tv Charlie Rose PBS December 10, 2015 12:00am-1:01am PST
. >> rose: welcome to the program. we begin this evening with an update of the investigation into the san bernardino shootings. we talk to esme deprez of bloomberg news. >> it's a surprise that it has been as extensive as it was. mr. comey said it could have been as recent as late 2013. so that gives them quit a bit of time since the attack last week. now that would indicate that mismalick, the female shooter in san bernardino was radicalized before she came to the u.s one of the big questions that is raising today is how she obtained that fiance visa, that she was able to obtain to come to the u.s. to mary mr. farook and live with him in southern california. >> rose: we continue this evening with ed rollins and dan senor talking abouted republicans and their reaction to donald trump. >> the question is once the field starts to consolidate, you
see, i believe after iowa starts voting, after february i think the field will winnow very quickly. candidates are either going to come in first and second or fifth and sixth and the ones that are fourth, fifth, sixth will drop out. they will not be able to raise money, organization an organization, they will start dropping out. i think trump will still be stuck around 30%. ask yourself this question, after what trump said yesterday, if you're not already for trump or two days ago, if you are not already for trump, after what he said the other day about muslims, what new voter is he going to get. >> rose: also this evening nancy gibbs, the editor of time magazine talks about their selection of angela merkel as the person of the year. >> she would poll all the time, really try to make sure she never got out too far ahead of the german people. very, very careful about building-- . >> rose: calculated risks. >> very kal claitd but are the refugee crisis something very out of character and so many people we talked to without worked with her for years were themselves surprised by the
boldness of that position. the fact that it was politically extremely risky, strategically risky and yet they felt that it arose from some really viseral powerful feeling in her about walls, about barriers, about freedom, that speaks to her personal history as much as to her political. >> rose: we conclude this evening with charlotte rampling and the director andrew haigh talking about their film "45 years." >> that's what is so extraordinary about life, about how if you just shiftd things a little bit, and you shift your point of view on something, it can change. and it can change dramically. and then can change, and then can change other things because it's changed. >> rose: an update on the san bernardino shootings, a conversation about donald trump and the muslim ban, time magazine's person of the year, and charlotte ramp long and andrew haigh talking about their new movie. all of that when we continue. >> funding for charlie rose is
provided by the following:al and by bloomberg, a provider of multimedia news and information services worldwide. >> rose: from our studios in new york city, this is charlie rose. we begin this evening with an bo shootings. federal authorities have learned that the husband and wife that killed 14 people last week were radicalized at least two years ago. that is before isis emerged as a major terrorist group. here's what fbi director james comey told a senate juddishary committee during his appearance on capitol hill earlier today. >> our investigation to date which i can only say so much about at this point, indicates
that they were actually radicalized before they started courting or dating each other online, and online as late as early as the end of 2013, they were talking to each other about jihad and martyr dom before they became engaged, married and lived together in the united states. we also believe they were inspired by foreign terrorist organizations, were working very hard to understand exactly their association and the source of their inspiration. we're also working very hard to understand whether there was anybody else involved with assisting them, with supporting them, with equipping them. and we're working very, very hard to understand did they have other plans, either for that day or earlier, and that work continues. >> rose: the investigation is also focused on the couple's former neighbor enrique marquez who supplied them with the assault rifles they used. review of the attacker's financial records reveal a cash loan of $28,500 from an online bank about two weeks before the
massacre. joining me now from san francisco, esme deprez of blookberg news, welcome back. >> hi, charlie. >> rose: there is a lot we want to do in a small amount of time. james comey just sort of laid out the questions that we all ought to be asking. and that the fbi is asking. let me just talk first about this radicalization. it's a surprise, i think, to many people. >> it's a surprise that it's been as extensive, i think, as it was. mr. comey said it could have been as recent as late 2013. so that gives them quite a bit of time since the attack last week. now that would indicate that ms. malick, the female shoolter in san bernardino was radicalized before she came to the u.s so one of the big questions that is raising today is how she was able to obtain that fiance visa she was able to obtain to come to the. is and marry mr. farook and live with him in southern california. she came in july 2014. so there are questions today, what that process is like. she would have had to pass
criminal and homeland security background checks. so there are questions today about whether those were enough or whether authorities missed something in granting her that visa. >> rose: or whether we should change that process. >> exactly. >> rose: the interesting thing to me too was that there was always an assumption that-- or some people raised the question, did she radicalize him. >> i think we still don't know that yet. i mean that was the thinking initially, perhaps. that is still an open question. one thing that mr. comey also did raise in that system today was this idea of computer encrip shun, that terrorists w woe know terrorists like to use encrypted online messages to communicate with one another, mr. comey spoke about the deficit, if not the impossiblity of federal officials being able to intercept those messages and know what, you know, what folks are saying in between themselves. it's unclear whether, though, the san bernardino attackers used encrypted messages in this case either to talk to people in the u.s. or abroad. >> rose: what is the current
thinking about what they-- what groups they might have either been in communication with or might have known about, or be-- maybe aligned with. >> well, as you mentioned, if this couple were radicalized as early as late 2013, that would predate the rise of isis, as kind of this household name of international terror group. so you know, of course there are plenty of extremist islamist views to align themselves with that before. you mentioned mr. marquez, this is the neighbor and the relative that federal investigators are speaking to. he bought two of those rifles that were used in the attack. so "the new york times" is reporting some new information on him today that you'll find very interesting. he has told investigators that he knew this couple was radicalized. he didn't say that he knew of this attack in particular in san bernardino. so it's not really clear the role that he played in this attack but he is proving a crucial link as we know to investigators to learn more about the couple and their
motivations and how they were able to carry these attacks out. i will note that he has since checked himself into a mental health facility. so there are questions being raised about his capacity to talk about these issues as well use in the san bernardinoleed attack last week. >> do they know or do they suspect that they may have been in communication with others that might have been a part of their overall planning? >> well, on that note, we do know that mr. farook and mr. march kez had been planning-- plotting an attack as far back as 2012. so this would be before miss malik came to the u.s. to marry mr. farook, obviously before the planning of this attack. now obviously that plan of attack between mr. farook and mr. march dwez-- marquez was not carried out. we don't know why that was not carried out. >> rose: what surprises you so far beyond the radicalization issue with respect to where we are now in this investigation?
