♪ >> from our studios in new york city, this is "charlie rose." charlie: we begin this evening with politics. republican nominee donald trump suggested the u.s. should accept russia's annexation of crimea if it would lead with a better -- to a better relationship with moscow. obamauns counter to the administration. it is now believed the russian government was responsible for the theft of e-mails from the dnc, and hacking into other campaign computer systems. while the obama administration

has stopped short of formal accusations, they said friday that interference in the election process is a very serious matter. joining me is david sanger, the national security correspondent for the new york times. i am pleased to have him at the table. welcome. david: good to be with you. thelie: in terms of what russians are doing, we will talk about that then we will talk about trumps interview about ukraine. why would they do that? who did it? why did they do it? then, how do we retaliate? all fascinating issues. to some degree, this is the story that i think most of us didn't see coming in this election. strange as this cycle has been, it didn't seem likely that if all thetin would,

evidence points in that direction, try to actively interfere with an american election. we do know the russians in the past have used information electionsin european and tried to interfere there. to be fair, the u.s. has not messingve, in history, around in other countries' elections. charlie: and showing some regret that they didn't ship -- so support the people on the streets of tehran when they protested their election. obama wassident concerned about it back lash. here is what we know. got hacked, and we know they lost large amounts of e-mails and other data, including fundraising data, other databases. charlie: things embarrassing to them. david: that's right. it resulted in debbie wasserman losing her position as

the head of the party. that is what is known. if you follow the forensics inside the documents that have come out, not the ones released by wikileaks, but the ones that were leaked before wikileaks did its don't, there were leaks coming out from someone who 2. we himself guccifer don't believe he was an individual, we believe it was russian military intelligence. that theye know weren't satisfied with the response to that, so they may have given documents to wikileaks or someone else. david: we don't know the transmission. we don't understand how wikileaks got the documents. 2 really was.er if you look at the documents that are released and you look into the metadata behind them, what do you find? illic,g marks in cyr

timestamps that lineup with moscow. ip addresses, internet protocol addresses that are identical to ones used in previous hacks by the gr you and another russian intelligence agency when they attacked the german parliament. there was an investigation. unless somebody is doing one of the world's best deception campaigns, which is possible, the forensic evidence would strongly suggest that this was done -- >> charlie: there is agreement on that in terms of intelligence and security. more consistency on this than any issue i have seen since the north korean hack of sony. charlie: why did they do it? thed: the first hack into dnc was in june 2015.

when nobody in russia, and nobody around your table, was predicting donald trump would emerge as the nominee. they the question is, were doing this because they were trying to collect things in general? or were they specifically guessing that hillary clinton would get the nomination? pretty good call in june of 2015. they were looking for material on her. we get to an interesting theory of motive. it is a eerie. in 2011 when hillary clinton was the secretary of state, there was a parliamentary election that put in place and solidified vladimir putin's hold on the government in russia. there were signs of fraud in that election. as secretary out of state, as frequently american officials do in democratic and republican administrations when they believe there was corruption. putin believed that she was encouraging people to come out

and protest in the streets. which some did. hates nothing like chaos. david: that's right. and nothing like open objection to his rule. be thatind, it may well the united states started this, that we were messing in their elections. and if we want to go through that, he can show a way to do this, as well. this is theory, but it is a theory that was laid out in public the other day by the director of national intelligence during the aspen security summit. charlie: the point is, in order to see donald trump elected, it because they don't want hillary clinton to be elected, if they did it with that motive. david: there was a second hack of the dnc. we believe, by the military

intelligence group, that came in the spring of this year. it is that hack that tipped off the dnc that something was going wrong, and that is when they called in private investigators from the fbi and so forth. the documentsike seized then are what we are seeing now. it is not clear that the russian intelligence agencies knew that the other one was in assistance. these guys don't communicate well. in fact, they compete with each other a fair bit. sb is thethe f inheritor to the kgb, and the gru is? david: it is the military intelligence unit. charlie: there are people who say that if in fact they could do that to the dnc, and they could do other hacking they might have done, why wouldn't they have hijacked hillary clinton's server? we asked this question

