♪ >> from our studios in new york city, this is "charlie rose." charlie: we begin with cyber security and the obama administration. the president ordered a full review of russia's election related hacking. the homeland security advisor told reporters about the investigation on friday morning. she said the order will be delivered before president obama leaves office on january 20. senator john mccain also announced today that cyber security issues would be a significant focus of the senate armed services community that he would chair. joining me is senator john mccain. thank you joining us. why are you making that

announcement today? sen. mccain: well, obviously, one of the issues, the situations that brought this to a boil is the allegations of russia interfering not only in our elections, but in other elections around the world. that undermines, obviously, the fundamentals of democracy, if they are able to succeed. but more importantly, charlie, testimony before the committee by our military and civilian leaders in defense have all stated that cyber is one of the areas where we do not have an advantage over our potential adversaries. we not only don't have an advantage, in some instances, they have an advantage. these hearings will be focused on the overall issue of cyber security, and obviously, their ability or inability to effect the outcome of elections in democratic countries would certainly be one of the issues, but only one. charlie: but you are saying

you'll have your own investigation at the armed services committee. sen. mccain: my understanding among other things is its not -- it is not whether they are just hacking into the last election. by the way, the chinese hacked into my election in 1980. this has to be drawn and encompassing. we have already had hearings in encompassing. we have already had hearings in the armed services committee on this. we've asked all our military witnesses. now we have to focus on the encompassing aspects of a challenge, whether it be their ability to shut down our satellites or steal our most important secrets, such as our new weapons systems, or whether it is to be able to listen in on communications, or whether even to disrupt or destroy communications. there are some scenarios, my friend, and i'm only emphasizing scenarios, where they could shut down every satellite in base. -- in space. so this is a huge challenge, and frankly this administration has

no policy as to how to prevent it, what to do in case of an attack, and how to prepare for one. charlie: do you have any doubt that the russians tried to interfere in the u.s. elections? sen. mccain: i don't know if it was intentional interference, but i do know that some of the leaks that came out cannot be helpful to the political process. i will leave it to others, and i don't have sufficient information to make a judgment about the past election, but i can make a judgment that if they are able to disrupt communications and to pervert communications to the degree where the people who are making a determination as to how to vote is distorted or disrupted or destroyed, then, obviously, it's a big challenge to democracy, whether it be in the united states or any place else. charlie: do you believe you have a different point of view than president-elect trump on this,

who has tended to downplay the idea that it might have been the russians? sen. mccain: every expert i have talked to says it is the russians, they have played a very major role, but not just in elections, charlie. they are every day bombarding some of our industrial basis, particularly the military-industrial complex. they are bombarding our communication systems. it's just a fact, it's what they are doing. they are the best at it, the chinese are next, and then you have the everyday hacker who is also a significant challenge. charlie: but we also have cyber security and cyber espionage capability. i assume we are using it as well. sen. mccain: i'm sure we are to some degree, but we do not have a policy. until the president of the united states sets a policy as to what you do and how you achieve it, for example, right now if we think there is an

impending attack, there is no policy as to what to do. once there is an attack, there is no policy as to what we do in response. so there is really a lack of coherence from the executive branch. our job is to lay out the scenario and enact legislation if necessary, and i am sure some legislation will be necessary. charlie: you are saying mike rogers does not have a policy to respond to a cyber security invasion. sen. mccain: he has testified that there is no policy. charlie: coming out of the armed services committee will be a recommendation for legislation. sen. mccain: not just a recommendation, we will enact legislation through the senate armed services committee. i have received encouragement to address the situation by our republican leadership. charlie: have you had any conversations with president-elect trump about

this? sen. mccain: i have not. charlie: should you? sen. mccain: i would welcome a conversation with him on this or any other issue. charlie: you knew very well the nominee to be secretary of defense. sen. mccain: i know him very well and i have had conversations with general mattis, a man i have known for the last 12 or 15 years. charlie: your colleague and mutual friend, lindsey graham, an admirer, said i'm going after russia in every way you can go after russia. i think they are one of the most destabilizing influences on the world stage. i think they did interfere in our elections and i want putin personally to pay the price. sen. mccain: my friend lindsey graham is always shy and retiring. charlie: no, he's not. sen. mccain: i think the point is we need to have that as part of our overall processing of the situation, and not only what the situation is, but what we need

to do in order to counter this threat to our national security. that is a part of it. according to most experts i talked to, the russians are the leading offenders, but there are plenty of others. the chinese, some say the latest chinese aircraft has some alarmingly similar features of the f-35. so there is no doubt that a great deal of industrial espionage is taking place, not just by the russians as well. so we need to develop an overall policy that not only applies to the russians but to every other nation and every other individual that might seek to harm this nation. charlie: even though they don't have a policy, you underlined the fact that you do not believe the administration has a policy, lisa monaco said singling out internet related dangers is among the most significant national security issues facing the administration.

