charlie: welcome to the program. on the final night of the republican national convention in cleveland, ohio, donald trump made the most important speech of his life. he was introduced by his daughter, ivanka. here are excerpts from these speeches. ivanka: one year ago, i introduced my father when he declared his candidacy. in his own way and through his own sheer force of will, he sacrificed greatly to enter the political arena as an outsider and he prevailed against a field of 16 very talented competitors. [applause] ivanka: for more than a year, donald trump has been the

people's champion, and, tonight, he is the people's nominee! [applause] ivanka: like many of my fellow millennials, i do not consider myself categorically republican or democrat. more than party affiliation, i vote based on what i believe is right for my family and for my country. sometimes it's a tough choice. that is not the case this time. as the proud daughter of your nominee, i am here to tell you that this is the moment and donald trump is the person to make america great again. [applause] ivanka: real change, the kind we have not seen in decades, is only going to come from outside

the system, and it's only going to come from a man who has spent his entire life doing what others said could not be done. my father is a fighter. when the primaries got tough, and they were tough, he did what any great leader does. he dug deeper, worked harder, got better, and became stronger. [applause] ivanka: i have seen him fight for his family. i have seen him fight for his employees. i have seen him fight for his company. and now i am seeing him fight for our country. [applause] ivanka: it's been the story of his life and, more recently, the spirit of his campaign. it's also a prelude to reaching the goal that unites us all. when this party and, better still, this country knows what it is like to win again.

mr. trump: friends, delegates, and fellow americans, i humbly and gratefully accept your nomination for the presidency of the united states. [cheers and applause] >> [audience chanting "usa! usa!"] mr. trump: usa! usa!

>> [audience chanting "usa! usa!"] mr. trump: who would have believed that when we started this journey on june 16 last year, we, and i say "we," because we are a team, would have received almost 14 million votes, the most in the history of the republican party and that the republican party would get 60% more votes than it received eight years ago? who would have believed it? who would've believed it? the democrats, on the other hand, received 20% fewer votes than they got four years ago. not so good, not so good. [applause]

mr. trump: together, we will lead our party back to the white house and we will lead our country back to safety, prosperity, and peace. [applause] mr. trump: we will be a country of generosity and warmth, but we will also be a country of law and order. ♪ announcer: from our studios in new york city, this is "charlie rose." charlie: we are in cleveland for the final day of the republican national convention. we are taping this program ahead of donald trump's highly anticipated address this evening. the speech comes a day after ted cruz refused to endorse the republican nominee, causing further rancor within the party or certainly between donald

trump and ted cruz. ted cruz's speech overshadowed the indiana governor, mike pence, who accepted the vice presidential nomination. joining me is tom barrack, he is in the founder and executive chairman of colony capital. he is also a longtime friend of donald trump. it is now 3:00 p.m. in cleveland on thursday. later, he will mount the podium and make a speech on behalf of his friend. later this evening, donald trump himself will give the speech that is very important to this convention and to the image that he wants to present to the country. welcome to this table we have here in cleveland. i want to talk about your speech first. what do you want to say about donald trump? tom: in seven minutes, it's a tough job. so, what i thought i'd do is just give a reflection of the man as the messenger, not the message, the side of him that i've seen over 40 years that

people don't know or find it impossible to believe that he could be kind, compassionate, empathetic. charlie: all things you've seen. tom: all things i've seen in those quiet moments when the cameras aren't flashing of who he really is as a man. and can you really trust the decisions of a man like that in this position? charlie: how will you make that case? tom: i'm going to make it through some vignettes. charlie: stories. tom: invisible stories, not the stories of his wealth, not the stories of his power, not the stories of his celebrity-ship. of those quiet things of his humanity that i've seen him do that stuck in his mind as footprints over all these years. charlie: when did he tell you he wanted to run for president? tom: the first time, probably 10 years ago. he is an amazing guy. when you think of it, there's a lot of powerful, rich,

