announcer: from our studios in new york city, this is "charlie rose." charlie: we begin this evening with this, the new congress began on tuesday. house republicans reversed their plan to strip the house of ethics after their independence. the review came from whoident-elect trump question why lawmakers were making it a priority. the focus today shifted to obamacare. president obama met with democrats to discuss their strategy for presenting and preserving his largest -- his signature legislative achievement. joining us is bob costa of the

washington post. i'm pleased to have both of them on this program. is there high anticipation because we are looking at a new president and a congress that is controlled by republicans? as to how this whole thing might unfold. everybody is a little bit on edge and on to the coast. the republicans got off to a tip toes start in the house. that was encouraging for the democrats. boxersort of like maneuvering and checking each other out. i think that it is going to be an extremely small twist time. the real business has started today. the republicans are moving forward on their plan to repeal obama care. at the same time, they are

finding out is not going to be so easy to replace obamacare. the democrats are drawing the line and came out with their new slogan today, "make america sick again." chuck schumer came up with that i think. is testing it out to see what is going to happen. a lot of stuff is going to happen over the next few months. charlie: bob, same general question. i want to talk about the ethics committee and the reversal there. robert: the ethics committee is run by the members in the u.s. house. there is also an office of congressional ethics, an independent watchdog that keeps an eye on numbers of congress. over the past few years, a lot of members have grown frustrated with the office of congressional

ethics. they think it is true to intrusive. they want to got it. on monday night, a representative from her junior proposed eight amendment to a rules package to get rid of the office of congressional ethics. hours wholeng 19 amendment fell apart. republican saw a huge public outcry. lots of calls run constituents to offices. and he president-elect tweeted saying he was not encouraging of the idea of guiding this office. it all fell apart on a big day that was supposed to be about andand circumstance -- pomp circumstance. charlie: they have created a special resistance war room. robert: i was on the house floor a few minutes ago. i talked to one of the

democratic leaders there, steny hoyer of maryland. he framed it that he looks at mike pence, a conventional conservative. and then there is trump who is disruptive in a lot of ways politically and not as ideological as the president elect. what the democrats are trying to do is figure out is this a really conservative republican administration? or can they play ball with something like infrastructure on the senate. the democrats are trying to get ready for 2018. they're trying to get democrats excited in this post obama and post-clinton era to protect the affordable clear act and protect obama's legacy. maybe trump will put some things or mikethat paul ryan pence would not support.

but with trump, a populist on the outside, maybe they can work together. charlie: are they likely to work on spending issues like infrastructure and that kind of thing over foreign-policy issues? policy will be hawks like senator mccain are unhappy with trump's coziness with russia. trumpllingness of republicans to spend more surprises some. send the rand paul said he does not recognize his own party anymore. it is not like the party seems to be moving in this direction of high spending on the military and perhaps on infrastructure. charlie: i assume mike pence as a man of the house and now vice president can be a man of the senate. he is president electron's

representative in congress? robert: he is friends with paul ryan and knows mitch mcconnell. he knows how things work there. he spoke at both leadership events for the republicans. that was pretty unusual. dick cheney used to spend a lot of time on the hill but he did not speak at their events. mike pence is going to be there go-to guy. i want to say something about chuck schumer. chuck schumer sees himself as a great master strategist of political communication. they are really going to work the message side of these things. in some ways, chuck schumer was disappointed he did not become majority leader. but he is the minority leader. in capitol hill, sometimes you can be more effective in the minority because your job is to tangle things and create roadblocks. they will be pretty good at that going into next week as these nominations start to come up for

hearings. how successful democrats can be as long them down? that is something they want to do right now. they do not want to be rolling over for trump. charlie: how effective was the president on the hill today? carl: from what i heard, he was very effective. he told them to try to hold their ground. it was probably a little bit all caps week -- a little bittersweet because this was his last meeting with the democrats. they have a good hand to play on obamacare. paul ryan was up today saying obamacare is wrecking health care. democrats are going to come back and say there are millions of people that are getting health insurance from this. we are not wrecking the health care system. let's see what your replacement is. sayingthe here rand paul he does not want to move to quit because a lot of people in his

state are depending on obamacare. i think the president got his point across. the democrats seem very united in trying to fight the republicans on this. charlie: where is the country on this, bob -- on obamacare? robert: there is such fun appetite on the american right to get rid of the affordable care act. you saw mike pence working in the capital basement to plot out the next moves to have executive action the moment the president is inaugurated to start moving on this. thats tweets the moments pence was meeting with house members are indicative. trump himself is saying maybe we should let the democrats own obamacare, let's not rush to much to own it ourselves. that is trumps political antenna up in the air. he won a lot of these rust belt

