tv Bloomberg Markets Bloomberg May 30, 2016 12:00pm-2:01pm EDT
>> from our studios in new york city, this is "charlie rose." charlie: we begin this evening with politics. a report delivered to congress yesterday, the state department's inspector general criticized hillary clinton's e-mails, saying clinton violated government policies in using a private e-mail account as secretary of state. the next are asking why she did not seek permission to use it and why she refused to cooperate with the inspector general's investigation. clinton has refused to respond. at a rally yesterday, donald trump capitalized on the news. mr. trump: she is as crooked as they come.
she had a little bad news today, as you know. some reports came down that were not too good. not so good. the inspector general general's report, not good. charlie: the fbi's investigation continues. clinton said she would be willing to sit for an interview. the news also comes as bernie sanders closes in on hillary clinton's lead in california. joining us, a political reporter who focuses on clinton, and from washington, steven lee myers of the "times." let me begin with amy, where are we in day two of this story? amy: the clinton campaign faces a central challenge, her trust numbers. the latest new york times poll, 64% of registered voters said they do not trust hillary clinton, the same amount as donald trump. they are wondering, how do we overcome that? that challenge has collided with this new report that is in some ways very damning, and the most damning because it plays right into the narrative that donald
trump is trying to craft of her, as not being trustworthy. as finding ways to get around the rules. charlie: steven lee myers, what do you think? steven: i think a lot of people are still digesting the report. the report is one of several coming. judicial watch, a conservative watch group is doing depositions now, seeking more information about why she created this private server. who knew about it, what were the security risks involved. on top of the fbi investigation, which is also coming down the pike. i think the inspector general's report is only the first in what is bound to be more controversy surrounding her use of the server. charlie: are you surprised by the response? you would think they would want to put this behind, but if you are answering in a way that makes people question your response, you are not putting it
behind you. steven: i think all along for the campaign, they have tried to play this down, saying this is something previous secretaries have done, specifically colin powell, using an e-mail account. but what the report did was undercut some of the justifications or explanations that they had made, that she herself has made, that this was not approved by the state department security records management officials. and she had not asked. if she had asked, it would not have been approved. the report into all the details make it clear that it created an awkward situation for people in the department to try to accommodate this server. not everybody knew about it. you see situations in which people are trying to figure out how to work around that.
that added, i think, to some of these surprised that came out of this report. these were not things that we knew, and it did suggest that there was more of an effort to avoid the scrutiny of the e-mails that would be expected of official records. charlie: do you believe, amy, that she knew it would not be approved? amy: there is a line in there that says that an aide expresses concern about the private server, and she says she is willing to get a second device or she is willing to get an official e-mail address, just as long as the personal never gets out. that line to me was particularly damming. it added to perceptions that she was keeping this private server to keep her correspondence private. as stephen said, other secretaries of state have done that. colin powell has done that, but he is not running for president against an opponent trying to craft him as "crooked." also, they have tried to put this behind them. last summer, the e-mail dogged her campaign, and she issued an apology, saying sorry that people were confused. finally that looked like it was
not cut it and she finally apologized almost a year later he it is still haunting her candidacy. charlie: is there division in the clinton campaign as to what to do? amy: i think they are trying to figure it out as they go. there is a lot of division in terms of how to confront trump, and how much you sort of play into him. but i think steven is right. they are trying to say that every secretary of state has done this, that it was not outside usual practice. charlie: you would think she would want to sit there and answer every question and sort of exhaust the thing. as the late geraldine ferraro did. amy: like the pretty in pink press conference over the cattle futures, right. remember, she did that. before she started running, she had that press conference at the united nations, which was an onslaught of questions about the e-mails, and she gave cautious legal responses. that press conference did not go over well. people said she looked defensive.
obviously, we are still talking about it. it did not squelch the criticism. i am sure they are wondering what the benefit was at those press conferences when they tried that. charlie: steven, what can she hope for in this? steven: because of the legal processes underway, the fbi investigation, a number of court hearings for additional information about the e-mails, i think the best she can hope for is that there are no more revelations about what was known and who knew it when. there are serious questions raised in the inspector general's report about adhering to federal law, to the guidelines for preserving records, for taking security precautions. there is an e-mail that went out under her name that they cite, talking about the risk of using your personal e-mail in conducting official business, even as she was continuing to do
that throughout her tenure. i think the best that they can hope for at this point is that nothing more scarring comes out than what has already. charlie: i assume they would hope also that if the fbi report comes out and she is testified, which obviously would bring a huge amount of attention, the fbi would come out with a report that would suggest that she did nothing that was damaging in terms of national security or the like. amy, help me out. amy: i would say one of her strongest points ever in this campaign was when she sat down for 13 hours of testimony in the benghazi hearing. so if pressed to answer questions publicly, i think that's actually a good format for her. it makes voters think she is being transparent. she is being bullied. she walked away from benghazi the winner. steven: that was very much seen as a politicized hearing, even a partisan display, from both
sides. the fbi investigation is going to be hard to portray that way, and it also won't be public. they won't put out a report, necessarily. they will make a recommendation to the department of justice on whether or not they believe any crimes were committed, and it will be up to the department of justice to decide whether to bring any cases. that could go any number of ways. some could be incredible nightmares for the campaign. but even the fact of an interview with an fbi in the middle of a presidential campaign certainly is not a good optic for the campaign, and i am sure they will hope that the fbi decides there were no crimes committed, and at this point we don't know what they are going to do. amy: steven makes a good point. so much of her response is that her republican adversaries are blowing this out of proportion to her hurt during a political season. so the report yesterday was particularly damning because it was from her own state department.
charlie: can bernie sanders win in california? amy: it was looking impossible until recently. new polling shows they are in a dead heat. i still think he is an underdog. the clinton campaign intended to shift all of its resources into the general election by this point, and they said yesterday that they would be going on air for ads in california. this was unheard of a few weeks ago when we thought that everything was going to be pushed to ohio, florida, pennsylvania. places where they are ready to take on donald trump. charlie: and what about trump and sanders in a debate? amy: that would be fine. trump said in his press conference that they would do it for charity. if they raised $10 million, they would do the debate. bernie is having money problems. i think they are looking for free media, and what could be more free media than debating trump? charlie: thank you, amy. thank you, steven. we will be right back.
