Skip to main content

tv   Charlie Rose  PBS  July 25, 2017 12:00am-1:01am PDT

12:00 am
>> rose: welcome to the program, we begin tonight with a look at jared kushner's testimony on russia an we continue with an assessment of president trump's first six months in office. we talk to frank bruni, susan page, hugh hewitt and robert costa. >> as an american i'm concerned because he tapped into a great deal of anger in this country, legitimate anger about the broken ways of washington, about broken promises. what happens to that anger if after two years or four years of donald trump, washington looks exactly the same, the sorts of priorities that we have been paralyzed about and that haven't vnsed have not advanced any further. what happens to american's alreadyive schriff eled faith. this concerns me not as a democrat or republican but as an american. >> and we conclude this evening with a voice from within the white housement is he sebastian gorka deputy assistant to
12:01 am
president trump and close ally of steve bannon. >> in the die metric opposition to the last administration, we wholeheartedly embrace what america stands for. we don't see the world problems as lying at the feet of american foreign policy or our culture. quite the opposite. we say as a juda christian nation we are part of western civilization. we want to build our relationships with the world on those immutable values that we see as being objective. whether it's with israel, whether it's with poland, the warsaw speech is sem flal. we embrace those values we say they are true, post secretary you larrism. >> president trump's first six months in office and assessment from four reporters and from within the white house. join us. funding for charlie rose is provided by the following: blank of america, life better
12:02 am
quect connected >> and by bloomberg, a provider of multimedia news and information services worldwide. captioning sponsored by rose communications from our studios in new york city, this is charlie rose. >> rose: it has been six months since president trump took office, his administration continues to be plagued by controversy and in-fighting, earlier today the president's son in law and senior advisor jared kushner appeared before the senate intelligence committee as part of their inquirery into russian meddling and part of their collusion into the election. >> i did not collude with russia, nor do i know of anyone else in the campaign who did so.
12:03 am
i had no improper contacts. i have not relied on russian funds for my businesses. and i have been fully transparent in providing all requested information. donald trump, jr., and former campaign manager paul manafort will appear before the judiciary committee later this week. joining me robert costa moderate ef-- susan page washington bureau chief for "u.s.a. today" and hugh hewitt, the host of the popular radio program the hugh hewitt show here in new york, frank bruni, columnist for "the new york times." i'm pleased to have all of them. hugh hewitt, let me begin with you. tell me about the appearance today and what might happen this week with respect to this testimony before the senate intelligence committee. >> i think jared kushner did about as well as anyone could in a difficult situation, charlie. i read his entire 11 page letter over the air this morning so
12:04 am
that commuters could hear it. it was not a nondenial denial it was specific and detailed. it was explanatory and for those inclined to give trump the benefit of the doubt they will find it to be comforting. i found specifically interesting the fact that he said he had never met certificate guy corkov before nor any after that meeting set up by ambassador kislyak in december. and i found interesting that he specifically said no collusion, the two stories aimed at him is he got russian money, and he denied that specifically and that he colluded on data, and he said he did not collude and he acknowledged he ran the data operation. so i thought for someone who is used to hearing evasive, nondenial denials, it was clear, it was specific and it was complete for the day. doesn't help anyone else out but it helped him out. >> rose: you are basing that on the statement he released before he went in to give the testimony. >> i am. i read the whole thing and i
12:05 am
also listened to his two and a half minutes afterwards which are specifically taken verbatim out of his statement. who knows what he got asked in the congressional investigators hearing today or what he will say tomorrow. but thus far what we have seen and read, you can't give that statement to a congressional committee under 18usc1001 and have anything false in it without violating the law. so i think it was a pretty specific denial. >> rose: susan page. >> you know, this is not however the end of questions for jared kushner or anybody else. this is the beginning. today was the beginning of a new face of this investigation where we are hearing for the first time the central figures of people very close to president trump being called to congress and required to answer questions. and i do think that jared kushner deserves credit for not demanding a spp, for going up there volume voluntarily, for rg the 11 page statement this morning. but there are many questions remain to be asked. i will point out one. in the statement jared kushner said he did not rely on russian
12:06 am
money for his private business interests. rely doesn't mean you have no russian money. it doesn't mean russian money wasn't offered. that is a question that to me as a reporter jumped out. it was a question i think deserves followup questions and i'm sure there are many other examples where members of the senate intelligence committee, the house intelligence committee will want to pursue questions with jared kushner and everybody else. >> rose: robert ksa. >> we're watching a president who ran a family enterprise for decades trying to take that same approach to the white house and encountering challenge after challenge. if you think beyond just the stalled republican agenda on capitol hill, it's his family, jared kushner, the senior advisor, his son don, jr., all of their different meetings and entanglements, accusations about what they were up to during the campaign, this has been part of the russia cloud that continues to sit over this white house. it's not going away today just because mr. kushner went to capitol hill. i think it really encapsulated
12:07 am
what president trump is experiencing at this six-month mark, a family enterprise still trying to protect his family, who he believes is he truly loyal to. the only people he truly trusts. but this is a presidency that is having problems because of that. >> rose: frank, this is what you wrote over the weekend. on monday jared kushner is set to a per before the senate judiciary committee, a closed door affair, unlike jeff sessions, kushner gets to dance in the dark, how fitting, we always see fingerprints but never his voice. he throws his weight around and throat floats above it all. no wonder the president's lawyer and various white house aidees and advisors are feds up with him. he's there but not there. a meddlesome ghost, a puff of smoke. >> when i heard his voice outside the white house today i realized i couldn't, i'm not familiar with it. you know trump's voice the minute you hear it. you could hear it and not see his image, same with any other number of people in his administration, no the with jared kushner because he has