endlessly at the fbi. the public comments that the head of the fbi gave to congress last month was, he said, we have no direct evidence that there was any foreign power in her server, and he also said, if they were, and they were highly , it is noted hackers clear we would see the evidence. charlie: they could hide it. could.they the fsb did a good job of hiding it when they were in. does that tell you that they weren't in the server? no. it tells you we can't prove they were or they were not. we haven't seen any of those documents, published elsewhere. them, that they had is an assumption, they would have released something that would be damaging to her. david: you would think. we don't know the totality of -- want to wait might

until a more damaging time. david: or they might want to see the reaction. .harlie: the u.s. reacts we retaliate how? david: what's the difference between this hack and what we do? this is a difficult problem for many in the intelligence community, because they don't ,ike the idea of classifying a the theft of data from the dnc as a cyber attack or necessarily, a great sin, an equivalent organization, political organization, in russia, china, europe, would be considered to be a legitimate target for the nsa. the difference is not that we steal stuff, the differences, whoever, thenor distributed it and used it for a political purpose to ostensibly

manipulate an election, if you believe that evidence. the u.s. government has been very careful and not come out and accused the russians of doing this. their standard of evidence has to be a lot higher than the thatard of evidence individual companies, cyber companies, would have. the president will have to make a decision to retaliate or not. you want to do that based on as close to 100% certainty as you can get. charlie: they need more certainty before they retaliate? david: what can they do the private companies can't? the nsa's job is to put implants in computer networks around the world to see what is happening. think of them as the cyber equivalent of radar stations that we set up around the world to see airplanes. of course, to do that, you have to break into somebody's system, install an implant that is good enough that nobody will find it, keep it going, care and feeding

of it each day, checking on it, make sure it is in the right place. you are watering it, treating it in the end, bonsai. the u.s. may or may not have ofdence that those implants, who ordered this or the data when it comes back. they may see something that the rest of us don't know. that is what it -- what happened in the sony case. the u.s. was inside north korea's systems and had good direct evidence that north korea ordered the attack. charlie: they could see. david: we don't know and they haven't said if that is the case. charlie: the idea, if you don't want people to know what you have, you want them to stop doing whatever they do, that used to be the deal with cell phones. you remember how the cia got crazy because, maybe it was the times. of'ssaid -- they found

phone number. david: it was published and he stopped using cell phones. charlie: the community got upset about it. david: they did. the same thing is true with these implants, and this was a big issue during the snowden revelations three summers ago, because we had evidence of how they were inside china, we publish a lot of that because at that point, the intelligence community was telling me -- telling us that the chinese intelligence had copies of the documents. we learned that while the u.s. warns everybody not to buy chinese made telecom equipment from a certain company, they were inside that company. the question here is not, does everybody spy on each other. of course they do. the question is, how do you use that material? and in this case, it you believe the american officials, the offense is not spying, the offense is using it to manipulate an election. charlie: that is going beyond the pale, if you try to

manipulate election. david: and if you are blocked -- let amir pugin, -- vladimir putin, you say, how is that different from the u.s. actions? ,harlie: it is the notion of when a government does it for private concerns, even if they are state-owned, that was an issue between the u.s. and the chinese. my impression is, the chinese said, we won't do that anymore. to satisfy the obama consideration. david: that's right. the rules that u.s. set up and try to negotiate with the chinese, this is not worked with russia, is, stealing intellectual property is illegal in both countries if you are coming into your studio and stealing your scripts. so it should be, there should be a norm against that in the cyber realm. there was an effort by the u.s.

to try to impose a norm, which not many others have signed up to, like the chinese, that says we won't interfere with emergency services. and we also won't interfere with the computer emergency response you backho try to get online. and what is coming down the line is, i think the u.s. would like a rule that says, we are going to agree to not mess with each other's nuclear codes. that could lead to a huge problem. charlie: such a huge risk. want: but you would only that deal with the other major nuclear powers. it is unclear how you would handle it with everybody else. charlie: the senator from , who used to be the chairman of the intelligence committee, the ranking minority member, has asked the fbi to investigate and release whatever their determination is as to whether or not the russians did it. david: she did this with the

