>> from our studios in new york city, this is "charlie rose." we continue this evening with our coverage of the shooting in orlando. the tragedy has highlighted the distinctive challenges posed by lone wolf attacks. it also raises questions about fbi procedures going forward. the bureau had opened and closed two terrorist investigations into the shooter, or -- omar mateen. his wife is now the subject of a federal investigation will stop up -- investigation. authorities are looking into the investigation and knowledge of his attack.

joining me is tim murray, former deputy director of the fbi. i am pleased to have him. let me begin with the question, what is the portrait of omar mateen that we know so far? in thisit that we see man, in terms of influence, in terms of his own vulnerability to outside forces, ideas, ideology? charlie, i think that is core, it is symptomatic of what we have seen in these other attacks that we have had in the united states from the lone wolves, or as director company would like to call them, loan rats. comey would like to call them, lopne rats. he follows muslim extremism, he is radicalized. from what we know at this point, he was radicalized over

different methods over the internet, he followed different terrorist groups, although there were a variety he espoused support for. some of them really did make sense, because some of them were terrorist groups that were actually in conflict with one another. that heures so far is did have leanings towards the violent extremism under the islamic state. what do you think of the information he left on his computer and cell phone? mr. murphy: it might be sloppy tradecraft, it might be he made a decision at the last moment. i don't have an insight today of what was left on his devices. devices -- those individuals have improved their trade craft, and that has to do and the snowden affect

knowledge of how western law enforcement agencies collect information on terrorists. with this individual, maybe it was sloppy tradecraft. maybe he was not prepared. the othersen some of have actually had a longer planning period. i don't have insight as to what is planning period was at this time. we hear there are indicators of violent behavior, hatred towards others, but at this point i think you have to let the andstigation, the fbi, state and local law enforcement finish the investigation to kind of map out motives, how long it took, what was his path to radicalization, who he was in touch with. two was he in touch with, what was he watching, all of that is part of the investigation process. mr. murphy: absolutely. they are going to look at the

family connections, the afghanistan and pakistan connections, the leads worldwide they are working on. domestic, every place he traveled. the bureau, when these events happen, they seem to be occurring more frugally, which is something we need to address. -- more frequently, which is something we need to address. they need to see if there were steps missed, and i think director come he has outlined at himself and said they will be reviewing this. right now, they are still full steam ahead, trying to figure this out. what motivated him, was there anybody else involved, who actually inspired him, and any other connections he may have. charlie: what do we know about frequency? the idea that these things are happening with more frequency. we see patterns developing, the kinds of locations that were .hosen clubs, theaters. whether it is paris or orlando. we need to evolve

quickly, and that is my concern, that we are not agile enough to keep up with this threat. the threat is different than it was five years ago, or even four years ago. other qaeda threat and terrorist organizations had a command and control structure. law enforcement could map that out, find people, listen to communications. now with encrypted communications and with isil or isis, there is not a command and control. harm those it in the united -- harm those in the united states and take soft targets. that is in their messaging back and forth. we have seen a shift. there is a lot of criticism about the fbi, that this individual was under investigation, but there is a lot of reasons for that, why they investigated for a certain period of time under the legal

requirement they have. the threat is different. we have not evolved quickly enough to change the threats that the fbi is under. those guidelines need to be modified, and the need to be modified so that they can take a longer look at some of these individuals that may be terrorists. charlie: it is the basic question of journalism, who, what, when, how, and why? most definitely. of fbi can do three types investigation, and it is all based around not violating civil liberties. when they work this investigation, if they don't find that this individual was an immediate threat, and what they , someone is going to create harm, and they don't have enough evidence at that time, it will go from 30 days to six months,

to a year, and if you don't find anything under that period of time, and under the requirements and guidelines set down, the fbi agents have to close the case. charlie: at the same time, i would soon -- i would assume every personn from that commits an atrocious act, and then we go through this sort of analysis and investigation, and everything you learn adds to the body of knowledge about making a judgment about who is at risk. but this isyeah, where the key point comes in. i have heard that quite a lot. you. up on the hill. they are already moving bills to give the fbi more money and to change some of these requirements, but when they say judgment, an agent can have a strong suspicion. an agent can have a spidey sense , that this individual is not right. however, that is not answer the