>> well, you mentioned the loan. i mean we are doing some reporting on the loan today too. that $28,500 loan. that was made by an online lending platform called prosper. so they are not the actual issuer of the loan. it's still a bank that issues the loan but that's an interesting development since we last talked. now the company isn't commenting citing privacy laws and there is no indication that loan was given out to mr. farook with any wrongdoing. but stoaking this existing debate about these online lenders whether they should be regulated more heavily, you know, investigators will definitely be looking into whether he used that loan to purchase the guns. one source did tell us at bloomberg that mr. farook said, indicated he would use that loan to consolidate some debt. now that's a pretty common reason for applying for a loan like this, the deficit for banks is you can apply for a loan saying you are going to use it for whatever you want and actually end up using it for something quite different. >> rose: you know what surprises me still, even though
they were as radicalized as they were, a lot of people say well, i didn't notice anything. >> certainly, right. we're hearing from a lot of family members. a lot of people that knew them, they didn't notice anything. they noticed that they were devout muslims. they went to mossq quite a bit. but you could say that about any number of muslims of american muslims in this country. so right, the family is still saying we never noticed, i mean i think that's something that you hear a lot about after these mass attacks. the family members and friends coming out and saying we had no idea. so it just, it makes officials, you know, jobs harder. we talked about the fbi did not have this couple on any terror watch list. obviously they didn't catch any clues when they were processing mismalik's visa to come into the u.s. so this really just samp fies how dangerous and how under the radar people like this can operate in today's day and age, especially with social media, using those encrypted messages
mr. comey talked about. >> rose: esme, thank you again for joining us. >> thank you, charmie. >> rose: esme deprez, bloomberg news in san francisco. back in a moment. we continue now with our coverage of the republican presidential race. donald trump's controversial proposal to ban muslim immigrants temp regardly is still grabbing headlines. trump has stood by his statement despite widespread criticism, both at home and abroad. joining me now is dan senor, a former advise tore mitt romney and paul ryan. also an official in the george w bush administration. and ed rollins is a go pcam pain consultant who served in the administration's of four u.s. presidents. i am pleased to have them back on this program. here's what i want to know. you both are insiders on the republican party. and what is the conversation? taking place privately today? >> privately the conversation is that this race after two terms
of barack obama which consensus among republicans an many people who aren't republicans, after two terms of obama it is hard to believe that the country is going to go for a third term of obama which is fengtively how the race will be fraimed, what hillary clinton will represent. it was a gld inopportunity-- . >> rose: because she was a member of the administration. >> member of the administration. and supports many of his policies. in fact wants to move to the left on some of them. and we have a strong field. i mean you look at most of the candidates in race, these are very successful governors, very successful senators, people who have won elections in the obama years. people who are very good at waging the argument at prosecuting the case, an effective field. and in comes donald trump and has with inflammatory rhetoric tapped into a very, in many respects, understandably angry sentiments with voarts whose primary issues are immigration and traild, and koirded that segment of electorate while the rest of this very talented field is tragmenting the rest of the
electorate. so chopping up into small pieces the rest of the electorate. so you have trump on the one hand dominating and these other very talented candidates dividing up the rest. >> rose: and they can't get traction, with a few exception -- exceptions, marco rubio has some traction, he gained some in new hampshire and ted cruz a lot in iowa. >> correct, but there has to be a winnowing of the feel here. i don't think it will really happen before february for the iowa caucus, before you really, some of these candidates start to support. >> right. but i'm wondering, i'm asking, are people saying look, we're committing suicide. >> yes. >> rose: we are committing suicide here. >> yes, yes, i mean the people are, i think des pond ent. >> it's not just worrying about trump being the nominee or trump being the president. it's wiping out the senate. a five-seat margin of the senate. we've got seven or eight very serious senate races all on our side. we're not going to lose the house because i think we're in pretty good shape here but at the end of the day we can lose the senate and could destroy a
party if the rhetoric conditions-- continues. all the thingses you need to build a party for the future, demographic charges, trump is out there alienating every day. >> rose: do you know any republican leader, any republican person of stature who is not serious about this and who is not wondering what can we possibly do because it will be disastrous? >> i would say worry more than fur yus, a lot of people anticipated him going away earlier and obviously he hasn't. i think they're really beginning to worry seriously about the issues i just raised. i think people thought he would self-destruct. he hasn't. i think no one, everyone underestimated the power of free television. he has had free television since june 16th when he announced, i will say to you, if someone is going to get 50, 60, 70% of all television coverage, cable, mainstream, what you have, as he has, you can run a campaign without money. and he hasn't spent much money. i think to a certain extent the three candidates that are still in the race that have money and organization, are cruz, rubio
and him. carson obviously has money but he's fading fast. >> rose: and bush. >> and bush but bush, the problem with you were about, bush has money. he spent $35 million and he's dropped. so my sense is he it is going to take a real collapse of everything for bush to come bablg. >> i would say just to congratulate the republican leadership here. you know, almost all i think of the 13 presidential candidates have come out and criticized what trump and very strong terms, has said over the last couple of days. the speaker of the house, paul ryan has come out. -- out. he hasn't commented at all on comments by presidential candidates, he responded, made a strong statement, the party chairman. >> mcconnell. >> the chairman of the state party in iowa, the chairman of the state party in south carolina, these are conservative parties have come out. if you think about, i mean obviously what trump has said in terms of banning all muslims from coming is such a crazy notion. american muslim who served for the u.s. military in iraq returning home, is he banned. an american businessman who is a muslim is returning from a business trip, is he banned?