states where scissor security is popular with voters. and also with health care like kentucky and other states that have more health care coverage. he recognizes the popularity. charlie: is there any alternative? robert: you have to watch time ice.e -- tom pr this confirmation is going to be a battleground. republicans tell me what tom price is envisioning working with pence and trump is some sort of system of tax credits. none of it has really been fleshed out. if tom price cannot make it through this confirmation with a coherent idea on the country for where they want to go with high school, it will be a battle lost. see this as the

best issues that they could possibly have. they are going to beat him up on that. republicans do not have a replacement. it is going to be hard to replace with the standards they are setting right now. no one who currently has insurance can go off insurance. on yourep the kids parents insurance until they are 26. my own kids are on there. and no pre-existing conditions. it is going to be hard to come up with a proposal that cost less, has more choices, and still does the rest. charlie: the fact that the president-elect has said in at least one interview that he would consider the no pre-existing conditions. carl: it is hard to do those things without the mechanisms that were established in obamacare. the foundation of obamacare was really on -- a republican plan

and alternative to universal coverage. it is going to be tricky to find a way to replace it that is not obamacare. charlie: thank you crawl, thank you bob. ♪

charlie: on january 1, north korean leader came down announced it was making final

preparations to conduct its first test of a nuclear weapon. donald trump tweeted that it will not happen. such a test will present one of the first big national security challenges for the present administration. intelligence officials will brief congress of their investigations of russian hacking on thursday. david sanger is the chief washington correspondent for the new york times. when did we first start talking about hacking? david: we started talking about it in june or july in terms of the election. and of course years prior to that with what the chinese, russians, and iranians were doing and of course what the united states has done to other countries. in terms of the election cycle, the first big development was in the dnc2016 when announced it had been hacked.

was they did not tell us that they had been notified by the fbi in september of the previous year and did not do much about it. charlie: why did they not do anything about it? david: there were failures on many sides here, that the fbi went to a fairly junior person who has been the cyber security expert hired on the cheek by the dnc. he did not believe they were talking to an fbi special agent. the fbi did not escalated up. didleadership of the dnc not become aware that they had been hacked until april. by that time, the russians had been into john podesta's email. charlie: so you say the russians have been into john podesta's emails. why does the president-elect continue to resist? david: that is a fascinating question. i wish i knew the answer. case that allure

these leaks came from the russians, no. russians worrying, somebody else could have come in as well. but there is as about a persuasive case as i've seen both on the on the record and off the record evidence that it hack very well-known affiliated with the russian military intelligence agency. it is well known in washington. it is not like these guys just have shown up for the first time. they had been into the state department and the joint chiefs of staff's emails. their techniques and their tools are pretty familiar. could somebody have replicated each one of those techniques and tools? yes, probably. but it would have been a lot of work. charlie: i've been told that the

process of attribution has gotten much better. david: it has. it is not perfect. when you think about attributing a cyber attack, there are three big categories. number one is an you trace the electronics. can he go back to the ip addresses where this came from. sometimes you can and sometimes you cannot. people are good at putting up false flax when they are coming at you from a strange place. was the new york times hacked, it looked like it was coming from a university in the southern part of the united eights. the second thing you look at is the motives. in the case of the russians, they have not been terribly subtle. they shut off power in the ukraine. they have done political operations in europe and here as well. the techniques are fairly similar, but just because they have a motive does not mean they did it. hardest forrt, the

american intelligence officials to talk about in public, is that in nsa has put implants hundreds of thousands of computer networks around the world. bugs of these as software sitting in systems. they can watch what is going by. they can do civilians from that. from that.illance they can also be used to launch a cyber attack. that is why the united states are so worried about making a clear that they have a node in someone's system. charlie: do they have to get a legal document to do that? david: if they do it in the united states they do. but if they are doing it abroad, they just need a president signature. charlie: how long before they are testifying in front of

congress? david: they are doing some public testimony first tomorrow in front of the senate armed services committee. that is john mccain was really been the one pushing it. charlie: he wants to make cyber security and cyber espionage one of the main investigative parts of the committee. david: that is right. the oddity that we saw today was that this morning the president-elect will go, saw the headlines about julian assange who had interviewed with fox news -- charlie: sean hannity -- assange said he did not obtain the material he published from a state source for a russian source. who he obtained it from and who

actually broke in and got it are not necessarily the same person. it is not clear that mr. assange with no what the ultimate origin of this was. when he saw the president-elect do was tweak out approvingly that julian assange made the point that a 14-year-old could have hacked into john podesta's computer. that is probably true because john podesta did not have to factor authentication on it. so he was siding with a man who the republican party was looking to extradite just a few years ago. he had led to the deaths of americans by what he leak in the state department and military cables. charlie: so we have this meeting coming together with the republican armed services committee. here -- ihey come up still do not know why the president is so resistant?

