>> from our studios in new york city, this is "charlie rose." charlie: we begin with an update on the san bernardino shooting. federal authorities have learned that the husband and wife the killed 14 people last week were radicalized two years ago. that is before crisis emerged as a major terrorist group your did here's what james comey told the senate judiciary committee during his appearance on capitol hill today. james comey: i can only say so much about it at this point. they were actually radicalized before they started dating online. online, as late as the end of

2013, they were talking about a jihad and martyrdom, before they became engaged and married and lived together in the united states. we believe they were inspired by foreign terrorist organizations. we are working hard to understand the source of their inspiration. we are also working hard to understand whether there was anybody else involved with equipping and supporting them. we are also working hard to understand were there any other plans for that day. network continues. charlie: there are focused investigations on a neighbor, enrique marquez, who sold them the guns used. there is a lot we want to do in a small number of time.

james comey just laid out the question with we all ought to be asking. but a talk about this radicalization. it is a surprise, i think, to many people. esme: it is a surprise that has been extensive. it could be as recent as late 2013, giving a lot of time between now and the attack last week. ms. malik, the female shooter, was radicalized before she came to the u.s.. the big question is how she was able to attain the visa to marry mr. farook and come to california. she would have had to pass homeland security background checks. there are questions on whether authorities missed something in

granting her that visa. charlie: or whether we should change the process. the interesting thing is that there was always an assumption, or that some people raise the question, did she radicalize him? esme: that is still an open question. one thing was this idea of computer encryption. we know that terrorists use encrypted messages to comedic it with each other. mr. comey spoke about the difficulty of federal officials intercepting these messages. charlie: what is the current thinking about what groups they may have been in communication with or might have known about or may be aligned with?

esme: if this couple were radicalized as early as late 2013, that would predate the rise of isis as this household name. you mentioned mr. marquez. this is a neighbor and relative that investigators are speaking to. he bought two rifles used in the attacks. yet the fbi is releasing new information today that you will find interesting. he has told investigators that he knew this couple was radicalized. he did not say that he knew of this attack in particular in san bernardino. it is not clear, the role he played in this attack. he has proved a crucial link to investigators to learn more about the couple and how they

were able to carry out these attacks. i know he had checked himself into a mental health facility. we do know he purchased two of those rifles and somehow transmitted them. charlie: do they know or suspect that they may have been in communication with others that might have been a part of the overall planning? esme: they may have been plotting the attack in 2012, before she came to the u.s. to marry farook. the attack was not carried out, we don't know why. charlie: what surprises you so far beyond in the radicalization issue with respect to where we are now in this investigation? esme: we are doing some report on the loan today, that $28,000 loan made by a platform called

prosper. it is still a bank that issues alone. it is an interesting development. there is no indication it was given out with any wrongdoing. there is debate about these online lenders, whether they should be regulated heavily. investigators are looking into that loan. one investigator did tell us that mr. farook indicated he would use the loan to consolidate debt. the difficulty for banks is that you can apply for a loan and say it is for whatever you want but use it for something different. charlie: what surprises me still is that even know they were as radicalized as they work, a lot of people say, well, i did not notice anything. esme: certainly.

we are hearing from a lot of family members, people that knew them, that they did not notice anything. they went to the mosque, but you can say that about any number of muslims. i think that is something that you hear a lot about after these mass attacks. family members and friends are coming out and saying that we had no idea. it makes officials and jobs harder. the fbi did not have the couple on any kind of terror watchlist. this really amplifies and dangerous and under the radar people like this can operate in today's day and age. charlie: thank you for joining us.

esme deprez, bloomberg news in san francisco. ♪

charlie: we continue now with our coverage of the republican presidential race. donald trump faces criticism both at home and abroad. we're joined now by ed rollins, a gop campaign consultant who served in the administrations of four u.s. presidents. you are both insiders on the republican party.

what is the conversation taking place privately today? dan: privately, the idea is that after two terms of barack obama, it is hard to believe the country will go for a third term of obama, which is effectively how the race is framed. charlie: because she is a member of the administration. dan: and she supports many of his policies. in fact, she wants to move to the left. you look at most of the candidates in the race, and these are successful governors,

very successful senators. in comes donald trump, who has, with inflammatory rhetoric, tapped into a very, understandably angry sentiment with voters whose primary issues are trade while the rest of this very talented field is fragmenting the electorate, chopping it up into small pieces. you have trump dominating and other talented candidates dividing the rest. charlie: you could say marco rubio has some traction and ted cruz has a lot in iowa. dan: i don't think this will happen before february for the iowa caucus. charlie: i'm wondering, i am asking, people are saying, we