when you start to think operationally how crazy this idea is. he is for tearing part, tearing up the 14th amendment. ending ending birth right citizenship. deporting 11 million people. i mean when you really start to step back, these are extremely damaging things for the partiment and i try to think how did this happen. right? >> rose: that's exactly the question. >> i, you know, in many respects, if you look at 1984, the reagan re-elected. >> rose: you had something to do with that. >> yes, he did. you lock at, the democrats going into 84ee as you know, thought, oh, reagan, we're going to beat him. he's a door nobody as they said, he's not serious, a warmongerrer, crazy. and boom election day happens, ed and his team and republicans won 49 states. >> rose: it was morning in america. >> i want to correct that. ronald reagan won 49 states. i lost minnesota. >> rose: and. >> democrats, the psychological aftershocks that the democratic party went through after that, and i think psychological
aftershocks that many republicans went through after romney lost in 2012, 2008 they almost said look, it was a unique moment, after two terms of bush, obama was this very unique, talented candidate. they kind of understood. >> mccain was not as good as romney. in 2012, they thought we had it. they thought it would be like reagan in 80ee, in closing days he would win it. when we lost t the republican base was sitting there scratching their head saying how on earth did we lose this thing. we lost the race. maybe we're losing our country. and they wanted fight. that is what all these fights over obama care b shutting down the government. they wanted fielt. and that fight was drectsed as much as barack obama as it was against john boehner, and mitch mcconnell. and now that has extended into this presidential cycle where if you are not trump, among a certain segment of the electorate, you are part of problem. you have toyed with running and in fact did run an independent campaign. >> i did ross per ot's campaign
for eight weeks. in 1992. and i'm ol enough to remember the george wallace in 1968. and in which he basically, people forget, he actually won. >> a couple of things i want to state. first, is his threat to-- do you think that if in fact he begins to lose in the republican primary, that say big if, that he would run as an independent? >> i don't think he wants to lose. i think he can make the threat. certainly if he did run cobasically have a big impact on the race and probably cost the republicans, but it cost a lot of money to get on the state ballots and what have you. i'm not sure he's willing to spend 300 million or 400 million of his own money with no guarantee of doing any better than 8 or 10% of the vote. right today if you took all the voters and the people, it would be about 8, so%. that is basically what wallace had, half of what per ot had. >> mentioning george wallace, people are comparing done all trump to george wallace. >> they're tapping too some of the same voters i think to a certain extent. they're older voters today. with some of the same premise t
is kind of the blue clar,s less educated, people more worried about jobs and those kinds of things. >> jobs and security. >> you know, he understands the electorate better than the people in washington. and i think to a certain extent we both have lived in washington. the problem with washington is everybody gets up and what does the speaker have for breakfast what is going on in the white house. it's all about the game. out in the country, people don't worry about those things. they worry about jobs, about their kids going to college, texts. and he's tapped into that. and the more the establishment goes after him, the more his message is listen, of course he want me, i'm for you, i'm not for them. >> an he becomes a vessel for blog up the system. >> right. >> you may not agree weferg i stand for as effectively his message. he hasn't said this explicitly. but who do you trust. do you think the system is working for you? and you know so he's become a vessel for that sentiments. the problem is for republicans, he's actually a very imperfect vessel. i mean he's not a rep kafnlt is
he not a conserve tivment he was against the ryan medicare entightment reforms, defenlded single payor health care. can i go on and on and on. >> he supported democrats. >> he was not for doing anything serious against isis in the middle east. this is not a vessel for the republican party. and just upset. i think at some point there will be a consensus-- . >> rose: suppose there is not a consensus candidate, suppose it does not happen and everybody assumes that is the best way, to be a real competition and test him out, one candidate going down the end. suppose he wins iowa, even though ted cruz in one poll is ahead, suppose he wins new hampshire, suppose he then goes south to south carolina and wins, so all of a sudden this one candidate has not emerged that can compete with him and he's going to the convention. what will the republican party do then? >> okay, so this is to the allly an unpress dentd. the scenario you are describing is totally unprecedented in history. so i book, for the following
reason. trump seems to be stuck around, even given all the stunts he's pulled, he's still stuck around, stuck, i'm not saying it is a bad place to be but he still is stuck around 30%. >> rose: which is twice as much as anybody else. >> right. but the question is once the field starts to consolidate, i believe after iowa starts voting, after february, the field is going to winnow very quickly because you are either going see candidates will either come in first and second or fifth and sixth, the ones fourth, fifth and sixth will start dropping out thevment will not be able to raise money, or motivate an organization, people will start dropping out. thoses candidates will start consolidating support. i think trump will still be stuck around 30%. ask yourself this question, after what trump said yesterday, if are you not already for trump, or two days ago, if you are not already for trump, after what he said the other day about muslim, what new voters is he going to get, none, will not attract new voters, so i think he's still at 30%. there is no precedent for someone winning the nomination, consistently getting stuck around 30% of these primary