intelligence member on the house side. the ranking house side. i talked to representative shift about that this weekend. here is the concern. two very major hacks on the u.s. government, in which everybody knows who is believed to have done them. the net -- the government has never accused countries. the first was the theft of state department e-mails and white house e-mails and an attack on the joint chiefs of staff that is widely believed, inside the u.s. intelligence committee can -- to be the work of the same two russian intelligence agencies. you know what they are doing at home. what they are doing back in washington right now is comparing the signatures on the dnc hack to the state department-white house and jcf -- charlie: they have an organized

approach. david: if the russian cyber community is anything, it is highly, highly organized. more organized and subtle over the years than the chinese. the chinese did the opposite. in both cases, the u.s. government decided not to go reveal what they knew, in part maybe for diplomatic reasons, in part because they didn't want to reveal the intelligence about how they knew it. what you saw senator feinstein is,representative schiff do say look. this is so important of the -- to the operation of democracy that if you have evidence here, you find a way to make it public. charlie: the fbi is not responding. david: and you know what? it is not the fbi's decision. it will be the white house. you will have a fight that is going to come between, i don't know this, but i can predict it from history, between the intelligence community and people who say we can't reveal

our methods, and others who will say, if you accuse the russians of messing with the system, you had better be ready to back it up. charlie: do you assume we will retaliate? david: assuming the president is persuaded that this evidence is as good as we think it is from the private sector, it is hard for me to imagine, i wrote a story about this on the sunday times. it is hard for me to imagine that he couldn't do, couldn't avoid doing something. as in the case of sony, this goes beyond just spy versus spy. sony was important because he believed the north koreans were going after free speech and threatening theater goers. this would be important because, if you don't retaliate, the message you send is, our electoral system can be manipulated freely from the outside. charlie: there is the political ramifications in terms of, not just manipulating an election,

with thehis being done approval, knowledge, direction of vladimir putin? do we think this is pugin orderingthis -- putin this? these it could be one of intelligence agencies, or a freelancer hired by them. they are trying to impress pugin that they are evening the playing field. it may have not been ordered. to have easy in cyber cutouts. in the nuclear world, we knew the 20 or 30 people who could launch nuclear weapons. we knew the russians were, we -- newnew winter it was or it was coming from. easye cyber world, it is to hire outsiders and have them do an attack that it is -- that is from a different location. it is fascinating that they were

so sloppy about leaving pieces of evidence. charlie: we have been talking about foreign-policy implications and what donald trump knows or doesn't know. you interviewed him. what is your question about what he knows about russia? it is hard to know what he said, because he said so many things. i met him, i talked to him, i never, i don't know the guy. whathe talks about crimea, does he mean? what does he understand? when he talks about nato, is he saying they ought to pay their bills? or that it should be a percentage of the gdp? david: you have to separate out two different sets of issues. i have talked to him with maggie for three hours on national security issues over two interviews, one in march and one in cleveland. my impression is this.

, theye issues in which have been hobbyhorses of his for a while, like the fact that other members of nato don't pay their share, he is taking something that he has said and he is escalating into the next level. nobody disagrees, including president obama, that the members of nato are not carrying their weight. what is different is, -- charlie: they call them free riders. it includes britain. david: the ones doing the most to carry their weight are the baltic states, the new members who are most worried about russia. charlie: and to nato should be concerned about. that's right. they are such small economies that they are not much contributors in the larger nato enterprise because of their small size. he is taking this argument and going the next step and saying, if you don't pay up, i may pull out of nato. when we saw him in cleveland, the night before his acceptance

speech, i said to him, i have just been it -- in estonia. if you saw the russians attacking or undermining one of these countries, would you come to their defense? and his answer was, i would basically check first and see whether or not they have been making their contribution. well, then president obama came back and said, this is an alliance. this is not a business transaction in which we checked the ledgers each time. it would be a little like, your house is burning, charlie, you call the fire department, and let's check and see where your property tax payments are. dot i think he is trying to may simply be, what mr. trump is doing, is be a negotiating tactic to scare them into paying more for fear that we would pull back.

the problem is, that feeds into an existing insecurity among many in europe that the u.s. is pulling back, and of donald trump doesn't get elected, this reflects a broader move within from.s. to withdraw itself conflicts and from its defense commitments. same question in japan and south korea. thanks for coming. david sanger from the new york times. back in a moment. ♪