bell when it comes to legal requirement come a one fbi -- the legal requirement, what standards the fbi or held to. 9/11tigators came in after to the fbi, and they are very experienced in counterterrorism. they have to put some meat on the bone to make sure there is a strong case and enough justification to continue to investigate a united states citizen, because then they get do mere-- if they just suspicion or make a judgment based on risk, we fall into a trap of looking at everybody because they have a sense -- i don't think that's where they want to go. charlie: you are saying it is the constitutional questions that have a real impact. because if you don't have anything, you can't continue the investigation, even though you may have something. mr. murphy: absolutely. they are under strict guidelines on time frames. when i am looking for at this point, those are strict

timelines that they are under to conduct these investigations, and they are supposed to use the least intrusive means necessary so they don't violate someone. someone might have called in a great call -- a prank call, saying someone is a terrorist, and the fbi is to figure that out. they have certain periods of time or they may want to go back and be agile enough to increase those times where we have people under suspicion so this type of event does not happen. in this case, if you could have extended it, and he was still on a terrorist watch list, the fbi would have been notified of a gun purchase, and they could have gone back out and intervened at that point, but they were not allowed. we have to look at some of these policies and procedures, and also some legislation, on making changes. we will have to do that very quickly, because you are going to see more and more of these types of attacks. charlie: do i hear you saying

that if they have the eye has enough resources necessary to engage in this investigation, it has to do what? -- if the fbi has enough resources necessary to engage in this investigation, it has to do what? mr. murphy: i think the threat has been changed, and there is a finite number of resources. director comey said he has the resources to do the job. they might not have had the resources in this particular case, and that might be what he is referring to, but if you are asking me today if we have enough counterterrorism resources to address this new threat, absolute li na. -- absolutely not. had 10,000 9/11, we agents and the fbi. an op-ed in the washington post was written, saying if you want the fbi to attack this problem, they need another 10,000 agents tomorrow. he had 10,000 agents then, there are now about 13,500 agents to cover.

those agents are not all working counterterrorism. there are so many other areas they work with. violent crime, organized crime, white-collar crime. think about those 13,500 agents and start cutting them in half. there are not enough resources to cover this threat. charlie: is it simply agents and time? it is not just agents. the organization has become dependent on other individuals supporting the agents. it is a number of resources. don i say time, yes, they need more time. we probably have to look at additional authorities, because there are certain activities that you can do under certain levels of investigation. if it is terrorism, we might want to expand those

authorities. i think that is something for fbi, thethe legislators to look at. in terrorism cases, should the fbi be given more expansive powers to continue these cases and do other investigative means to determine if the individual is going to be a threat? charlie: do you believe it is the lone wolf, or the loane rat theory, as james comey said, acting due to changes in their motivation or influence, perhaps from the internet? or, do you believe the threats will come more from directed attacks from isis? mr. murphy: i think it will be from the lone wolf or lone rat. >directed attacks are hard to pull off at this point, because of the effective job of law enforcement and intelligence agencies around the world.

recruits very easy to over the internet, to recruit through their media arm, and to get these individuals that are either like-minded or disenfranchised with the current country they live in. if you look at this over the last 15 years, you saw that we are actually falling europe -- following europe. wey had this problem before had it. we seem to be following them from three to five to seven years. they had a huge immigration problem with terrorists and disenfranchised youth. we are now faced with that same problem. questionked that tenures ago, the answer was that would not happen here, but that is what is happening, so you will see a lot of individuals being recruited that are unhappy with their current place. they may have mental issues. i think you are also seeing the ick and mass shootings. just because they were not tied

