the move comes in response to the test firing of an iranian ballistic missile earlier in the week. the sanctions target 12 companies and 13 individuals with tied to iran's missile program or the country's revolutionary guard ciewdz force. joining miew no from washington
david sanger from the "new yorkk times." i begin first with david sanger. david, why are they doing flynn, mike flynn, the national security adviser, that-- issued a statement today in which he said that the old method of watching a missile firing and then gathering the united nations general assembly or security council together to issue a pronouncement against iran, that those days were over, that that was ineffective. so he announced a series of sanctions that, quite frankly, looked a fair bit like the kind of sanctions the obama administration issued just a year ago. the difference was that in announcing it, they revealed a bit more of what they knew about
the networks of suppliers that the iranians have for their missile program, blowing the cover of a number of front companies and signaling to the iranians, "we know where you live, and you're in a new era now where we can make your life a little more miserable." >> rose: will it have an impact on the iranians or how will they react? >> charlie, i think iranian's comfort zone is to have contained condition 41itation with the united states. the obama administration made them uncomfortable with their engagements and overturs, and i think that the trump administration as of now unpredictable for them. but, you know, iran has-- always likes to show that external pressure is not going to modify their behavior. they're not going to give in as a result of pressure. and i think that what's key about the geopolitical context
now is under obama, the united states managed to assemble a pretty robust international coalition to isolate iran financially, politically, and force iran into a nuclear compromise. i think iran probably senses now with president trump in washington and a president in tehran who is thought to be a moderate, thought to be reasonable, it's going to be much tougher for washington to assemble this broad broadinternational coalition against iran. >> rose: on tuesday, president trump announced his pick to fill the empty seat on the supreme court. 49-year-old appellate judge neil gorsuch faces a partisan confirmation. senate democrats are looking to even the score after republicans refused to even consider president obama's nominee for the seat, merrick garland.
we turn now to our panel for more on judge gorsuch and the future of the court. >> he has a glittering resume. he went to columbia. harvard has a docket rate in legal philosophy from oxford. worked at a very prestigious law firm in the justice department, and has been a judge on the tenth circuit for 11 years, where he's really earned the admiration of people on both sides of the ideological spect prum rhumb for being a careful, serious judge, and one who shares with justice scalia, whom he aims to replace air, really lively and accessible writing style. so he is a pretty-- pretty solid package. >> rose: so david boies, what's to be concerned about here? >> well, if that package was enough to get you on the supreme court there wouldn't be a vacancy gauze because judge garland would have it. >> rose: it's always judge garland, isn't it? >> it's always politics. >> rose: what i mean is you can't talk to democrats about this nomination without a
reference to someone they thought was imminently qualified and didn't get a chance to be confirmed. >> i think that's exactly right because i think one of the principles here are how are we going to select our supreme court nominees and our justices? if the answer is only a republican president can select somebody who will be confirmed, you're obviously not going to have balance on the supreme court. >> rose: paul clemmen, where do you think this nomination stands? >> well, i think this nomination is now before the senate and as adam suggested, you know, they're confronting an eminently qualified individual in judge gorsuch. and i think that-- i'm sure there's going to be a lot of discussion about politics and payback and a lot of discussion of judge garland, who is also a terrific jurist. but what i don't think we're going to have a lot about is a lot of criticism of judge gorsuch, because he really is just a top-caliber individual and a judge who has really proven, as adam suggested, to be somebody who is admired across
partisan lines. >> rose: jan, you must hear some from senate democrats, criticism of judge gorsuch. >> well, it almost feels like right now, charlie, they've decided they have to fight him and they're just looking for how to do it. that's why you're seeing there's going to be a close cruit scroout me of his record, combing through his opinions to see with anyclues where he might be anti-women, anti-worker. we haven't seen any specifics in what they would use in that script. it's like they're just now trying to find it. which means, again, this is raising the political battle. >> rose: adam, what about this argument, that the presidential contest was in part about electing your candidate so that he could appoint judges that you liked, and this is one of the things that goes with winning the presidency. you get to appoint supreme court justices. you win. you appoint. >> well, mitch mcconnell said he wanted the next president to get to choose. and you could say that's what happened here. you could also say that more
americans voted for the other candidate. seats a complicated thing. it's probably true on both garland and gorsuch that the fight is not over their qualifications. in fact, about garland, the republicans didn't go after him personally. hay said, "we're not going to let anyone come through." and now what we're hearing is the flip side of that where my guess is there's not going to be enormous opposition based on the particulars of judge gorsuch's credentialcredentials and juris, but more of what we were hearing from david in particular, if the other side has done this, we have to do this, too. if it's going to turn into a political fight, both sides have to play politics. that, of course, is not good for the supreme court. the supreme court is based on the notion that it is apolitical, that it implies the law impartially. and these lon fights on who gets on, on political grounds, is really bad for the supreme court.