stay with us. we begin the week with politics. hillary clinton's e-mail server is in the news. there had been more incidents of violence at donald trump rallies, and there may be one more debate before the california primaries, but it is not one that everybody expected. mike allen is here with that and more, the chief correspondent of politico. and the editor of the playbook blog. welcome. mike: thank you for having me. charlie: we know that donald trump has reached enough delegates. when will hillary clinton reach the same point? mike: this is the amazing reversal of fortune. remember when this process started? we thought there was one viable democrat and 17 republicans, and now she is having to go to the very end, bernie sanders pushing her, looking stronger, getting
more coverage. last weekend, this "saturday night live" segment had bernie sanders and hillary clinton in a bar at closing time and sanders wouldn't leave. that was a great set up. charlie: what is wrong with the clinton campaign? is it the candidate? mike: it needs excitement. there is such an excitement deficit between trump and her. the dilemma for sec. clinton is cautiousness, one thing missing from hillary clinton is her brand. you would assume that in these times, that is what people want, but it is not. you can remember me saying this fall to you, when we had the summer of trump and the fall of trump, i used to say, at any moment, something could happen in the world that would remind people that this is a real job.
and then we had the attack in paris, and trump went up. so people want -- or at least a large number of voters want -- the two are tied in national polls, nothing any of us saw coming, and the white house did not see it coming. we were talking to them the other day. they were surprised by how quickly it has become a neck-and-neck race, and by how quickly republicans have closed ranks behind donald trump. charlie: you told me on the phone the other day, this foretells the next five months. mike: trump, making accusations against bill clinton that no one has. a picture of bill clinton with the cigar, telling the washington post that he is going
to start looking to conspiracy theories. charlie: vince foster? mike: yes. that is a dilemma for the clinton campaign, do you respond? if you do not, you are accused of making a swift boat mistake. but on the other side of that coin, you could spend the next five months talking about things you don't want to talk about, that you don't want to remind voters of. charlie: and you don't want to become donald trump. trying to attack him the same way he attacked them. marco rubio tried that, and it did not work for him. mike: when the egyptair plane went down, and donald trump right away tweeted that it was terrorism, at the time we did not know what it was. charlie: and still don't. mike: exactly. but then you saw hillary clinton talking about the plane and terrorism. how to look strong and not play trump's game is a difficult needle to thread, and they have
not yet cracked that code. charlie: i have friends of mine who are politically savvy saying if there was a major terrorism event in this country, it would play into trump's hands. mike: it no question. politics of fear. he is going to play the security model. this will be his message at the convention. he will talk about being a family man. and interestingly it enough mike: yeah, great kids. family man, pragmatic businessman, and he will appeal to security models. he will project strength. charlie: you but i thought we said that was hillary clinton. careful, serious, with a big resume. has been there. when she ran against obama, "who do you want answering the phone at 3:00 a.m.?" mike: exactly. secretary clinton has history, demographics, and resume on her side. that missing ingredient is the
emotional connection. that's how we vote. i sometimes think of life as a student council election. back in the lunch room, you didn't vote for the kid with the better platform, you voted for someone because you like them. that's how elections are. charlie: when you look at elections today, do you find that more and more people are saying, yes, yes, donald trump can win? mike: i have said a while, he had a 30% chance. that is rising. we saw in the polls that have him basically tied, we see it in so many republicans who are fighting a way to endorse him, or they say they will support him, but not endorse him, or vice versa, but so many republicans are coming around. we are seeing hillary clinton does not yet have a blueprint for firing back.
if we were to flash forward and donald trump wins, mainly for demographic reasons and map reasons, seems unlikely. the political staff says donald trump would need to win seven in 10 of white dudes, including democrats. charlie: and at the same time, they point out that hillary clinton has a long way to go to win bernie sanders supporters. there are exit polls that say they feel strongly against her, even to the point of some saying they will vote for donald trump. mike: i think this will be a big story, bernie bros going to trump. it is the middle finger vote. people on the outside of mercury tainted, they do not like what they are hearing, they do not
trust the system. after the convention, they are going to be taking a look at donald trump. union members, not union leaders, but union members, distrust the clintons because of trade and nafta. some democrats will pull the lever for donald trump. it complicates the math. that's why the math is so screwy this time. the rust belt, blue-collar states that you can usually count on going for democrats, michigan, wisconsin, pennsylvania, those are in play. but some classic red states, like georgia and arizona, with expanding hispanic populations, those he can lose. so the chessboard has moved. charlie: thank you for coming. mike: happy memorial day.
charlie: we now turn to asia. earlier this week, the president visited vietnam, where he lifted a decade-old arms embargo. he then headed to the g-7 summit in japan. he plans to make it an historic visit to hiroshima on friday. joining me is david sanger of the new york times. he recently returned from traveling with the president. i am pleased to have him back on
this program. thank you for doing this. i think you just got off the plane as we taped this. thank you for coming by. give me an overview of this trip. put it in context. part of it is legacy building, part of it is reminding americans that he is constantly talking about the importance of asia. david: that's right. the two big parts of this trip are the vietnam side, which was what he did the beginning part of the week. which was the first time he had gone to vietnam and was important, because he is trying to wrap vietnam into the overall strategy of the asian pivot. that has been drawing out countries like myanmar, vietnam. where we had diplomatic relationship of 25 years. but we have not really deepened the relationship. to try to get vietnam, the
philippines, others in the region to participate in this effort to jointly contain the chinese without making the chinese view it as containment. it is not an easy trick. as you can imagine. because on the one hand, he is trying to engage the chinese, saying we understand we need to work as partners and so forth, and yet he is using facts that the chinese have been so aggressive in the south china sea to help draw in asian nations that have not been traditional allies, that have been very reluctant partners. if you look around the region, he ended up lifting the arms embargo on vietnam, which has been in place since the 1960's. he is hoping that he will have some access to the big port during the vietnam war.