to the ideology, it is a mass shooting, but when they are tied to ideology, that's when we have the terrorism angle. you have seen an increase in mass shootings in this country as well. i think we'll see both, and i think we will see more if we don't to our capability in the terrorism front to get some of this off. charlie: why do they do it? mr. murphy: i think the recruiting arm is so effective, that they've been at least conditioned or brainwashed to think the united states is evil, its people are evil, the way of life is not the way you need to live your life, according to their ideology, and i think they want to bring the most harm and pain to the united states. what a way to do it then attack soft targets? charlie: how much progress are we making in combating them in the battle of ideas and the war of ideas about these kinds of , and all the questions that

arise from that, whether it is a misreading of islam, etc., etc.? the answer is no, we are not. i think that is where we have failed as a government and community. we have failed tremendously. i remove or eight years ago talking about programs that we were going to use to counter the narrative, to counter violent extremism, to work with our communities, to get into the communities, to educate the youth, and there have been fits and starts over who was going to rent -- she was going to run that government. -- who is going to run that government. how do you get in there and counter the message? they have been working with social media companies. they have not been very cooperative. when you look at twitter, facebook, and some of the other

companies, we have failed miserably at that. i think that is another leg in the stool. the long-term vision is, how do you counter the narrative? i will tell you, the europeans, london, u.k., they also recognized that they had to do some of that. i don't have the visibility into how effective that was in london, but they brought people early on after a number of attacks, particularly after the july attacks in 2005. they brought a number of experts and to start working with the community and tried to get a better understanding and counter the narrative. we need a lot of work in this country to counter the narrative for our youth, and for the people in some of these communities that feel they do not fit into america. we were talking to the director of homeland security on our program this week. jeh johnson. he basically said, i think for

the first time i had heard him say it, that access to guns is now a homeland security issue. do you agree? look, i think when , we getents happen focused on issues like this. is this a gun availability problem? who wantny individuals to harm individuals in this country have weapons, and they should not have weapons? absolutely. i think that is a focus, but i am not sure it is a primary focus of what we need to do. you can get weapons in this country. states have different laws. there are private gun sales. even some of the effective methods that they are currently talking about what help mitigate the risk to a degree, but if that people still want to get weapons in this country, unless you turned it 180 degrees and no one could get any weapons ever, i don't think that will solve

the problem. solving the problem is looking at a holistic picture of this, what we are doing on intelligence gathering, countering violent extremism's message, and maybe on the margins, making sure that people who are on a suspected terrorist the don't get a weapon, or fbi is notified whether or not ,hey have been under suspicion but the investigation is close. -- is closed. if we have enough evidence to suggest that someone is actually a terrorist threat, but not enough to continue an investigation because of civil liberties, we certainly need to make sure they do not get firearms. charlie: do we have to ask ourselves, is there enough outreach? i don't mean this by monitoring, but is there enough outreach with various communities so that -- ifis a sense of

someone is behaving in a way that suggests a profile, that we all caps on conversation about that -- that we ought to have some conversation about that? mr. murphy: absolutely. there are pockets in this country where the government has done a great job at that. the dhs has a tremendous outreach to the community and to different imams, different religious groups. .hey run citizens academies they educate the people on what the fbi can and cannot do. they get them to the communities, they work with them, and say, this is what we are looking for. we need you to call us and tell us. there has been a lot of success. there are a number of successes if you look back of people coming forward and saying, this just is not right. i just wanted to let you know about it, and then the

government can take some time of action, whether that his intervention, maybe an investigation, maybe referring them to some type of community involvement to help counter the way they are feeling, or the fromge they are receiving the recruitment arm of isil, al qaeda, or any of the other terrorist groups? there is a lot of outreach being done, but not enough. it is not done in a consistent and systematic basis across the united states. there are pockets of excellence, and there are a lot of areas where the resources are not there, the time and effort is not there, the understanding is not there. there is a lot of work to be done. if you look at the 9/11 commission report, they specifically talk about the failure of imagination which allowed this to happen. what i fear now is, because this thread has changed, and because the way they are recruiting is changed, and because the