12:08 am
occupied this very peculiar role where he lets it be known to the world, and this way he has it both ways, he lets it be known to the world he has great influence. he and ivanka crow about their supposedly moderating insurance fleuns on the president even though it is not often visible am but then they hold back and say we're really not political types, et cetera. i want to say one thing about jared kushner's statement which he was referring to at the start. there was one thing that board me, he gelled-- dwelled tor a moment that yes, i went into that russian meeting at trump tower but it was a complete waste of time so i left right a what. that is so not the issue here. the issue here is that meeting was billed to donald trump, jr. and if jared kushner read the subject line of the emails that he was forwarded it was billed to him too as clinton private-- russia clinton private and confidential. it doesn't matter if there was nothing useful in the meeting. what matters is what they believed going into the meeting. what their motives were. his statement didn't satisfy me in that regard. >> rose: but are we looking now, is this simply building up,
12:09 am
as i think susan said at the beginning, it is not the end of the beginning or the beginning of the end, it's something else. are we looking at the beginning of what might very well be a kind of six months of hand to hand fighting between the trump administration, investigative committees and bob mueller. >> that is the status quo right now and i think it's going to continue. i think what really scares people is the notion that if the president believes as he says that this is a complete witch-hunt, if he's convinced he did nothing wrong or has something to hide at what point does he ratchet it up by going beyond questioning the way mueller's doing things and does he at some point consider actually firing mueller. if he does that, then where are we. there are people who believe that scenario is absolutely plausible. >> hugh hewitt, do you believe it's possible? >> possible, very ill-advised. two observations, one i never want frank bruni to be mad at me. i read his piece yesterday, i don't want that ever to what. but secondly, today it was announced that donald trump, jr. hired my old boss at the white
12:10 am
house fred fielding, wildly regarded as among the wisest people in washington. i'm very certain that fred's advice to donald trump, jr. is that he better hope robert mueller is not fired. because that is a fire storm. if you are innocent, if jared is telling the truth and everyone can make a declaration as specific and detailed as the ones he made, about they are not being collusion, i'm putting aside general flynn and paul manafort in a different box, but the president, donald trump, jr. and everybody else inside the white house, then it will be over. mueller is not going to indict someone for the benefit of indicting someone. he has the reputation as a straight sheuter. i said it a thousand times am i don't know anyone who disagrees with me on the outside. you cannot fire robert mueller and expect your administration not to collapse f only with momentum. the republicans have enough problems without triggering sort of saturday night massacre lite, 2.0 with the firing of the special counsel. >> rose: would it bring what some people call a
12:11 am
constitutional crisis? >> no, a constitutional crisis is when the constitution isn't workingment right now i see the constitution working with one exception, the team trump is so distracted, they are not getting judicial nominations for article 3 judges put forward, it's the bottomline for conservatives and they have 20 different vacancies on the circuit court. more than a hundred different district court vacancies on the lower court for whom there has not been a nomination put forward yesterday. this is unacceptable. a failure of governance. the constitutional structures are in place and working. i don't see a crisis, i do see a lot of controversy and bogged down presidency as if he moves against mueller. >> rose: bob costa we saw on the weekend the new head of communications at the white house in a couple of appearances i saw with john dickerson and also on cnn. what does he bring in, and what does his arrival signal? >> the arrival of anthony scaramucci, a wall street finance ear and trump kf dante
12:12 am
at least over the last six months or so, it signals a presidency that is moving to a loyalty-based operation. an aversion to leaks, an aversion to the republican establishment. scaramucci does not have deep political experiences. he's been a republican donor, in the a republican strategist or consultant. and when you watched him on the sunday snows, you saw him speaking directly to president trump, almost in an attempt to calm the president as all these dramas unfold. this was not a messaging operation. this was not some kind of new republican way coming in. this is a loyalist, a replacing, a republican operative in sean spicer. the president is turning to these types of people at this time. >> rose: so susan, when you look at all of this now, this is sort of the central act. will the president, looking at a six month here evaluation of the president, what might he hope to have achieved by the time he
12:13 am
gets to the mid term elections. >> you know, charlie, i think the problems of the president is even though he was elected to four year, all political time is not created equal. and this first year of a presidency and particularly the first six months which he has now completed, it's the time when presidents have their most power. it's when the public is willing to cut him a break. it's when congress is most differential. it is when the big achievements r the affordsable care act and barack obama, it took about 14 months but clearly the ground work laid in the first year. and what do we see with president trump. we see not a single major legislative achievement. we find real confusion about what is going to happen with the affordable care act with a key senate vote there tomorrow. and what is consuming his presidency is a scandal over russian meddling and the questions and allegations about whether there might have been some collusion by his associates. this is not the recipe for a president who can count on getting things done. because man, if you condition get things done your first year, it is really tough to get things
12:14 am
done in the second year when members of congress are worried post about their own re-election prospects. >> rose: you're shaking your head. >> i think susan is absolutely right. you have more political capital right after an election than you will ever have again. the problem for trump though which is largely of his own making but not entirely, is this election shook down in such an unusual way. he lost the popular voted by three million votes. he didn't have the traditional stash of political capital that an incoming president hasment but what he has had, he has frit erred away. and i don't see how the next 18 months look a lot better than the last six. he's making changes, bob costar talked about anthony scaramucci coming. i found that very interesting because if there is a lesson from his first secretaries months it is that his team does not know the ways of washington well enough so now he replaced someone who knew those ways some what with someone who say complete newcomer. it suggests it me he is more interested in the emotional climate right around him than what necessarily is going to be tactically successful. >> rose: go ahead, bob. >> just to build on that point