accomplished businessmen who are never celebrities. he created "the donald." when he is talking about himself in third person, the caricature he created. along that way, the human touch that he had was always endemic. here, we started to talk about it almost a decade ago. but i always thought it was a negotiating tactic of his celebrity-ship. and i think the last time, it probably was, in earnest. but i think as he gained self-confidence and found this aggravation, this social imbalance, this little fuel that we are seeing -- charlie: economic discontent. this year, people are troubled and they are looking to find something new, something beyond the establishment, something

beyond the political parties they have known. tom: exactly. and the social imbalance for him -- people misread it. he is not a trust-fund guy. his dad was the son of two german immigrants and his mother herself was a scottish immigrant. so, his dad was a self-made man from queens, pretty tough on donald. so, donald's natural alliance actually is with the little guy. so when you look at his peers, he is not a man of wall street, he is not a man of finance, he is not even a man of the real estate peer group. i think that he is -- charlie: he is? tom: he is a disruptor. he is the airbnb to marriott. he is a man of his own that can step into the middle of a fray and take the heat and, through his vision, create a reality. that is unusual. charlie: he wants to be president because he thinks he can make a difference.

tom: absolutely. charlie: how much of it is ego? how much of it is -- tom: that's a great question, and i really couldn't answer it. i'm sure a lot of it is ego. you test yourself. i mean, what sane person, a businessman of his ilk, would walk through this fire and take all the punishment if there weren't a couple of objectives? i'm sure ego is one of them, that he thinks he's smart enough, tough enough, capable enough to get there. on the other hand, at end of the day, i think he looks and says, i'm the beneficiary of an unbelievable system. he is so far over his skis from where in his own mind he thought he would get. charlie: that's interesting. he is so far over his skis in life than he ever thought he would ever be in terms of life, wealth, fame -- perhaps political power? tom: exactly. charlie: smart man? tom: very.

intrinsically, academically first-class. he has all of those academic disciplines in his quiver. but, uniquely, instinctively smart. he has one of the best gut feels one-on-one for people or sensing a situation. when we talk about "the art of the deal," the art of the deal is a little whimsical. he's incredibly prepared. what people don't know is the detail level that he really -- charlie: there is a central criticism of him, tom, that he has not given detail. he is not on details. he says "i'm the best negotiator. when i negotiate with the chinese, i will create a better deal." it's not about the specifics. he talked today a bit about nato in "the new york times," raised questions as to why they are not paying their fair share. the companies that are members

of nato. that's a valid criticism. president obama has raised that criticism. but what also he said, which scares a lot of people, and maybe it is the foreign-policy establishment, and maybe he wants to scare them, but they hear that and think, well, america has to live up to its agreements. if it is on the nato agreement and if a baltic country is prepared for america to defend them, they ought to be able to depend on that. and if america is attacked, america ought to be able to expect nato to come to its defense, too. tom: look, it's a tough topic. let me give you my opinion of what i think he's doing. and it is backed with some substance, because i live in that world. my business as a financier lives off of trade and trade agreements, mostly on an international basis. the criticism of nato is not just his. it's the hoover institute. charlie: it's also president obama. president obama also said they are not paying their fair share. tom: it was born out of world war ii. if you look at the marshall plan and the onset of what happened

to a destroyed europe -- 17 million dead in europe, 20 million injured, 30 million homes destroyed, and a europe in decay at a time when we were really concerned about the soviet union. nato has nothing to do with north america. it has to do with europe. charlie: it was, in fact, a defense against russia, the soviet union at the time. tom: then russia, in turn, five years later started the warsaw pact. as kind of a balance. i think what donald is saying -- and by the way, he is academically pretty good underneath this. when i talk to him about the facts, in other words, the initial reaction is he is just a -- just bullying, he is just positioning, he actually is not. he gets a lot of the substance. what he's doing on all of these issues is saying, look, none of it is working because now you have bureaucracies. so, you have nato, you have g.a.p., you had the marshall wto, the imf.