homegrown extremists here in the united states, i think we are at another failure of imagination point. wrappedto get our arms around all those different things that you and i talked about tonight and put this plan in place, and really take it seriously. the longer we wait, another tragic event happens. i don't want us to get to the point where we are number about this -- numb about this. charlie: fair enough, but where does that start? who is responsible for making that happen? it starts with the fbi director and the justice department. mr. murphy: you are exactly right about where it has to come from. this group that they would put together, just like any other high profile, usually on a reactive basis, you have to have this group, they have to lead this effort, whether it is from the white house, intelligence communities, the department of state, community groups,

countrywide community groups, and state and locals, you need to put this group together. they need to have someone shepherding it through every day , weekly meetings. what are we doing? what is our progress? they need to set up a strategy. what i am afraid is that we do not have a holistic strategy to cover the areas we have talked about. we have people running out and doing one offs instead of a complete strategy. it has to start with the administration and cascade down all the agencies in order to mitigate the risk. charlie: thank you for joining us. mr. murphy: thank you. charlie: we will be right back. ♪

torlie: we turn now politics. this morning, donald trump said he would meet with the national rifle association to discuss gun laws. their meeting will concern not allowing people on the terrorist watch list or the no-fly list to buy guns. at a rally in orlando today, trump also reiterated his claim that the orlando trilogy could have been mitigated had more people been armed. mr. trump: if some of those great people that were in that club that night had guns strapped to the raised -- to

their waist or ankle, and if the bullets were going in the other direction, aimed at this guy, which was just open target practice, you would have had a situation which would have been horrible, but nothing like the carnage that we all suffered this weekend. a town hall meeting in hampton, virginia, hillary clinton focused on national defense. ms. clinton: i do not underestimate the extent of the challenge we face, but i am absolutely confident that we can keep our country safe, and i am sure that if we work together and make this not a public -- a republican or democrat debate, but an american mission, that is exactly what we will do. charlie: this afternoon, clinton also released a video in which she critic -- in which she banicized trump's proposed

on muslims and for suggesting is on thedent obama side of terrorists. joining me is john heilemann, the cohost of "with all due respect." did he drilled down? did he modify? did he do what? a next ordinary thing today, which is not what we captured with that video clip. it is a discussion over gun control. he said this extraordinary thing face of thee widespread panic that has now grown to the republican party, establishment,an elected officials, and others are looking at trump's whole numbers following and looking at hillary clinton opening up a double-digit lead, the sense that he is in freefall, which is among mostat i > republicans, public polling, private polling. sees paul ryan, mitch

mcconnell, others running away from him on the politics and the policy of how he handled the orlando shooting all stop did it -- the orlando shooting. today he came out and said, i want them all to just a quiet. leave them alone. i will do this on my own. i don't need them. if i have to do it on my own, i will do it on my own. he came right out and said it. that was not a direct quote, but not far from a direct quote. it illustrates his mindset. he is not seeing what is going on around him and saying, hey, i had better modify my behavior or i will have to change. he is saying, if i do this on my own, and they don't want to be with me, forget the republican party. their nomination doing it my way, and i will continue. please do not give me anymore advice. john: you are exactly right.

it is in the facebook, by any objective measure, -- the face of, by any objective measure, old horrible two weeks for him. -- a horrible two weeks for him. charlie: what are the consequences of that from a political campaign standpoint? john: there are a variety of consequences. one consequence suggests that the republicans suggesting he modify his tone have been blown out of the water. throwing up a middle finger, flipping the bird to the party, saying -- that's one thing. he has rallied a campaign around him. hillary clinton is building operations in the battleground states. her super pac is running

millions of dollars of ads against trump in those states. there is no trump campaign in those states. he is doing it rally by rallied, not on the air. can you say he created some new political juggernaut, and somehow he will be diminished in a general election because the general election is so different? john: i think you can say that. the trump model was enough to win the republican nomination against 16 relatively weak opponents. he bulldozed the field and did it his own way, and that is part of what is fueling his sense that he doesn't have to listen to people. but it is a much bigger electorate, a much bigger country, a much more copper kitted to be elected president. right now he's out there, all alone. hillary clinton, joe biden, elizabeth warren, bernie sanders, all of them, voices against trump and big-time figures.