states. >> i remind people eight years ago, it was a real race, it was a 29%, fred thompson was second, neither of them got a del cat at the end of the day. >> rose: what does that say? >> what it says to me is i think trump will get del gots gots-- delegates. i think the early states are proportional. march 159 is when you go to florida, ohio, other places like that. all of a sudden it becomes a delegate race as opposed to a poll-driven campaign. and my sense is he will win delegates there is no question. if the election was tomorrow he would win new hampshire, all the southern states and we basically win new hampshire. it's tomorrow t is a long ways to go. i have spent a lot of time in iowa, new hampshire, over the years and they turn quick. the last 48 years they basically turn on you like that and they could very well, if he continues on this path, and says these kinds of things and everybody in the world starts, republicans don't want to be embarrassed. there are a lot of people, tea party people, others as dan said, who elected a republican
majority and are very frustrated by the fact they didn't do what they wanted to do they think trump may do some of that. >> rose: is there likely to be a brokered convention? >> i don't think so. >> rose: i always say never. >> but if i'm ever-- this could be the exception. >> at the eng of the day when you get down to the end of the process and you get to places like california, new jersey, what have you, the blue states, that have the moses delegate, again it's not winner take all, it's three delegates for three congressional districts, kind of a trench warfare, my sense is if he gets stopped, there will be other people in there trying to basically make the alternative as a successful candidate. i don't think you get-- . >> rose: is it fair to say that there is no one who has enough stature and enough per situation to say to him you're going too far? >> there's no wise men in our party. i get asked this every time, when are the wisemen going to step forth. there are no wisemen, we are a party of consultants, of candidates. >> an we're a party in rebellion. for the reasons i was saying
earlier. there is a sense, there is so much anger at the establishment. even if the establishment, whatever the establishment s even if the establishment weighed in, no one, they are being tuned out. the base of the party is nor, like i said, frustrated by repeated losses and then this sense of despair, you know, stag nent wages, rising cost of education, rising cost of health care, a world in chaos. the system isn't working. and so they don't trust the establishment to tell them how they're going to navigate this. i think you need a single candidate to go head-to-head with trump and i think that changes the dynamic. because then if he continues to be stuck around 30%, it's one thing if it is trump and the seven dwafers, but once all those guys with 10, 12% start to get behind one candidate t changes. >> it has had a big candidate, putting ten people on a stage in gantic number but it has hen lame-- eliminated people. some people can debate better than others. trump being center stage, ben
carson a nice man but obviously doesn't know much about anything foreign policy. it's sort of been the dom national figures in both of those. and the serious candidates, the people that can debate have a tough time moving forward it will. >> rose: thank you, ed, thank you, dan. >> good to be with you. >> rose: back in a moment, stay with us. >> time magazine has named its person of the year for 2015. it is the individual who in the worlds of the magazine editors has, quote, most influenced the news for better or worse. this year's choice is ger nan-- german chancellor angela merkem. she led germany through a tum ult yus year, the german debt crisis, the migration sphr africa be and several-- several deadly attacks. as time magazine ed et year for asking more of her country than more poll titionzs would day, for standing firm against tyranny an eck pedestrian yens,
and angela merkel is time's person of the year. i'm pleased to have nancy gibbs back at this table. welcome. >> thank you. >> rose: do you think most people are you are surprised by this? >> yes. this was a year that put a lot of larger-than-life figures on the stage. and so i think stwhr was an assumption that it would either be someone like donald trump, obviously. i heard a lot from bernie sanders supporters that it should be he. >> rose: i know that. and he won this. >> he won the reader poll. i heard from ben carson supporters, in a campaign year, it's natural that you will hear a lot from partisans on all sides. that's the sign of the exercise is to take a step back and say okay, who really influenced the news, influenced events. i would take issue only when you say that she led ger plannee. our argument is that she only lead europe. that she has effectively become, we call her the chancellor of the free world. partly that is become germany has the fourth largest economy of the world, most populist country in the europe but it's
also because as we saw last year in standing up to putin in ukraine, this year, again and again, particularly with the eurozone crisis an refugee crisis, she ends up being the one who is center stage when some really hard, unpopular decisions get made. >> rose: what's interesting to me about her is that she seems to have a really amazing way to calibrate risk, you know, political risk, and make the hard choices. for example, she allowed the refugees to come. she opened the gates. >> when you say about her ability to calculate political risk. she trained as a quantum chemist. she has a ph.d. >> in east germany. >> east germany and i think that is a very critical point. this is the only major western leader who basically grew newspaper a fortress. she grew up behind the iron curtain, lived the first 35 years of her life under conditions that make it all the more unpredictable and
unexpected that she would find herself in the position that she is now. and as a politician, she was always, this is what is fascinating about her. she was always defined by her caution. to the point that there is, her name became a verb in germany that meant to really put off making decisions, to be so cautious as to be almost indecisive. she would poll all the time, really try to make sure she never got out too far ahead of the german people. very, very careful about being political consensus. very calculated but then with the refugee crisis, something very much out of character and so many people that we talked to who have worked with her for years, were themselves surprised by the boldness of that position. the fact that it was politically extremely risky it was strategically risky and yet they felt that it arose from some really viseral, powerful feeling in her, about walls, about barriers, about freedom, that speaks to her personal history as much as to her political history. >> rose: would it have been a courageous thing to have