sen. mccain: someone should ask lisa monaco what is our policy if we detect an attack that is coming to the united states, what is our response if there is an attack, and look at the whole scenario of how the united states of america responds to this threat. there is none. charlie: but why wouldn't you as chairman of the senate armed forces community, request a meeting with the president elect to talk about this? sen. mccain: i promise you, the best way to have that dialogue is to declare that there will be hearings and policy making and legislation coming out of the senate armed services committee. i promise you that will prompt a dialogue, and it's going to take some time, charlie. it's not something we are going to be able to do overnight. charlie: do you believe you have to turn the president elect's understanding around on this? he said to time magazine, i don't believe the russians interfered with the election.

it could be russia, and it could be china, and it could be some guy at his home in new jersey. i believe it could've have been russia and it could have been anyone of a number of other people, sources or individuals. that is what the president-elect said to time magazine. sen. mccain: in some respects, he is right. all of these are players that he mentioned. the problem is that he may not quite understand that the best at it and the most hostile, and the ones who are probably had the most significant impact over a number of years are the russians. they are the best at their job. admiral rodgers has basically said the same thing. all these experts have said our director of national intelligence has said that it's the russians who are, by far, the most active in this kind of behavior, but it is not confined to russia. charlie: senator mccain, i look forward to talking more about this. thank you for joining us. see you soon. ♪

charlie: we continue with michael and david, both from washington. david, i begin with you. why did the president take this action today and order this investigation? david: i think there is a substantive reason and from

everything we can tell, political reason. the substantive reason is it has taken the intelligence community a long time to come to all the major conclusions on the russian effort to influence the election. that's everything from the hacking of the dnc, the democratic national committee and the release of those emails to the scanning of registration data, though it looks like in the end they did not try to affect the actual voting process and machines, and then all the other surroundings of this because obviously the russians have been hacking into many other american institutions for years. there is a serious question about why the united states was caught by such surprise here. i think substantively, he wanted to influence future elections. i think the political reason is even more fascinating, because

president-elect trump has been denying there was much effort to influence the election at all, and secondly he said there is no evidence that it was the russians, while there is this flood of intelligence reports floating around the city suggesting it was the russians, and who within russia did it? i think what the president is trying to do is force the intelligence community to put all this down on paper, give it to congressional committees, perhaps make part of it public, before president-elect trump gets sworn in and is able to come in and say nothing happened here. charlie: michael, what would you add to that? michael: i think david has it exactly right. if nothing else, it sort of boxes in president-elect trump. i should point out that even today, the administration ratcheted up what it has said

about the russian role. eric shultz in briefing reporters at the white house press briefing said that it was high confidence that the cyber attacks on the dnc and other political organizations and political leaders were directed at the highest level of the russian government. that is about as strong as you can get. the previous statement from the intelligence community was that it was -- high confidence was a term of art. in some ways, the administration is throwing down the gauntlet, saying here it is, and were going to compile all this evidence and present it to you in the new administration, and this is coming the same week that trump said in that time magazine interview he doesn't know if it was the russians, maybe it was

some guy at his house in new jersey. charlie: mike pence has been getting the intelligence briefings. number two, the president-elect has been talking to the president with some frequency, if we understand what he is saying, that he's consulted with the president about the transition and a range of other things. he's taken some pride that he likes the president so much in hopes the president likes him, but it's been a very productive session. you would've thought president would have reminded him what this administration believes about the russians hacking. >> you would think, and shultz was pressed on that at the white house press briefing today and said he's not going to give a readout on the conversations between the president and the president-elect. but it's hard to separate out those comments that donald trump made sort of dismissing what the

