>> from our studios in new york city, this is "charlie rose." jake: i'm jake cap are filling in for charlie rose on assignment. we begin with a conversation about diplomacy and national security. in his you and address, president obama called the refugee crisis one of the urgent tasks of our time and a test of our common humanity. secretary of state john kerry says the cease-fire in syria is not dead. efforts to resume peace talks have been subverted i the bombing of an aid convoy that killed at least 12 people near leppo.

u.s. authorities say russia was responsible for the incident. t followed an american air strike on saturday that was meant to target isis militants killed 60 syrian soldiers. joining me is tony blanck and. good to see you again. i want to get to the refugee crisis but first, an update on why the cease-fire seems to have devolved or disintegrated. although i know you hope it hasn't. first of all, the russians obviously saying that this convoy was not just an aid convoy. is there truth to that? >> there's not. t was just that. it was fully planned and authorized. it was struck, we believe, intentionally and egregiously. the effort that we put so much into with the russians to get a cessation of hostilities and get

humanitarian assistance flowing and to create conditions under which negotiations afford a transition, this is hanging by a thread. what they heard from basically all of our partners is that they want us to try to see if we can get this back on its feet. jake: they say there were weapons traveling with it. they have photographic evidence, i believe. tony: the russians have changed their story for her five times over the last 24 hours. they said maybe something was struck. then they said it wasn't us. then they said that the convoy basically spontaneously combusted and caught on ire. they have been changing their story virtually every hour. but there is clear information

and evidence from social media and eyewitnesses about what happened. but here's the thing. there is a strong desire to see if we can get this back on track. because if we do and we get these sensation of -- cessation of hostilities, it means lives are going to be saved and it means we will get the syrian air force out of the skies. it would make a huge difference. every thing else they've been doing. and it at least creates the atmosphere in which it is possible to look at negotiations resuming on a political transition. that is why it is worth making the extra effort.

but ultimately, it is up to the russians. jake: if they fired upon this aid convoy or if the syrians to quit russian armaments, there would be a reason for it. what with the reason be? >> it is a great question and we don't know the answer. did the military do it? did someone make a mistake? it looks to us intentional, but we honestly don't know the answer. here is what we do know. when you step back, these civil wars and in one of three ways. one side wins. it's not likely to happen because when one side starts to get the advantage, the outside patrons of the other side throw a lot more in. the parties exhaust themselves. on average, we have looked at this. this is your number six. when you have multiple actors, it's even longer. the third way these things and is by some outside intervention. it are military or political. we are not about to intervene

militarily in a way that would end the war because we are not capable of doing that and i don't think the russians ultimately will either. a political intervention is what we are trying to do. as challenging as it is, that is the way to finally bring this to closure. jake: i know there was pushed back from the pentagon when secretary kerry and the state department were pushing forward with this idea and i know secretary kerry's argument is that more than half a million people have been killed. 450,000 to be precise. it is the greatest refugee crisis since world war ii. we need to do something. the military said we can't trust the russians and we can't get into an agreement with them. why did your side when out? did president obama just think, i will try anything at this point? tony: it's not a question of one ide winning or losing. we are all on the same page in not trusting a russian friends on this. that is not the issue.

i don't think secretary kerry trusts them more than anyone else does. but it's about actions. if they take the actions necessary to up hold their commitments for the cessation of hostilities, then good, we can move forward. it's not about trust, it's about actions. >> there is a lot of fear in the united states about the refugees coming in. specifically about people in isis embedding themselves into the refugees and i know that there is thorough vetting. and frankly, about who these refugees might grow up to be. we just saw two attacks, thankfully neither were fatal for any of the innocent people. but a somali refugee taken in as a boy. the other an afghan refugee taken as a boy with his family

that grew up and became radicalized terrorists. tony: any administration's first obligation is to the security of ur fellow americans. so when it comes to refugees, we are very focused on screening and making sure the people we are bringing into this country pass the test. in the least likely way that someone will try to get here and infiltrate the country is a terrorist is through the refugee program because it basically takes the longest. on average, it takes two years with intense vetting from every conceivable agency. irst vetting by the united nations because most are referrals from the u.n. and by our own services. that is the first point. the overwhelming majority of people we take in, we focus on people who are in real jeopardy. women, children, the elderly. the sick.