12:15 am
by frank, i think that is smart insight because instead of turning to people who know washington, inside of the white house, my source there tell me that the discussions are really about who knows trump, who understands thpresident, he wants to be surrounded by people who get his new york combative ways, scaramucci has the same type of personality. trump has never felt comfortable with some of the republicans around him, in a deep sense. so you have an administration, a white house, a west wing becoming more trump, not more republican. >> rose: it's a bit like circling the wagons, isn't it? >> you could say that. >> it's a metaphor. this is a president who i think makes everything about him. and i think you could really fairly say until he learns to make things more about the country he is serving, about the people out there, the voters and not what feels good, not about applause, not about crowd size, until he can really kind of take himself a little bit out of the equation he is not going to be able to accomplish the things he
12:16 am
says he wants to accomplish. >> but hugh, it's unlikely that donald trump would select those kinds of people like howard baker on ken dubberstein, they were not the kind of people that he knew or was confident in or believed in. >> well, there are two cabinet secretaries on thin ice right now. the attorney general, sessions and secretary of state tillerson about whom rumors are swirling today. if either of those go, expect a hard-liner, meaning a combative personality who knows their stuff, say judge ludig from bowing, maybe ruddy geulianee but i can't see him getting confirmed by the senate for the attorney generalship, look for a john bolton over at state, not a bob corker. and i also think where i would disagree a little bit with folks, we're forgetting justice gorshuch,-- gor disz such, that say monumental accomplishment, it will change the law in the united states for 30 plus years, if i were the president i would gup stairs to the second floor,
12:17 am
throw the door open on white house counsel mcgan's office and demand my 20 circuit court nominees by the end of next week. because the way to keep conservatives with your back covered and to move forward is to make sure that the courts, which matter to them more than almost anything else, even more than obamacare, are taken care of. >> i just want to pushback at one thing. it is is a monumental accomplishment if what you mean by that is that it is going to have great consequence going forward and it followed through on something that doned a trump promised and it is certainly very important for conservatives. let's just not forget that in order to accomplish that, the senate had to get rid of its traditional filibuster of supreme court nominees. so that does mit grate-- mitigate the accomplishment some what. >> i have a pushback on the pushback though. >> they were just using the read rule, frank. the guy who broke the filibuster was harry reid and it was applied to the d.c. scouter. >> not for supreme court nominees. that was another, you know, escalation. >> but the reid rule was that you could change the rules of
12:18 am
the senate with a simple majority which is what leader mcconnell did using the reid rule which might be used again on the blue slip tradition of holding back judges. it might be used again and again. in many respects, if you have a complaint with gorsuch, you ought to send it to harry reid. >> and i will grant you that if the shoes were on the other feet democrats might have done the same thing. i am saying as we are talking about it as a accomplishment, a republican majority confirmed a republican president's supreme court nominee, that's not that monumental to me. >> i would also just say conservative voters may well be very happy with neil gorsuch, his confirmation, would be very happy with more conservative justices on the appellate courts. but the voters who put donald trump in the white house include a lot of people who are not traditional conservatives who did not voted on the bases of judges but voted on getting manufacturing jobs back or getting their health premiums reduced. and those voters are not going to be satisfied saying hey, look
12:19 am
at neil gorsuch. >> let may bring up the issue in terms of foreign policy of russian sanctions and trump's relationship after six months, the president's relationship with the republicans in congress after six months. >> it is a fascinating question because you see republicans in congress have a traditional republican view of vladimir putin, of russia, a hawkish take. a view that he is perhaps a human-rights abuser. is he murdering journalists, he is trying to disrupt u.s. elections and yet you have inside of the white house and parts of this administration, people who want to reimagine u.s. russian relations. and there is a real standoff between the gop and the republican president. because the president shows no signs of acknowledging or really going along with the congressional impulse when it comes to russia. >> but did the president in the sense with the 45e89 care debate and what happened there, did he lose whatever confidence he might have had in the republicans and congress,
12:20 am
especially the house. >> republicans, i was with congress over the weekend, talking to congressman, he was there last week, have they really felt like they made many mistakes in how they sold this piece of legislation, instead of talking about regulations and taxes, they have become miered in a debate over medicaid and health-care coverage for people who are poor, all as many republican governors are clammerring to make sure medicaid expansion under the affordable care act remained. they don't have the votes because the moderates are uneasy. conservatives want much bigger cuts and reforms to the affordable care act. and this is a burden for senate majority leader mitch mcconnell. that they have made this promise to the republican base, yet the law has become rooted in many states and there is no clear path forward. >> rose: hugh, is this some debate between reality and what happens on the ground, which governors know, and senators in washington who are more part of something else. >> on a more viseral level, charlie, it is a debate over whether or not politicians keep their word. mike lee ran on repeal and
12:21 am
replace. chely-- liss an mur cowsky ran on repeal and replace, dean heller ran on repeal and replace. i do not know how their brands survive. i do not know how their credibility survives not opening debate on a subject matter for which republicans have been campaigning for eight years. it would be a devastating blow. so much so that there is an effort, senator cornyn announced tonight to fly senator mccain back to get clearance from his doctor to bring him back to open the debate. i really cannot believe they're considering not opening debate. you might vote against the fienlt product but not to open debate is a devastating takedown. why believe anything a republican senator says if they reverse-- reverse them eves on this. >> well, can i add one question here, the republicans i'm talking to, hugh, they really wonder, is there actually a political cost. is there a real political cost for republicans in 2018 to not pass this piece of legislation. because privately a lot of them say the republican governors want the medicaid expansion.