he is negotiating with the philippines about getting access to bases that we are throwing out 20 to 25 years ago when i was a correspondent in asia. we never thought we would have access to it again. he's already got a deal with the australians having access to darwin. what he is hoping to do is keep american forces engaged in new places around the south china sea where they are constantly going to be in china's space. charlie: is there a specific message to the chinese that if you go this far, we will respond, both the united states and its allies? david: the message is little more subtle. each of these countries recognized a need to have a relationship with china. the trade relationship they have
with china is bigger than the trade relationship they have with the u.s., in many cases, and it's part of why the president spent so much time making the case for the transpacific partnership, although the case needs to be made with congress. more so than the 11 asian nations the u.s. has negotiated with. charlie: it is fair to say that vietnam and some of these countries have welcomed this because they are wary of chinese intentions over the long run. david: that's right. the trick here is to use the chinese aggressiveness to playoff the insecurities of these countries and make sure that they recognize it is the united states with who they have the best long-term possibilities. what's running against this is the domestic politics here.
the new york times they read, they watch your show and cnn and all that, and they see donald trump talking about how relationships in the region, including the american troop presence, should be based on whether or not these countries are financially contributing. you could argue what's missing from the trump argument right now is the case that the u.s. itself has in the region, and for its own reasons being a presence. these countries are nervous that the asian pivot that the president has talked about may go away on january 20, 2017. charlie: what do they think in asia when they hear mr. trump say he is not against japan having a nuclear weapon? david: he said that in the
interview that maggie and i did with him, and he also said that about south korea. he did not then repeat that in his foreign-policy speech. you have not heard him talk about it since. he came to it after i asked him in the course of that interview, if you are going to pull back from the pacific, both of these countries are going to get more nervous that are nuclear umbrella no longer covers it, that we would not be willing to come to their defense against china or north korea. and so would you have any objection if they build their own nuclear weapons, which the right wings of both countries are arguing for. after a pause, he said no, i would not have any problem with that. i find it interesting that he has not repeated it since. would he want countries part of the nonproliferation treaty to break that treaty? charlie: also, the president
said on friday that he would go to hiroshima. david: it is going to be a fascinating trip. when i lived in japan, no american official, even the u.s. ambassador in japan, would go to hiroshima during the commemoration of the bombing on august 6, and the later bombing in nagasaki. you have seen president obama being willing to do some things that traditionally american presidents have not done. he has been to myanmar twice, a place no president had gone before. he is willing to reach out to the iranians in a way that others have not before. charlie: cuba. david: cuba, for sure. and now you're seeing him say, look, we can take on directly the fact that we bombed hiroshima and nagasaki. the question, in watching his talk on hiroshima, is twofold.
first, we know he is going to avoid an apology. he has said there are no apologies for what the u.s. did, but there are still two completely opposite interpretations of history that go around the hiroshima bombing. if you walk into that museum that is outside the surviving dome that the president is visiting, you get a vision of history where the japanese are walking around hiroshima, there is no context to the war, and suddenly the bomb is dropped. if you talk to americans about this, if you look at the exhibits in the smithsonian around that came up in the 50th anniversary and survived to some degree, what you get is a version in which the decision to drop the bomb ended up ending the war and saved tens of
thousands if not hundred s of thousands of american lives. both of these, there are people who believe that there are reasons the japanese surrendered had more to do with the fear that as soon as russia entered the japanese side of the war, they would be able to do that, they would be invaded by the russians in the north and the u.s. from the south, and that may have had more to do with it. but certainly there is a version of events which i kind of subscribe to that the decision to bomb in hiroshima probably saved hundreds of thousands of lives. charlie: there is also the question of the prime minister of japan. he reminded the president when they were standing together that
there was great anger in japan over an early incident in which a subcontractor had killed a japanese woman, a young japanese woman. that still is part of the conversation and debate about whether there ought to be an american president in okinawa. is that still part of the david: there has been a long-running set of issues about okinawa. periodically, there have extraordinarily tragic encounters between some of the american serviceman and the local people. and 1990's.1980's, there have been more in recent times. certainly, it is big headlines in japan when it happens. that thea second issue
americans have said we will reduce our presence in okinawa, but you have to then come up with an alternative location for the troops to be based within japan. while the japanese have promised to do that, they have not gone ahead with those plans. there's great tension with in japan between the people of okinawa, which feel they are taking on the biggest urban of having the troops there, the historic burden that comes back from the fact that japan itself had been freed of the american occupation, and there's always rivalry between the japanese army in ireland and the okinawans, where the main islands do not want to take on this u.s. presence. there are all kind of environmental issues that come as well including the
, survivability of the reefs around okinawa's airbases are extended. charlie: should the japanese prime minister have made this case when he was standing with the u.s. president? david: this is a long standing issue. i do not really see the issue of whether or not this was an effort by prime minister abe, one of the main sources of discussion between the united states and japan for decades. charlie: i do not know anyone could make the case that it was an effort to embarrass president obama, but the question is is that the right forum to do it? david: it may not have been, but abe has his own domestic policy -- politics on these issues.