nobody knows what any of these entities do. why are we paying for them? it's all foreign policy. it's all foreign policy related, and our foreign policy doesn't work. so, i think what he's doing, in a smart way, is saying, "look, i'm throwing a little bit of fire, and i know, into the frying pan, and people are going to be concerned, but them being concerned is a good thing." charlie: you are saying, well you think he understands the issues, he also understands the value of inflammatory rhetoric. tom: absolutely. charlie: because that will create a discussion. that is what he wants in the end. it's a negotiating tactic. you start not with what you think you'll get. tom: sure, because you are negotiating with bureaucracy. when you go to negotiate with nato or g.a.p. or world bank or the imf or the wto, they are now huge bureaucracies themselves. they are not going to erode themselves.

at a time when we are sitting here saying there is no way out of entitlement, how do you reverse the budget for anything? it is not the president. i mean, the president is a conciliator. he is an executive. charlie: when he has all these names in calling hillary clinton "crooked," "lying ted cruz," and all the things that he said -- even what he said about john mccain, does that have a purpose? tom: look, he's a friend, so i can disagree with him. i don't personally like any of it, and the reason i don't like any of it is because he's better than that. he doesn't need to go there. charlie: so, why does he? tom: because he caught onto something, this fissure in the american people that is against the grain that worked. if he would have been presidential -- and he could have, by the way -- the way we

would have liked him to do it -- he would still be on "the apprentice." charlie: he can only be where he is if he did what he did? tom: i think so. and by the way, look -- how can you say hillary clinton is not capable? wesleyan, yale, two-time u.s. senator, wife of the president, secretary of state. she is amazingly accomplished. it is simply a decision between status quo and disruption. charlie: if you could define this election, that's what it is about? tom: to me, that's what it is about, 100%, status quo versus disruption. charlie: which is in one word "change." tom: nobody understands it. the problem is we are all prisoners in our own prison. when i sit down and talk to really smart people, not as smart as you, but that understand finance, but don't understand trade, or don't understand foreign-policy, or don't understand the intervention of the central

banks -- we are all captive. we are living in $19 trillion of debt. we just keep printing money and the debt is not secured by anything. it is too overwhelming for the average individual to think through. we just can't figure out where it is. i think hillary and ted and marco and all these people, they are all first-class. they would not have gotten to where they have gotten if they weren't capable, competent, and elegant and well-meaning. charlie: but that's not how he characterizes them, is it? and you are saying if he did not characterize them that way, he probably would not have won? it was a galvanizing use of language? tom: it was his way around the club. otherwise, the political rhetoric and legacy would not allow him even in the room. so, the only way you could get in the room was to knock the walls down. charlie: how much of it is set -- said for effect and to get around, and how much of it is said for effect and to get around, and how much of it is what he believes? tom: this is my opinion, and he will be angry at me for saying this, because if you ask him

that question, he says it is absolutely not for effect. "i'm going to build a wall. they are going to pay for the wall." right? i'm an arab-american. i'm a lebanese immigrant. i'm the epitome of the blind luck of the american. -- american dream. i'm a catholic, but i grew up with sunnis and shias. i have this conversation with him. "so, you're not really saying --" "yes, i'm really saying that i will stop them all until they help us." now, out of that, half my life is spent in the middle east. i run a public company, and the public company has a lot of private capital silos. and countries like abu dhabi and qatar and saudi arabia, with the young prince, are our allies. they themselves are trapped by fundamentalism, and they need

our help, but our foreign policy there has been waving. when they have a war in yemen and the iranians are backing one side and the saudis are backing another and we are funding both sides, it is a bit confusing. even they are saying, "ok, i get it. we first have to take responsibility for stopping this fundamentalism within our own borders, and it starts in the middle of the mosques." so, if you have a mullah preaching that some 16-year-old boy should strap on dynamite and wander through tel aviv or new york city, we are going to hold you responsible. charlie: where they are actually preaching it over the internet? tom: they are all saying, "yes, we agree, but america has to back us. otherwise we are going to have fundamentalist revolutions everywhere." they look at us and say, "we don't understand america." the shaw of iran was our person. -- the shah of iran was our person. iraq, saddam hussein. libya, same thing.