put-- courageous by how many people would be angry by putting al bag addi on the cover of time's person of the year. was adolf hit leer person of the year. >> hitler was, stal inwas, the ayatollah comeni was. >> so that would not have been a pob for nancy gibs to say this man who orders heads to be cut off, we're making the person of the year at time magazine. that would not have been-- difficult for you to do. >> i'm sure there would have been enormous anger at it. partly from people who don't understand. and i understand why people, they hear person of the year, they assume always that it's an honor. often people who we name person of the year treat it as a great honor. and sometimes, indeed, i would say last year when we named the ebola fighters, these are people whose conduct we found wholly admirable and courageous. and so you know, from year to year, the-- this year, and many
years, most years, most of the figures that we're looking at are at the very least controversial. when we name george w bush in 2 thousand after his election or barack obama in 2008, roughly half the country thinks it's a terrible choice and half the country think it's a great one. >> rose: but there is a pattern to that, you know, when an american president-elected for the first time. >> by and large the person of the year tends to favor people with institutional power. so we see, we see the pope two years ago, we see presidents. >> rose: some might ask how could donald trump be on the list? >> well. >> rose: in comparison to angela merkel, to bag daid, in comparison to ryu hani and look what happened there with respect to a new clear deal nobody ever thought might happen to which is he party to how could donald trump. >> it is fascinating that i'm alternately fielding questions between those who are asking how can you not have named him person of the year and those who are asking how can you either have put, even put him on the
list at all. >> rose: i could have asked it either way. i wanted to generation-- generate the notion of how you thought about this. >> the way we thought about it. and let me say, and we checked this. in the whole history, the 90 year history of person of the year. we never named a presidential candidate. >> as the person of the year. partlies that a natural reflex-of-over the next 12 monthses american people will get an in depth chance to make a judgement and a year from now. >> it's interesting they will start making that judgement. >> they will, february 1s. but the reason we put him on as one of our people who mattered, as one of our runners up is because even at this point, and certainly this week, more than ever, we are reminded at the extend to which he has changed the political discourse and the nature of the conversation. >> rose: it's all about him for the most part. >> we are talking about things and he is talking in ways that not only have we not heard modern politicians talking, but i've lost count of how many times he has said something that was called disquawling. >> rose: you have had more
choice this year. i think the idea of the leader of isis, i think, and you know, merkel because of what happened there, and i could argue that trump in the most powerful country in the world has dictated, has driven the political discourse as you say. >> i think there's a strong case which is why this has been such an interesting-- it was a very interesting debate. >> he was on the cover before. >> he was on the cover before, this is what we talked about, this is why this exercise is such an interesting one. and in some ways, you know, in the end, if you look at angela merkel who she really embodies the central question of our time. which is how do you want to balance freedom and safety. and so. >> she balances that? >> well, we are all having to confront that. her answer is that great nations build bridges, not walls. >> rose: yeah. >> and that if you are going to succeed, you're not going to succeed from a bunker or in
hiding. you're going to succeed by being expansive and risk-taking and adventurous and welcoming. and that is the approach that she has taken. >> is she exciting, adventurous, risk-taking and all that. is she all those things. >> i think she is in the process. and again not without substantial controversy at home even within her own political coalition, at saying that germany must represent a new set of values, especially compared to the values with which it was identified in the 20th century, of tolerance, of openness, of diversity. >> rose: and also in a strange way, i mean, this is, if you look at what is happening politically in france, will pene. >> in the last election got more than anybody. >> and this is where i think, i think this is where what is so interesting is that it is at this debate and it's now very much the one that we're having in this country. are we going to open ourselves up or close ourselves off. and that is where we're going to be for awhile. clearly people are frightened. i understand why people are frightened it is much harder to
have any kind of an open border policy or to be-- or to say we are going to go about our lives when people are scared to go to the movie theater or scared to sit at a cafe on the sidewalks of paris. i understand that. >> because of al baghdadi. >> because of al baghdadi. >> you seem to give a lot of credit to donald trump. because in saying what he said about banning muslims from entering the country temp regardly, he has served the cause of debate in this country. that he has put there on the table, things that we have to talk about. >> rose: so as journalists, charlie, which should we be more surprised by, the fact that the leading contender for one of the parties presidential nominations is willing to propose banning all muslims from entering the country, or the fact that a majority of republican primary voters say they agree with him. and you could argue that what candidates say-- . >> rose: what the ma jortd of
candidate voters, he is at 367 percent of the poll. my impression from asking a lot of political people about this, is that what he has done in a sense is just solidified himself, one more time, with the people who were already there for him. and they were there for him when he began to talk about all the people who were coming here, all the-- in his words, you know, illegal immigrants. >> well, as he made sure everyone knew this week, were he to end up running as an independent, because you had republicans literally talking about whether he should be cast out of the republican party. he made sure people knew that those supporters would follow him, if you asked the republican party. >> they pretty much indicated that too. >> he takes great pride in that, he's living, it seems he's both living in a different world than other politicians. because i mean he's living bipolars and he's living by rhetoric, you know. and on the other hand, he has this great sense of realism