>> rose: steve bannon is rapidly becoming more than the president's chief political strategist. in a major shake-up this week, president trump announced bannon would be a regular attendee to the principals committee of the national security council. he also announce that joint chiefs of staff chairman and director of national intelligence would only attend when needed. the unprecedented move has raised concerns in both congress and the intelligence community. mike morell is a former acting director of the c.i.a. and former deputy director. >> what c.i.a. does is they collect information about the threats facing the united stat states. what we like to say is collect information on the plans, intentions, and exaebilities of our adversaries, whether they be al qaeda or whether they be vladimir putin. and then we take that, take all of that information and put together an assessment for the president how to think about the
threat, why it exists, how it might evolve, what factors might influence it for the good, for the bad. and then the policy makers take all of that, and they put together policy options. >> rose: and the policy makers in this case would be the national security council. >> would be the national security council, the deposit of the national security councils, the principals of the national security councils, and the national security council itself with the president on it. >> rose: you know why i'm asking this? who are the principals? >> so the main principals. the main principals on the national security council are the president who chairs it. >> rose: right. >> the national security adviser, the secretary of state, the secretary of defense, other director of national intelligence, and the c.i.a. director. and then there's others, like the secretary of treasury, depending on the issue. but those are the-- that's-- that's the core. >> rose: steve bannon, a political adviser and strategist and someone who seems to be inside donald trump's head and crucial to him has been put on
the principals committee. there's always resistance to that because they don't think political people belong in national security discussion. >> so there's two issues, i think. one is politics should not number that room. politics should not drive national security decisions. and i was never in a deputy's meeting, a principal's meet oag n.s.c. meeting where politics entered the discussion, never, not a single time. and i see steve bannon, many do, as a political guy, so he doesn't belong there. that's issue one. issue two is if you have two senior advisers to the president in a room-- the national security adviser, mike flynn; and steve bannon -- >> who is clearly closer. >> who is very close, then you have competing channels of advice to a president of the united states. that's not a healthy thing. that is not a healthy thing.