there are almost very few, less than 2% unattached adult males that come into this program. as a matter of security, it's not the way someone would come in to do harm to this country. the overwhelming majority of people that are leaving everything behind and uprooting their lives, putting their families at risk and in the hands of traffickers, they are doing that because they are fleeing terrorism. they are fleeing violence and onflict. we have a very proud tradition of taking people in. you ask, who do they grow up to e? i was with a young woman the other day who started her life in somalia a. as a result of conflict, fled to yemen. went to egypt. as a result of conflict and had tuberculosis, came here as a teenager. she wound up in minnesota and

finished at the top of her class. 4.0. that's who comes here and who grows up if we give them the chance. an overwhelming majority of these individuals are, if not that exemplary but normal people. hat there is a fear. onald trump, i don't know if -- donald trump jr., i don't know if you saw, but he tweeted or retweeted a picture of a bowl of skittles and the caption said something along the lines of if somebody told you that three of these skittles were poisoned, would you eat from that bowl. i don't know if you saw that and what your response to that would be. tony: i don't do politics in my current job. i have nothing to say. jake: this is an emotional issue for you personally. tony: it is.

we are the product of her own stories and narratives. this is true of so many americans because virtually all of us are, in some ways, an immigrant story or refugee story. in my case, i had a grandfather that was welcomed by the united states and build a terrific life. a stepmother who fled the communists. it literally in the dead of night on a train from hungary. came here because the united states welcomed her. my late stepfather. he was born in poland and went to school with 900 children. he was the only survivor of that school and the holocaust. he spent those years in all of the concentration camp you can think of. at the end of the war, jake, he was on a death march out of the concentration camps and he made a run for it.

he made it to the forest despite being shot at and somehow survived escaping this death march. fter a couple days, he heard the sound and he came out from where he was hiding and instead of seeing the dreaded swastika, what he saw was a five pointed white star on a tank. and he ran to the tank. and the hatch opened and an african american g.i. stood looking down at him. and he got down on his knees and he said the only three words that he knew in english. god bless america. the g.i. lifted him into the tank, in effect, into the united states. nto freedom. that is who we are. that is what we are. that is why this matters so uch.

jake: why do you think there is such a climate of fear in the united states right now about this issue? tony: it's even larger than this issue. it's understandable. there is so much going on in the world and people know about it immediately. it creates as much heat as it does light. there is a sense of confusion and chaos. when you look at what is happening overall, there has never been a better time in human history to be on this planet in terms of the progress we have made. people are healthier, wealthier, wiser and more tolerant. overall. if you could pick any time in history not knowing where you would be born or what race or religion you would be, you would pick today. but despite this progress, too

many of our fellow citizens feel left out and left behind, that somehow the system is not working for them. unless we can address that, i think those that would make hay out of concerns that are understandable that people feel when things are changing around them, including new people coming into their communities, it will be very difficult to sustain. he divide that we have right now is really not between left and right, democrat or republican. it really is between people that would erect walls and those that want to keep building bridges. i think the bridge builders are right but they have to be able to demonstrate that this more open world, an america open to the world works for all of our fellow citizens. jake: i think the president sees im self as a circuit

breaker. there is a huge pressure to just do something. o react. and his approach has been to say, wait a minute, let's take a step back and understand what happening and think through the response. let's work it that way. not to just be reactive. and sometimes in the short term, that can cause a political cost. it also feeds into those that say you are not acting decisively. but you have marry wisdom and trength. jake: let's talk about that. the present -- the president has said how proud he was of his decision not to use force after threatening to use force against assad after he drew that red line. there was a diplomatic effort undertaken with russia by secretary kerry and the foreign minister of russia to remove chemical weapons. and for some time, president