had he not brought it up, it probably would have been difficult for them. the harder part for him to navigate, is what does he have to do if the president visits hiroshima? there has been no japanese from -- japanese prime minister who has gone to pearl harbor. if you go off the hiroshima coast, it has the equivalent of the old japanese annapolis. there is a wonderful museum there, and to the heroes of pearl harbor. those would be the japanese airmen who went over and were shot down and never came back. so there was a mythology that the japanese have about pearl harbor. one of the interesting questions is after the president is done doing what he does, is it time for a japanese prime minister to show up at pearl harbor and explain that in the
historical context as well? charlie: such as it is with wars were there are winners and losers clearly the united states is troubled by north korea. was it a subject there, and if so how did it play out? >> north korea is usually a bilateral subject between the u.s. and japan and the u.s. and south korea. the most interesting thing that is happening in the next few weeks is that there is going to be a joint training drill for dealing with north korea that has japan and south korea and the u.s. all together in it. since the japanese and the south koreans have a very difficult time talking to each other, working on this question, that itself sends a message to the north koreans. we reported a story i did a few weeks ago, that the north koreans have, according to american and south korean
intelligence, have finally mastered the technology of putting a nuclear weapon on a short and in a radio range missile. they have not tested this yet, but the intelligence agencies believe they know how to do this. they do not yet know how to put it on a long-range missile that could reach the united states. but if it can reach american forces in south korea, american forces in japan, if it can reach about any city in japan and south korea, that seems to raise the stakes considerably, at a time when we're worried about the stability of kim jong-un. the north korean leader. and i would say that if there has been a single area in which president obama has made no progress, and is leaving the situation worse than he founded in asia, it is on the north korean side. while the u.s. was able to negotiate with the iranians, it has never gotten a conversation
charlie: our guest received her first oscar nomination at the age of 13 for her performance in atonement. she has grown from henning kennelly intelligent child actor to a screen performer of force insensitivity. she is making her broadway debut in the rival of arthur miller's the crucible. she plays abigail williams who feels mad paranoia in the midst of the salem witch trials. i am pleased to have her at this table for the first time. welcome. tell me about abigail. >> she is very complicated, i have to say. it is funny because it is something that has been on on my mind for the last two years. i signed up for this two years ago. to play abigail. charlie: what does that mean? >> i'm excessively thinking
about it mind and day and cannot sleep and have dreams about it and wake up in the middle of the night with a cold sweat because it is my first time on stage. i was terrified. up until two weeks ago i have been terrified. charlie: but you are comfortable now? >> yes. i think, no matter what because it is the very first production i'm involved in. i'm going to have nerves. i'm never going to be completely comfortable. charlie: but you always wanted to go to stage, but wait until you were 21? >> yes. because i did not train, and even though i don't think you need to be a good actor necessarily, i think the theater, the technical side of it is a much weaker part of the performance. and what you deliver every
night. and to not know how to breathe or project or even just make a line work in 100 different ways, you would be a bit lost in a play. so i did not want to do it when i was too young. charlie: making a line work in a hundred different ways. >> you can. charlie: can you give me an example? any example that comes to mind? >> i think really, the first line that i have with paris, when i'm saying to him, what i think the rumor of witchcraft is all about that is something that can be played in so many different ways. so the way that the director wanted me to do this was someone who is very self-assured.
she was only 16, 17, and she is kind of wise for her years. and she stands on her own quite well. there are so many different scenarios within the play where i come face-to-face with one of the main male characters, and talk them down. that is the type of young girl she is so with a line like that coming you can play a self-possessed young girl, or someone who is nervous or anxious. even though quite if strong foundation has been laid, just because i have done it so much, every single night, a simple line like that will be completely different. charlie: is there any similarity between this character and the character from "atonement"? >> yes.
it is similar, have to say. i feel like abigail is an older version, if she had been let away more as she got older. i think they are both incredibly intelligent young women. i think abigail is an idea of -- has more an idea of the repercussions of her actions and her words, and briney chose not to see the truth, because she was young and there was confusion that was involved. her motivation to do what she did. i think with abigail she has more of a clear focus. she knows what she wants. she wants or so she thinks she wants john proctor. and that is her motivation.
i think briney was scared and confused the only thing that the girl could have relied on was for imagination because she did not have anyone else. charlie: did you talk to the author of atonement? >> yes. charlie: i have had him on very often. >> i am doing on castle beach which is one of his novels at the end of the year. and he amazes me. it is not very often that you have the author of the books that are being adapted for film be supportive of the film adaption. we are very lucky. you don't always get that. it is their baby, and it is their work, and a book is so incredibly different when it comes to the journey that a reader takes versus an audience member. but ian came on set a few times
and i remember i showed him around the set, i showed him the camera works, even though i am sure he knew, but he is lovely. >> this is arthur miller on this program talking about "the crucible" in 2002. >> i think the play is dealing with the disintegration of a society. it is a play about paranoia, hysteria. and i imagine that people are reacting to it because they feel similar things now, namely that an attack can come from anywhere, which is what happened in salem. that they were not quite sure why. they were not sure what they would do or what they should do. it is all up in the air. and in this play, that is the
way it is. it is a play about a town that is simply exploding in fear. >> it has a lot in common with shakepeare's plays. it fuels the whole society. it is a microcosm. you put a whole society on a stage that is the attractive thing about theater predicted when a group of people on stage, expands through whole society this is what shakespeare does, and goes from the top to the bottom. also what arthur does in this way is to go from scenes of great intimacy between two people to scenes which involve the entire society on stage. the epic scale of it, the language, is shakespearean. arthur has steeped himself in shakespeare, with the
transcripts of the trial, and the king james bible, which came out about 70 years before these people. their language would be very informed by that. it is a language of muscularity and energy. the play is wired and when we went to the first run through sitting at the force of the play, arthur said this is a young man's play. i could not write this now. because of the sheer energy and muscularity of the play. charlie: what informed you in terms of your performance? >> it really was a process, because in the way that she works, it is specific to the production. you probably never will work like someone like that again. we do not have a very clear idea
of what we were doing on the first day. i had just gone over the play an awful lot. all i really had was the text. it is so true what richard says. there is a muscularity, a real poetry to the text. it is so far removed from how we speak now it is like you are doing shakespeare. so you really do disappear into that world as soon as you commit yourself to the text. but it was a number of different elements that came together. the costume, the look of the two, and all of them going over the text over and over again for weeks. charlie: here is what you said, you are surrounded by this community with rules for everything. she is a teenager becoming a sexual creatures, but she is a
child in some ways. >> again, fear is the driving force in this play. no matter what production you see, the one thing that should be apparent is that there is such an air of fear in this community. no matter what, with what is going on in america and europe, fear drives people to do things they would not do. to be honest, just in personal relationships, i think between people. when you feel like you are being attacked, more often than not, unless you are a hero like john or a heroine like elizabeth, you will shift the blame or you will panic and you will move the attention on to somebody else is -- someone else and that is what is constantly happening in this way. one thing that really fascinated me, these young girls