about it because he knows that what will determine his future, is how people vote. the very real thing. >> and so the only thing that we know demon straiblly to be true is that he is very good at winning news cycles. we will find out starting february 1 how good he is at winning votes. at that point where actual people are caucusing and voting, i think we'll be having a conversation that is informed by actual events. >> rose: do you think he will change? you have been writing cover stories for time magazine for awhile. do you think he will change the politics of paryk because of his campaign, because of his persona, because of the nature of the man and his talent. i had people last night sitting at this table saying he is the most gifted political candidate. gifted candidate and how you measure that. on the stomp relationships, being able to have an engagement, having fun on the stump. since bill clinton. >> campaigns are always, always, always character tests.
and it's not just a candidate and what they are willing to say and do. they are character tested as a country, this is which think as much as it is tempted to just, for everyone to keep watching trump and being amazed or horrified at things that he is saying, it's also important to look at the size of the crowds that are coming out. we will find out in weeks to come about the size of the vote he can turn out. and if it is true that there is whatever minority, majority of the people who agree with whatever position he is espousek, i think that that is a conversation that the country has to be having. is this a minority opinion, that is held passionately by a few people. is it more widely held in which people are now admitting to? i don't know the answer to that, that is the reason campaigns are so fascinating to cover. we're going to find that out. >> let me just tell you, number two is abu back aeroal bag ddi, iranian president, number psych
uber c.e.o. traf is-- he, a assume because of the sharing economy. >> that is the most valuable startup by far and fastest growing startup in the world. >> rose: but it's the nature of it. >> and it is changing not only the way we work, the way we live, the way we get around, and so yes, i think that is one of the most critical economic developments that we have seen in the last few years. >> rose: thank you for coming. >> thank you for having me. >> rose: and to gibbs time magazine, back in a moment, stay with us. >> rose: "45 years" is a new film by writer and director andrew haigh, charlotte rampling and tom kowshtd knee star as kate and jeff merser, a long married couple poised to celebrate their wedding anniversary. their relationship is tested when news arrives that the body of jeb's ex-girlfriend has been found 50 years after her death. here's a look at the fill. 's trailer.
>> it's a shame not to have more photos around the house. i guess we just didn't see the point of taking pictures of ourselves. >> come on. >> what are you doing? >> come on. >> i'm not pransing around in this living room this time of night. >> this really is a great thing for an anniversary. so full of history, you think? like a good marriage. >> this is it? >> you know who i am talking about. >> we never talked about it. in all the yeefer thation we've known each other. and-- everything. >> you didn't know her. >> no, i didn't.
>> i would like to be able to tell you everything i'm thinking. but i can't. ♪ they asked me how i knew ♪ my true was love true ♪ i say ♪ when ♪ smoke gets in your eyes ♪ . >> we're going to have dinner. we're going to go to bed. and then we're going to get up. and we'll try this out again. >> rose: charlotte rampling
received the best actress silver bear in berlin for her performance in the fill. she joins me along with the fill's writer and director andrew haigh. i'm pleased to have them both at this table. welcome. >> thank you. >> rose: tell me what this story is? >> so i came across a short story that this is based on. >> rose: in another country. >> in another country. and it's very short, short story, like 15 pages but the central idea is this body being found, this kind of past love being found. >> rose: and had been preserved because it was frozen. >> frozen. >> rose: because of the accident with the ice. >> exactly. so what i love is this kind of echoed the past, this thing from the past leaking too the present and disrupting this seemingly stable and comfortable marriage and the affect that had on these two people in the present day. and that is kind of what drew me to the story. and just being able to like explore relationships in that context, of exploring relationships that had been going for such a long time. >> rose: and had so much to them. >> and had so much to them. >> rose: loved, this was a
great relationship. >> yes. >> rose: and then all of a sudden the discovery that there was a girlfriend. how could that do, that damage to a 45 year old marriage? >> well, i guess it-- well, it's like a sequence of things that happens when you open a box, you know. when you open almost like a pan dora box. and things start to creep out, things that you have perhaps kept secret but not really kept secret, just haven't talked about. that is really what it is. and he just hasn't talked about t that's all. it's not that it has been really kept secret. just you don't talk about certain things. >> rose: and that's the danger here. >> it seems to be, in one way, yeah. >> rose: there are people who think they have a great relationship but there are things that they never talk about that show are deeply within both of them. >> exactly. i think it's also about like when somebody focuses too strongly on the relationship and the relationship you have with someone t can very easily fall
apart or lose its meaning when you start seeing it in a different light. what both of the characters do is start looking at what they have built together and they see it in a different way. and it starts to throw kate off balance so it isn't just about this girl. it's about how her husband felt about this girl. it's about what would have happened if this girl-- hadn't died. >> rose: but that was before her. >> i think what's interesting is she even knows that. she is like why am i worrying about this. >> but you do because you down know that you would even think about ma or worry about that if you reasonably and rationally thought about it. why would i worry about a girl that my husband had loved sort of two years before i knew him. why would that be a problem. you can say why is it a problem now, why has this been brought up into the surface now. >> rose: let me ask you, could you imagine that being a problem in your life? >> because as andrew says when suddenly a different light is put on it, yes, it can be. that is what is so extraordinary about life, is how if you just shift things a little bit and you shift your point of view on to something, it can change.