obama was very proud of that. we know now that assad continues to use chemical weapons. we know now that -- and i'm not blaming it on president obama, but we know the crisis in syria s caused the worst refugee crisis since world war ii, tremendous instability in the region. a lot of our allies are unsure of the commitment of the united states after that red line threat was not followed through on. how is that threat not being carried out. look at a been worse than what we're seeing which is such a disaster. i just disagree. it was the right decision and here's why. it was about chemical weapons and their use by the syrian regime. in the line was about that use. we were prepared. the president was prepared to use force to try to deter him from using chemical weapons. but we could not have taken out

the weapons or the stockpiles. it would've created a catastrophe. the military response would not have ended the regime. it was hopefully to determine him from using them further. as we were doing that, we got into this. and as that was happening, the russians came in and we were able to get assad and the regime to give up the vast stockpiles of chemical weapons that they have without firing a shot. it would not have been directed against michael weapons. the overwhelming majority of the stockpile, the infrastructure has been removed or destroyed. that means for all the neighboring states starting with israel, the strategic threat posed by the chemical weapons arsenal is gone. they continue to use some weapons and what we -- what they seem to be using is now chlorine. which is not a prescribed chemical but when used as a weapon is prohibited by the chemical weapons convention. jake: which was part of the deal. tony: so they are in violation of their obligations. i still believe very strongly

that in terms of what we're trying to accomplish, which was limited to getting rid of the chemical weapons arsenal and the infrastructure, it was largely accomplished without firing a shot. there is residual use. it is horrific. one of the things we are working now is to the united nations. we've had an organization that has investigated these uses and ascribed responsibility. hopefully with the russians supporting it, moving forward on asic accountability.

jake: president bill clinton came to feel that what he did or didn't do in rwanda was the greatest failure of his presidency. do you ever fear that syria will go down as president obama's rwanda? >> any of us in any way responsible for our foreign policy probably go to bed virtually every night or wake up in the morning thinking about syria. and feeling a tremendous sense of frustration. and a sense of responsibility. the responsibility is with a sawed and what he has done to his own people. there is also responsibility to go around in the

neighborhood. it's not as if anyone was able to effectively stand up and do nything. there's responsibility on the hands of russians and the uranian's that prop up the regime. e worked relentlessly over the last six years and we tried to do it in a way that we thought could best answer the problem consistent with our own interest as well as our values. we have been by far the largest provider of humanitarian assistance to syria. have supported, significantly, the syrian opposition. it hasn't sufficed to change the facts on the ground, but we have upported that. we have worked relentlessly to

find a diplomatic way forward. i do not believe in american intervention of the kind that we saw in iraq and syria would produce the result we wanted. to the contrary, it would make things worse. and it would be an additional recruiting tool for the other big challenge we are facing. and by the way, that is a challenge that i think we have been addressing very effectively. we have daesh on the run and on the ropes in iraq and syria. jake: thank you so much. we appreciate your time and your candor. tony: thanks for your time, ake. ♪

jake: we continue this evening with foreign minister of ireland charles flanigan. representatives from 193 member states meant to develop accorded approach to the refugee crisis. the number of displaced people surpassed world war ii levels with 65 million people fleeing violence or political persecution. ireland was ordered to collect $14.5 billion in unpaid taxes from apple. the irish government is appealing the ruling. i am pleased to have charles

flanigan on the program. charles: very pleased to be here. jake: for people that might not be completely familiar with this and the details of ireland and apple, you don't want to give apple the 14.5 billion dollars. you want them to not have to pay that. explain that to our viewers. charles: this was announced by the commission on the relationship between apple and ireland. it funds foreign and direct investment. it gives jobs and in excess of 100,000 of our people. the european commission decided to embark on an investigation with the relationship between ireland and apple. we don't agree with the analysis and i fundamentally disagree with their findings. we don't accept the finding of the commission. we have appealed because we believe this matter should be the subject of individual nations. there are a number of inconsistencies with this