intelligence community is saying from the president's decision to make public this review today and as i said before, ratchet up the level of confidence they have that they are right about this. charlie: david, what would you say about that? david: what adds to the oddity, in addition to whatever briefings they've given to vice president elect pence, you've now seen a raft of more traditional republican step out and say we need to hold hearings, we need independent commissions, we need to have more of these details come out in public. john mccain said the other day that he would hold hearings with the armed services committee, not only of the hacks related to the election, but perhaps the efforts of russian intelligence

to get inside u.s. military operations. we know, of course, that the hacking that took place at the dnc and elsewhere was not the first effort by the russians in recent times. there were hacks on the state department and white house, the pentagon, so this fits into a broader context. my guess is that if the conversation has taken place between president obama and president-elect trump, it's been in the context of, there is a bigger russian campaign out here and ignore it at your peril. charlie: my impression is that the investigatory effort is being spearheaded by the fbi, am i correct? michael: that's right, for the immediate dnc john podesta and so forth, but there has also been other members of the intelligence community being brought in.

michael: the fbi took the lead on this throughout, but this clearly will encompass the entire intelligence community. i should point out that probably the strongest public statement has come from admiral mike rogers at the national security agency, who, although he didn't say russia, made it all that -- but clear that he was referring to a nationstate that tried to influence our election. he said something even further, intending to affect the election. that is probably the biggest open question here. if indeed it was the russians, what was the motive? was it simply to destabilize and create confusion in the american politic, as they have done in many other countries? or was it a concerted effort to

influence the results of the election? to help elect donald trump and defeat hillary clinton. that is probably the biggest mystery about this. we don't know the answer. charlie: is there any doubt that this would be taking place him that's taking place if it's taking place to the degree that the various intelligence agencies believe it is, that it would be carried out without putin's knowledge? >> everyone i've run into who was in senior levels of intelligence say it is inconceivable to them that someone would take the risk of doing something this high profile that could draw a major response from the united states without clearing it first with the boss. michael: it's also true that the russian intentions and goals here may have changed over time, that perhaps there was some initial, when this began, it may

have been an effort to help trump. it may have been an effort, there are certainly indications that putin and his top aides were not enthralled with hillary clinton. at some point, though, they may have read the polls the way everybody else did and assumed that hillary clinton was going to win, and they may have scaled back some of their activity. although that is not entirely clear, either. we know they were in the dnc, they were hacking emails at least through the summer of 2016. it is still not clear how long it went on. there are some indications it may have continued for a little bit of time after that. and also i should point out that there was a lot of concern over the summer and fall about those probes of state election systems.

that really rang alarm bells, suggesting they may have been trying to hack the elections themselves, and i think the administration has made clear that that didn't happen. charlie: a couple of final questions. as soon as we had some evidence that hacking had taken place and the fbi jumped on this, my understanding is that the president of the united states, president obama said there would be a proportionate response, that intelligence agencies had immediately dug into this, from the fbi, the cia, defense and other people, and that there was going to be a proportionate response. has there been a response, as far as we know? >> the main response we've seen so far has been some warnings to the russians that president obama gave directly when he last met president putin in china. that was back in september.

there have been channels of communication elsewhere to secretary of defense, secretary of state, a warning sent through a system that is used for both cyber and nuclear warnings, but if there has been a punishment to, a cost to president putin for this, we haven't seen it. there has not been sanctions. maybe there has been some kind of covert effort, but it has been pretty subtle. it was joe biden who said on one of the sunday shows before the election, we will come after putin, and he will know it even if nobody else does. but so far, evidence of that is pretty scarce. michael: this became public today because lisa monaco had breakfast with the reporters. she started with an overview about threats to the country, threats to the homeland, and talked about the cyber threat. she said when there are cyber attacks that threaten american interests, we will act to

protect our interests. i asked her later if the u.s. government has taken or will be taking steps to impose costs on the russians as a result of these cyber attacks, and she did not answer that question. charlie: someone once said to me after the russians were accused of doing this that the response, the proportionate response would be something that would be done so that putin knew what it was about, but it would look for credibility within russia, so it would not be done with a lot of bells and soundings. >> that's right, charlie, but there is a risk to that as well. there's always a temptation, let's keep it quiet and in the family, but one of the biggest problems in cyber, as we've

discussed on past shows, is establishing some sense of deterrence. it does not exist in the cyber realm the way it does in nuclear. if you're going to establish deterrence, you have to have a pretty public response so that the next time, is not the russians, but instead the north koreans or the iranians or the chinese or someone else we are not thinking of they understand , this is not a free fire zone. charlie: david, michael, thank you so much. back in a moment. stay with us. ♪ charlie: we now turn to the latest news from the trump transition. joined by major garrett of cbs news, who's been covering not only the trump campaign but the trump transition. mayor rudy giuliani withdrew his name from consideration. give us some sense of what was going on there? >> rudy giuliani appreciates opera.

