♪ inouncer: from our studios new york city, this is "charlie rose." has been six months since president trump took office. his administration continues to be plagued by controversy and infighting. earlier today, the president's senior adviser jared kushner appeared before the senate intelligence committee as part of their inquiry into collusion in the 2016 election. he addressed the media after the closed-door meeting. >> i did not: with russia, nor do i know if anyone else in the campaign who did so. i had no improper contacts.

i have not relied on russian businesses, and i have been fully transparent in providing all requested information. charlie: donald trump jr. and former campaign chairman paul manafort will also appear before the judiciary committee this week.joining me from washington, robert costa from the washington post and moderator of "washington week," on pbs, susan page of usa today, and hugh hewitt, of "the hugh and frank bruni of the new york times. tell me about the appearance today and what might have been this week with respect to the testimony. >> i think jared kushner did about as well as anyone could in a difficult situation, charlie. i read his entire 11 page letter over the air so that commuters could hear it. it was not denial.

it was specific and details. it was explanatory. for those trying to give trump the benefit of the doubt, they would find it comforting.i found it interesting that he said he has never met sergei gore called for -- before. i also found it interesting that he specifically said no collusion. the two stories were that he got russian money, and he denied that, and that he colluded with data. i thought for someone who is used to hearing evasive nondenial denials, it was clear, specific, and complete. it doesn't help anyone else, but it helps him. charlie: but you are basing that on the statement he read before the testimony. >> i am. i read the whole thing and i also listened to the two and a takeninutes afterwards,

verbatim out of the statement. we knows what else he got asked in the hearing or what he will say tomorrow, but thus far, you can't give that statement to a congressional committee and have anything false in it without violating the law. i think there's a pretty specific denial. charlie: susan. >> this is not the end of questions for jared kushner or anybody else. this was the beginning. today was the beginning of a new phase of the investigation where frome hearing from our -- central figures for the first time. i think jared kushner deserves credit for not demanding a subpoena, for going voluntarily, for releasing the 11 page statement. there are many questions that remain to be asked. i will point out one. in the statement, kushner said he did not rely on russian money for his private business interests. rely doesn't mean you have no russian money, it doesn't mean it wasn't offered.

to me as a reporter, it jumped out. it deserves follow-up questions. i'm sure there are many other examples where members of the intelligence committee and has intelligence committee are going to want to pursue questions with the jared kushner and everybody else. charlie: robert costa. >> we are watching a president who ran a family enterprise for decades, trying to take the same approach to the white house, and encountering challenge after challenge. if you think beyond the republican agenda, it is his family, jared kushner, his son, all their different meetings and entanglements, accusations about what they were up to during the campaign. this has been part of the russia cloud that continues to sit over the white house. it is not going away today just because mr. kushner went to capitol hill. what the encapsulates president is experiencing at the six month mark. a family enterprise still trying

to protect his family believed he is truly loyal to. the only people he trusts. this presidency is having problems because of this. charlie: frank, you wrote that jared kushner will be appearing in front of the committee, but not so we can watch.it is closed door, which means kushner gets to dance in the dark. how fitting. we never get to hear his voice. he throws his weight around then floats above it all. no wonder the various white house aides and advisers are fed up with him. he's there, but not there a metal some ghost. ddlesome some -- me ghost. >> when i heard his voice for the first time, i am not familiar with it. you know trump's voice. not so with jared kushner because he has occupied a curious role. he lets it be known to the world that he's got great influence. crow about their

supposedly moderating influence on the president, but then they hold back and say they are not political types. one thing about jared kushner's it bothered me that he dwelt for a moment on, yes, i went into that russian meeting, but it was a complete waste of time, so i went right away. that is not the issue. the issue is this meeting was built to donald trump jr.. if jerry -- if jared kushner read the subject line, which said russia, clinton, private, confidential, it doesn't matter what was in the meeting. it matters if they went to the meeting. his statement does not satisfy me in that regard. as susan said, it's not the beginning of the end, it is something else, i we looking at