analysis. a number of flaws in this eport. we want an individual decision. jake: in this country, politicians often talk about how low the corporate tax rate is in ireland as a way of trying to say that the corporate tax rate in the united states should be lower. ireland prides itself on having this low corporate tax rate. what would it mean if ireland were not able to attract businesses the way you are currently able to. harles: ireland is a very good place in which to do business. so many high-tech companies and pharma corporations find themselves putting their hq or major plant and ireland. we are the gateway to the european union.

english speaking people, a market of 500 million people. as well as the fact that we have an attractive tax rate, it's only one aspect of what ireland has to offer. we have a talented, young, into z asked at work force that are prepared to adapt the appropriate nature of the job at hand. we have a very good track record. u.s. companies like ireland. the city of dublin and the regions of ireland. we offer a u.s. -- the far right and the far left would be saying hat. apple pays taxes to the ull.

it pays taxes on what they produce. everyone has an iphone. that is designed for silicon alley. they would be a tax collector. another reason being that the finding dates back as far as 1991. i don't believe it is in the best interest of business or in he best interest of law to allow for retrospection. ireland works with international bodies in order to ensure that we have a tax regime that is fair and equitable. and the corporations pay their

fair share of taxes. in ireland, we have appealed this decision and we look forward to winning the judgment. jake: if you don't, are you afraid that other companies will pullout? charles: we are proud of what we can offer and we are confident in that regard. jake: ireland is a proud member of the european union. is this not precisely the kind of thing -- is that what frustrates so many people in the european union and ultimately may have played a role? charles: ireland has enjoyed its relationship in the european union. it has been a hugely positive relationship. in spite of the fact that the uk has embarked upon the process of leaving the union, ireland won't e leaving the union. they don't have much in common with our european partners. i was disappointed as my government colleagues were that the uk decided to leave the european union after 43 years.

however, i accept that result. we've now got to plan accordingly. it represents a challenge because of our unique relationship with the united kingdom. we share a common language. we share a common parliamentary democracy. we have much in common with them. ireland, of course, it would be a serious problem and a great challenge as far as northern ireland is concerned. but the people of northern ireland opted by a significant margin to remain. northern ireland being a part of the united kingdom. but they voted by a significant argin to remain. northern ireland itself is not a unitary member of the european

union. it is part of the united kingdom and it is the united kingdom that will decide on its embership. the prime minister has indicated she would embark on the process of removing the uk, which includes northern ireland. that will happen early next ear.

the process will take a couple years. i do not underestimate the serious league of complexities involved. what we would like, from an irish perspective, is that the status quo will be retained in so far as it can. but that will be difficult, because like any club, you cannot withdraw your membership, and enjoy the benefits of that membership. we are waiting to see what the british ask is going to be since the result of the 24th of june. i have had an opportunity of meeting with each and every one of my 27 eu foreign affairs olleagues. i have impressed upon them the unique situation with ireland, not only in terms of trade, but we have a common travel area, which we have enjoyed since our independence. where people from ireland can

live and work, and enjoy welfare benefits. nd the similarly, how citizens of the united kingdom can do so n ireland. northern ireland's political divisions are fragile. they have suffered greatly from hostilities. there were times when the european union played an important role in facilitating the peace process. george mitchell, gary hart, and successive administrations have offered support and nurturing in our peace process in the withdrawal of the united kingdom from the european union. it will test that certainty and we have the legal framework, which is the historic good friday agreement. it charged the legal relationship with northern

ireland under south and east-west wing london and dublin. i have been impressing on my eu colleagues at the ministerial level and here in new york to my american colleagues, the unique situation in which the island of ireland finds itself. the challenge must not be underestimated. jake: given so much of what drove brexit had to do with immigration and the refugee crisis, you're going to have to change the border situation with northern ireland that you currently have. charles: one of the great dvantages of the peace process is that the border between ireland and northern ireland is invisible. thousands cross the border every day to work, attend college, go to school, and visit family members.