what is it that he believes other than his explanation that the cia has been wrong before in iraq and weapons of mass destruction? certainly the cia has been wrong before and the list goes beyond iraq and weapons of mass disruption. just because they were wrong -- charlie: you have to have a reason to believe this. you cannot just doubt it. david: that is the big question. do we have a president-elect who starts from the fact-based and says present all the facts to me, and then i will judge whether you have a conclusive case? or do you have a president-elect who said this is what i believe, and then selects the evidence approvingly? if he has not had a full briefing -- and i think he has had full briefings that he is not been impressed with -- i'm selecte why he with a

what julian assange knows over the cia. meandoes not know that -- that the cia, nsa are right. but i would not have any more confidence in julian assange. charlie: let's turn to north korea. what is intelligence tell us? david: we know that they have worked for a long time to build on icbm. they have been very successful at various points with short range and some medium-range rockets. they also had truly spectacular failures. charlie: but they learn from their failures. david: they do. this is the history of the american missile program. on youtube you can find some pretty spectacular failures in the 1950's and 1960's as the army and air force tried to figure this out. it is hard science to begin with.

what is particularly interesting they dreame is that back to the days of the country's founder would be to have a missile that could reach the united states. they believe that as the ultimate protection against an adversary that has an overwhelming nuclear arsenal. they have been a fair distance away from that so far. most intelligence estimates say they could reach the united states within five years. but bob gates, the former secretary of defense, told me and others i've years ago that he was about five years away. what was interesting about new year's day with that kim jong-un said in the course of a prepared speech that we are in the final stages of preparation.

i went to our intelligence sources and ask them what does that mean? they do not think it is highly imminent, but they have been surprised before. my own view is that there is value to kim jong-un in keeping us guessing in this. he takes a very big risk and actually sending off the launch. right now he is the best of both worlds. we think he will soon be able to reach the united states. he does not have to go through the risk of having a spectacular failure. if you launches this thing and it fails, he looks pretty embarrassed. was unacceptable for iran to have a nuclear weapon that they could deliver, is also unacceptable for north korea to have a nuclear weapon they could deliver? david: i cannot imagine any american president living with that possibility. charlie: what are the options? david: the options are not

great. what was the difference between iran and north korea? a ron's case, they do not have nuclear weapons yet. focusing on keeping them from getting them to that point made on an enormous amount of sense. a combinations of sanctions and sabotage the labor day and allow they negotiated settlement. in north korea's case, they have the nuclear weapons. they have done 5-6 nuclear test. the last ones i look pretty successful. mean thethat doesn't warhead -- david: right that doesn't mean the work had -- warhead could survive reentry on icbm. you have to focus on the means of delivery and you have to focus on the combination of whether you can actually make a

weapon. charlie: what is the red line? david: i would think the moment kim jong-un put a missile a few hundred miles off of the california coast. they did something better than just reach while. unit -- move the united states to severe action. back to thet question of the early bush years about preemption. are you willing to risk a very bloody conflict? one in which you could easily city.our are you willing to put that at risk in order to stop the hypothetical that north korea could bring a north dakota -- nuclear weapon in? could south korea

obliterated? david: there is no way north korea could survive a prolonged conflict with south korea and north korea and others involved. the blaze of glory for 24 hours would have extraordinarily high fatalities. ofrlie: what are the natures our defenses. wheneverdent told me they make an attempt and fail they learn something. but he said don't forget that we also have nuclear shield. david: we have short range missile defenses, including one we're trying to put in south korea. but it is not there yet. it was approved by president park who is undergoing on impeachment.