the beginning of what might be six months of hand-to-hand fighting between the trump investigation? >> that's what we are watching. if the president believes it is a witch hunt, if he's convinced he did nothing wrong, or if he is hiding something, at what point does he go beyond questioning bob mueller, and actually considers firing him? if so, what happens? some people believe that's possible. charlie: do you believe that is possible? >> possible, but ill-advised. two things. franke, i don't want bruni to ever be mad at me. i read that piece. [laughter] he's widely regarded as one of the wisest frede in washington, and

better hope that robert mueller is not fired. that is a firestorm. if jared is telling the truth and everyone can make a declaration as specific and --ailed about no collusion i'm putting aside general flynn and paul manafort -- but the president, donald trump jr., and everyone else in the white house, then it will be over. bob mueller will not indict , she has a reputation as a straight shooter. you cannot fire robert mueller and expect the administration not to collapse if only with momentum. the republicans have enough problems without triggering saturday night massacre-lite 2.0 with the firing of a special counsel. charlie: witty bring what some people call the constitutional crisis? >> no, that's when the constitution is not working.

team trump is so distracted that they are not getting judicial nominations for article three judges put forward. is the bottom line for conservatives. they have 20 vacancies on the circuit court. more than 100 district court vacancies on the lower court, for whom there has not been a nomination put forward yet. this is unacceptable. it's a failure of governance. constitutional structures are in place and they are working. i don't see a crisis. but i do see a bogged down white house. charlie: we saw the new head of communications at the white house making a couple appearances. what does he bring in and what does his arrival signal? >> the arrival of anthony scaramucci, a wall street ,inancier and trump confidant at least for six months, it signals a presidency moving to a

analty-based operation, aversion to leaks and the republican establishment. anthony scaramucci does not have political experience. he is a donor, not strategist or consultant. when you watch him on the sunday shows, you saw him speaking directly to president trump, almost in an attempt to calm the president as all the drama unfolds. it was not a messaging operation. it was not a new republican way coming in. this is a loyalist replacing a republican operative in sean spicer. the president is turning to these types of people. charlie: when you look at all of this now, this is third of the central act, we are looking at a six-month evaluation of the president -- what might he hoped to have achieved by the time he gets to midterm elections? >> i think the problem for the

president is that even though he was elected for four years, all time is not created equal. is the timex months when presidents have the most power. is when the public is willing to cut him a break. --is when congress is moist most deferential. it's one big achievements typically are passed. withhe affordable care act barack obama, it took about 40 months. with -- 14 months. with president trump, we see not a single legislative achievement, we see confusion about the affordable care act, and what is consuming his presidency is a scandal over russian meddling and allegations about whether there might have been collusion by his associates. this is not the recipe for a president who can count on getting things done. if you can't get things done the first year, it is tough to get things done in the second year when congress is worried about their own prospects.

>> i think susan is right. you have more political capital after an election than ever. the problem for trump is, largely of his own making but not entirely, is the election went down in such an unusual way. he lost the popular vote. he did not have incoming capital that a president usually has. what he did have he has frittered away. he's making changes. scaramucci, i found that interesting. if there was a lesson from the first six months, his team does not know washington well enough. now he is replacing someone who knew those ways with a newcomer. it suggests he's more interested in the emotional climate than what would be tactically successful. charlie: go ahead, bob. >> to build on that point, i think it is smart insight. instead of turning to people who know washington inside of the

, the discussions are turning to who knows trump, who understands the president. he wants to be surrounded by people who get his new york combative ways. anthony scaramucci has the same personality. trump has never felt comfortable with the republicans around him. you have an administration, a white house, becoming more trump, not republican. charlie: it's a bit like circling the wagons. >> you could say that. >> it's a metaphor. this is a precedent that makes everything about him -- this is a president that makes every thing about him. until he makes things more about the country he is serving and the people, not what feels good, not about applause, until he can really take himself a little bit he will notquation, be about to accomplish the things he says he wants to accomplish. charlie: but it's unlikely donald trump would select those kinds of people like howard baker.