♪ charlie: we continue our conversation on politics and foreign policy with richard hass, from the council on foreign relations. donald trump and foreign-policy. can you define it? richard: it has two dimensions. one is economic nationalism, the idea that foreign policy is something of a drain and that the real purpose of american foreign-policy should be to serve the american economy. the other is retrenchment, or of minimalism or isolationism. it is consistent with the idea that foreign policy is more about cost than benefits. he wants to dial down dramatically on what we do, and in his view, i believe that would spare us the problems of international involvement and put aside a big pile of resources he believes could better be used at home. charlie: that is much more sophisticated than i imagined.

i think it is simply more transactional. sees alliances as transactions. if you take a step back, it reflects a larger mindset of the world ripped us off, by and large most the equivalent domestically, when he says the game is rigged, he says the world is ripping us off, allies of cost us more than they helped us. don't emmy rossum, i think this is wrong, but when you look at history, the u.s. has paid more than it has benefited from international involvement. just the price of leadership, the benefit of leadership. we won the cold war, we had an extraordinary 75 lead -- years of world leadership. we are still powerful. world war ii turned out the way it did, the axis lost. the cold war turned up the wii it did. we have done quite well beginning with the gulf war. the only mistakes we have made,

the three biggest ones, were going north of the 38th parallel in korea, trying to reunify the country, vietnam, then iraq. those are examples of american overreach. those weren't our allies that misled us. we were not forced to do those things. those were all self-created. charlie: you think trump borders and isolationism? richard: he is conscious of the alleged costs and isn't thinking through, what happens when we dialback? what about the proliferation, the conflicts, what about the lost markets? , he is aost like businessman. it is like he is looking at one side of the ledger, how do we save? he is not looking at the revenues. charlie: or how do we invest? richard: he is missing the lost worldes in which -- in a in which the united states still leads. charlie: when looking at ukraine, explain it to me. does it make you wonder, what does he really know? he seems to operate on instinct.

he takes pride in that. richard: he takes pride in that. the only way i could think of defending him, and it is a stretch, would be that in the case of eastern ukraine, you have not had uniform russian divisions going there, but funny -- on uniformed guys going in, to themea was a threat principle of international relations. the one thing we can all agree on is that you cannot use military force to change borders. it is the one idea of sovereignty. it has been around for a couple hundred years. when saddam hussein tried it in kuwait, the world, including the soviet union, came together to rebuff it. charlie: you can't use military force to change governments? richard: no, borders. what russia did is clearly a threat to the postwar order, the order in europe.

we didn't have the military option to resist them, i understand that. but the fact that we have resisted with sanctions, or penalized russia, makes sense. mr. trump suggested that he would examine or look at the sanctions policy. you have the story about the republican platform not talking about providing legal assistance insteadkraine, appropriate assistance, whatever that means. what seems to be missing is a willingness to push back against russia when russia violates the norms in international society. charlie: you think he has a rose-colored vision of -- richard: there seems to be a benign view of let a widespread acceptance of what russia has and the middle east in the case of syria. what is hard for me is that the focus on russia. think about it. russia is a country of one

hundred 43 million. it has a one-dimensional economy that has shrunk 10% over the last couple years. it is not a great power. it is exercising more it -- more influence than recently. richard: putin is looking for foreign policy to compensate richard: putin is looking for foreign policy to compensate what they don't have. he is good at exploiting opportunities. there was a new york times piece of office two. what you saw was speaker after speaker that he is no comprehension of american values. you saw democrats take on the american exceptionalism argument that have been frequently expressed by republicans. richard: i still left but i am a george herbert walker bush republican. a realist who believes in institutions.