he is an operatic character in the trump transition. he endorsed donald trump right before the new york primary in april and became his most aggressive and most deeply loved -- because i thought this so many times on the campaign trail -- surrogate for donald trump, and he is the odd man out. spectacularly the odd man out in the trump transition. it's almost inconceivable to some in the trump transition that rudy giuliani would not find a place within the trump cabinet. that's related to trump's on -- own instincts, but it's also related to giuliani's missteps. trump offered him the position of attorney general and director of homeland security and he turned them down. focusing entirely on secretary of state, the position he wanted and coveted, but in the end, trump would not give him. giuliani sensed that, and pulled

himself out before suffering the indignity of someone else getting that slot. so in every way, this deeply important american political figure, who revolutionized new york city, and who was the biggest, if not most conspicuous exponent of the trump approach to the presidency, will be left on the sidelines. it's an amazing story. charlie: so who is left in the running for secretary of state? >> i've been told that there are only two really legitimate figures who may get the position of secretary of state. mitt romney and the chairman of the board of exxon mobil, rex tillerson. charlie: he brings what? >> tillerson brings for donald trump a couple of things you may not associate with the position of secretary of state. he has no government experience. he's not a trained foreign service diplomat by any stretch

of the imagination, but he is a big american businessman, a corporate chieftain who has done deals. because exxon mobil operates in more than 50 countries, it explores for oil and natural gas on six of the seven continents on earth, he has, if you will, a corporate worldview. he has experience with lots of different governments, and possibly most important, he has long experience in russia and with vladimir putin. they knew each other back in the 1990's, when putin was a kgb functionary in the government. they got to know each other then. if you're looking for an analogy, look for the chinese ambassador for donald trump, terry branstad, currently the governor of iowa, who got to know the current head of china when he was a functionary in the chinese bureaucracy. if you look at that as a template, you might see rex tillerson as someone particularly amenable to president-elect trump's worldview. charlie: it's clear that the president has whatever

differences there were with mitt romney, whatever was said about both men in the campaign, that they work their way through that and this now is a conversation which is a positive conversation about the difficult process of selecting a secretary of state. on the one hand, the menu has to -- a man who has to make the decision for the benefit of the country, and on the other hand a man who has his own integrity and is prepared to go to work, for a man he was deeply critical of during the campaign. >> wherever this lands, if mitt romney becomes or does not become secretary of state, when -- what he leaves the process with is a different appreciation of donald trump, and importantly to mitt romney, a different appreciation of donald trump to mitt romney, just as donald trump has a different appreciation of the current president, barack obama. i attended more than 70 mitt -- 70 donald trump rallies and

there was not one scintilla of appreciation for barack obama. donald trump has a deeper appreciation of barack obama as president, as a man, and a figure in history. so there is evolution with donald trump. he has evolved with mitt romney. these are serious conversations. mitt romney is in the final two he is carnival ever-expanding list and if he lands it it will be among the most fascinating tories in the trunk transition. charlie: so much was said about temperament and being fit for the president delivers next to obama and romney, the president-elect is reflecting a very adult behavior. >> it is an adult behavior, but a behavior i would cautiously suggest in awe. i read a lot about those before

the three hours privileged enough to cover. suggest in awe. it is, in its own sense, an awe-inspiring institution. the american culture needs to appreciate about donald trump that in some areas, he is awed by the institution and some who have achieved it. in ways perhaps surprising to himself, donald trump has come to appreciate that. charlie: he is a man who admires success. let us talk about this idea of how he does it, far more than barack obama or george bush 43 has thrown himself into this process, interviewed people, is on the phone constantly.