they were not the kind of people or wasat he knew confident in or believed in. members are two cabinet on thin ice. attorney general sessions and secretary of state tillerson. if either of them go, expect a hardliner, a combative personality. maybe rudy giuliani, although i don't see him confirmed by the senate. look for john bolton at stake, not bob corker. where i would disagree a little bit, we are forgetting justice gorsuch. that is a monumental it -- accompaniment. people get tired of me bringing it up. it will change the u.s. for 30 years. if i were the president, i would throw open the door on the counsel's office and demand my 20 circuit court nominees by the

end of next week.the way to keep conservatives with your back isboard and to move forward to make sure the courts, which matter more than almost anything else, are taken care of. >> i want to push back at one thing. it is monumental if what you mean is it will have great consequence. it is important for conservatives. let's not forget that in order to accomplish that the senate had to get rid of the traditional filibuster of supreme court nominees. that mitigates the accomplishment somewhat. >> now the playback on the pushback. [laughter] the guy who broke the filibuster was harry reid, and it was applied to the d.c. circuit. >> not for supreme court nominees. >> the rule was you could change the role of the senate with a simple majority, which is what

mcconnell did. that might be used again on the blue slip tradition of holding back judges. if you have a complaint with gorsuch, you have harry reid. >> if the shoes were on the other foot, democrats might have done the same thing. i'm just saying while we are talking about at an accompaniment, a republican majority confirmed a republican president supreme court nominee, it's not that monumental to me. >> i would also just say that conservative voters may be very , but theh neil gorsuch voters who put donald trump and the white house include a lot of people who are nontraditional conservatives and did not vote on the basis of judges. they voted on the basis of manufacturing back are getting health premiums reduced. those voters will not be sassy -- satisfied with, look at neil gorsuch. ♪

♪ charlie: let me bring up the issue in terms of foreign policy of russian sanctions, and trump's relationship with the republicans in congress after six months. >> it is a fascinating question. you see republicans in congress have a traditional republican view of vladimir putin, of russia, a hawkish take, a view that he is perhaps a human rights abuser, he is murdering

journalists, he's trying to disrupt u.s. elections, and yet inside the white house and parts of the administration people who want to reimagine u.s. and russia relations. this is a real standoff between the gop and republican president . the president shows no signs of acknowledging or going along with the congressional impose when it comes to russia. charlie: but with the health care debate, did the president lose whatever confidence he might have had in the republicans in congress? >> i was talking to congressman over the weekend. if they really feel like they've made so many mistakes in how they sold this piece of legislation, instead of talking about regulations and taxes, they have become mired in a debate over medicaid and health care coverage for people who are poor, all as republican governors are clamoring to make sure medicaid expansions remain,

and they don't have the votes because moderates are uneasy. conservatives want much bigger cuts. this is the burden percent majority leader mitch mcconnell. they made this promise to the republican base, yet the law has become rooted in many states and there's no clear path forward. charlie: is this some debate between reality and what happens on the ground, which governors know, and senators in washington who know something else? >> it's a debate over whether or not politicians keep their word. mike lee ran on repeal and replace. shelley moore capital ran on repeal and replace. same with dean heller. i do not know how their brands survive. i do not know how their credibility survives not opening debate on a subject matter for which republicans have been campaigning for eight years. it would be a devastating blow, so much that there's an effort, senator cornyn announced he

would fly senator mccain to get clearance from his doctor to open up debate. i can't believe they are considering not opening up debate. not to open debate is a devastating takedown. why believe anything a republican senator says if they reverse themselves on this? >> can i just add one question? the republicans i'm talking to, they wonder if there's actually a political cost for republicans in 2018 not pass this piece of legislation?privately , a lot of them say republican governors want the medicaid expansion, the law has already taken root, maybe let it fade away and focus on taxes, because health care is a thorny issue. >> on a day-to-day basis, i think dean heller loses his election unless in both passes and fails. why believe anyone about anything? the damage to our government if the so profound