whatever you think about hillary clinton and barack obama, you can dislike them all you want, they are major league political players. when you see harry clinton and barack obama double-teaming trump, as they did yesterday, you look at that and realize he has nobody to speak for him, nobody to defend for him, just trump. the go it alone strategy is hard to win with. suggesting he will not moderated it has huge and locations for the rest of the republican party, because it imperils down ballot republicans in the senate and house, which is causing a lot of panic right now. not just seeing trump in freefall, but they think trump in freefall could drag the entire republican party down and cost than the house and senate. that's really panic comes. that's why mitch mcconnell and paul ryan are in a bind right now. charlie: as majority leader and speaker of the house. john: what has now become of the republican project? it used to be that the consolation was well, we don't have the white house, but we have to legislature.

charlie: what would trump have to do to turn the freefall around? john: well, as you know better than anybody, these waves generally comment go -- come and go. maybe he will get a run of decent luck. maybe something bad will happen to hillary clinton. maybe the e-mail controversy will turn for the worse, with the fbi investigation. many things could happen. to the things we know, trump could do well, hypothetically, he could pick a running mate that reassures republican establishment. charlie: who would run with him? john: unclear at this point. somebody like, for example,, some of the collateral damage, bob corker, everyone thought he was on the short list. he praised trump 's foreign-policy speech in month and a half ago. he came out and trashed trump in the last 24 hours, not trashed him, but distanced himself dramatically. he's discouraged with what he sees from trump, and says he disagrees with his reaction to

the orlando shootins. newt gingrich -- a bloomberg poll said people thought he was the most likely running mate. he said the judge curiel comments were the most significant mistake trump made. even people on his short list, seemingly, paul ryan, someone who would be a normal vice presidential -- they are all running away from him. charlie: is anybody running toward him, other than the base that he built in terms of white males? i.ca right now, significant republican elected official who would under normal circumstances be someone -- i cannot see a significant republican elected official who would under normal circumstances be someone who would be a nominee who is running towards him. at best, they are staying quiet. literally, there is no one out there of consequence making the case for trump. charlie: supporting the ideas and expressions of donald trump. john: in this key moment, following what we all would acknowledge is a huge national trauma, what happened in orlando. , these reallike

moments of testing for a candidate. charlie: the question, can he be derailed, at the convention by anybody? john: that's the other answer to your very good question. about the political ramifications. we have seen the never trump movement, the dump trump movement, we have seen that wax and wane. right now, privately, it is waxing, not waning. they doesn't take much to change the rules of the republican convention to keep him from getting the nomination. the role of a simple majority, you can change that and say that he needs two thirds of delegates, and that would keep him from winning on the first ballot and you have a contested convention. charlie: could he do that -- could the party do that? john: the rules committee could pass that change, like that. but the political consequences, what that would mean if you alienated all those millions of trump voters -- werlie: is this an issue,

would rather lose on principle than lose with somebody who is damaging in their judgment? what the republican party should stand for? john: that is part of it. said to go back to what we before, it is not truly principal versus practical. it is the practical versus the practical, because the fear now is that they are damned if they do and damned if they don't. if they let trump be the nominee, it could damage them across the board. they are also fearful that if they remove him, that could damage them, because there are millions of trump voters who love the guy. the republican establishment is not well loved by the base of the party, and giving the back of their hand to the base of the party by stripping him of the nomination he earned -- there's political fallout in both directions, which is why i think probably the notion of dumping trump will not happen, but right now at this moment, there's a lot of discussion about it among

republican elected officials and the party grandees. talk in thethere political community today about doing something about guns, understanding the power of the nra? john: you saw, mitch mcconnell came out in the last 24 hours and said he was open to having a conversation now. that's the first time i heard that from the senate majority leader about some form of what he considers sensible gun regulation. we don't know what the tweet meant, it is a little ambiguous, but trump also seems to be suggesting he would have a conversation with the nra about it. on the gun show loophole, and particularly on this question of trying to not allow people who are on the no-fly list to buy weapons. that would seem to be an area where you might be able to pass a bill through the senate. there is a question about whether you could pass it to the house or not, but there does seem to be right now movement on this front, even among some