>> rose: america first was one of president trump's campaign themes in last year's election and this year's inaugural address. now that he is in office, questions are being asked about america's traditional leadership role in foreign affairs and geopolitics. richard haas is the president of the council on foreign relations. >> how did we get here? some of it's just the stuff of histories -- countries rise, globalization happens, cold war ended. some of it is the result of things the united states did-- the iraq war, the libya invasion, pulling u.s. troops out of iraq subsequently by barack obama. a lot of it is things we didn't do-- not following up the invasion of libya, or in the last couple of days, charlie, the decision not to go ahead with the trans-pacific trade partnership. the united states has long been a supporter of free trade. all these countries in asia and latin america lined up with us,
and all of a sudden we're lucy with the football and we're yanking it away and all these countries feel left in the lurch. >> rose: so what does the world need? >> the world needs a united states that is willing to play something of a traditional leadership role. the world a also -- >> a traditional leadership role is not how i would define president trump? >> not at all. and i would actually say in just a few short days but also over the campaign in&in the the transition he has contribute to the disarray by raising fundamental questions about whether the united states is any longer reliable. whether we're prepared to support our allies. we're obviously not prepared to support free trade. there's alsory questions in the whole "america first" characterization. it sends out a signal that we're simply in it for ourselves. what i'm worried about is a lot of other countries are going to say, hold it. if the united states is no longer in it for us. we have to take care of ourselves. and on some issues that might mean they defer to a local power-- say to china. on other issues countriries may
say, hey, we have to take matters into our own hands. >> rose: talk about trump in terms of the actions he's taken in the foreign policy field. what's interesting to me is everybody who has reservations says the following thing, "but i'm really reassured because he has around him these very serious, stable people." >> there are a lot of cooks in that white house kitchen. we don't know how they're going to work together. and we simply don't know the relationship between all of them and, say, a secretary of state. you know and i know, say, go back to jim baker. when jim baker was george h.w. bush's secretary of state. everyone around the world knew when jim baker talked he was speaking with the full backing and thfort president. i'm not so sure that when rex tillerson speaks people are going to be able to assume that, if donald trump is tweeting certain things or various people at the white house are saying or doing things that are inconsistent with what the
message is supposed to be. >> rose: because it's in the nature of his d.n.a. to be hands on and it's okay to tell people what he thinks. >> another thing. donald trump if you read the inaugural speech, the entire intellectual assumption of the speech is that the united states is getting ripped off by the world-- allies aren't doing enough, trade is bad furst, we're spending too much in the fine, it's what got himt got elected. it doesn't mean it's necessarily going to work out. it doesn't mean it's necessarily constructive. >> rose: we're seeing this week he's doing the things he said he would do. >> absolutely. there is a higher correlation between what he said during the campaign and what he is doing as president than many people thought would be the case. >> rose: in fact, that was the old story, "i understand him and i don't take him literally." >> with the, you know what? >> rose: it looks like you should have taken him literally. >> in everything from killing the trans-pacific partnership, to what he's doing with mexico and the wall, from what he's doing and saying he's going to do with refugees.
plus we have new things, the picking the fight with china, first over taiwan, now over the south china sea. that's something that actually didn't get a lot of talk during the campaign but we're seeing that. >> rose: steer clear of permanent alliances with any portion of the foreign world. that is probably the best-known piece of advice in george washington's farewell address to the nation. but that's not all of it. john avalon is the editor in chief for the "daily beast." his new book, "washington's farewell," offers an explanation of this historic address and considers its relevance today. >> it is the most strikingly relevant artifact from the founding era. it's a memo from the first founding father to future generations. and it has direct applicability to what we're dealing with today. >> rose: who wrote it? >> well, washington was the
author in terms of the ideas. in many ways it's the autobiography of ideas. but he assembled the greatest ghost writers. alexande>> rose: has every prest since washington offered a farewell address? >> almost everyone, yes. obviously, let's take out the assassination off the top. but very awrng they were simply letters to congress. now, what washington defense unique on two levels. first of all, he never gave the speech out loud. it was published in a newspaper, "the american daily advertisers." and he did that because he wanted to offer an open letter to the american people. rather than retreating to the monarchal model of the king address the parliament. second he didn't just do it as a valedictory lap saying, "look at all the things i have accomplished." he wrote it as a warning about how democratic republics die. so he focuse focused on those ky warnings-- hyperpartisanship,
excessive debt, and foreign wars. and they really resonate today. hyperpartisanship-- when the founders worried about narrow partisan factions hijack a democracy, they warned that over time it leads to a dysfunctional democracy and leads to such frustration on the parts of citizens that it opens the door to a demagogue. >> rose: what is interesting about that, you said assassinations prevent opportunities for presidents to give farewell address. so do dying in office as well. >> sure. >> rose: so f.d.r. never gave a farewell address. >> that's right, but the ones who did largely take that lesson from washington about a warning. that becomes a new tradition. what he really was concerned about-- he saw it with the french during his own administration. he saw it in the case of ancient republics in greece and rome, is that foreign nations would try to infiltrate and influence domestic politics to undermine sovereignty. now, when i was writing the book, that seemed like a somewhat distant concern, but
dealing with the reality of russian hacking and trying to influence our election outcome, vladimir putin didn't qum that playbook on his own. it's centuries old. and i think that's one of the clarion calls why of history. it reminds us there are larger arcs, and we are to learn them. >> rose: if you don't understand your history you will repeat it. >> that's right. washington knew we were a civilization, and civilizations did not inevitably tend upwards. that's our responsibility. >> rose: james baldwin was a prolific and pioneering writer on issues of race and sexuality in mid-century america. when he died in 1987, he left behind an unfinished novel, "remember this house."