we just keep moving down the middle east. charlie: you are saying they don't know whether we are on their side and we will stand up with them, even though we have been their ally, whatever the instant is. and donald trump says to them what? tom: donald trump says, "look, i don't care. you start taking care of your own, the good allies. the ones who are there. it's mostly the gcc who are here to help. and we will protect our allies and punish our enemies." so, if you want to start helping us, you clean your own house first. syria is a different, mind-boggling problem. it is really that predictability on both sides. amazingly, the arabs looking at us say we have to figure out a way together to do this, because it is a problem. and europe is saying the same thing. 3 million -- 3 million refugees

moving to europe is a gigantic problem when there is no hope. right? when there is no hope. charlie: it's a humanitarian crisis on the one hand and it's an issue of great concern for recipient countries who want to do the right thing both because of its economic burden as well as its other issues. tom: exactly. islam is like catholicism. looking at catholicism at the time of the crusades, of course it is harsh at times. but what is harsh is when young people don't have a future -- i was at the refugee camps in lebanon. unicef, which does an amazing job -- i was almost in tears. 500,000 kids. 500,000. under the age of 14. and if we don't give them hope, there's only one place that they can go. charlie: actually, that reflects the dealings of a friend of mine, the former deputy director of the cia.

saying we have to find an alternative narrative. you have to figure out at the core, it is as much about being able to break that bond that the people who are preaching this extreme version of fundamentalism -- you have to find out what an alternative narrative and how you can get to them with that, and that's what you have to do to stop it, and that's the only way you can stop it. because if you go here and you destroy isis, it will come up somewhere else, because isis came from al qaeda in iraq. tom: and this is the challenge. charlie: so, let me ask you about this. the muslim ban. you are lebanese catholic. tom: yes. charlie: it offends people who believe it is not american. this is a country that welcomed people, that welcomed your ancestors. welcomed donald trump's ancestors.

welcomed my ancestors. that's who we are. and to say, "i'm going to ban people because of their religion" is not what we are. tom: look, he is -- charlie: do you agree with him? tom: i agree with him for a starter, yes. in other words, saying it. i don't agree with him doing it, but i agree with him saying it, because no one knows who he really is. every arab country is going, "wow, will he really do it?" they are asking the question. they hear him saying, "yes, i will really do it." so, our friends, abu dhabi, dubai, qatar, saudi arabia are already trying to align a position, i need you to do this, then i can start winnowing away at fundamentalism. i will do it. i will get there and we will do it together. charlie: how did he come to this? is it all instinct? did he have a series of people from the region or academics or

former state department people, you, who gave him a tutorial in --s kind of tom: i think a lot of it is self-made. i think at the edges he does have arab partners, amazingly enough. he has chinese partners, he has mexican partners. he has talked to me about it. and i think his point of view for america is sound. in other words, he is saying, until i get a handle on it, it is just shut it out, and then we will figure it out. it's not so far-fetched. when you think of it being religious-oriented -- and, my personal belief is it won't happen, because as soon as you have a cohesive foreign policy that tells the middle east we will help our friends, we will benefit our friends, and we will punish our enemies, and you draw hard lines around the enemies -- when you draw a line around the enemy, you make it stick. charlie: you are saying that he is a man that really decided he could be president in the last four years, set out to do that.

he was wise and smart and savvy to see that there was a huge discontent that nobody was in the leadership of, and, from day one, began to talk about that. and it had to do with immigration and a range of issues. but he is now coming to power. and if he is elected, will, in a sense, start with a -- start with almost a -- a beginning point. tom: yes, exactly. here is what i look at the measure of how good he is going to be. technically, he is great as a businessman, as an astute disciplinarian. his vice president pick, picture-perfect, hard to argue with. i went to a transition meeting yesterday. chris christie, the head of the transition team -- he is amazing. the process they are using to

staff those 4000 jobs now is the best i've ever seen, the most methodical, the most thoughtful. the recruiting process of what they are looking for, how they are recruiting talent. so, i think that he'll do it. i think that he'll surround himself with unbelievably talented people who are not of the system, but understand the system. charlie: tom, thank you for coming. good luck with your speech. we will be right back. stay with us. ♪