are the one that instigate this whole attack on the people. they are incredibly emotional because they are going through a very emotional shift in their lives. the biggest they will probably ever go through. they are discovering sex for the first time. i think with abigail in particular, she behaves in an awful way of course, but i don't blame her for reacting in the way she does. she has had her innocence taken from her by this man, and he promised her many things when they were together. regardless of how long the affair lasted for. being a young girl, his idea of romanticism is probably still alive and well and i took that to mean that they were committed
to one another. when that is taken away from her, it is almost like her main purpose has been taken away from her. suddenly she is like all the other children in the community again. when she had him, she was something else she was something higher than the rest of them. so she starts to panic. charlie: so her meaning in life is taken away. let's talk a little bit of things about you. your parents came here to pursue acting. >> no, he became an actor over here. he was discovered in a bar that he worked. charlie: because of the way he looked? >> he was a good-looking man but he was very funny and very charismatic and irish people in general are entertainers. charlie: you wanted to be like him, is that what got you into
acting? >> i did not grow up with the notion of wanting to be an actor. charlie: you went back to ireland when you were three years old. >> he became an actor in new york, and he continued to work when we went back to ireland. when i was seven years older something, he was in this short film in dublin. they needed a kid to dress up as a clown. it was something very avant-garde. they needed a kid to do it. and so he asked me to do it. it is so funny because i was never the type of kid into dressing up. the only person i pretended to be was jean butler from riverdance. but other than that i never did
anything with that. i was not enthusiastic about it. he persuaded me to do it. because they needed a kid. but as soon as i got onto the film set i just felt really at home right away and i was 12 years old. and then there was this shift. 12 years old is ridiculously young to know what you want to do. i was lucky. suddenly, i was put into this world of incredible people. people who are wonderful and brilliant about what they do. it was a serious subject matter, but it was fun. and still getting the work done. and so this deep love for acting and being on a film set blossomed from there. charlie: i want to ask the question, why do you think you have been so successful at such
a young age? is there an answer to that? >> a lot of it has to do with luck. i really do. you have to be happy at what you do. i suppose. hopefully i am. and also, another thing that a lot of people do not really mention is that you need to the respectful of the other people you are working with eventually, if you are disrespectful to the people around you, that word of mouth gets passed on to other people. people talk. and you won't be hired again. i'm very lucky that i had terrific parents, one of whom was very experienced when it came to films and the etiquette and how to prepare and all that sort of stuff. and my mother, i was able to feel the goodness of being around these people. but i also wasn't ruined by it
at an early age. i was still kept innocent, and one thing that she said when i was a kid, she stopped people from making me a cup of tea on the set. charlie: brooklyn was terrific. you got a nomination. where do you want to go? to keep working. i love it so much. i really do. the acting itself is obviously the reason why i love what i do so much. it is a huge part of me. acting on stage versus acting on film is completely different. charlie: and more satisfying?
>> no, equal to but satisfying for different reasons. when you are on stage with someone, even with you, and i know there's no one else in this room, you don't get that space when you're on the film set. there are lots of other people there, cameras everywhere. that puts some people off. but i have grown up with that, so i love working in that environment. charlie: wishing you much success. thank you for joining us. see you next time. ♪
john: welcome to this edition of "the best of with all due respect." it was a busy week in the world of politics. republican party got to taste test two new brands. 12 -- the new trump brand and the old. we also took a brief trip back to the 1990's. >> so you think you are a 1990's fan? >> the 1990's arbiter, much better. >> ok, donald, can you handle this? they were the best of friends. but now, is donald bluffing or
is he holding a full house? >> deal me in. >> will hillary be saved by the bill? can donald exploit those not so wonder years? tonight, mark and john explain it all so you will not be clueless. >> as if. >> we have all that and more on this special edition of "wadr: i love the 90s." mark: there is something more recent that donald trump could explore in the battle with hillary clinton. the state department released a report on hillary clinton's use of the world's most private e-mail system. the scathing report confirms a lot of things we already knew. like clinton's e-mail practices violated state department rules. she was not the only secretary
of state to do government business on a personal account. this tough report written by barack obama's government told us some new and important things. some of clinton's aides and first, clinton herself did not cooperate with the investigation. when some staffers raised second, questions, they were told it had been reviewed and approved by the department's legal staff. despite the report findings that they were "no admissions that stop reviewed or approved secretary clinton's personal system." the clinton camp says, nothing to see here. the republicans were quick to jump on the news. they condemned the front runners at judgment and those questioning her judgment include donald j trump, billionaire. donald trump: as i say, crooked hillary. crooked hillary. [applause] she is as crooked as they come.
she had a little bad news today, as you know, from some reports. not so good. inspector general's report, not good. i want to run against hillary. i do not know if we are going to be able to -- could be we would run against crazy bernie. mark: not good, says donald trump, about this report. we will talk about it during the show all night, but let's start by asking the basic question. this has been a low-grade fever, this controversy what does it , become now? john: it raises a couple of new things. the report is scathing and all of them are bad and it raises a couple of new things, one which is some follow-up reporting, like that story about people raising red flags. being told, nothing to see here.
internally at the time. politically i think the ball of , wax rests with the fbi investigation. clinton going to talk to the fbi will there be some criminal , charges? that is the big kahuna. this brings it back to the surface. today will not be the last time he talks about this, i am sure. mark: it is an indictment of her judgment. it was done by independent investigator. we will see if the clinton campaign decides to attack the investigation? i will say this, she should have cooperated. i'm sure her lawyers saying you cannot cooperate while the fbi investigates, but if she wants to be president, if she wants to have a commitment to getting all the facts, she should have cooperated. john: two key things, for a year, we heard, this is not all that unusual. this report makes clear that it was very unusual. the presence of a private home server and not having a private e-mail account at the home service and they admit a big point of saying she wants to cooperate with everyone.
she is willing to testify before the benghazi committee. she is willing to meet with the fbi her being willing to address these issues is an important political talking point. not only should she have done it on good politics. mark: the hacker who claims he breached her server pled guilty as part of a deal. the report says there was an instance of the server under the threat of some attack. that will be looked at, too, and the fbi will look at that and they will subpoena that order. john: i know we both think that if there is a proven instance where that server was hacked and some classified material was exposed to hackers, that is a big political problem. in additional to a national security problem. mark: ever since it has been clear that they would be the
nominees the republican side of , the race has been a tale of two trumps. one of those storylines is the new trump brand hitting stores near you. he has defied conventional wisdom by uniting factions of this party. way faster than expected. then there is the other storyline with persistence of trump clashes. demonstrators clashed with police outside a trump rally in albuquerque, reportedly throwing bottles, setting things on fire. protesters repeatedly interrupted trump before being removed. instead of defusing the tension trump did what trump often does. , he inflamed the tension. >> get them out. get them out. bring them home to mom. go home to mommy. get them out of here. he cannot get a date, so he is doing this instead.