i do not like talking about it, we should be it rather than talk about it, be someone others want to emulate and work with. charlie rose: if you take that, the democrats one after another grasp america,ot they were attacking essentially his appreciation of what the history and constitution of america. richard: what i think you have is one candidate, hillary clinton, who was operating within the 40 yard lines of foreign policy, the post-world war ii consensus, and donald trump is not. he is the first major party candidate that is working far beyond. i think it's connected to

foreign policy. if you look at his views on immigration and other issues, they are not part of the traditional governing consensus. in maize it may be reflects, 70% of america thinks we're headed in the wrong direction, he is clearly tapping into that. charlie rose: they believe we are in the wrong track. they believe that obama is now experiencing a rise in his ratings. so as the wrong track has risen, president obama's popularity has risen. richard: as part of the dilemma for hillary clinton. you want to argue continuity. you have a president whose favorability is roughly 50%, then it easily 70% of americans say we are on the wrong track. charlie rose: that is continuity, not change. richard: absolutely, and that is the dilemma of the clinton campaign, to what extent do you represent yourself as arguing for continuity?

divided, thes might be the only explanation for the different numbers he suggested. charlie rose: was hillary clinton a good secretary of state? richard: yes, i think the biggest thing she did was to pivot. the idea that the united states is not going to spend a disproportionate share of its resources in the middle east, but instead of just, not switch, to adjust to a part of the world: asia. i think that was the big idea of obama's foreign policy. charlie rose: he says that he copied bush 41. richard: it was too limited. that might have been his impulse he would have argued further , retrenchment. bush was an international leader but he did not retrench. obama has retrenched and he went too far. charlie rose: retrenchment is the hallmark of his

foreign policy as well as multilateralism. richard: when history is going to be rough on obama is that the retrenchment got out of hand. he went too far things in dialing down. he thought the world could organize itself, it could not. the only thing that went positively, is putting more eggs into the asian basket. but the transpacific partnership is sitting there on my support in the american congress. charlie: both parties are against it. we have bipartisan agreement that free trade is not desirable, the strategic as well as economic consequences of that are potentially true. charlie: i suspect that the , they gave more rhetoric to it. and it was more dialing

down in the middle east and asian pacific. charlie: that was argued differently, they said we tried to go to vietnam and create a level of cooperation and we made our presence there felt. richard: we did things more dramatically in the first obama term, less in the second term. the trade deal is a big thing that has not been consummated. a little more military presence. charlie rose: if you wanted to call the jake sullivan of the trump candidacy who would you , call? richard: we would have to call him. charlie: there is no james baker. and there is no equivalent of what condoleezza rice did for g.w. in terms of the foreign

relations, does not know his name. the scale difference between what hillary clinton has. is not just foreign policy, it is the politics of the thing. richard: it is also consistent with the fact that hillary clinton is arguing for more traditional foreign-policy. mored trump is arguing for -- far less foreign-policy. charlie: that brings me back to putin, people have told me that what is at play is not so much that he favors donald trump, , it is mainly that dislikes hillary clinton because she has done things to him that he thinks --richard: if i may paraphrase mr. trump, i do not have a relationship with mr. putin. [laughter] is, if yourpoint

vladimir putin, the candidate who is raising questions about american support for its traditional allies in europe, says he will revisit the issues ,f the ukraine and sanctions clearly that is a more appealing outcome. here is what is more interesting, as one of his very good friends said to me during a republican convention, who spoke on the same night he spoke -- richard: narrative the options. charlie: -- he said to me on the air, for him, everything is transactional. it is an opening bid. richard: that may well be true. charlie: therefore whatever he , opens with, don't expect that to be where he expects to end up. richard: that may work with businesses, but foreign-policy is not about transactions, it is about relationships and

predictability and reliability. you have to be careful with opening bids if they suggest a degree of change or lack of certainty. countries are counting on us. they have basically franchised out a big chunk of the national security to the united states. they have got to know that that is a rocksolid commitment. if not, they will either appease stronger neighbors like russia or china or they will go their own way and develop their own capabilities and ultimately, nuclear weapons. those are two outcomes we have to guard against. as result, we cannot afford an opening bid foreign-policy that the parts from a degree of predictability and reliability. isbe a great power, it essential that countries know there are certain things they can take for granted. there got to be some assumptions. charlie rose: apart from donald trump, are there any new big ideas on foreign-policy?