>> he is donald trump's national chairman. the campaign faces fun racing deficit against heller clinton. i'm pleased to have them on the program. is the party united? >> i think the party is united. i think there has been a bunch of talk. last night in terms of ted cruz. ted cruz came out and supported a lot. whether he supports donald or does not i do not think is terribly relevant. this has been an incredibly exciting week. charlie: he told delegates to vote your conscience. >> i don't think that is all that relevant. if you look at what has gone on this week -- i have been here from monday on. the energy at this convention is extraordinary.

if you look at what donald trump has done to the party in his contribution and bringing new people to the party it is extraordinary. last night we did close to $4 million in online donations last night. a republican has never raised this type of money online and signifies the extraordinary support we have. 700,000 unique donors in the last few weeks and we just started this effort. this is a movement and i think there are a lot of bernie sanders supporters and others that are supporting donald. charlie: what is the evidence of that? >> i think we have indirect evidence of the contributors. charlie: todd about fundraising -- talk about fundraising as national finance chairman. -- andventional wisdom look at and spent 49 million dollars already. you have not spent a dime in terms of television ads. >> it does not mean we are way behind. she is just spending a lot. we started this effort five

weeks ago. you have a unique situation that donald funded the entire campaign up to getting the nomination. charlie: and used free media. >> and also used his extraordinary following. if you look at what we have raised, we have raised $51 million in five weeks. that was through the month. millionibuted about $60 to the campaign so far. if you look at hillary, who did raise more than the $51 million, raised about $70 million, she has been doing this for 10 years and we have been doing it for five weeks. charlie: you are saying we can raise every bit as much money as she can? >> we can raise hundreds of millions of dollars. i think she will need a lot more money because she has a staff over 900 people. we have a staff of 150 people

which also gives you a view as to how he will run the government and how she will run the government. charlie: how are you doing with traditional financial sources in the republican party? >> i think we have been doing well. the have been people on the sidelines. i think governor pence coming on the ticket has helped a lot. a lot of people who are now excited to join and he will be part of our fundraising effort. there is a whole lot of new voters who have not donated before. charlie: what did governor pence bring? the family liked him a lot. sayne of the things i would , donald was looking for someone to run with them who has government experience. donald understands he is not been a politician and he thought it was important to have someone who could help him govern. pence brings a history of being governor and being in congress. charlie: when did you know he was going to run for president? >> i knew over a year ago.

he came to los angeles and we were having dinner and he talked to me about running for president. charlie: and said i'm going to do this and i need your help? >> he did not say he needed my help at that time. he was talking to me about it and asking me for my opinions. i have been following along the way. he did not ask for help until three months ago when he won new york. he decided he needed help in terms of fundraising. coping up the next day and asked me if i would be the finance chairman. charlie: there are people who said no one believed it was possible. did you believe it was possible? >> i heard it last time when he was thinking of running. he was very serious this time. charlie: what was different? >> i think this time he thought it was the right time. i think he was very close last time and for a bunch of different reasons he decided not to and i think this time he really wanted to do it. saw an opportunity to help the country. charlie: this idea of where the

company was and his decision to , did that happen to be a productive convergence or did he see discontent in the country and knew he could address that and if he could address that well he could be successful? >> i think he did see it. more he felt like he had an obligation to address it. this is a hard thing to do running. i travel with him all the time. this guy has more energy than anybody i know and he is doing this because he really wants to help the american people. charlie: of all the criticism what offends you the most? hillary clinton said on monday he would be the most dangerous man ever to run for president. i'm asking what criticism offends you the most that you find most egregious and untrue. steve: i would say that is probably the single one i find most untrue. i think this guy is very careful.