this is so exciting, isn't it? still wearing diapers. look at this kid. he looks like he is 10 years old. john: today, trump tweeted about those events last night. he says in a tweet that they thugs who are flying the mexican flag. today, at a rally in anaheim, trump was again interrupted. looks like this is back. the disarray at some of the trump rallies. it is a different world. how much worse or how problematic are the optics of all of this? mark: i'm a big fan of the first amendment. that includes the right of speakers to speak. if this continues, it will be part of the clinton campaign trying to paint him as a chaos candidate. i also think it rallies his
face. i think his conduct in those clips is not a winning formula. it is trump being trump. he can be trump and some other way, but on balance in the general election contest it is a , net negative in the general contest. they will pay more attention to it than people who are voting on other issues. john: i think his base is already rallied. it will be rallied for a long time. i do not think that helps him. but i keep thinking about who , are the persuadable voters? who are the people on the fence, who are movable? do they look at that mocking donald trump, regardless of what you think about the protesters, you can think there within their rights to protest, which i do, and they are not allowed to be too disruptive in certain situations but the bottom line , is that is inflaming it rather than trying to tamp it down. i think for undecided voters, that is not a look appealing to them. mark: i agree in the first blush that is correct. this is a guy who has said and
done many things even more outrageous than he just did. he is even in the polls, so if that behavior and rally will decide the election on the , margins, probably not helpful. i think the press will obsess about it more than it matters in the end. john: i am not obsessing about it and i do not think it will be decisive. if you think about the latest clinton thing and the attacks on trump as untrustworthy images , like this, if they play out, are going to get worse. mark: the images -- john: his reaction is not helpful and the images are bad. mark: i don't love his reaction. donald j trump, billionaire, working on another image these days. he has been successful at consolidating support inside the party. or at least he has done a faster than people expected. the latest news reported by our bloomberg colleagues.
phil lee, jennifer and kevin reported that paul ryan telling confidants he is ready to end his standoff with trump. today, ryan says he has not made up his mind. a spokesman said the speaker and trump are going to talk by phone this evening. meanwhile, mitt romney is still being mentioned as someone who might consider jumping into this presidential race as a third-party candidate. if ryan does endorse trump, how will that impact any calculations romney has about getting into this race? and being the main person going after trump? john: i do not know how seriously mitt romney is thinking about getting into this race. people are courting him to try. it will make it harder. it would be easier for romney on two levels, having ryan as an one, ally would make it easier for him to get into this race.
number two, in any scenario where he becomes president, most certainly a three-way race, and having paul ryan be on his side would make securing the presidency, in that somewhat far-fetched scenario but not impossible a lot easier than , having ryan being an official trump backer. mark: the deliberations have been more detailed than have been reported so far. it is still difficult for him to do. it clearly becomes much harder. it is already hard for people in the anti-trump movement to say, i am this, but a lot of people i like are endorsing trump. for romney to say, this is a moral outrage, when the guy he picked as a running mate , whose judgment he has celebrated endorses him -- ,that really comes from romney's
john: welcome back. joining us is the press secretary for hillary clinton's campaign. brian, thank you for crossing the bridge. which bridge did you come over? brian: the brooklyn bridge, always. john: thank you for doing that. we pointed out that one of your obama campaign managers in 2012 had the trouble answering the question of what hillary clinton's innovative economic ideas are. can you tell us per original ideas? brian: her answer was just fine. our infrastructure proposal which would invest 500 billion dollars into rebuilding our
roads and bridges would put a lot of people to work. mark: what is original? brian: a few things. some of the first speeches we gave at the new york city were about raising wages. in that speech she talked about , a profit-sharing proposal that would incentivize companies. would reward workers that have been responsible for the profit that corporations are seeing right now. mark: that is not part of the infrastructure plan. anything original about the infrastructure plan? brian: the level of investment and how she would pay for it. mark: how would you pay for it? brian: by asking the wealthy to pay more, and i heard the discussion in the earlier segment. we put out a raft of middle-class tax cuts. including targeted tax credits for things like prescription drug costs and childcare. we have not revealed the whole extent of our mental class -- mark: so more is coming? brian: absolutely. we did that on purpose for
preserving it for the general election campaign. mark: talk about her general principles and how tax policy relate to economic growth for families? brian: there has been a lot of coverage to this effect, which is hillary clinton views the tax code as a vehicle for helping incentivize responsible behavior by corporate citizens. you have the profit-sharing proposal, she has also used the tax code to disincentivize some of that irresponsible corporate behavior we have seen. for instance she would impose an , exit tax on companies who tried to invert themselves and register themselves as having their headquarters abroad. that is something we have seen president obama crack down on. but she is going to go further. she would say all those outfits you have parked offshore, we would not wait to repatriate them in the united states. we will tax them as soon as you try to leave. she has a clawback proposal. she would say if you close a factory in the united states and move jobs overseas, we will
clawback the value of your tax credit which helped you subsidize your research. mark: these are all specific proposals. i am asking for how would you characterize her philosophy towards -- brian: what it adds up to? i think our story we will tell is that president obama has done a herculean task in terms of lifting the country out of a great recession. it rivaled the depression of several decades ago, but the prosperity we are starting to see is not fully shared and we still have a stacked deck were too much of the rewards of the improved economy are flowing to the top in terms of ceo pay, shareholder dividends. not enough of that money is flowing down. in terms of investing in the workforce. mark: so she would support economic investment and take money from the people who are currently well-off and move it down the ladder? brian: that is what it is all about.