richard: for the last 20 years, there's been a debate. the big the date -- debate is between between george h w bush and the transformers like the people on the right and left to want to create democracies, bush 43 and some others. that has been the big debate. that debate is over, we now have a different debate between internationalists and shades of isolationists. --ve gone from a debate the argument used to be about the government or not, and the army is open or closed. richard: it used to be between big and medium foreign-policy, but now it is between medium and small foreign-policy. bernie sanders to the democratic platform and donald trump, what we have not seen several generations.

a serious push toward small foreign-policy. charlie: richard, thank you. the president of the council on foreign relations. back in moment. ♪ ?c+sv charlie: jimmy walker is here.

he is the pga champion, he led the four-day tournament from start to finish, defending the top-ranked player, jason day. the victory was walker's first major title on tour. also, the first major champion of the 2016 golf season. i am pleased to have him here. welcome. about this, look at the names i am looking at here, arnold palmer, all the great ones are here. jimmy: they are. charlie: you said you knew you would win this. you knew you wouldn't win a major, you knew it was coming at some jimmy: i did. point. i had that belief in myself and my abilities that this was possible one day. for it to come true yesterday was a dream come true. in a sense, once you

you want to leave something so that the likelihood of winning more is more likely. jimmy: once you know you can do something, the gates can open. it is the same thing that happens of a golf tournament. someone thinks the golf course says, youand someone can do that, and you see more scores happen like that. i think that is the same way. event, it my first was the same way. once, youave won it know you can do it again. charlie: has your game changed between this and when you won your first tournament? jimmy: it is about the same. i've not played quite as well as i would've liked to. i knew it was right there. i felt like i had i felt like a breakthrough we could go in canada i felt like some stuff , was really starting to materialize. was that from practice,

or did it just sort of happened? jimmy: it is from practice and better thinking and staying in a positive frame of mind, not getting down. staying upbeat, it has been a bit of both. say aboutou used to tiger at his best, he had a mental edge that his father had drilled that into him. jimmy: i think so. everybody can stand out there and hit a golf ball, what separates the great players is that ability to mentally dominate the field. this, 65, 66,n to 67. could you hear the footsteps of jason day? jimmy: i saw the footsteps. he was right in front of me. [laughter]

jimmy: that was nice, being the last group in the drivers seat. you are leading every day, that is what you get to do. jimmy: being in the last group is huge because you control your fate. charlie rose: anything you want to change about your game? jordan last year, he said maybe at 10 yards. jimmy: for me, it is more about finding more fairways. [laughter] jimmy: i've not been the historically straightest driver , of the golf cart. but i drove it very well last week. how many times were you on the fairway? jimmy: i hit the fairway three times and in the water once. it kind of hopped a few times left. that is what i would like to improve. i'm not talking about a lot.

from 52-60, that would be huge. today, athere he is modern golfer. they're working on your mental attitude, your body, your swing. it is almost like team walker. jimmy: that is right, there are not a lot of teams and that has happened with golf. it is been a while since i worked with a sports psychologist. i actually started working with a lady about a month ago. charlie: what did you teach -- what did she teach you, what did you learn from her? jimmy: we are just really getting into it. we have not dove super deep into it the stuff that we have been , talking about, trusting yourself and what you are doing and believing in yourself. charlie: owning it. jimmy: you have to, it has been great so far. charlie: do you have a pro that

works with you? jimmy: i do, i have worked with butch harmon. guynted to see the best that i could, and he took me in, it has been a great ride. charlie: what did they do for someone who hits a ball as well as you do? me, it was a few little fine tunes with keeping the body quiet, shorter. i have a big come along swing. i have a tendency to let the body and arms run on and and run away from the rest of the body, then i guess that he find it. taking care of that, and when you have the best teacher in the world telling you how good you are, it is like a little injection of optimism. charlie: the core and the fundamentals are right there. they can take you anywhere you want to go.