are committing suicide here. people are despondent. ed: this is wiping out the senate. we are going to lose the house, because we are in good shape, but we could lose the senate and as for the party if the rhetoric continues, all the things to build a party for the future. charlie: do you know any republican person of stature who is not furious about this? ed: people thought he would self-destruct and he hasn't. people have underestimated the

power of free television. if summary is going to get 60% of all television coverage, as he has, he can run the campaign without money. he has not spent money. there are three candidates in the race that still have money, cruz, rubio, and him. carson is fading. bush has money, but he has dropped. it will take a real collapse for bush to come back. dan: we should congratulate the republican leadership. all of the republican candidates

are criticized what trump has said over the last couple of days. paul ryan has come out. reince preibus. mcconnell. the chairman of the state party and south carolina. these are conservative parties, and if you think about, obviously, what trump has said in terms of banning all muslims is such a crazy notion. an american muslim has served for the military, is he banned? a muslim returning from a business trip? think about how crazy this is. he is tearing up the 14th amendment, birthright citizenship. deporting 11 million people. these are extremely damaging things for the party, and i am trying to think, how did this happen?

if you look at 1984, the reagan reelection, the democrats, they thought, reagan, we will beat him. election day happens, and the republicans win 49 states. charlie: more than ever. [talking over each other] dan: democrats, the psychological aftershock after that, i think the psychological aftershock republicans went through after romney lost, 2008 they cop is a unique moment, obama was unique, talented candidate. 2012, they thought it would be like reagan in 1980. when they lost, the republican base was scratching their heads, saying, "how did we lose this

thing?" they wanted to fight. that is what all these fights about obamacare are. the fight was directed as much against obama as it was against the boehner and mcconnell. in this presidential cycle, if you are not trump, among some segment of the electorate, you're part of the problem. charlie: you did run an independent campaign? ed: iran the ross perot campaign. i'm old enough to remember george wallace. charlie: you think, if comic he begins to lose the republican primary, he would run as an independent? ed: i don't think he wants to lose. he could have a big impact on the race and cost the republicans, but it would cost a lot of money to get onto the state ballots.

i don't know if he would spend $300 million with no guarantee of doing better than 8% or 10% of the vote. that's half of what perot had. charlie: people are comparing him to george wallace? ed: it is some of the same premise. the blue-collar, left educated. they're worried about jobs and security. she understands the electorate better than washington, and to a certain extent, the problem with washington is everyone gets up and it is all about the game. in the country, people don't worry about this. they worry about their jobs and kids going to college and the irs and taxes. he has tapped into that. the more the establishment goes

after him, the more he is like, "of course they are going after me, i am for you, not for them." dan: he is a vessel for blowing up the system. "who do you trust to blow up the system?" he has become a vessel for the sentiment. for republicans, he is an imperfect vessel. he was against the single-payer reform. he was not for doing anything series against isis. this is not a vessel for the republican party. at some point, there will be a consensus.

charlie: suppose it does not happen. everyone assumes this is the best way for there to be a real competition, suppose he wins iowa even though ted cruz is ahead? suppose he goes to new hampshire and goes to south carolina and wins, and all of a sudden, there is one candidate who has not emerged to compete. at the convention, what with the republican party do? dan: this is totally unprecedented in history. trump is stuck around, even given all the stuff he is going for, he is stuck around 30%. charlie: twice as much as anyone else. dan: but when the field starts to consolidate, i think the field will be won over quickly. other candidates will come in first and second. the fourth and fifth and sixth place votes will drop out. those candidates will consolidate support.

trump will be stuck at 30%. what new voter can he get after what he said the other day? there is no precedent for somebody winning the nomination consistently getting stuck around 30% of the primary. ed: people eight years ago, when there was a real race, rudy giuliani was at 29%. fred thompson was second. neither had a delegate at the end of the day. trump will get delegates, but this will become a delegate

race, not a poll campaign. if the election was tomorrow, he would win new hampshire, but it's not tomorrow. the voters will turn quickly in the last 24 hours. republicans do not want to be embarrassed. there are people in the tea party who are very frustrated. charlie: it is likely to be a brokered convention? ed: i don't think so. dan: there could be an exception. ed: you get to places like california and new jersey, the blue states, who have the most delegates, this is not winner take all.