and it can change dramically. and then can change and then can change other things. because it's changed. so there is a sequence of-- things changing. >> rose: are you the narrator here and we see this through your voice. why do you make that choice? >> it was very simple to me, i think. the original short story is told from the male per spisk. but it was so much more interesting to tell it from the female per spiskt. i'm not entirely sure why. i think its a he more that there are so many books and films that deal with essentially a male late to middle age existential crisis but not so much from a female perspective but that is what she is going through, an existential crisis with this flood and bits of information coming out about herself and her husband. and that was just fascinating to me about telling it from that point of view. >> rose: so is the moral of all this, look, don't keep anything hidden? don't, make sure that you for a very healthy relationship so it will not be damaged at some point, tell all. cuz i'm not sure telling all is the right thing to do.
>> i agree, completely. don't, no, no, it's not-- as i said t wasn't a secret. what was the problem in this case with kate it was swref's reaction. >> rose: awe. >> because kate, he gets a letter. and if he just read the letter and said hey, kailt, look what i got, can you believe, this they found katia, another story. >> rose: but it didn't happen that way. so why is that, why is he sort of taken by this-- is he really missing something in this relationship or b. >> from my experience-- she could interpret but it might not necessarily be that. but. >> i think he is looking back at a stage in his life when his life was filled with hope, vitality, passion, excitement. he was going to change the world. he was going to be a trade union leader. he was going to dowl a of these things and has got to this point later in his life, 45 years later and his life is not-- isn't what he thought it would be. i think that say hard thing for everybody to do. and i think for jeff it's more
about not his love for this woman that died but about the, like regrelt that he hasn't imk the person he wanted to be. and i think for kate, that is an incredibly hard thing to see. is like your husband who you love is saying to you, my life isn't what i wanted it to be but my life is being with you. i think that's a very powerful thing to say to someone. because i think, there are many seens in the film like when he says he would have married this woman. they would have had a life together. she feels like she was secretary best. >> rose: and she was pregnant. >> there are all of these things that keep coming out, that changes the foundation of their relationship. changes how they understand each other. >> again it's coming from jeff's point of view because jeff could diffuse this all along right from the moment when they get the letter, even as we just said about not making it into a drama but all the rest of the things. cohave diffused but he didn't. but of course he isn't. and so that's why it had to be. id to you, your kind of movie? this is what you like doing. >> yes. >> rose: this is the kind of movie because you can dig down.
>> dig down, dig dig dig, that's what i love to do, yup, yup. that's what i love to do. >> rose: close your ears, why did you want her? why did you need her? >> he knows i'm good digger. >> rose: i . >> i think that's it, you know that-- there are roles that charlotte has chosen are so fascinating to me. i'm sure there are neum into rouse roles she could have taken but hasn't. she has chose tone do something she has to throw herself to find the truth and find what that is. as a director that is what i want. i want someone to complit to something, make it their own and make it part of their life. >> rose: is that part of the, your stage in life meaning the opportunities you have to do different things. do you look for only part that you want to dief into. there is no simply going for pay day for you. >> no, no. >> rose: you wouldn't just. >> no i just pay my rent.