jimmy: i think so. charlie: talk about strategy. when you approach the first tee, it is one of the famous courses. what are you thinking? i would be thinking, i hope i get this ball off the tee. me, i would like to put this ball in the middle of the fairway. i did, a great six iron in the middle of the game where i was supposed to. and just continued that the rest of the day, keeping the ball in the fairway, in front of me. just did not want to make any mistakes. charlie: did you make any mistakes? jimmy: technically, no. no bogeys. but there were some shots i would like to take back. why do you think you are as good as you are, as your performance suggests? jimmy: i don't think it, i know

i'm good. charlie: is it just because he got there and see you can play as well as anybody? on a good day, i can beat anybody. charlie: you have to have everything in order to beat anybody? jimmy: sometimes, sometimes you don't have anything. to pick it you have up, work on everything. if you're not kidding your irons, it is a balance of being on. something needs to be on every day to keep moving up the leaderboard. charlie: i don't know where this question is coming from. the often most overlooked shot is the second shot. whatever your iron is, that is the most overlooked productive

shot. jimmy: i can see that. because the second shot can really help set up if you're going to make a birdie or an eagle. the tee shot is important, you want to be on the fairway, it is one-dimensional. but the second shot has much more strategy involved. do i want the uphill putt? can i hit it underneath the whole and have the uphill putt? thedo not want to have downhill curler, there is a lot of strategy where to hit it. charlie: did harmon refuse to take your check at the beginning? jimmy: he kind of did. he started working with me, i went and paid him. he said he could not work with me at tournaments and ended up doing that. charlie: because he had other people? jimmy: because he had other

people, and i understood that. but he saw me at charlotte, and it was great. much, letank you so me know what i oh you. -- owe you. he said nothing. he came out and watch me play and we practiced. after the week, i had a great week. i said, what do i owe you? i could not do that. i do from talking to him that he enjoyed fine wine. said, thist home and is a no-brainer. charlie: when did you know when golf was your passion? jimmy: when i beat my dad for the first time. i was 15. my dad was a really good player.

15 i beat him, i had he had 69. i knew if i can beat my dad i would be pretty good at the game. 15 that so you knew it you had what it takes to be a pro? jimmy: i knew it is what i wanted to do. did i know how much it took? i think i knew how good i was becoming in college my senior year at baylor. i learned how to really play the game and shoe good scores. when you beatack your father you knew you are in the right lane? jimmy: yes, the right path. charlie: did he know it? jimmy: in a sense, yes i think so. he and i haveg

done forever, we watched golf forever and talk about it. talked about wanting to be out there, playing on the pga tour. you're a photographer? specifically, and asked her photographer, what is that? jimmy: astrophotography is taking pictures of deep sky objects at night. i don't do any planets but mostly deep sky galaxies and nebulas. charlie: how did you come to this? jimmy: this started about six years ago, i had a telescope in the backyard. my wife got it for me for christmas, the light pollution in san antonio, there was not much to see. i attached a filter to it, it just got crazy from there. charlie: you became obsessed? jimmy: i did become obsessed. i had a lot of fun doing it.

i was much more than just a golfer. it gave me something to do outside of normal life, and it is a form of art. i used to love drawing and now it is on the computer. but it is still arts, what we do. astrophotography is not just a technical thing it is an art , form. charlie: has nasa bought some of these photographs? jimmy: they were chosen by nasa. nasa has a thing called astronomy picture of the day. it is one of the oldest running things on the internet. they pick a picture a day. so there are 365 a year thousands of submissions day. , to get one a year is a treat. it seems like anymore, we are getting three to four a year. when you snap it, do you know it will make it?

jimmy: i think so. we put a lot of time into the pictures. charlie: who is we? i have a partner in california who helps me, the equipment is mine. he lives close, and we partnered up. we share the data that comes in so everything -- we just have fun with it. it has been an amazing ride with that. i've really enjoyed it. i still enjoy doing it. i try not to put anything out anymore that i am not 100% proud of. i've kept stuff back. its like arts, if i'm not proud of it, i am not going to put it out there. charlie rose: great to have you here. and congratulations. jimmy walker.

2016, pretty tough course. jimmy: it is. i was happy to come back. charlie: congratulations. pga champion, thank you for joining us. see you next time. ♪

mark: i'm mark crumpton. you are watching bloomberg west. let's check on first word news. a new nbc news monkey poll has hillary clinton leading donald trump 50% to 42%. speaking today in virginia, mr. trump questions the results of some recent surveys. mr. trump: i think we are going to do so great and i see some great holes. -- polls. from "los angeles times" where i fetus -- where ics ahead of 45 points. i see one from cnn where we are down. i think there's something about these polls, there's something phony.