there are three delegates for each congressional district. my sense is that if he gets stopped, they will be an alternative, successful candidate. charlie: is there anyone saying you're going to far? ed: there are no wise men anymore. this is a party of consultants, candidates. dan: and a party of rebellion. even if the establishment weighed in, they are being tuned out. the base of the party is frustrated by repeated losses. there is a sense of despair, stagnant wages, rising cost of education, rising cost of health care, a world in chaos. they don't trust the establishment.

they need a single candidate to go head-to-head with trump. that will change the dynamic. once those small guys get behind one candidate, it will change. ed: but if you put in people on the stage with a debate, it's a gigantic number of people. some are better than others. trump is centerstage. ben carson is nice but doesn't know anything about foreign policy. the serious candidates, who can debate, have not had any floor. they will as this gets narrower. charlie: back in a moment, stay with us. ♪ charlie: time has named the person of the year for 2015. it is the individual who has "most influenced the news for better or worse."

this year's choice was angela merkel. she led germany through a debt crisis, the migration of refugees from the middle east, and the deadly terrorist attacks in the region. nancy gibbs writes, "for asking more of her country than most would dare, and for providing steadfast leadership in a world where it is in short supply." i am pleased to have nancy gibbs at the table. nancy: this was a year that put a lot of larger-than-life figures on the stage. there was an assumption that it would either be someone like donald trump, obviously, or bernie sanders. charlie: and he won?

nancy: he won the reader poll. i heard from ben carson supporters. the fun of the exercise is to take a step back and ask, who really influenced the news? the argument is that she led europe. we call her the "chancellor of the free world." they have the fourth largest economy in the world. as we saw last year, in standing up to putin, particularly with the eurozone crisis, she ends up being the one who is centerstage when some hard, unpopular decisions get made. charlie: what is interesting is that she seems to have a really amazing away to calibrate risk, political risk, and make hard choices.

she allowed refugees to come in. she opened the gates. nancy: she trained as a quantum chemist. she has a phd in east germany. this is a critical point. she is the only major western leader that grew up in a fortress. she grew up behind the iron curtain and in conditions that make it all the more unpredictable and unexpected that she would find herself in this position that she is in now. what is fascinating about her is that she was always defined by her caution. her name has become a verb in germany that means, "putting off decisions." she was very careful, very calculated. with the refugee crisis, there is something very much out of character, and so the people that we talked to were so surprised by the boldness of

that position, the fact that it was politically extremely risky, strategically risky, and yet it rose from some mystical, powerful feeling in her about barriers, about freedom, that speaks to her personal history. charlie: would it have been courageous, our people angered by the idea of putting isis on the cover? adolph hitler was the time person of the year long ago. that would not have been a thing to do? nancy: there would have been enormous anger from people who don't understand.

people hear "person of the year" and treat it as a great honor. when we named the ebola fighters last year, we found them wholly admirable and courageous. the valence of the choice changes from year to year. most of the figures we are looking at are, at the very least, controversial. when we named it george w. bush, or barack obama, half the country thinks it's a terrible choice and half the country thinks it's great. by and large, the person of people with institutional power. we saw the pope two years ago. charlie: some might ask, how can

donald trump be on the list, in comparison to angela merkel. nancy: i am alternately fielding questions between those who ask how could he not be named the person of the year and people that don't want him on the list at all. charlie: how did you think about this? nancy: the way we thought about it, and let me say, in the whole history, the 90 year history of the person of the year, we have never named a presidential candidate. partly, that is a natural reflex. over the next 12 months, the american people will get a very long, in-depth chance to get a look at the candidates. the reason we put him in as one

of the runners-up is that even at some point this week, we are reminded the extent to which he has changed the discourse, the nature of the conversation we are having. we are talking about things, and he is talking in ways that we have not heard modern politicians talk in. i cannot count the number of times he has said something that was called, "disqualifying." charlie: the leader of isis, i think, and merkel, i could argue that trump, in the most powerful of countries, has driven the discourse. nancy: this is a very interesting debate. he was on the cover before. this is what we talk about. this is why this is such an interesting exercise.

if you look at angela merkel, she embodies the central question of our time, which is, how do you want to balance freedom and safety. charlie: she balances that? nancy: we are all confronting that. her answer is that great nations build bridges, not walls. if you're going to succeed, you will not succeed from a bunker, or in hiding. you will succeed by being expensive, or risk-taking, or adventurous, or welcoming. charlie: is she exciting, adventurous, risk-taking? nancy: she is in the process, and again, not without substantial controversy at home within her own coalition, in saying that germany must represent a new set of values, especially compared to those with which we were identified in the 1920's, of openness, of diversity.