although he does not have military background he is going to bring very serious advisors on board in terms of military defense and foreign policy. he's going to surround himself with an extraordinary cabinet and he's very careful, very thoughtful and i think will be a great president. charlie: he attracted a lot of attention we talked about nato with the new york times. nafta we noto longer are going to be party to the nafta agreement? will he say to those organizations that we are party to, we want to renegotiate everything? steve: we are looking at this now and there are sound policies being built to execute these things on day one. i think the first issue is he's going to expect the counterparties -- first thing they have to do is are these agreements. china is not honoring many aspects of the wto.

if you look at nafta, there are areas of nafta that are not being honored. in nafta there is a component that is supposed to be reviewed after time. i think it will be a combination of reviewing existing agreements , making sure countries are living up to what they would do and looking at changes that are important for american interests. sees lifet heart he in terms of winning and losing and he sees life in terms of on the other hand in negotiation. steven: i think the first part of it to the winning and losing is, he has to wind become president. he's focused on doing that. , this isof negotiation a man who has negotiated successful agreements through his life and he knows in dealing with other countries throughout the world it is going to be a negotiation.

negotiation -- the worst thing you could do is put the other person to walk through like they have been beaten to death. you want people coming out thinking they have been w a winner as well. steven: the trump presidency wants agreements that are fair for both parties. and for them not to be one-sided. the most important part of this is they have to be fair to the american public. and the american worker. charlie: has he changed since the time you had that conversation year ago? as the campaign? the experience? this enormous challenge of running for president? steven: i think it has. he is much more thoughtful on many of these issues. i think he understands these issues better today. i think he has heard from the american public over the last year and really understands he is a messenger of what is going on.

charlie: running is also a learning experience. steven: indeed. i think the aspect of competing against the republicans was different from what he's doing today in going after hillary clinton. charlie: what is it about him as a family man? steven: i think he has done an incredible job in instilling into hisd work ethic kids. that is very hard to do in a family business. i will tell you a story i just heard. they had christmas dinner every year there were two tables. one was for the grown-ups and one was for the kids. half the time donald would sit at the table with the kids because he really enjoyed it and wanted to be with them. what do you worry about in this campaign? are you worried this will be such a campaign that will be so mean and dirty it will spin out of control? steven: i'm not concerned about that at all. when i worry about is making sure that the american public understands what the trump pence

presidency is really all about. charlie: tell us now. steven: i think it is about making america great again. charlie: what does it mean? steven: creating opportunities for the american worker. making sure that america is safe again. if you look at what's going on in the world today there is very significant foreign-policy issues. very significant security issues. this is going to be a big part of the presidency. steven: who was his most important economic advisor? -- charlie: who is his most important economic advisor? steven: a press release this week listing the economic council. the group of about 10 people that are a combination of business people and economists that of been advising the campaign. tom is on that list.

list.e: you are on that steven: there are others i do not want to get an ounce. charlie: you have a very good life in los angeles. steven: the weather is terrific. charlie: can you imagine going to washington as secretary of the treasury? steven: i would be honored to serve this country and donald trump in any role he wants me and. it is premature to worry about those roles. i can tell you the transition office has not yet started. charlie: great to see you. stay with us. ♪

charlie: donald trump sent down for a foreign-policy conversation with the new york times on wednesday. the candidate questioned the u.s. commitment to nato and said that allies might not be automatically defended it under attack. his comments were met with criticism. here to talk about the interview is david sanger, he cowrote the article with maggie haberman. also ian bremmer, founder and president of eurasia group. trump plays down role of u.s. and foreign crisis says the nation should fix our own mess before becoming involved abroad. this came out of an interview with donald trump on wednesday. david: wednesday afternoon. the second part of a conversation we began in march which i think we may have talked

about a few months ago. think, mr. trump, i trying to lay out what his foreign-policy principles are, how they differ not only from what president obama is doing, what secretary of state clinton , but evenf elected from the orthodoxies of the republican party, and that is what is so fascinating. the republican party has been the party of internationalism, free trade, certainly since the end of world war ii. it was one of the founders of nato. three months ago when maggie and i went to see mr. trump, he was discussing how the united states would pull back from nato, from japan, korea if they did not pay a larger burden of keeping troops there. yesterday he went a step beyond. when i asked him, imagine for a moment that the russians went into one of the baltic republics.