republican party cannot deliver a debate on something they campaigned on for eight years. it's almost stomach churning they would not vote to open debate on this. charlie: is it likely to have been? -- happen? >> i have no idea. they are very close to bringing senator mccain back. maybe senator lee said he would debate. try to open they will not get collins and rand paul, so they need john mccain and everybody else. charlie: how long can the white house lived with this infighting? there are white houses that have had competing power centers in the past, and it worked well in some cases, because it generates ideas and keeps things moving. rough,s been pretty though. in part because you really don't

have a president familiar with washington, and you don't really have republicans sticking with them. i think there are questions being raised about how long they will do this and what kind of plank they would walk off for donald trump. one thing you do hear from republicans on the hill is they are not criticizing him on russia, not criticizing him on thinkaff, because they they can possibly get their big agenda items done, like tax cuts. if they can't do that after winning the house and the senate in the white house, that is a tough message to take into the midterms or into a reelection campaign. charlie: do you believe the mueller investigational figure out why donald trump has behaved as he has and said what he said during the campaign, continuing up until today about russia,? >> i have huge faith in robert mueller, who is universally

dotted --as a dogged, serious, cautious investigators. i think we will have a lot of answers. charlie: in your judgment, will it be more likely to be tied to some kind of financial angel meant or transaction -- arrangement or transaction? >> i think some people will definitely find this will lead to their indictment. i don't believe this administration will be defined by russia.i think mr. mueller there's no evidence of collusion induced, but there may be wrongdoing by individuals. the administration will be defined by what it does or fails to do. right now, the ice is thin. when it breaks, it will be dramatic, unless they deliver. you get the fall and the first quarter of 2018, but after that, nothing happens. you don't want to go into the

midterms with your party staying at home angry and the other party marching in the streets. that's a recipe for a wave. charlie: so trump will be defined between now and right before the midterm election? absence and extraordinary crisis abroad, yes. >> he's right. we spend a lot of time talking about the russian investigation. that dominates headlines. but i think when voters go to vote in 2018, i agree 100%. i think what will happen will be more reflective of whether they see anything in washington true to his promises. as an american, i'm really concerned, because he tapped into a great deal of anger in this country. legitimate anger about the broken ways of washington, about broken promises. what happens to that anger if after two years or four years of donald trump, washington looks the same, the source of priorities we have been

paralyzed around have not been advanced? what happens to the already shriveled faith in government? >> we are seeing flickers of an emerging dynamic that i'm paying attention to ahead of 2018.it looks more like president trump is preparing, if he wants to, to run against his own party, to blame congressional republicans for the inaction, rather than having it on his shoulders. a yawning divide -- this can become a yawning divide. that trumps a view is fueled by grievance politics, populism, and anger, not necessarily by accomplishments. ideology and accomplishments will not determine whether trump has success or not. it may determine whether the republicans control congress, but trump is on a different track. because of that, he may start

running against his own party. >> and he's going to run against us. one of the things that has been true -- republicans?nst he hasof the reasons why waged such a war over what is fact, is if he wants to evade accountability in the long run, one way to say is you can trust no source of information except what i'm telling you. in his perfect world, we believe without question what he tells us, and distrust other sources. that is a big narrative. charlie: what bothers you most about this president? >> that he is not spending his time focused on legislative agenda.i mentioned judges before. i don't mind the twitter, i don't mind controversy, but i do want results.i do worry. it is --e for frank and i do agree

to agree, but the politics of grievance cut against the front row and that growing allergy. people sitting in the front versus people sitting in the back. people in the back are very angry. tries to tapmp into that, against coastal elites, republican and democrat, it could be really disruptive for the country. i would like him to go back to governing. that?e: but does he know does he know governing, or does he simply know the power of grievance? >> there are good people in the administration. there are competent people who know governing very well. i think he listens to them, at least sporadically. i don't underestimate leader mcconnell or paul ryan board chairman kevin brady. there are lots of the -- effective people. the president attention is often

engaged at people who punched him, and he punches back. that's not the problem. the problem is, at least find time for the agenda, not just combat. charlie: but it is a problem if everyone perceives that to be your primary concern. your primary focus is mad that you cannot resist. hugh: getting to an electoral college majority in 2020 will , andre the traditionalists conservatives, and that is the part he's missing out on. >> if you are fighting over time, and you are using those moments when you have the microphone, using the bully pulpit to wage all of these wars with different people, how are you going to sell your agenda? one of the things about this health care debacle is we never heard in a consistent or