the impression i have is that by selection of other presidents was much more a product of a transition team and involvement by the president-elect, much more involvement of a team. this president wants to touch and talk to and get a personal sense of the men and women he wants to serve. >> exactly. i think it's far too early, charlie, to offer an appraisal in ways perhaps surprising to of this approach that is either positive or negative. i think the country and those of us obligated to cover this process as it unfolds before us need to take it step by step and judge it as the results speak for themselves. remember, jimmy carter was the president who was deeply involved in the day-to-day and hour-by-hour details of his presidency. it bogged him down and separated him from the larger vision. there is a danger involved in a

kind of involvement and get, we tend to appreciate someone who has an appreciation for details and evaluating someone at the personal gut level. if i have learned anything about president-elect trump in my 18 or so months covering him it is that he makes very important and crucial snap judgments about people by appraising them himself, and not getting it filtered by those around him. that is an important characteristic of an emerging trump presidency. it just is a reality. charlie: thank you so much for joining us. it is a pleasure. we'll be right back. stay with us. ♪ charlie: more on this weekend. the announcement, i had heard before that giuliani was out of the running.

is that simply today's announcement to make that clear that this possible nominee withdrew himself? >> he not only made the official word that giuliani was withdrawing himself from any administration job, but reince priebus stated in a quote on this announcement that giuliani was vetted thoroughly by the trump team and passed with flying colors. it clears rudy giuliani of any rumors of whether he was passed over for secretary of state. your reporting is correct. it matches with my reporting which is that rudy giuliani is fading in the view of donald trump. charlie: do we know whether he could have been attorney general whether he had not insisted on being secretary of state? philip: i don't know for sure.

there would have been some discussion about whether jeff sessions should get it or rudy giuliani, so you know, potentially, he could have gotten himself a job. he imagined giuliani -- but giuliani was insistent from the beginning that state was all he wanted. charlie: he could have promised sessions a supreme court appointment or something like that. philip: exactly. charlie: which would have been entirely within the sort of thing he might want because of his life within, you know, the judicial process of both in terms of law enforcement also in terms of judging. terms of law enforcement also in let me turn to the secretary of state. what do we know? philip: well, we know that there are two people considered leading candidates. mitt romney who has been a candidate for some time and a new figure, rex tillerson, the ceo of exxon mobil, and international business executive

who has done work around the world because of his role in the oil industry and including with russia. he has relationships with the putin government and has been around the world. he did -- mitt romney might be a more traditional political figure in that diplomatic post. both are liked by donald trump. there are political considerations. trump supporters are hostile to the idea of mitt romney, of rewarding a former antagonist who was not loyal on the campaign and was to listen -- with tillerson, he is more of an unknown. i don't know of lindsey graham would scrutinize his ties with russia. charlie: take us inside the trump transition team. what other conflicts between different groups? philip: there are different perspectives on sectors of

state. this has been going on for sometime now, really for about a month, this discussion about who the diplomats should be. mike pence is said to be in courage and reince priebus. both have relationships with romney and sit in with the party establishment and there are other advisors inside the circle, especially kellyanne conway, who have been hostile to the idea of romney. that is why tillerson has emerged. he matches the qualities trump likes in romney. he has a certain stature and gravitas and can travel the world with the authority of a world with the authority of a president. and then tillerson is seen as someone who carries himself in a similar way and i think when he came to meet with trump this week at trump tower, he was very impressive and they had a good conversation. that is what people are saying. those are the qualities trump is looking for in a diplomat.

it is at this point a political calculation of whether he goes with romney, who is more of the party insider, at the risk of alienating his loyal base and advisors, or going with someone new like tillerson. charlie: is there pushed back because he praises the president? philip: not within the transition team that i have heard of. i think a lot of his voters are trying to give him the benefit of the doubt here. it is one thing to have a meeting with al gore because your daughter tried to set up a meeting and he listened to what the guy has to say. it is another thing to change her view on the policies. trump is as far to the right on the climate environmental issues as he can be. he just appointed pruitt to be the head of the epa. it is pretty clear, whatever al gore told trump in that meeting, he's not really heating that counsel. charlie: what might we learn about how president-elect trump