it is a carrot and not a stick. we think it would be a significant inducement towards more responsible -- and we think it is smart corporate behavior. if you look at the greek yogurt company based in new york, the ceo of that company made headlines a few weeks ago for announcing he will reward his employees with stock. we think that is the type of smart, forward-looking approach to running your business that we should incentivize. mark: at the end of four years, how would middle-class families be doing? brian: her number one goal is to see wages rise. that hasn't happened in a couple of decades. mark: by? brian: i will not put a number on it, but our goal is to achieve something we have not seen since the 1990's. to see people get paid higher wages. john: she has talked about how president clinton is going to have a role in her white house as economic advisor. is he an advisor on the economy now? and in what ways?
brian: you know better than most people he has got a wealth of , ideas at any given time. john: are there ideas that she has put forward that come from him? brian: i think what she referred to in what role he would play in the administration, it is not an she made the, but comments in kentucky and virginia with how to lift up. mark: has she taken some ideas that she has spotted on the campaign trail now question mark brian: she has had a raft of individuals that she has him listed advice from. he has focused on regions of the country that have seen a lot of disinvestment. i will not credit any of these proposals exclusively to him. these proposals are her own. mark: she has taken some criticism for this. is there political risk involved in that? brian: i think she was just speaking sincerely about the role she wants him to play. it would not come across as
genuine and i think people would think it was phony if people acted like she wasn't going to take his advice. mark: you are a former justice department spokesman. has secretary clinton been interviewed by the fbi regarding the e-mail investigation? brian: i do not have an update on that. mark: has her counsel been contacted? brian: to my knowledge, no. mark when she is, will you : announce it? brian: i'm sure it would not escape notice very long. one way or another, i am sure everybody will be apprised. mark: so there's not a when and where? brian let me be clear, because : sometimes our political opponents try to parse words. since last august when this review was first announced, david kendall has been in recurring touch with officials at the justice department, as anybody would. mark: but nothing you know about? brian nothing that has moved : toward, can we schedule an appearance? mark: terry mcauliffe is being investigated. do you know anything about that?
brian: i do not. mark: what to think of his ethics question mark -- ethics? brian: i have nothing to say on that. mark: do you have any reasons to believe he would do anything wrong? john: i am sure you are aware of the instagram video donald trump posted. brian: i heard about it. mark: you have not looked at it? brian: i watched it. john: what did you think of it? brian: this is the latest in his strategy to try to distract from an issues-based campaign. which is what we intend to run. to be honest i think it is bad , strategy. i have seen smart republican operatives go on television and say they have tested these lines of attack and they alienate independent voters, especially women. every day he spends engaged in this is a misspent opportunity for him. john: is it the campaign's plan, when he raises these issues,
all of hillary clinton's complicity in that, all of that stuff, is your plan to go through the whole campaign and respond in this way? we will not dignify that with a response. brian: i do not think donald trump himself sees these attacks as having some political upside with independent voters. rick wilson and others have said, we tested this -- here is what i think he is doing -- i think he is trying to practice the politics that worked for him in the primary. throw stuff out there and try to get under people's skin. type to get in people's heads take whatever collateral damage , it will bring in terms of hurting his negatives. his negatives are hard-earned at this point. people talk about the negatives of hillary clinton and him being apples to apples. those are his own words that as further,p, which
these are the product of attacks that have been directed at her, so i think he has courted these -- the downsides of accruing these high negatives because he thinks this is a way to get inside his opponent's head. hillary clinton is not going to go for that. she cannot get psyched out. you saw that before the big gaza committee hearing in october. this is somebody who has a steel backbone. john: we will see if we can crack you. we will see if we can crack you. two are for coming in. up next, we have two republican strategists. we will be right back with that. ♪
and killian. thank you for being here. we've been talking about the trump donor score today. how did he do it? kelly: it is impressive. he does it through charm. he vanquished 16 opponents. these are business men who deal with big markets and they win. john: and women on the list. kelly: and as this men and women. a very successful first outing with the rnc. it shows the party unity starts from the top. mark: you are for trump -- and you are not. you acknowledge this is an impressive list. john: it is an impressive list. mark if he can put together a : list like this, why not say -- >> donors fall into basically two categories. most major donors are staying out of it. they are either open to funding an independent candidate or they will sit on the sidelines.
that was chronicled in the "new york times" article over the weekend. the other group, some of them are saying i am on board. others are saying, i do not want to be seen as being disloyal for the party. i will give my name, i am on board, but i will not do real work for either one of two reasons, one, i do not like trump or, number two, he does not need my money. push comes to shove, if this race is truly winnable for trump, he has the capacity to fund it. why do these guys need -- mark: update us on where the search for a third candidate stands. dan: no update. dan: no update. i would say the odds are -- kellyanne: i think you would find amelia ehrhardt before you find -- john: i want to ask you both, if the people on "the new york times" list will never give to trump and you have these people
on the other side, is this enough to get trump the amount of money he needs? kellyanne: it is an amazing and impressive start. those who are going to give but have not yet given, trying to decide where is a safe, comfortable vehicle? is there a super pac that already exists? a lot of folks are #neverhillary. john: if they hold, will trump be able to raise enough money? dan: i do not think donald trump -- that will not get him a fraction of what hillary is going to raise. the idea that he will be able to compete on resources -- we are at the end of may.