charlie: and you look at what is happening politically in france in the last election, they got more than anybody. nancy: this is what is so interesting. this debate, it is now very much the one we are having in this country. are we going to open ourselves up for close ourselves off? that is where we will be for a while. people are frightened. it is much harder to have any kind of an open border policy or to say we will go about our lives when people are scared to go to the movie theater or scared of the cafe on the sidewalk in paris. charlie: because of abu bakr al-bagdhadi. donald trump, he has served the cause of debate in this country, that is put there on the table things that we must talk about. nancy: as journalists, which

should we be more surprised by? the fact that the leading contender for one of the party's presidential nomination has proposed a ban on all muslims from entering the country, or that a majority of primary voters is behind him? charlie: my impression from asking a lot of political people is that what he has done, in a sense, is solidified himself, one more time, with people already there for him. they were there for him when he began to talk about the people coming here, in his words, illegally. nancy: as he made sure everybody knew this week, were he to end up running as an independent, he made sure those supporters would

follow him. charlie: he is both living in a different world than other politicians, because he is living by polls and rhetoric, but on the other hand, he has a great sense of realism. what will determine his fate is how people vote. nancy: we will determine next year how people vote, and when people are caucusing and voting, people will be having a conversation informed by actual events. charlie: you have been writing

cover stories for time magazine for a while. do you think he will change the politics of america? because of his campaign, because of his persona, because of the nature of his towns, i had people last night sitting at this table, saying he is the most gifted political candidate, and how you measure that. being able to have an engaging, fun talk, since bill clinton. nancy: campaigns are character tests. as much as it is tempting for everybody to keep watching trump and be amazed or horrified at what he has said, it is important to look at the size of the crowds coming in. we will find out, in weeks to come, the size of the vote he can turn out. if it is true that there is whatever minority or majority

that agrees with whatever position he has a spouse, i think that is the conversation the country has to have. is this a minority opinion held passionately by a few people? is it more widely held? i don't know the answer. that is why campaigns are so fascinating to cover. charlie: number two was abu bakr al-bagdhadi. number six was the ceo of cooper. nancy: that is the fastest-growing start up in the world. charlie: and the sharing economy. nancy: is changing the way we work, live, get around. it is one of the most critical economic developments we have seen in the last few years. charlie: thank you for coming. nancy gibbs, time magazine. back in a moment, stay with us.

♪

charlie: charlotte ramping and paul courtney star as a couple ready to celebrate their anniversary. their relationship is tested when the body of the ex-girlfriend is found 20 years after her death. here's look at the trailer of the film.

♪ >> it's a shame not to have more photos around the house. >> i'm not prancing around the living room this time of night. >> this is a great day for an anniversary. >> like a good marriage. >> this is it? >> we found her. you know who i am talking about. >> you never talked about it, in all the years we have known each other. it changes everything. >> you didn't know her.

♪ >> ♪ asked me how i knew ♪ my true love was true ♪ oh, though i smile and say ♪ when love's flame dies ♪ ♪ smoke gets in your eyes >> i'm going to get up. >> ♪ smoke gets in your eyes

charlie: charlotte ramping joins me now with andrew hake. welcome. tell me what this story is. andrew: i came across a short story in another country. it is short. the central idea is a body has been found, frozen. what i love is the echo of the past, a thing from the past has leaked into the present and disrupted a seemingly stable and comfortable marriage. the effect that had on the two people. that is what drew me to the story, to explore relationships

that had been going for such a long time. charlie: this was a great relationship. then the discovery of a girlfriend. how would that damage a 45-year-old marriage? charlotte: it is like a secret, a thing that has happened. you open a box, like a pandora's box, and things creep out, things that you have kept secret but haven't talked about. he hasn't talked about it. it isn't kept secret, you just don't talk about certain things. charlie: and that's the danger here. people have a great relationship, but there are things they never talk about, something deep within both of them.

andrew: when anybody focuses too strongly on the relationship you have with someone, it can fall apart or lose meaning in a different light. what both characters do is look at what people together, and they see it in a different way, and it starts to throw kate off balance. it's about what would've happened if this girl hadn't died. charlotte: you don't know that he would even think about it or worry about it, but why would i worry about a girl that my husband had loved two years before i knew him? why would that be a problem? why is it a problem now? charlie: let me just ask you, can you imagine that? charlotte: when suddenly a different light is put on it,

yes, it can be. that is what is extraordinary about life. if you just shift things a little bit, it can change dramatically. it can change other things, because it has changed. there is a sequence of things changing. charlie: your the narrator and we see this through your voice. why did you make that choice? andrew: this was originally told through the man, but i thought it was important to try a female perspective. kate is going through an existential crisis. charlie: is the moral of all of this don't keep anything hidden?