will govern based on how he is running the transition? philip: he's very hands-on as you guys were talking about in the earlier segment. he is interviewing all of these people personally. he's weighing in on them personally and making assessments about whether they would be a good fit and his cabinet, whether they have the leadership strength he is looking for. he has been really drawn to alphas, to leaders, to people who are ceo's in the corporate world or military generals. he's not looking at academics, policy minds, folks who spent

years reading books about years reading books about things. he wants people who have been in the real world, making decisions that have impacts on markets and years reading books about things. he wants people who have been in the real world, making decisions that have impacts on markets and global affairs. that is the approach is taking some of these big jobs, certainly secretary of state and some of the others. the assistant secretary at the agency, they have also not yet announced senior white house

staff positions beyond reince priebus and steve bannon and the white house counsel. there is going to be some give and pull about who feel them as jobs. who is the white house, who is going to be the deputy chief of staff, lee is on the congress, vice president-elect pence's office. the republican national committee chairmanship is a job that reince priebus is vacating. it will be the political arm. it starts to take shape early on and there is a lot of different candidates in the mix for that. we are hearing the leading contender seems to be rona robbie mcdaniel.

charlie: is it an accurate statement of which seems to be the impression that while donald trump is urged not to tweet as much as he does, it is irresistible for him? philip: that is a great question. he has indicated he will continue making his views known on twitter. he has been doing it every day. he plans to continue into the white house. there has been some suggestion that perhaps he would back off of twitter and one person mentioned secret service would have something to say about that, but if he is able to tweet, he will tweet. he wants to communicate directly with the american people and that is what we have been seeing throughout the campaign and during this transition.

he really wants to do everything he can to break through what he sees as a press filter and speak directly to people. that is twitter, rallies, doing call-ins on radio. charlie: we will be right back. stay with us. ♪

charlie: as it has, since 1927, time magazine announced its person of the year this week. this time it is the individual who for better or worse had the most influence on the events of the year. president-elect donald trump might be the obvious choice but

the nation remains divided over wide. with me as nancy gibbs, the managing editor of time. i'm pleased to have her back at this table. you has always framed this as the person who has the most influence, not the most popular. this is a slamdunk, isn't it? nancy: what is interesting to me is, who has had the most influence on the year for better or worse? it seems like universal agreement that he has the most influence and his agreement over whether it was for better or for worse. this is one of the things that we really looked at is that every presidential election, we named barack obama four years ago and eight years ago. we named george w. bush 12 years ago and 16 years ago. in presidential election years, it would be unusual for someone other than the newly elected president to be the dominant figure that year. in any presidential year, the country is divided. roughly half the country votes for one or the other. there is something that feels

different this year, at least from where i sit, of the level of surprise at the outcome, which speaks to how many people who were meant to be the experts and the data analysts and pollsters did not see his victory coming, and the reaction since then that even when you think about bush and gore in 2000 with the extraordinary five-week long drama, even that one did not feel as dramatic and fraught as this one, and that is a lot of the challenge that the president-elect i think faces. he talks about wanting to bring the country together and he apologies that recognizes that that represents a significant challenge. he talks about it as an honor. we have run into that for years. it sounds like the kinds of things people on with people

without the end of the year, and we have always said that it is a measure of influence. last year, we picked angela merkel. the position she took on the refugee crisis and the eurozone and on the economic policy in europe made her pretty divisive figure as well. she was by no means universally admired. charlie: and she suffered politically even though she will run for reelection. she is up for reelection. we will have some change going on in italy. the netherlands i think has an election. we saw an election in austria. the whole idea -- if i thought of anything other than trump, to be obvious, at this particular year, because you have framed the question, it would be populism as an idea. nancy: we have a story about the rise of the populists around the world. nigel farage, the person in the philippines.

one of the reasons we were not tempted to do a group is what is remarkable about on time that we have not seen before is somebody who comes in and defies all expectations, breaks all the rules, shatters every sort of norm and convention of how you run for president, defeated not one but both major political parties on his way to winning, it -- charlie: and defeated two dynasties. nancy: and did it with largely based on his own instincts, not a huge cadre of advisors and pollsters, the help of the republican party infrastructure or donor class. the alarm is army of people who are usually a mound opening presidential candidate and taking some responsibility for

the victory, -- he has a small coterie of advisors and his kids. charlie: this was a transformative election in terms of the way people when the presidency? nancy: there are questions for the victory, -- journalists coming out of this, one of which will be, do we see other politicians trying to copy his model and can they? it's possible that he was unique in the ability to accomplish what he did. i think of the many things about the 2016 race that was unprecedented, we had to been candidates who went into it with 100% name recognition. it is easy to forget that donald trump has been a very familiar figure in millions of people's living rooms from his television career quite apart from his life as a real estate baron and casino owner.