>> romney lost eight of the nine swing states. mark: was president obama born in the united states? >> yes. >> did vince foster commit suicide? >> no, i mean yes. >> if donald trump asks you if you he should keep talking about these things, would you say yes or no? kellyanne: i do not think he talks about where president obama was born. and vince foster was a footnote. he is responding in kind to hillary clinton saying he is not good for women. he's a sexist and a misogynist. the 1990's, the main thing he is talking about, bill clinton and women in the 1990's. what people are going to focus on, this is a man in power and
he was having affairs with subordinates in the white house. the man lost his law license in the state of arkansas. mark: are you concerned about him going to these places? dan: it is ludicrous that we are in 2016 and we will have a national election about bill clinton in the 1990's. if i thought the state of the republican party is pathetic, it would take it to a whole different level. kellyanne: i believe his speech was about guns in washington state and they did not cover it. they only covered what i said about bill clinton. john: by the time he left
office, democrats winning in the midterm election, gaining seats, almost unprecedented. an approval rating north of 60% after republicans made a crusade about this. how is it politically savvy to relive something that did not work the first time? kellyanne: i hope the campaign is fought on issues. nobody has asked me to compare the health care plans of donald trump and hillary clinton. let's be fair, this is what people are covering now. hillary clinton is explaining more than she is campaigning. on your question about comparing bill clinton as a sitting president with a good economy and peace abroad and hillary clinton is not the president. it is a really weak response for her to say, all of a sudden, it
is the royal we. now it is the royal we. we reformed welfare, we created 23 million jobs. dan: i agree that this trump tactic will jostle the clinton campaign. honestly, what voters is he appealing to with this message? maybe consolidating the hard right. if he has to do that in late may, that is problematic. who is he speaking to with that? kellyanne: i hope eventually he gets her on health care, the fact that she has been in public life for 30 years and has done nothing to improve the lot of women. she has improved her own lot. she got millions of dollars to
do speeches. she is not even that interesting to listen to. let's force a two-way conversation on abortion. let's show who is really extreme. it reminds people of how long the clintons have been around and that is not a subtle point. you are promising to do all of these things, but what have you done? mark: i think she has done some stuff to help the lives of women. kellyanne: she ought to talk about it. mark: paul ryan, on the precipice of supporting trump? dan: i have nothing to report.
mark: you are very close to him. will you be disappointed if paul ryan endorses trump? dan: yes, i will. all republican leaders should think twice about endorsing someone who is trafficking racism and sexism and misogyny and is not a conservative. john: when you see rick perry -- dan: i think it is pathetic. john: rick perry had the same views as you on donald trump, but now is supporting. dan: paul's thinking on this, he thinks he can actually sway and educate trump to be a more responsible candidate, which will help house republicans. if he is able to get donald trump to endorse the house republican agenda and act like an adult -- i am skeptical. john: how do you think donald trump is going to respond to that paternalistic attitude? kellyanne: i agree with speaker ryan.
if you don't like something, instead of stomping your feet outside, go inside and try to help them. dan: just the distinction with rick perry. rick perry called him a cancer on the party. but he is campaigning to be trump's vice president. this makes trump's point. the republican establishment will do anything for fear of missing out. mark: we are going to vegas, we are putting all of our money on who for his running mate?
hii'm here to tell homeowners that are sixty-two and older about a great way to live a better retirement... it's called a reverse mortgage. call right now to receive your free dvd and booklet with no obligation. it answers questions like... how a reverse mortgage works, how much you qualify for, the ways to receive your money... and more. plus, when you call now, you'll get this magnifier with led light absolutely free! when you call the experts at one reverse mortgage today, you'll learn the benefits of a government-insured reverse mortgage. it will eliminate your monthly mortgage payments and give you tax-free
cash from the equity in your home and here's the best part... you still own your home. take control of your retirement today! mark: the latest bloomberg strategies poll, this one focusing on middle income voters in the rust belt. michigan, ohio, pennsylvania, wisconsin, all being targeted by trump. they prepare to try to win 270 of those electoral votes.
the managing partner of purple strategies joins us from the washington bureau. let's talk about the support for this key demo. doug: clinton has a lead. she is leading by seven points. it is a true swing demographic. if you look at elections from 1992 through 2008, every single election, the winner carried this group nationally and in the states where we can look at the data, the winner carried that demographic as well. in this key swing demographic, clinton is up by seven points. john: let's look at a couple of key segments. white voters, female voters, independents.
doug: we see some real polarization. among women, clinton is leading strong double digits. among men, trump is leading. he has a slightly among independents as well. race is a substantial issue. white voters are supporting him. clinton, she has a strong double-digit lead with minority voters. this key swing group mirroring a lot of demographic differences. the results on the top line works in clinton's favor. mark: in the data you just ran through, if you were trump, what would make you happiest? doug: the thing that would make me happiest, i am leading among independents.
that is obviously something -- he wants to be winning that group. he should be a little bit concerned he is not dominating among white voters in these key states. wisconsin, michigan, ohio, and pennsylvania. trump can cut into traditionally democratic constituencies or swing constituencies in a way that can take away states that have traditionally gone democratic. this brings up -- maybe that is not going to be so easy. he will have to build a more traditional republican coalition. mark: thank you very much. we will have more slicing and dicing. john: the great will leitch takes us to the movies. right after this. ♪
♪ john: this summer, a lot going on. a lot in terms of politics, but at the cinema, there will be a lot of juicy politically-themed movies. we asked the great will leitch to take a look and take us to the movies. ♪ >> it is almost summer and the air-conditioned movie season of comic book adaptations and more superheroes and robots is upon us. this is not the time for your
high-minded oscar fare. on the eve of elections, still some stones that may impact the political race. first off, "money monster," directed by jodie foster. george clooney is taken hostage by a man who lost his life savings. next, there is "weiner." remember anthony weiner's attempt to run for the mayor of newark city? there were documentarians there. this is not exactly an incident. >> this is the worst. >> also coming soon, "the purge: election year." trapped on the streets of d.c.,
they must survive an annual night of terror. it is the purge, washington style. >> join me as we eliminate evil. >> this sounds like a movie donald trump would actually write in 140-characters bursts. we have the "ghostbusters" reboot. and that is somehow turning political. "south side with you," the most overtly political movie of the year. it is a political "before sunrise." while all of the rest of us are losing our minds over this election, one envies the first couples ability to get away from it all by sitting down to watch a movie about themselves.
john: you have not seen "weiner" yet? you have to see it, it is incredible. i have seen it and i will say, it is the documentary to end all documentaries. there come moments where you think, i wish i was behind that closed door. the camera is there at every one of those moments. it is incredible. from a viewer's point of view, you get to see what it was like inside that campaign in a way that does not feel cheated. mark: i think "ghostbusters" is slightly overrated. john: the original? it is over. you and me, we are done. we will be right back.
>> from our studios in new york city, this is "charlie rose." charlie: we begin this evening with politics. a report delivered to congress yesterday, the state department's inspector general criticized hillary clinton's e-mails, saying clinton violated government policies in using a private e-mail account as secretary of state. the next are asking why she did not seek permission to use it and why she refused to cooperate with the inspector gal