people think-- i'm just about able to pay my rent. but no, i want roles that i can literally, i thought could you do i could almost say a role i want-- that can i die for. almost. it's like-- there is a imus yun about doing these kind of rolls because you arrive and you actually own the role as if are you owning yourself. you are never more present in a role like kate than i am in my life. i'm never that present probably in my every day life, maybe a bit more now but with a part you can be that. you can actually have that living experience and that dying experience or whatever experience that character is going to have, you actually embody it as a person, completely. are you not acting. are you actually some kind of imus yen going on which is fascinating. >> is there any part of her you couldn't relate to, you couldn't get inside. >> no, completely relate. >> you got her. >> but you don't have to shall-- you don't even have to say oh, i couldn't do this, not even part of that. but life is not part of that. you should never say that in life anyway, oh, i couldn't do this. if you need to do something, you
know how to do it. >> what you want people to walk away from this is what? >> i think i want people to walk away just, you know, having watched this film. i want it to resonate, to tick away in their brain. and more than anything i want people to feel the complexity of what it means to be in a relationship. what it means to be alive. what it means to be human, what it means to be have love and feel love. >> and this causes you to examine that because they found out that certain things they thought were true. >> yeah, and also it's just very painful. i think living is very painful and very difficult. sustaining a relationship is a hard thing. we all like to pretend we have perfect relationships but we don't. >> is this part of what it is a about, my dear snr this is kate telling jeff about whether she had been enough. that's the self-doubt that comes into it. if he is so wrapped up in this person. does that mean she has not done enough? >> uh-huh. >> okay, roll tape. >> i want you to come to the
party tomorrow. >> of course i'm going to come. >> and i really need you to want to be there. >> i do want to be there. >> it is one thing we know there hasn't been enough for you. it is something all together different that everyone else feels it too. >> youological believe you haven't been enough for me? >> no, i think i was enough for you. i'm just not sure you do. >> . >> are you taking your pills today? >> no. >> i'm going to get them, and then we're going to have dinner and then we're going to go to bed. and then we're going to get up. and we'll try and start again. >> okay, i can do that. we can do that.
>> i promise. >> rose: who is the stronger character here? >> for me, kate is the stronger character, yeah, i think even though she is the one that kind of crumbles. >> rose: and is hurt the most. >> is hurt the most. for me she's the strongest character. she's the one that has, i think when you know what your life s she knows what her life. is when that's under threat. >> she knows what the mistakes are, what wasn't happening. >> i think she is the strongest of the characters. >> yeah, strongest ones also can be the most fragile. >> they can break far harder than the ones that are sort of not quite decided. >> tell me more. >> well, if he-- cuz he hasn't quite decided. i mean he knows that that is just there he hasn't quite decided. he's really in trouble but he hasn't quite decided so he's almost-- . >> rose: hasn't decided what. >> he hasn't decided which side is he on. if he is on his side or kate's side or what side he's supposed even to be on. he doesn't know, is he
completely not knowing. whereas kate is in a form of knowing. she is going, she has got signs now throughout the duration of the time that they, since the letter arrived. and she has had points. so she knows, she knows she can't-- she knows more or less where she's going without noag. but she knows that you can't come back to certain points. and if you say that, what she has just said there, if you say that to your husband, i mean it is devastating. you know it. cuz you know that's what you feel absolutely. she knows that he doesn't feel that she was enough. that's what she is feeling. >> take a look at this. this is a clip when they talk about why they haven't taken photographs of themselves. this is so powerful, i'm runs ing these clips. >> i think it's a shame not to have more photos around the house. >> we could put some up. >> but we don't have any, not really. i mean not like lynna does with
her wall display. >> i suppose it's because they've got children and grand children. i guess we didn't see the point of taking pictures of ourselves. seems a bit vein. >> you used to say that everybody is taking pictures all the time without anyone having any fun. >> yeah. >> did you. >> sounds like something i would say. >> uh-huh. >> you had a camera once. >> yes, i have still got it it's in the loft. >> now that we're older, though, it is a shame. >> rose: so we were talking about that as we were watching that. i said i like her more than i like him because she's examining.
he's reacting, you know. >> he can only be in the reactive, yeah. at the moment. yeah. at the moment. because easy's gone back somewhere. he's gone back somewhere and he just can't sort of-- he can't-- he can't, he hasn't got any distance any more. >> rose: was he different before this? >> oh yeah. >> before he discovered her. >> oh, yes. >> so he was everything she wanted. >> what they didn't have they didn't know. >> they had been going like that for a long time and they had a good relationship. yeah, she loves this man. >> is this true of all relationships. >> can be. >> is it mostly true, do you think? >> i would say yes. >> i would think so too. >> i think most people don't really. >> relationships ampable along in a gentle way. >> and you don't question. >> and are driven by children, driven by jobs, driven by curiosity. >> driven by every day life. all that. >> the film is called 45 years trk opens in theaters on december 123-rd. it's getting reviews, won all thoof prizes sherks won the berlin prize and they're saying
great things, well, you did. >> i know. >> it was a lovely prize. >> a nice little bear. >> a lovely bear. >> yeah. >> it is great to see you again, congratulations. >> thank you, thanks very much. >> thank you very much. >> rose: thanks for joining us, see you next time. >> for more about this program and earlier episodes visit us online at pbs.org and charlie rose.com 678 captioning sponsored by rose communications captioned by media access group at wgbh access.wgbh.org
>> announcer: this is "nightly business report" with tyler mathisen and sue herera. mega merger? dupont and dow chemical are in talks to merge in what would be the largest deal ever in the u.s. chemical industry. uncertain future. a popular, yet controversial, path to u.s. citizenship is under scrutiny, putting billions of dollars in commercial real estate at risk. and porch pirates. what's being done to prevent grinches fm stealing your christmas right from your front door. alall that and more tonight on "nightly business report" for wednesday, december 9th. good evening, everyone. i'm sharon epperson in tonight for sue herera. >> and i'm tyler mathisen. good evening, everyone. a flip-flop day in the market. more on that in a moment. we begin tonight with a