make sure that you tell-all? i'm not sure telling all is the right thing to do. charlotte: i agree. what was the problem in this case with kate? it was his reaction. he gets the letter, and if he just said, kate, look what i have? another story. it didn't happen. charlie: so why? andrew: he is looking back in a stage in his life when he was full of passion, he would be a trade union leader, and later in his life, 45 years later, it is not what he thought it would be. that as a hard thing for everybody to do. is not about his love for this woman, but the regret he has about becoming the kind of person he wanted to be.

for kate, that is a hard thing to see. your husband, who you love, is saying this life is not what i wanted it be. that is a powerful thing to say. there are scenes where he says he would've married this woman. charlie: and she was pregnant. andrew: all these things change the foundation of the relationship. charlotte: again, it is coming from jeff's point of view, and he could defuse this. he could not make it into a drama. all of these things, he could have refused, but he didn't. charlie: why is this your kind of movie?

you can dig down. charlotte: to down, down, it's what i love to do. charlie: why did you need her? charlotte: i'm a good digger. [laughter] andrew: the role is so fascinating to me. she has chosen to do something where she has to throw herself in and find the truth. of what some who will commit to something, make it their own, make it part of their life. charlie: in this, do you look for only parts you want to dive into? there is no going forward payday for you. charlotte: no, i just pay my rent. i want a role i could die for.

there is a combustion about these kind of roles. you arrive and on the role as if you own yourself, in a role like kate. with a part, you can have a living experience and dying experience. you embody it as a person completely. have some kind combustion going on. charlie: is there any part you can't get inside? charlotte: no. you don't even have to say, i can get into this. you should never say that in life.

if you need to do something, you need to know how. charlie: walking away from this, what do you want people to know? andrew: having watched this film, i want it to resonate. i want people to feel the complexity of the relationship, what it means to be alive, to have love, to feel love. it is just very painful. living is painful. sustaining a relationship is a hard thing. we like to pretend we have perfect relationships, but that's not what it's about. charlie: this is kate telling jeff about if she had been enough. has she not been enough? ok, roll tape. kate: what i want is for you to come to the party tomorrow.

i need you to want to be there. jeff: i do want to be there. kate: i want to be enough for you. it is something altogether different. jeff: you really believe you haven't been enough for me? kate: i think i was enough for you, but i'm not sure you do. are you taking your pills today? jeff: no. kate: i'm going to get them, then we are going, then we are going to bed, and we are going to get up, and we will try this again. jeff: we can do that.

we can do that. i promise. charlie: who was the stronger character? andrew: kate is. she knows what her life is. charlie: she knows what was happening. andrew: she is definitely the strongest character. charlotte: the strongest one can also be the most fragile. they can break harder than the ones that are not quite decided. charlie: tell me more. charlotte: he is really in trouble but hasn't decided. he hasn't decided if he's on his site or kate's side or what side he is supposed to be on.

his completely not knowing. kate says she has signs now throughout the duration of the time since the letter has arrived. she knows more or less where she is going. she knows you cannot come back to certain points. if you say that your husband, it is devastating. she knows that he doesn't feel the things that she feels, that she was enough. charlie: this is another clip when they talk about why they haven't taken photographs of themselves. this is powerful. kate: sometimes i think it is a shame not to have more photos around the house. jeff: we could put some up.

kate: we don't have any, not really. not like lena with her wall display. [laughter] kate: they've got children and grandchildren. i guess we didn't see the point of taking pictures of ourselves. a bit vain. jeff: you used to say people taking pictures of themselves all the time stops anyone from having fun. kate: you had a camera once. jeff: i've still got it in the loft. kate: now that we are older, it is a shame. charlie: we talked about that as

we watched it. i like her more than i like him. he is reacting. charlotte: he can only be in the reactive, at the moment. he has gone back somewhere. he hasn't got any distance. charlie: was he different before this? was he everything she wanted? charlotte: exactly. they had a good relationship. charlie: is this true of all relationships? andrew: i would say yes. relationships amble along. charlotte: and you don't question it. andrew: they are driven by jobs and children. charlotte: and everyday life. charlie: it opens in theaters on december 23.

the berlin prize. they are saying things we did. charlotte: it's a nice little bear. charlie: good to see you. thank you for joining us. see you next time. ♪

angie: it is noon here in hong kong. fosun suspended. part two -- med, part of cirque du soleil. the prosecutor says it is to protect the rights of victims of the disaster. 13 people died.