12:22 am
the law has already taken root. maybe just let it fade away and focus on taxes because health care is a thorny issue. >> on the day to day basis i think dean heller loses his election unless it both passes and works, period, jeff flake, i don't think. but the real cost will come to the house of representatives. and more importantly at a much higher level, 30,000 feet, why believe anyone about anything. the damage to our government will be so profound if the republican party cannot deliver a debate on something that they have campaigned on for eight years. i think it is almost stomach churning that they would not vote to open debate on this. >> rose: an is it likely to happen, do you think. >> i have no idea, that they were trying to bring senator mckean back tells me they are very, very close and perhaps senator lee woke up and decided, i have at least got a vote to open debate. senator morean in kansas is another problem. they're not going to get collins and rand paul so they need john mccain and everybody else. it's that simple, that is the math. >> rose: susan, how long can the white house live with this
12:23 am
in-fighting among the five or six factions that are there. >> there are white houses that have had competing power centers in the past and it's worked well in some cases because it generates ideas, it keeps things moving. it did challenges, assumptions. this has been, i think, a pretty rough though. i mean in part because you don't have a president who is as has been said before, really accustomed to the ways of washington. they have made some blunders. you know how the republican party generally sticking with them, you don't really see a lot of republicans peeling off from donald trump. i think there are questions being raised about how long they will do that and how far they will walk, what kind of plank they would walk off for donald trump. one thing you do hear from republicans on the hill, is they are not criticizing him on russia. they are not criticizing him on some of the star at the white house because they think there is a possibility of getting through a lot of things that have been big agenda items like a tax cut. and you know, things beyond health care. but in they can't do that, after
12:24 am
winning the white house and the senate in the white house, that is a tough message to take into the mid terms, or certainly into a re-election campaign. >> rose: do you believe that the mueller investigation will figure out why donald trump has behaved as he has and said what he has said from during the campaign, continued right up until today about russia and about-- go ahead. >> have i huge faith in robert muler who is universally respected in town, maybe not to the white house but everywhere else as a dogged, serious, a cautious investigator, so i think we're going to have a lot of questions answered through his inquirery. >> and will it be, hugh, in your judgement, looking at all the possibility options more likely to be a tie to some kind of financial arrangement, some kind of financial transaction? >> i think some people are definitely going to find that this investigation leads to their indictment. i don't believe here in the white house right now. i don't believe this administration will be defined by russia. in the final a sl-- analysis i
12:25 am
think mr. mueller will find there is no collusion there may have been wrongdoing by individuals. the administration will be defined by what it does or fails to get done. and right now the ice is thin. and when it breaks it is going to break pretty damn dramically unless they begin to deliver. they do get about 14 months. you get the fall and the first quarter of 18 but after that, nothing happens and you don't want to go into the mid terms with your party staying at home angry and the other party marching in the streets. that is a recipe for a waive. >> trump as president will be defined between now and right before the mid term elections, six months before the mid term election. >> absent some extraordinary crisis abroad, yes. >> hugh is absolutely right. we all send enormous amounts of time talking about the russian investigation. that dominates theadlines. but i do think when votedders go to vote in 2018 in the congressional mid terms, i agree 100%. i think what will happen there will be much more reflective of
12:26 am
whether they have seen anything in washington that was true to donald trump's promise. >> rose: that will define him. >> as an american i'm really concerned because he tapped into a great deal of anger in this country. legitimate anger about the broken ways of washington, about broken promises, what happens to that anger if after two years or four years of donald trump washington looks exactly the same, the sorteds of priorities that have been-- that we've been paralyzed about and that haven't advanced have not advanced any further. what happens to americans already schriff eled faith in their government. this really concerns me not as a democrat or republican but as an american. >> we are seeing flickers of an emerging dynamic that i'm paying attention to ahead of 2018. it looks more and more like president trump is preparing, if he wants to, to run against his own party, to blame congressional republicans for the inaction rather than having it on his shoulders. is as this divide becomes a yawning divide it is really going to define the next few
12:27 am
years. because inside the white house there is a view, maybe wrong, maybe right that trump is fueled by grieveance politics, by populism, by that anger that frank mentioned. not necessarily by the accomplishments. and that an ideology and accomplishments are not going to determine whether trump has success or not. it may determine whether the republicans control congress but trump is on a different path, a different track and because of that he may start actually running against his own party. >> and he's going to run against us. one of the things that has been true from the beginning. >> the press and the republicans. >> is he going to run against all of us sitting here today. one of the reasons why i think he has waged such a war over what is a fact, what is true, is because if you want in the long run to evade accountability one way to do that is to say you can trust no source of information, no source of analysis except what i am telling you. in his perfect world we believe without question what he tells us, and we distrust all other sources. that is a big narrative in this
12:28 am