charlie: not an unimaginable circumstance. david: certainly not. i was in estonia. they think about it every day as they watch the russian bomber runs. submarines off finland and so forth. he said he would not automatically come to their defense. he said he would take a look and see whether or not -- what their contribution to nato and to us had been. he was putting an economic test, whether they were spending enough, ahead of article five commitment that all memories of nato sign up to. an attack on one is an attack on all. charlie: what is your response? ian: i think trump would respond differently with take. he said, i want to maintain these commitments. i'm all about maintaining these commitments but said that i am not going to allow these guys to be free riders. charlie: a term that president obama used.

ian: the republican establishment on foreign policy are here. mike pence was part of that group until just a week ago. they disagree with absolutely everything here. we cannot dismiss the fact that the average american really does find resonance with what trump is saying. that the americans are continuing to say we will be the global sheriff, global policeman and the allies are not pulling their weight. the countries that are really getting all the attention, the baltic states, are some of the very few that are actually paying more than the 2% suggested per gdp for defense. charlie: places like britain and france? ian: he's talking about places like italy and canada who pay virtually nothing for defense. charlie: president obama and donald trump both talking about it. the diagnosis of the

problem that donald trump has offered is basically the same diagnosis president obama has offered. i was at the nato summit a few weeks ago. he was chastising the countries that had not pay 2% or more of gdp. that is the number they sort of agreed on every loose target two years ago. bob gates, his former defense secretary and defense secretary for president bush, in his last major speech in europe before he left as defense secretary, basically said if you don't begin to take your own share of the burden you are going to lose a generation of americans and others who have no memory of the cold war and don't know why nato exists. mr. trump takes of the next step to say i'm not just saying here's a gold kobe nice if you meet it. i'm saying if you don't meet it i'm pulling troops back and i may not come to your defense. this is a consistent element of mr. trump's batik of american

foreign-policy. he made the same argument about japan and south korea. i said to them if we pull back the japanese and south koreans are going to doubt whether our nuclear umbrella covers them. do you have a problem with a built a nuclear weapon? he said i don't want them to but they are probably going to do it anyway. ian: i think there are a few questions that still need to be teased out with where trump stands. he has talked about nato as kind of an archaic, increasingly obsolete organization. is the issue that he will have this individual test with individual countries and the ones that pay the fine or is he thinks of the broader? that we have an alliance with the majority of the burden is on america. most of the countries don't care. the brits are saying brexit and their new foreign secretary is not paying attention to the rest of the world. many of the europeans are going their own way.

germans, french, italians all going to for ways. is he saying to restructure this the way i'm saying i want to restructure nafta? we have seen -- we have not seen that from him yet. newt gingrich was asked about estonia and his response is, it is a suburb of st. petersburg and he said i don't know that i want to risk nuclear war to support them. that is consistent with what trump has been saying but that is talking about in interest approach as opposed to this has trump explained where he stands on this? one other thing that is different that came out of this interview is that he basically said we are not interested in looking at the internal values of the countries we are talking to. turkey for example, sort of going after human rights internally and becoming more putin style, as long as they are

providing support for the alliance that's what matters for us. that is a real the parts are from what we have seen from trump historically. charlie: here is the question i don't find answered. yes, this is nato and this is an agreement. is it like countries around the can weill begin to say depend on america if that is the mindset? say weat mean they might better look elsewhere for relationships? ian: if trump had come along 10 years ago this might be less of a concern but we have gone through a number of years where major american allies, whether europe, middle east, asia, they are all saying we don't know how committed america is thomas. we have open questions. i think if trump becomes president,at comes