republicans, certainly the fact immigrants today, over the course of the past couple of days, staged this protest on the senate and are filibustering the senate today. hillary clinton has been emboldened, because she has been so rhetorically strong on this issue, has emboldened the democratic party to go further than it has gone in 20 years on this issue, and some republicans at least in the senate seem open to discussion. the house is still a huge problem. i think that whether we get any kind of change in gun safety, gun control legislation, in the byediate future, she is, embracing this issue so much and going through the cycle we are now going through, she is laying down a predicate. if she wins the presidency, and democrats take back the senate and the house, or even substantially reduce the republican majority in the house, you could see gun control legislation, some modest gun control legislation next year. charlie: another question. bernie sanders.

my understanding is, he's at ofe point creating a set conditions necessary for him to end his campaign and support her. is that a fair appraisal? john: that is a fair appraisal. charlie: what are his conditions likely to be? some participation in the convention, some future of the democratic party kind of -- wants debbie wasserman schultz to be fired. charlie: that doesn't seem like a hard thing to do. john: in an interview with "usa today," he pointedly refused to say he would stand by debbie wasserman schultz. she pointed out in this interview that she did not appoint chairwoman wasserman schultz, and they could have a discussion on the future, so she threw a pretty sharp elbow today at the chairwoman. same-day registration in democratic primaries, open primary so independents can vote, and he wants to get rid of superdelegates. all those things, in forms of roof -- in terms of reforming

the democratic party nomination process, are things that hillary clinton would easily give away, because if she wins -- and he says he wants changes in the platform. my understanding, center's cares most about getting rid of debbie wasserman schultz and affecting the future of how democrats nominate nominees, and that would be a legacy can be proud of. he wants her to commit against fracking and in favor of a $15 man which. th-- minimum wage. ultimately, party plaque forms are pretty meaningless. but the structural things, i think he will get them. i would bet every dollar in your bank account, and as a large amount, every dollar in your bank account that bernie sanders between now and philadelphia will endorse hillary content, and we will have -- hillary clinton, and we will have some thing very close to democratic unity by the time we get to philadelphia. charlie: thank you for coming. back in a moment.

stay with us.

charlie: anja manuel is a lecturer at stanford university who previously served in the state department from 2005 to 2007 and was responsible for south asia policy. strategicrtner in a

consulting firm. her new book, "the brave new world" addresses the rise of india and china and how the u.s. can bring them together. i am pleased to have her for the first time at this table. welcome. anja: thank you very much, charlie. charlie: all of us know there has been a signal that has happened in the last 20 years, asia, china, india, vietnam, other places. the united states was recently visited by the prime minister of india, mr. modi, and there is an ongoing dialogue with china having to do with the south china sea, with cyberspace, with other issues. how could we bring the three of them together? anja: this is the core question in the book. it's not going to be easy, but

china and india will have as dramatic of an impact on the united states as any two other countries on earth, just to give you some examples. by 2030, they will be the world's largest markets for our with 3 billion people between them and the world's fastest-growing middle classes. we used to think we could solve some of the world's biggest problems, such as climate change, if just the u.s. and europe got along, but unfortunately that's no longer the case. china is the world's largest carbon emitter, and india is the world's fastest-growing. so we need them to tackle these problems. i argue that we need to be clear where the lines are. we are going to have interests that are separate from theirs, especially with china, we have all those issues you pointed out. clear and to be consistent and keep the burn low. on the south china sea, looted

freedom of navigation exercises for a few years, and then we stopped. now we are doing them again. if i am the chinese military, i'm a little confused about those. we should be clear and consistent. charlie: i assume they got the message. anja: they have gotten the message, but you definitely talk to some folks at the pla and a thought, well, obama is not so interested, and now obama is interested in what's going on. charlie: my understanding is, last time they met, there were promises made with respect to certain kinds of things taking place. the chinese made some promises. anja: that's right. i live in silicon valley -- the real concern for our companies, are tech companies, has been the chinese cyber-stealing of our industrial secrets. it is real. it is unprecedented. they may be state-owned. it is a little unclear who's doing it. it might be folks employed by the chinese government by day, and they are moonlighting by night, and nobody quite knows.