administration. >> rose: hugh, what bothers you most about this president? >> that he is not spending his time focused on legislative agenda. i mentioned judges before, on the blocking and tackling of governance. i don't mind tweak storms. i don't mind controversy or combativeness but i do want results am i do worry, frank just mentioned this t is rare for he and i to agree, it is not unprecedented but it is rare. the politics of grieveance in the country don't cut r&b, they cut against i believe the front row and the back row analogy was used. people sitting in the front seats versus the people in the backseats. the people in the backseats are very, very angry. if donald trump tries to tap into that in 2018 against everyone in coastal elites, republican and democrat, everyone who has got a fine health-care plan, it could be powerfully, terribly disruptive for the country. so i would like him to go back to governing more than anything
12:29 am
else. >> but does he know that? does he know governing or does he simply know the power of grieveance politics? >> there are good people in the administration, confident people around him that know governing very, very well. i believe elise ins to them at least spore addically and often in a long period of time and it gets very productive and i don't connell or paul ryan or the chairman kevin brady of ways & means or john cornyn, there are lots of effective people. the president's attention though is often engaged by people who are punching at him and he punches back. and he is never going to change that. that is not the problem. the problem is at least find some time for the agenda. not just 9 combat. >> st a problem if everybody perceived that to be what your primary concern is, your primary focus, is simply being so angry at people who attack you that you cannot resist joining that battle. >> the 40% that is solid for him, they love that part am but getting to 50% and getting to 51% or getting to electoral college majority in 2020 will
12:30 am
require the traditionalist, the conservatives, the republicans. and that's the 10% he's missing out on right now. >> you are right, charlie, if you are fighting all the time, if you are using those moments and you have the microphone which for a president is a lot of the time, if you are using the bully pulpit to get to wage all of these wars with all these different people, how are you ever going to sell your agenda. one of the startling things about this whole health care debacle is we never heard in a consistent or coherent way from the president why we should all buy into this. he never made the case. and he has to be able to make the case because he's got the loudest megaphone. >> can he make the case? at what point we have expected him to change at different times and we have at many times said that was the final straw but it has never been the final straw. >> well, that's true. of course the politics, grieveance are powerful but they do not change the facts on the ground in people's lives. and it seems to me that one of the things that donald trump has struggled most with is that we have a system with a lot of checks and balances, if you want
12:31 am
an immigration ban into place it has to pass constitutional muster in the courts. and if you want to-- repeal and replace the affordable care act, you have got to do it to congress. you can't just do it through the stroke of a pen. if at the end of the day he continues to tap anger at washington but doesn't have anything to show what he has done, that doesn't strike me as being a powerful political message. and you know, we have seen presidents run against their party in the past. bill clinton famously did try angulation when he got into trouble but he built up relationships with republicans, even as he was a-- attacking congressional democrats. we haven't seen president trump do that kind of maneuver that would give him the standing, the ability to actually get things done that affect people's lives. >> we talk about the confirmation of the supreme court justice bob. where would you put his, the fact that he pulled out of the climate accord? obviously in terms of his base, it pleased some of them. but in terms of his reputation
12:32 am
around the world it obviously had no significant impact. >> it has, and i think that decision is like several other decisions that are revealing of how this presidency has unfolded. the republican agenda has been stalled, health care, taxes. they haven't happened. what has happened is president trump's agenda on executive authority, he's used that to go after the travel ban, to put forward his own immigration policy, to move forward on a more nationalist trade policies. and when it comes to climate change, to retreat from the paris accord. so you see him in the white house, using his executive power to do what he wants. but when it comes to congress, he isn't really following through with what republicans want. >> let me just extanned-- extend that out, that question, frank. how between january 20th when the president took office and today, how has our reputation around the world changed? >> it has changed entirely, and
12:33 am
the paris accord is one example. donald trump has sent a mes age to the world or to our traditional allies that you can-- i think what he means to be saying to them is you can no longer take advantage of us. but i think what all of them are hearing is you can no longer count on us. if you listen to what western european diplomats say, if you listen to what some of angela merkel has said, there is a feeling that we are no longer exercising the kind of global leadership that was expected of us. now a lot of donald trump's space likes this because they feel we were the world's chumps. and to some extent that's understandable. >> and globalization did not do that. >> i worry going forward because without us, who else. i mean i, when you talk about donald trump's relationship with putin and russia, what really has most devastated me about that is the moral equivalency sometimes draws between the united states and russia. and i mention that because there is a reason why we have always seized the role of leadership in the world. and it's because we do have
12:34 am
sturdier, better values. we are, we're worthy of that leadership and i worry that sometimes the message he sends out is we are not worthy of that leadership. >> i think that in poland president trump received a wild reception that he's well loved, again with the countryside as opposed to the capitol. in japan they are very happy that he is engaged on north korea in a way that president obama was. the lead from behind, red line, jv stuff of the last eight years did not resonate with a lot of america and the america first, rebuild the fleet, make nato pay their way does. and so this operation on foreign affairs matters a greet deal but not if it is obscured by domestic failure at home. we could have a long conversation about this, but mi happy with his foreign policy right now, very happy. >> rose: susan? >> you take, you mentioned poland, so the president gave a speech, got a great reception in poland and yet since then we have seen massive demonstrations on behalf of the rule of law in poland. and the white house hasn't spoken up on it.