now filmmaker raul peck has taken that novel, and using baldwin's words, turned it into an oscar-nominated documentary. it opens in theerses this weekend and it is called, i am not your negro." >> i read james baldwin the first time when i was about 17. i read "the fire next time," and it basically changed my life because suddenly i had an author where-- through which i could understand where i was or who i was and gave me an explanation to a lot of things that i was seeing but could not put a name on them. and since that time, i read all baldwin, and he has been a constant presence in my life. and 10 years ago, i decide to make this film, because i felt that the world around me was changing. somehow we got lazy, and after the end of the civil rights
movement, you know, things that-- you know, we had monument. we have black history month, martin luther king day, as if everything was now perfect. and a new generation start to come out. and i felt it was time that the world-- the words of james baldwin had to come back on the front lean. >> rose: had there been no major film about him? >> there was one film which is more a biography, and i did not want to make a biographic film. i wanted to find a way to put the words themselves and to put baldwin himselfs face to the audience so we could be confronted with his words. he was the great spokesman that he was at the time. >> like most white americans i have encountered, they have no-- i'm sure they have nothing against negroes. that's really not the question. the question is really kind of
an apathy and ignorance, which is a price we pay for segregation. that's what segregation means. >> rose: baldwin said, "not everything faced can be changed but nothing can be changed until it is faced." >> absolutely. you know, the ceend of separation we have in this country is such that each one of us can live through his whole life without having to see the other. you know, we can--, you know, if you live in manhattan, you can live, you know, your daily life without being confronted with the-- what is happening in the rest of the country. and in particular, those last 30 years somehow -- >> we began to realize some parts of the country see other parts from a very different view. >> exactly, exactly, and we are confronted with this truth. and baldwin tries to put-- to confront us with this reality and give us our responsibility back, because what it means by
that is we are all responsible wherever we stand in that divide. and only we, the people, can change it. and if we accept to face it. >> rose: here is a look at the week ahead. sunday is the day the new england patriots meet the atlanta falcons in super bowl li. monday is the david oscar nominees' luncheon in los angeles. tuesday is the 25th anniversary of the european union. wednesday is the annual amfar gala to benefit aids research in new york city. thursday is the opening day of the berlin international film festival. friday is the day president trump is scheduled to meet with japanese prime minister shinzo abe at the white house. saturday is the first dave carnival in venice. and here's what's new for your weekend: lady gaga headlines a
sprb half time show at the nrg stadium in houston. the 2017 yukon quest dogsled race starts off saturday in fair banks, alaska. and the fox spin-off 24 legacy begins a two-hour premiere on sunday night. >> i'm the only one i can trust. >> go, go, go! >> rose: that's "charlie rose: the week" for this week. for all of us here, thank you for watching. i'm charlie rose. we'll see you again next time. >> rose: funding for "charlie rose" has been provided by: brought to you in part by:
viewers like you, and you, and you, and you... ha, ha! thanks so much you're very kind. ♪ hey! ♪ what? ♪ come over here, ♪ the cat in the hat is about to appear. ♪ ♪ he's whizzing over to whisk you away ♪ ♪ on a fabulous journey today. ♪ ♪ he's coming! ♪ and now he's arrived in the thingamajigger ♪ ♪ the thing that he drives ♪ ♪ he's a cat and he's oodles of fun ♪ ♪ with his hairy helpers thing two and thing one ♪ ♪ instrumental ♪ instrumental