but it's a real problem. charlie: have a stopped, since they promised they would limit that -- have they stopped, since they promised they would limit that? anja: what i hear is that it is better, not perfect. but the fact there is a dialogue, and they are taking the dialogue seriously, is an important development. charlie: these are issues that need to be engaged, and need to be the forerunner of even the more intractable problems. anja: that's exactly right. the more reengage, the more we practice cooperating, the better. let me give you an example with india. you don't hear much about india, partly because we have a positive partnership, we are doing well together. there were decades of mistrust, especially between diplomats on the indian side and the u.s. side. india was famously part of the nonaligned movement. clinton kind of broke the ice by going in 1999 and 2000. doubled down on that doing the civilian nuclear

deal, for which i was one of the negotiators. and obama has really promoted the partnership. but it took a decade of getting over the mistrust, and it is only now that i think our government and the indian government feel very couple working together. let me tell you, some of those negotiations, we were ready to throw in the towel, and i think the indians were ready to throw in the towel. charlie: it was a achievement to get them away from the russian -- anja: it was, of course. india defined itself as being nonaligned, not in anybody's orbit. many of the older to plants in india still feel that way -- older diplomats in india's to feel that way. india has a long history of colonialism under the brits, only gaining independence in the late 1940's, and they wanted to be the representative in the world of the downtrodden, not aligned with the u.s. or with russia. charlie: you say the chinese are in a defensive crouch. do they fear, and you to hear this, specifically from military leaders in china, that they

think the united states is engaged in a policy of containment? is that a serious issue for them? anja: absolutely, it is a serious issue. every time i go to china, that is what i hear. they believe that we are trying to hold them back, bring them down, and contain them. charlie: in court in vietnam and india and everybody else, providing a circle around them? anja: that's right. this is a difficult dilemma. from a perspective, the chinese are being very aggressive, pushing in the south china sea, which the world does not think that they own. but looking at it from their perspective, when you hear them say it, the ocean is their lifeline to the world. most of the goods coming in and out of china go through the ocean. 82% of chinese oil goes through tinyalacca strait, a strip of water next to singapore. if we shut that down, their economy has a real problem. so they css threatening, because they also see these islands that

are right off the coast, and they see our aircraft carriers sailing very close to the chinese coast, and they worry about that. so that's not to justify their actions. withhen you are dealing someone, you have to take their viewpoints into account, and we should not be feeding into that. charlie: turn that around, though. where have they been aggressive, in addition to the south china sea, that causes us concern? anja: i am glad you asked that question, because it goes well beyond the south china sea. one important example is the high himalayas. there is a long border between china and india that is not very well defined, and in the last few years the chinese have made repeated incursions over that porter. t-- border. there are actually really interesting youtube videos, because everything these days is on youtube, of chinese and indian soldiers throwing punches at each other. they are not allowed to shoot, but they are punching and recording it for everyone to

see. the indians are also worried about chinese submarines increasingly active in the as one indian admiral put it, sneaking by the indian coast. the southeast asian states are worried. the indians are worried. to some extent, all of the flood of chinese investment into africa and latin america has all those countries worried as well. charlie: what is your assessment of she jinping? anja: he is a very strong leader. he is thoughtful and smart. he is, i believe, a performer on the economic -- a reformer on the economic front. but anybody who had any illusions he would be a political reformer and loosen up the chinese system, i think that is mistaken. whenever i go to china and talk to folks there in the government and out, the mantra now is about purifying the communist party so it can rule for another century. charlie: the idea of launching an attack on corruption. anja: yes.