12:35 am
that is surprising. and i think, to me, it is a sign of a more limited american role when it comes to asserting american values of democracy and civil liberties. i do think that whatever happens with president trump on domestic policy, he has reordered the u.s. role in the world to a more limited role. i think france and germany and even canada are responding to that now, and stepping up on their own. the president presidency.use of >> you have covered him from the beginning. how has he changed or has he not changed and therefore that is what we should expect for the rest of this term? >> he has not changed. at all. this is a president who is the same person i encountered back in 2011, backstage at c-pack, in 2013 when he first started think being 2016. and i think in particular with foreign policy, we're seeing the flames of his youth, when he used to talk about the world
12:36 am
with his father, fred, and his father would tell him and you read this in every book about trump, and you also, when i have spoken to the president about this before he was president, his father thought the world, the america was losing in the world. that trade deficit was huge. the president gets all this credit for having similar views on trade and the world going back decades. and he's really echoing his father fred trump's view of the world in many respects. and he has brought them to the white house. this is someone who is coveted being an anti-establishment figure throughout his entire adult life. he's also been leary of the establishment. he continues to be leary of the neo liberal world order, about the world order that has been really created and lead by the united states since world war ii. he has never really seen the world through that priesm that so many previous leaders have. >> how, i can't continue this conversation without mentioning samuel huntington. it is where trump taking us,
12:37 am
exactly. >> classic civilization. >> yeah. >> no i don't think so, though i think is he more popular in israel than president obama was. i do believe we are looking at a very long august in the middle east right now as evidenced by the events of the last two weeks. i will note there is one big change that maybe robert ert didn't note. and that is during the campaign president trump with his own communications director. he went on all the networks, did all the shows to quote famously president trump. he is now reduced his on-camera visibility. and i think not to his advantage. it's great to sit down with magaziney and glen and peter baker, it's great to do one-on-ones with favorite people. but i think he ought to be back out there as obvious and as often as he was during the campaign. it worked then. why would he change it now? >> on that note, thank you very much. thank you, susan, hugh, thank you robert, thank you, frank. we'll be right back, stay with us. we are joined now by sebastian
12:38 am
gorka deputy assistant of president trump, called by "the new york times" one of the most visible defend ares of the administration especially on matters with foreign policy, an interview with fox news last week gorka characterized himself as the president's pitbull before joining the administration, gorka was an editor for breitbart news where he worked complosly with his colleague in the trump white house steve bannon. i'm pleased to have sebastian gorka on this program for the first time, welcome. >> thank you kindly, charlie. >> we have been just talking with a group of reporters about six months. tell me how you assess the accomplishments and the failures, if you may, of the trump's first six months. >> well, as i wrote on the hill last week on the secretaries month anniversary, it feels as if we have been here for 25 months, not 25 weeks. if you look at the key successes already, the revitalization of nato, the fact that we have seen without the wall being built,
12:39 am
73% decrease in illegal migration across the southern border, if you look at the 24, 25 stock market records that have been broken since the inauguration, if you look at the rehab speerchg the warsaw speech, it's basically a reassertion of american leadership globally. a ronald reagan had a simple platform, get us out of the economic malaise of the carter years. the revitalized, the american sense of self, and win the cold war against the soviet union. president trump has a very similar three-legged-- stool, to fix the economy, build the wall and defeat isis. and with the liberation of mosul, we have gone a great distance already, charlie. >> rose: and what has been the biggest frustration, do you think, for the president, for steve bannon and his other advisors like you? >> i wouldn't talk about frustration. because this is a man that doesn't give in to frustrations and neither does steve who is the big picture grand strategic thinker. it is disappointment, i think.