jake: it is an open border? charles: the only visible signs of the border are that in northern ireland we operate by miles, whereas in ireland it is columbus. the road -- and ireland it is kilometers. the roadsigns are the biggest change. so the dividing line between the european union and non-european union presented challenge. it is not in the business of anybody to have a heavily ortified or hard border. jake: don't you have to? charles: i think we can work it out. we have faced difficult challenges in the past. it depends on the agreement that emerges. special consideration must be given to the unique situation, which is the border. a heavily fortified border it's in nobody's interest.

it will bring back the peace process decades. it will serve as a grave disadvantage for people north and south. charles: the refugee -- jake: the refugee crisis caused by war in syria is one of the reasons for brexit, for people uneasy about open borders. are the people of ireland concerned when they see, though few of them were refugees, if any, when they see the terror attacks in paris and brussels, the stories about women being assaulted and worse in germany. oes that create an environment where your commitment, and commitment of the government to the european union, and the project to help assimilate these people, most of whom are

peaceloving and fleeing hell in syria. charles: this is one of the greatest challenges faced by the international community0 in particular -- community. in particular, either european union. they need a unique formula that would allow a level of humanitarian age that would be evident within the union. the best manager through which we can approach this is addressing the root conflict. coming together, over 192 states, sitting around the table and in many of the meetings on the margins, devising strategy. the international community, to bring to bear. the need to cease hostilities. the need to work out a political solution rather than a military olution.

in the meantime we have to address the humanitarian challenges of our time. particularly those from syria and northern iraq, people who are suffering immeasurably from conflict. they are left with no choice than to flee their homes, communities, villages. often with no more than a knapsack on their back. it is important that the european union, the powerful bodies of the wealthiest states, play a role to eliminate the suffering. we are working toward that this year. we will have received almost 1000 refugees from syria. now i accept the fact that ireland is in the first port of call from syria. an area of some distance, in erms of proximity. different culture, different language, different climate. some syrian refugees have

settled in my own district in the midlands of ireland. it is a challenge in terms of language, opportunity, and mental trauma they are suffering. all of the european nations, all of our states -- i have the opportunity of engaging with my u.s. colleagues. this is how i was struck by what secretary of state john kerry has said. the leadership he has shown on the international stage that shows everyone can play their part. from my own perspective, the members of the european community. jake: let me ask a question, i hope you do not take me rude. talking about the biggest refugee crisis since world war

ii, and you talk about ireland taking in 4000. that does not seem like a lot of people. i know that the united states has been criticized for not taking an as many, even though we are a bigger and richer country. charles: i'm anxious that be done at the earliest opportunity and acknowledge there have been bureaucratic delays in terms of the paperwork, the administration. you cannot just open your doors and accept the first 4000 who arrived in the port. there has to be process, there has to be regulation, and law and order. it is important that all eu tates play their part. ireland is a small state. they have agreed to accept 4000. i don't anticipate this is an issue that will be resolved at an early opportunity. will have the 4000 relocated, to be welcomed in our community,

ran across the island of ireland in terms of villages and towns. people have responded positively. we will ensure that we play our part in what is the greatest humanitarian challenge of our time. jake: charlie flanagan, thank you so much. charles: please to be here. ♪

jake: we conclude this evening with kevin. his article, imagine what donald trump's first term as president might look like. good to have you here. first of all, i need to offer you an apology. not that i ever did anything about it, but you wrote a piece last summer about all of the white supremacists, white nationalists, neo-nazis, etc, supporting donald trump. when i first read it, i thought evan, you were in china took along, you are overreacting. there are a few of these characters, but it's not part of his supporters in a real sense. i was wrong. i never said this publicly. there are a great deal of what

supremacists who are firmly behind donald trump's campaign. i'm sorry that i doubted you. evan: i appreciate the point because i doubted myself. i went out and started talking to people. i was in alabama, ohio, india. a few places -- indiana. a few places where people who were nationalists started to say we are excited about donald trump. i couldn't figure out if this were meaningful. a lot of things exist. how much does it affect the process? i said i don't know if it will matter as much as i think that it does, but it has become a defining piece of the candidacy. i'm glad that i wrote about it. jake: before anyone starts tweeting or sending angry letters, we are not calling most supporters of donald trump any of that.