her successor, if she does not survive that impeachment, is not as likely to be as friendly as having that missile there. we have pretty good systems that run off of the coast of south korea but that would not help you much against an icbm if that came along. it is pretty effective against short range missiles. then we have a missile defense system that is in alaska and california. we have three dozen or more missiles whose reliability are not that great. i do not think anybody wants to be fully dependent on that. charlie: it's unlikely that the chinese would risk a confrontation over the south china sea even though they have been putting weapons on the island. david: that is right. when you look at those islands, they are increasingly militarized. that may be more show of force

than any intent. in the north korean case, the question is how much does kim jong-un think about regime survival? what has kept this from another conflict -- another korean war for so many years is that you have three leaders who have been unwilling to push the united states or south korea so far that it would lead to an armed response that could destabilize their regime. so what have they done? actionsld days, minor going after the play blow, a u.s. intelligence ship. in modern times, going after sony entertainment and the comedy they made. but they have not gone above that level that would bring about an armed response. that is important to know,

because if you can keep them below that level, that is great. the problem is if they actually -- icbm they can reach the united states, then they could make a judgment in the future. charlie: thank you. back in a moment. ♪

isrlie: isabelle huppert

here. she has appeared in 100 films of the last few decades. greatle huppert, a actress, or the world's greatest actress? she starting to films and 2016 that have earned her great claims. here's a look. ♪ ♪

my daddy keeps your daddy up there so high. ♪ ♪

charlie: and here's the other film in which she stars in. here is the trailer for that. ♪

charlie: i am pleased to have isabelle huppert back at the table. welcome. youe is something about that all people who love film are fascinated. it is the diversity of the roles. it is the emotional quality that -- bring to the trail to the portrayal. it is, what? isabelle: it is also all the different directors i have been working with. tell a woman story. , a woman'sving

destiny. it was a great privilege that that is what happened to me in most of my films. it was a great privilege to work with a director who was telling stories about women survival. isabelle: yes. most of the films have been revolving around female century characters -- female centered characters. ory can be positive negative. just being true and being real and being nasty just because the situations are nasty. also, being survivors. charlie: and you look for those kinds of roles? isabelle: they look for me. charlie: that's the point. those rules -- roles look for

you. that you so many identify with. multiplex --rs and multiplicity and multiplex of the of all of those roles. isabelle: and then they choose , they are not likable and sometimes they are not likable, that is what makes the individual. it is dependent on situations whether it is historical, political, sociological. i was also privileged to work with many great french directors who want to render -- have a vision of the world, no matter how good it is or how bad it is. they just care how true it is or

how real it is. work with the portrayal of that vision in most of my films. charlie: you love acting. isabelle: i love acting because i do not think that i act. most of the time people think acting is such an ideal. i might have a different idea. acting is not acting, it is more being. it is not trying to indicate, it is just trying to be. it is very organic. charlie: how do you do that? isabelle: it is a lot of concentration. it is forgetting about the reality around you and just being submerged. that is what moviemaking is about. eating in the present moment and present time. that is why you cannot anticipate acting. you can think about it, you can dream about it, but you cannot

anticipate it by preparing because it is there. it is here and now like some philosophers said. charlie: do you live the roles after you leave them? isabelle: i do not. i live them as i do them. get to the stage or you get to the shoot and you become question --? isabelle: i become the character. it is a great pleasure. it is very pleasurable no matter situations, painful emotional situations, traumatic situations. is not the same as the spectator. charlie: is this the best time

for you? of your films. films thatve 2 people are noticing in america. that is pleasing? isabelle: it is very pleasing. last night i was awarded for both films. i was amazed actually. grateful.felt so those are two french-speaking films and my work is being acknowledged and understood like it was -- like it is in. fromdifferent country europe, that is what you make films for, to break down the borders and create circulation between people and countries. it is very rewarding. charlie: let's talk about the two movies. tell me about your character.

a multiplehe is character. she is many many people in one person. sot is why the character is interesting because she is very complete. likeas so many layers, every individual -- every individual has layers. you can be a mother, daughter, son, man or woman of power, lover, a wife -- and that is what she is. she is really everything, you know. she is sometimes strong, sometimes week, sometimes sappy -- happy, sometimes unhappy.

she is always fearless and that will -- that is what makes me like her. charlie: is this film about revenge or something else? isabelle: i think she certainly has a plan and is about revenge, but she also has a quest. she wants to seek through the revenge. charlie: what is that? isabelle: that is up to everybody to make their interpretation. charlie: what she is looking for. isabelle: there are many gaps in the film that people can fill up. the film gives you information, not explanation. it does not really explain, it just informs you. mosaic, gradually -- wherea woman's life she comes from, what tragedy

her --ed charlie: she is the dollar of a serial killer. isabelle: yes, so she has a certain relationship to violence. whether she is attracted to that violence, where she wants to understand where violence comes from? whether she just wants to take revenge? charlie: the daughter of violence becomes a victim of violence? isabelle: so to be a victim yet to see yourself as a victim. to -- foris ability that one situation, to acknowledge her neither as a victim nor as a classical avenger following mail patterns. she is more -- she makes her own

way. charlie: she is on an exploration. isabelle: yes, and that is how i took it. the next version is a really nice word. i used to say it is like an experience. it was an experience for me as an actress to. i was really following what she was following in a way. charlie: you were discovering and exploring yourself, as she was. isabelle: that is what acting is about. as you do a role you explore some situations and some .ehavior charlie: part of acting is understanding your own exploration of the character and how your characters like proceeds. awaye not giving too much to say that she has a relationship? isabelle: no, that happened.