12:40 am
i think the biggest disappointment is this fantasmagoric, plrks yama of collusion that we have had to deal with now for fine month-- nine months swi absurd which doesn't exist. you heard jared give his public statement. he released his statement to the hill before he went, gave a much shorter one outside the white house just a few hours ago. we would like to talk about the successes, we would like to talk about the challenges that remain including fixing, getting rid of obamacare and fixing what has to be done with the health provisions here in the united states. but it's this obsession of the chattering classes with things that most americans done believe exist, or simply don't care about, that is a disappointment. >> rose: but clearly heal care is not one of the things that they don't care about they clearly care about that, and you have to acknowledge that so far there has been a failure by the administration and the republicans to deliver, not only repeal and replace. >> well, look, we have in this
12:41 am
nation, thank the good lord, a operation of powers, a division of the executive with the legislative and the judicial. so the president has been relying upon the gop on his colleagues on the hill to make this happen. they have another chance to do so. its record to date has been disappointing but there is still a chance for the gop writ large to do what the people expect them to do. >> rose: let me go back to foreign policy. because this is what you said. the first principle of our administration is plain for all to see. america is back. and under president trump so is american leadership, american influences, as a global good and this recognition as a first step towards advancing our leadership which in turn can help set the conditions for the security and prosperity of the united states and its allies. the era for apologizing for america is over. when you say the era for apologizing is over, what exactly do you mean? >> well, we mean that in the die
12:42 am
metric opposition to the last administration, we wholeheartedly embrace what america stands for. we don't see the world problems as lying at the feet of american foreign policy or our culture. quite the opposite. we say as a judao-christian nation, we are part of western civilization, we want to build our jips with the world on those immutable values that we see as being objective, whether it's with israel, whether it's with poland, the waw saw speech is seminal, we embrace those values, we say that they are true. that moral recognize tiffism, polar secretary you larrism doesn't lead to the world we wish to evil do. when america withdraws from the world it gets to be a dangerous place whether it is the rise of isis, remill tarrizing china, russian invading his neighbors, on and on and on. american leadership is essential for global safety. >> so let me go through that. so with respect to the rise of china, this administration, the
12:43 am
philosophy articulated by you would have done what in terms of the mill tar glairks the advancement of their own military strength what would this administration have done? >> well, we're doing it already. so we are very, very clearly sending a message whether it is through our freedom of navigation patrols or whether it is through other measures that the global pathways, the vains of natural trade are not something to be exploited by the chinese regime or to be intimidating their neighbors into thrying to close down those channels. the idea that they are creating search and rescue bases on these fake atols but instead creating real military bases. that's not good for anybody. and we are going to push back on china's remilitarization and say look. >> rose: but what have we done, is my question. >> well, exactly what i said. so we are plotting those courses, we are using the u.s. navy to maintain that freedom of
12:44 am
travel through those international waterways. and unlike the last administration, charlie, if you will allow me we don't give all of our play book away. there are lots of things we are doing and will do but like as someone playing poker, you don't show the other people at the table your hand and exactly the same happens right now with regard to those that challenge the international order. >> >> rose: but it was in fact the president who said he was disappointed by the china's unwillingness to help more on north korea. >> oh, absolutely. we have great expectations. there is a great connection, a great melding of minds, apparently at the mar-a-lago summit we expected china to exert its very considerable, economic and diplomatic measure on north korea. the president has said he's not satisfied with the results. that is why the president on the fringes of the g-20 sat down with the heads of state of both south korea and japan to take the north korean issue back to the u.n. scooter council and why the president additionally at
12:45 am
the end of the g-20 had a conversation with xi jinping to tell him exactly what he thought about what china needs to do right now we're going to maintain our policy of peaceful pressure with regards to north korea, hoping that china can step up to the plate, while the president takes no options off the table, charlie. >> but hasn't that been-- isn't that the policy of the previous administration not just president obama but also president bush and prt clinton? >> not at all. the previous administration sleully lifted into the highest unclassified expression of our for evenless-- foreign policy, national security strat geerks both the concept of leading from behind which is oxy moronic, you can't lead from behind, and the other obama bumper sticker which is strategic paishesz which is really we do nothing, we let others act. you can't allows to vacuums to be created. if you look at what we did in afghanistan with the plrks oab bomb, we did not talk about red lines. we used 59 cruise missiles to
12:46 am
stop syria from using chemical weapons against women and children. that's very, very different from strategic patience or leading from behind. >> rose: have they used chemical weapons since then as far as you know? >> if we stay in the unclassified domain, no, they have not, that is why we made that statement. i think it was ten days ago when we had indications at that airfield of preparations and we sen a very clear message. don't do it and syria did not did it. >> rose: so where do you think the syrian, the effort is in finding a ceasefire with the help of israel and jordan between the russians and the effort that is there, to create some kind of ceasefire that perhaps could create some kind of transitional government. >> well, we are very, very happy to see the ceasefire that was negotiated at the g-20 with the inclusion of jordan and russia, holding that, that is massively important it is gee graphically
12:47 am
restrictive but we wish to see it expand, at the end of the day, our one objective in syria is to stop the blood shed. the president wants to stop the blood shed. there will have to be some kind of political resolution and we have been clear on that as well. the political resolution in syria cannot include the a sad regime as it currently stands. that is as far as we're going to say right now but we're satisfied how things are going to develop since the g-20. >> do the russians agree with that? >> well, look, the fact that it is holding right now, is very, very significant. what we're doing by sending certain messages through the use of force or otherwise is hoping that both the kremlin, and other nations if you look at beijing and north korea, what we are trying to do is make them think about their internal lies. just how far will you support-- just how far will you allow a client state to go before you say hey, this buffer state is not behaving in my interest or this client is doing
12:48 am
things that undermine my national interests. i think we sent a very clear message and russia's cooperation in syria is a very positive sign. >> with respect to nato what you said had been strengthened, has the president always respected art five and always intended to adhere in article five even though there were some questions when he omitted it in one speech or another? >> absolutely unequivocally. article five is the bed rock of the most successful modern military alliance is nonnegotiatable. the president has said so, the vice president,. >> rose: he didn't say it the first speech he made from when he went to nato after he was in rhiyad. >> the president is the key, set master negotiator, what he wanted to see happen is he wanted to minimize the free loader effect. if you join a club, charlie, and the dues are a hundred bucks and 07% pay 10 you cans about, you won't want to be a member of the
12:49 am
club. all we wanted was equitable burden sharing. and guess what the president did when the secretary general came to washington, he said absolutely, two percent, you've got it and we've seen that reiterated after the meetings in europe. the president knew exactly what he was doing and now the seriousness of the appliance has been bolstered by people saying okay, yes, we're going to pay for our defense in an equitable fashion so that we are in a club together. >> rose: the economist wrote that president trump's idea of the united states' role in the world represents a fundamental break from the role the u.s. has played since world war ii. a, do you agree with that? and b. >> no. >> rose: go ahead. >> no, i don't. b. >> and b, what does his-- is his, is the president's foreign policy in a kosh with the fundamental tenets of american foreign policy following world war 250 through the american history of the late 209 and 2 1s century. >> absolutely. what was that foreign policy
12:50 am
after world war ii built upon. it was built upon the idea that evil exists. think about it, when rgi's went and liberated the death camp, when they fought on i what jima it wasn't pred kateed on squishy concept of multilateralism in the gloshal comops it was pred kateed that real evil exists, threats to-- there will always be a total arian threat whether fascist, communist or jihadis trk completely exorted what we soo seeing today, the last eight years, find one u.s. government document under the obama white house that used the word enemy or evil. it was painted over it didn't exist. the multicultural relativism denied that. we're back. we believe that these threats exist. the president said in rhiyad we have to defeat evil ideologies like jihadism because they are the modern version of the to tal tarrism of the part.