we're just saying there is a small portion of that community that are very excited about donald trump. donald trump's daughter converted to orthodox judaism. his son-in-law is jewish. he has several jewish grandchildren. he says that he doesn't hold any of these views. why do these groups have such faith in him? evan: they see in him somebody who is willing to gleefully violate the norms of politics which have prevented certain kinds of discussion being on the main stage. such as the idea that immigrants are not just a policy question, but some moral and physical assault on your security. he talks about it in harsh ways that have almost no place in conventional politics. all of a sudden donald trump's talking about his very commencement speech. then there are people who like donald trump for what many americans would describe as

reasons they find repugnant. there are many more reasons than just too -- then just two. it is one of the hard things that all of us have struggled with. jake: i have been saying for a long time, inherently, the messages of your government -- messages of "your government is broken," " your government is not protecting you from terror," "your government is not looking out for you," there is nothing inherently defensive -- offensive. evan: as donald trump would say, something is going on. so why is this happening. what does this tell us about donald trump and the mood in the country? from the french, would begin to learn something about the nderlying structural mood. -- the fringe, we begin to learn

something about the underlying structural mood. jake: let's talk about your piece. what would president from do? i would imagine that a lot of people picking this up in the bible of liberal new yorkers. a magazine i read every week would think, this is going to be good. you took this very seriously. this is not, "he paints the white house gold and pimps air orce one." evan: you could write about the prospect of a trump presidency as sci-fi or farce, or fanfiction. we said this is different. this began with an observation that one of the few things that unifies both the supporters and critics is that neither side believes he will do a lot of the things he says.

42% of republicans don't believe he would build a wall, which is the central promise of his campaign. so we said, what would you do? in what could he do? one is intent and the other is power. how do they intersect and what would he be able to accomplish? jake: he is surrounded by a bunch of smart conservatives. you spoke with a number of them. there is a flip side to how president obama has governed so often by executive order, with his pen and a phone, as he has said. there is a flip side. van: this is a vulnerability that the trump campaign identified. as stephen moore said, if you rule by executive order, you are vulnerable to the possibility that these things can be overturned. one of the things of the things the trunk campaign is planning is known as the first day project. on the first day, or within a few days, donald trump would seek to erase the obama

administration's legacy by issuing 25 executive orders that would systematically go through and undermine the cornerstones of the obama administration. one of the things could be that president from would have the legal authority to renounce the paris climate change agreement. it doesn't change the agreement, but it could with from the united states. there is a process it would go through, but it would begin that process. another thing that president from could do on day one, this is what they are talking about on the campaign and in my interviews, they are thinking of doing, suspending the refugee resettlement program. restarting explanation of the keystone pipeline. the other is to relax background checks. this would be directed to the atf which would say, one of the orders that president obama put into effect no longer applies.

there is a process. if something has gone past the rulemaking phase, there is a process of public comment. what donald trump could do is, with the use of his pen, he could have a much larger effect on our political status quo then democrats and a lot of republicans. >> a lot of what he would want to accomplish would be a cop pushed through legislation and repealing obama care for example. it's hard to imagine a president trump without imagining that the republicans keep the house and the senate. it seems unlikely that he would win and the republicans would lose the senate. so he would have a cooperative capitol hill. evan: one of the assumptions inside the campaign, according to newt gingrich, who is the most senior political adviser, who knows the hill, knows washington, newt told me they

would come in with control of congress. that would give them the ability to do more than president obama has been able to accomplish as president. i should add, there are a number of things that theoretically democrats could filibuster. if he tried to overturn obamacare, democrats could resist. if you try to lower taxes, democrats could resist. one of the things we are coming to discover is, we are in an era where parliamentary rules are changing. this not inconceivable that a republican congress could rewrite the rules in the filibuster anyway that would make it harder for democrats to resist. evan: which harry reid did to a degree when it came to some nominations when the democrats ave control.