charlie: was that the plan? that's --well i think charlie: or was that attraction? too.lle: it was revenge -- i think she enjoyed revenge, until the end. film is what the gives the film its integrity. the film has a great integrity. charlie: what is the integrity of the film? therele: the integrity is is something of on existentialist quest in the way things happen for her.

in the way that the story is handled as well. it is a nonemotional character. emotional,acter was i think the movie would be creepy. contributionhe that the director makes an important contribution in the edit room, on the set, or in the text? isabelle: a little bit of everything honestly. editing the text is a crucial moment. charlie: so it differs by directors? isabelle: yes. it has a lot to do with how much a director is able to watch these actors live. a director is a spectator to his own film i think. he is not only making the film, he is the first viewer.

he has to be constantly the one who doesn't and the one who watches it. means to be active and passive at the same time. as you watch it, you let things happen. charlie: you have said you did not understand her when you first saw this text. i assume that is very appealing to read a character you do not understand because that makes it more interesting to you as an actress. , i got an award last night and the man who gave that saiduoted a line when you do things you do not know what you do. that is inspiration when you do not know what you do. i really believe in that. you do not have to know why you are doing it.

it is a different kind of knowledge. you do not have to know by giving explanation. aboute: if what you said her a new york times magazine, not use she did instinct or intuition, it was almost blind. isabelle: that is her. it might be you too. charlie: how is she different from the other character in "t hings to come." isabelle: those are two completely different story. people that i in in -- in some various ways sometimes.

i am a philosophy teacher so i manage my film students to. quality of the film is that you show certain people in certain intellectual circles, she was a philosophy people. but philosophy in the film was never abstract. philosophy is a way to watch the world sensually, to catch the beauty of the world, to be -- to give birth also to a new person. somebody dies and she finds herself being a new person. this shows her understanding of the world. shows, not only her intelligence -- mother died and something happens to her career. wantlle: and she does not

to publisher book anymore because they want to rejuvenate the collection. they have a tendency to make it younger and more accessible. charlie: here is what you said about her as you said earlier to me. philosophy is more like a project of life that leads to her sensitivity to beauty. fewives joy to her in a quotes of physical -- philosophical text that run through the film. it makes you think about things like do we need people? or how can we be happy? that is what philosophy is about. interest ina deep philosophy? there are a lot of philosophers in france. ?ou are philosophical

you are a philosophical person? askslle: i think everybody themselves questions like what am i doing here? where am i going? charlie: you seem to be on the deeper question. isabelle: i am not a thinking person. i wish sometimes. charlie: that you were more of a thinking person? isabelle: yes because in the film you see a person like that. i amme point she says completely fulfilled by my interior life. that is beautiful. charlie: are you filled by your acting like? isabelle: my acting life has a lot to do with my thinking life. you said i am an actress from the roots of my hair to the tips of my toes. i know what it is to suffer for

a character. to hate the character and to love a character. as an actress it is completely different. you do not suffer the same way as a spectator suppers. when you suffer as an actress, you do not suffer, you have pleasure. pleasure is? is suffering like the character? it.elle: pleasure is doing it is nice to cry. it is nice to shout. it is nice to suffer as a character, not as a person. i am not a masochist. it has nothing to do with -- people sometimes think it has to do with identification and you take the suffering from the character. i do not think so. charlie: what do you do? isabelle: i do it and i have

pleasure doing it. charlie: you have pleasure doing it because it is a mark of the talent that you have. isabelle: even if i did it badly, i would still have it charlie:. charlie:if you get it badly you would not get pleasure format which you? you would know. isabelle: i am not sure i would know. charlie: don't you know when you nailed it? reallye: it is not something i ask myself. when you do a movie and you work everyday, you do not wonder am i going? and my dad? am i bad? youlie: what do you wonder

-- wonder? congratulations. it is great to have these 2 films out there and to receive the recognition. thank you. see you next time. ♪

.

.

.

♪ >> big numbers, beating estimates last quarter despite the phone fiasco. donald trump lock horns with china and japan, beijing warns of a big stick if america initiates a trade war. >> nissan says it's message received at understood after toyota came in for some tweeticism. >> deja vu for currencies. >>