self-promotion was central to self-promotion was central to his brand. people felt they knew him. you know, the lifetime them, they hated him, they felt that they knew what he was about from the beginning. that is hard for someone else to replicate. charlie: i think also, and i thought about this more recently than i did before the election, is that, and he may have understood this, in terms of the winning of the presidency, the disruptiveness of the way he ran his campaign, the attacks on other people made him be perceived by his people who were enthusiastic about him as a leader, a strong leader. that was part of how he viewed the disruption, that it was necessary to overcome the challenge he had achieved. nancy: the subtext of it, whatever outrageous thing he was saying, this is someone willing to say controversial things and so, even on election day, as he ended up winning the electoral

college road, six out of 10 voters don't think he has the judgment or temperament to be president. charlie: and only 40% of people do? nancy: yeah, and people for whom judgment and temperament were the most important issues, hillary clinton won by miles, but by a factor of two to one, most people cared most about who could bring change to washington and he won that group by 60 points. that desire for change and the belief that he was more likely to bring it, i mean, the irony there is that hillary clinton, what she punished for the very experience and long track record that she had? charlie: your instinct would be that she was, punished by the fact that he was able to grab the change mantle? nancy: everyone knew this was meant to be a change election. americans typically don't grant third terms. one of the reasons that the

political experts all along thought this could not possibly succeed was that he kept doing things that no one had done before or to the extent that people had, it proved fatal. charlie: looking back, it is the capacity to stand in front of a huge audience and have a conversation with them is to me one of his, one of the qualities that made his rallies different. it was not a speech. if it was a speech, it was a regurgitation of what he was saying before, but much more of it was reacting, impressions, talking about -- he almost was having a conversation with them about what he read in the paper or had seen on television, and what do you think of this, or did you agree with me? it was much more that kind of dialogue. nancy: that is why, on the occasions he was back on the teleprompter, it felt so odd because that was not the

vernacular of his campaign. charlie: and the spontaneity. you have interviewed before, you interviewed him last time with the evil and all that. you go back a week ago, how was he? was he different anyway? nancy: i would be the first to say that there is every chance that because i expected he would be different that i saw a difference. but i did see a difference, the main one being, the thing that struck me so much, i'm interested in the relationship the between president because of what that job does to you. the night before, he had been on the phone for 45 minutes with president obama, talking with him about ideas for his cabinet choices, and other topics that were on his mind, and he spoke with extraordinary warmth and respect. he talked about the chemistry he felt between them. he felt that he expected that day he went to the white house and they sat together, he he

said, everyone would have thought that would have been an awkward moment. we started talking, we talked for a long time, i found it very gracious and helpful, and we talked since then, and, you know, in listening to him talk, particularly about his conversations of president obama, you start to see a glimpse that he is having to get his head around what has just happened, and i sometimes wondered, did he expect -- of course they will say, we always knew we were going to win -- charlie: early in the evening, they did not think they were going to win. it was only after 8:00 that they began to see what the positives were in pennsylvania and wisconsin and michigan that they realized victory might be possible. nancy: so then, you win and you wake up. is it like the dog that catches the car? now, i am asked to going to have

to be president, and what does that mean, and how is that going to work? the conversations he is having with everyone, this is the next season of the reality show that he has been staging. charlie: it is interesting in terms of the people he is talking to, not only mitt romney saying the things he said about him, but al gore shows up. nancy: it is a peculiar -- how is this between business leaders and politicians and private sector activists? that this part of his own personal transition, yes, there is the administrative institutional transition, but a personal transition, too. that is what i was struck with, talking to him this time is that he is very much in the throes of that process. charlie: thank you for joining us. see you next time. ♪

alix: china factory output and retail sales show further strengthen the economy, but the reasons are about to change. and opec nations boosted production last month despite agreeing to historic cuts. no one wants to lose market share. goldman'smp nominates president as economic advisor. he's also delaying his business plan while in the white house. and turkey gets a $140 billion boost to the