jake: when harry reid -- evan: when harry reid said we will no longer have filibuster for judicial nominees, which opened the door a crack to get rid of the filibuster. jake: how likely is it that you think donald trump will win? for those of us who go on 538 by nate silver. the odds going from something like 20% to the clinton's 80%, getting better and better for him, worse and wo for worse and worse for her. evan: the new york times would say 75% chance of a clinton win, 25% chance for him. i do not pretend to have any special knowledge of what could appen. those of us who have been following his campaign have discovered, there is absolutely no way to assume that the things we thought were true a year ago in politics are true today.

to believe that a certain kind of debate performance -- we are all thinking about the debate. it would have been conventional wisdom to say if donald trump came in and showed he was unfamiliar with a sick fax of foreign affairs, -- basic facts of foreign affairs, for national security, that this would be disqualifying. jake: or if he referenced his crotch. evan: which has turned out to be a recurring feature. at this point, nobody knows anything. jake: i know that you are agnostic on a trump presidency, but i'm sure that you have many liberal friends who are terrified. what is the best case scenario that you tell them in conversations? i have heard people say, at the end of the day, he wants to be a good president. he doesn't have many ideological convictions. he wants to get things done. he wants better economic climate, stronger

internationally. he is a dealmaker. evan: i will add one thing to the question. there are a lot of liberal friends who are terrified. i also have a lot of moderate and conservative friends who are terrified. it is interesting, if you think about the news in the last few days, that george h.w. bush may or may not have said he would vote for clinton. he speaks for an entire wing of traditional republican politics. i have run into a lot of people - today i was in meetings with with lifelong republicans who are appalled that america may recuse itself from the idea of traditional american power. when we talk about american exceptionalism, we mean the willingness to put aside our own narrow self-interest for a roader conception of america's nterests in the world. for a lot of republicans, it is

a scary thought. donald trump means that we are verextended and exhausted. when you apply that to recent history, it means the united states would have found itself in a position of being more on its heels with chaos in the middle east. we would have been unable to respond. there is a reason why we spent 8000 words on examining what donald trump is capable of doing. he is capable of doing a lot. scholar ater, a legal the university of chicago studies with the president can and cannot do. every student learns about checks and balances. congress passes laws. the supreme court decides if it is constitutional. over the last 100 years, the powers of the presidency have expanded significantly. partly by laws in congress, and partly by acquiescence from congress.

the president is able to do a lot more than a americans think they are able to do. when they do those things, it is a fait a compli. it is up to the other government to roll them back. george w. bush, after september 11 created a domestic urveillance program. there were protests at the time, there were legislators who opposed it and lawsuits that were filed. it takes time to undo these things. 15 years after he passed that order was the bulk phone metadata program explicitly rolled back. donald trump can do a lot, fast, and with enduring effect. jake: as you noted, presidents carry out more than 70% of their promises. thank you so much. the story "what would president trump do?" on newsstands.

thank you. evan: my pleasure. thanks, jay. ♪

>> let's begin with a check of your first word news. a white police officer in tulsa, oklahoma has been charged with first-degree murder, first-degree manslaughter less than a week after she killed an unarmed black man. court documents say she reacted unreasonably when she shut -- shot terence crutcher when he was walking away with his hands in the air. lawyers say crutcher did not follow police commands. charlotte police are refusing to release video of the fatal shooting of a black man until his family sees it first. police chief kerr putney says he has reviewed the footage.