when you hear the anticorruption stiffens visibly when he's talking about this issue and says this line -- we are purifying the communist party so it will rule for another century. charlie: when there's any threat, they think to the commonest party, they come down hard on the threat. anja: that's right. >charlie: from corruption to human rights activists and others. anja: exactly right. the crackdown on dissent has been quite wide. what we tend to hear is a crackdown on human rights activists, but of course, there are religious minorities that have always had problems. the uighurs, that have always had problems. the broad base of the chinese populace, with 180,000 protests though those are mostly about bread-and-butter issues -- you have taken the land for this

factory, or there is too much smog. the third basket, which is increasingly powerful, is this generation of chinese millennials, mostly only children, were not alive during tiananmen square so they have not seen a crackdown, and they are as outspoken on the internet as some of my stanford students. and always surprised about the things they are willing to say. charlie: when you look at the chinese economy, there are questions of where it is going. we just saw the release of a five-your plan several months ago. they they laid out what hope to achieve. in some cases it is contradictory. but there is a lot of aspirational tone in that five-your plan. other people question exactly, what are the real numbers about the chinese economy? how -- what is your own assessment? fall, there were so many headlines here in the

united states about the chinese economy. the five signs of the chinese economic apocalypse. the doom dragon. i think all of those prognoses are too negative. the chinese economy is in a slump. it is hard to trust the official statistics. the best guesstimate is they are growing more like 4%, rather than the 6% or 7% they claim. but i don't see a hard landing, where you have a crash landing at it is over. you have two very different economies in china, just that you have in the united states. if i travel to a second or third tier steel town or coal mining city, those are devastated. recently theyaked have to lay off about 5 million coal and steel workers in the next couple of years. charlie: is it overcapacity? anja: massive overcapacity. charlie: they also promised at the same time they will have social government programs to take care of them.

anja: they put aside $23 billion for that, but that still does not amount to that much per person. so it is difficult. but overall, the chinese economy is going to pull out of the slump, maybe not back to 10% growth, but to 6% growth. anja: what is the role of women in chinese society? charlie: in some respects, it is surprisingly positive. the communist party was always very pro-egalitarian and very pro-women. mao said they hold up half the sky. especially in the business sector, chinese women are doing incredibly well. charlie: billionaires. anja: more self-made women billionaires in china than anywhere else on earth. 30 million chinese women entrepreneurs, women-owned businesses. a stark contrast to india, where you have all the right laws on the books -- a democracy, a constitution, protects women's rights, good laws on sexual

harassment, violence against women. but especially for the lower castes, they are often not very well enforced. oftene indian style, civil society takes things into their own hands. i describe in the book, a story a less affluent and lower caste women who had had enough of domestic violence, so now they dress up in hot pink saris, and when they hear a man villageng his wife indy -- in the village, they go in and beat the guy with sticks until he stops. a very indian story. the competition between india and china, will it be determined by the nature of democracy onents, one hand, and on the other a totalitarian rule by a party? anja: india is certainly more resilient because of its

democratic form of government. people were frustrated two and a half years ago with the congress party government that was not a college and reforms, so they threw the bums out, and how they have prime minister modi. that makes the system much more resilient. the chinese system is rigid, authoritarian, and i sometimes like to describe it as, it is hard, like glass, which makes it brittle. you can hit 100 times, and nothing happens, but it just the right way and it shatters. those are things nobody will be able to predict, whether the chinese government will fall or when it will fall. nobody predicted the fall of the soviet union. ,hat there are some signs that what the intel community would call chatter. in march, there was an anonymous letter sent around calling for she jinping to

resign. there have been numerous rumors of attempts on the life of xi and the anticorruption czar, so there are rumblings under the surface. whether that will amount to anything remains to be determined. charlie: thank you for coming. anja: thank you very much. charlie: the book is called "brave new world." thank you for joining us. see you next time. ♪ ♪

alex: i am alex wagner. john heilemann. with all respect to abc, cbs, and bloomberg tv, if you are laughing at the idea of trump tv, can you really compete with this? ♪ some say i've got to have it some people really need it new things, new things, new things ♪ john: on a very special anniversary of this very real reality show, donald j. trump turns one-year-old as