they will become certain americans are not committed to them. many countries still like they do increasingly have options. this is why the u.k. was tilting towards china on the asian infrastructure investment bank. this is why the french decided to go to the lisbon treaty after their bombing for common securities. what would obama do if you have the move on estonia? would obama risk nuclear war for that? this, hecan tell you went and stood in estonian parliament and said the nato treaty and our obligations to come to your defense apply equally to the old nato members and the newest. we will be here for you. partly you have to do that because a big part of your deterrent is convincing the russians or any other adversary that you mean. charlie: but if you say things like this you do not convinced that you mean it. david: the biggest concern that

comes out of what mr. trump said to me and maggie is that if elected mr. trump will come into office with the russians probably eager to go test him. it's possible to mr. trump this is nothing but a negotiating ploy. just like how he would deal with a negotiation or a building. he said to me a few times in this interview in the previous one, it's not going to be a problem because in the end it pay the money. they'll come around. charlie: we did an interview on this program with a friend of his who said just that. a lot of this is a negotiating ploy. that is how he sees the world. making a deal. that is not a foreign policy though. david: i pressed him on this a few times. alliancest see these in america'sy

interest for their own purposes. he sees it as a financial transaction. if we are defending a country running a trade deficit with the that does notys sound very smart. a lot of people would say we have a lot of reasons to be out in the pacific apart from trade relationships. we want to keep the north koreans from adventurism. we want to be a thoroughly so they can a lot of missile toward the united states. we want to contain the chinese as they expand in the south china sea. and i pressed him on this you did not see those as interests that were so great that they would be overarching despite the economic relationship. ian: but transactional nature that trump brings to american strategy. if you combine that with the issue of values he does not see america's alliances as long-term relationships that are aligned in terms of worldview. it is much more, how are we

doing, are we getting a good deal? that is interesting because it means america's foreign policy is becoming more chinese under trunk. more unilateral -- under trump. win-win.ateral, that is the way xi jinping is seeing himself in engaging with other countries. charlie: this from the clinton camp. hillary clinton's campaign put out a statement invoking ronald reagan to blast trump. ronald reagan would be ashamed. republicans, democrats and independents who helped build nato into the most exfo military alliance history would come to the same conclusion. donald trump is temperamentally unfit and fundamentally prepared to be commander-in-chief. david: i asked him about the history here and i said -- we talked about nixon because there

,ave been a lot of comparisons including the madman theory. he said this is an entirely different era. our problems today bear no result was to our problems 40 years ago. even i pressed him on america first, phrase that first came up in her last interview and i asked him whether or not he would characterize his approach. he said i don't mean it in a historic sense. i mean it in a to taste sense. almost as if history starts now. becauseknow if that's he actually believes the historical conditions don't apply to today's problems or if it's because his less familiar with the historical issues. he's feeling it as in the moment. is thing that impressed me in between the conversations you had trump did get more versed on the basics of foreign policy.

he actually was making sense on who is convicted to whom it sat syria charlie:. you can give him credit for drilling down on his argument. ian: this was not been carson. he may be intellectually lazy but he's not stupid. the fact that he realized this is something that he will need to talk more about his to his credit. this is a problem for the establishment in the u.s. because they are not prepared to go after a populist foreign policy. this is going to be serious in the upcoming elections. david: he's going to start to get intelligence briefings assume is the convention is over. those intelligence briefings, which president obama and james clyburn will tune up to whatever him --ou revealed to whatever level they want to reveal to him. those briefings will give him an interrelated -- essence of the

interrelated nature of these. and then he goes into the foreign policy debate. charlie: thank you for joining us. see you next time. ♪

♪ >> we are here with the editor of bloomberg businessweek. the failed coup against president erdogan and the massive crackdown on journalists, teachers and other different folks. this is a story we actually had in the works before the coup.