12:51 am
i think our vor en-- foreign policy gels more than the original foreign policy of the united states during and after world war two than the last 16 years of both the bush administration and obama administration. >> rose: you don't think that president obama saw isis as evil? >> well, if he did he never said it and they talked about violent extreesmism, upscreen factors local grieveances, all mum bo jumbo from the social science world. which in fact seemed to pred kate that the ter rest was the vic testimony. we don't think terrorists are victims. they are evil and must be killed or captured. that is very much how america saw the world during world war ii or the cold war and how the trump administration and president trump sees the world today. >> rose: you can as you will agree i'm sure there are a number of ways to fietd terrorism, you need both hard power and soft power. >> i jettisoned the idea that joe knight came up with, that there is just soft or just hard. >> i think your secretary-- your
12:52 am
secretary of state believes that soft power and diplomacy plays a role. >> absolutely. but what we believe in is that there is a whole spectrum there say palate of tools and what we wish to reassert is state craft in the original sense. where all the tools o iran, mill tarristic china. we send a clear message. diplomacy is great but if there isn't the chance for to force behind it like a cruise miss till is just words on a piece of paper, we believe in state craft, not an either/or diplomacy or war, that is a little oversimplification. >> rose: let me talk about the first time i met you at a dinner in i think a dinner we sat across from each other in washington. and i asked you, i want to try to understand steve bannon. you said go look at a speech he made at the vatican. what would i have learned from
12:53 am
that speech? i did go listen to it but i want you to tell me what i should have learned. >> very much a longer version of our condensed discussion just now the last few minutes, that this man believes that there is objective truth, that there are founding principles of this republic, freedom, liberty, the individual dignity of the human being, being made in the image of the creator and that there are and there always will be those who deny that and who wish to kill or enslave you. so steve understands that there is a connective tissue between the third reich of 07 years ago and the jihadis of isis today. steve bannon understands that we have a civilization that we are proud of, the judao-christian civilization and there are people who wish to deses troy it. >> if we have another conversation a year from now, what do you think will be different? >> i think the biggest thing is that a year from now you will have seen the consequences of
12:54 am
the unleashing of the american economy. already we've seen 800,000 jobs created, the stock market rally dozens of times. i think that the dismemberment, the dismantling of the administrative state that has so burdened the small businessman, the average taxpayer, i think that will pay dividends in a year's time. i think when it comes to global jihadism writ large partners especially our muslim partners will have been afforded enough assistance by us not as front line fighters but as facilitators, supporters to really deal a death blow to groups like isis and al qaeda. after that the challenge will be more idea logical, deradicallization one. and the rest, i could go down the list but i think will you see success after success, both dommestically and internationally. and i think many people, even those who voted for donald trump will be very, very surprised by just how successful he will be, diplomatically, not just when it
12:55 am
comes to the domestic political scene. >> sebastian, thank you so much for your time, enjoyed it. >> thank you, god bless, thank you, charlie. >> thank you for joining us, see you next time. >> for more about this program and earlier episodes join us online. captioning sponsored by rose communications captioned by media access group at wgbh access.wgbh.org
12:56 am
>> rose: funding for "charlie rose" has been provided by: >> and by bloomberg, a provider of multimedia news and information services worldwide. >> y ♪
12:57 am
12:58 am
12:59 am
1:00 am
♪ ♪ -today, on "america's test kitchen"... dan makes julia the best grilled pizza, jack challenges julia to a sipfest of olive oil, lisa reviews avocado gadgets that are actually worth the money, and tim shows bridget how to make the ultimate shredded-chicken tacos. it's all coming up, right here on "america's test kitchen." "america's test kitchen" is brought to you by the following: fisher & paykel. since 1934, fisher & paykel has been designing

21 Views

info Stream Only

Uploaded by TV Archive on