coherent waymicrophone, using ty from the president why we should buy into this. he has to be a will to make the case because he has the largest -- loudest megaphone. charlie: we have many times said, that is the final straw, but it has never been a final straw. >> that's true. the politics of grievance are powerful, but the politics of grievance do not change the facts on the ground in people's lives. one of the things donald trump has struggled most with is we a system with lots of checks and balances. an immigration plan has to pass constitutional muster in the courts. if you want to repeal and replace the affordable care act, you have to do it through congress. he continues to tap anger at washington, but he doesn't have anything to show for it. that doesn't strike me as being a powerful political message.

famously did triangulation, but he built up relationships with republicans as he was attacking congressional democrats. we haven't seen president trump do that kind of maneuvering that would give him the ability to affect people's lives. charlie: we talked hi about getting a supreme court justice. where would you put the fact that he pulled out of the climate accord? obviously his base, it pleased some of them, but in terms of the reputation around the world, it had a major impact. decision was revealing of how this presidency has unfolded. the republican agenda has been care, taxes.th they haven't happened. what has happened was president trump's agenda on executive authority. use that on the travel ban, to

put forth his own immigration policy, and when it comes to climate change, to retreat from the paris accord. you see him in the white house using executive power to do what he wants, but when it comes to congress, he is in following through with what republicans want. charlie: let me extend that, frank. between january 20 when the president took office and today, how has our reputation around the world changed? k: it has changed entirely. the paris accord is one example. donald trump has sent a message to the world or our traditional allies -- what he means to be saying to them is, you can no longer take advantage of us, but what they are hearing is, you can no longer count on us. if you listen to what western european diplomats have said, there's a feeling that we are no

longer exercise in the kind of global leadership that was expected of us. a lot of donald trump space likes this because they feel we have been the rest of the world's chump. without us, who else? when we talk about donald trump's relationship with putin and russia, what has devastated me about that is the moral equivalency that is drawn between the united states and russia. there's a reason why we have always seized of the role of leadership, and that's because we do have sturdier, better values. we are worthy of that leadership , and i worry that the message he sends out is that we are not worthy of that leadership. hugh: in poland, president trump received a wild reception. in japan, they are happy he's on north korea the way president obama was.

the redline stuff of the last eight years did not resonate with a lot of america, and the america first, make nato pay their way does. this separation on foreign affairs makes a big deal, but not if it is obscured by domestic failure at home. i am happy with his foreign policy, very happy. susan: he mentioned poland. the president gave a speech that had a great reception in poland, and since then, we have seen massive demonstrations on behalf of the rule of law in poland. that is surprising to me. i think it's the sign of a more itited american role when comes to asserting american values of democracy and civil liberties. i think whatever happens with president trump on domestic policy, he has reordered u.s. role in the world to a more limited role. france and germany and canada are stepping up on their own.

it's a changed world because of the trump presidency. charlie: you have covered him from the beginning. how has he changed or not changed, and therefore, that is what we should expect the rest of the term? robert: he has not changed at all. president who is the same person i encountered in 2011 backstage at cpac, 2013 when he started thinking about 2016, and in particular with foreign policy, we are seeing the flames of his youth when he used to talk about the world with his father fred. his father used to tell him -- you read this in every book about trump -- his father felt america was losing in the world.the trade deficit was huge . the president gets credit on having these similar views on the world in trade going back decades, and he is echoing his father fred's view on the world.

he has brought them to the white house, and this is someone who has coveted being an antiestablishment figure. he has always been leery of the establishment, and he continues to be leery of the neoliberal world order, the world order that has been created by the united states since world war ii. he's never seen the world through that prism that many previous leaders have. charlie: i can't continue this conversation without mentioning sam will huntington. is where trump is taking us exactly that? hugh: no. i don't think so, but i think he's much more popular in israel than president obama was. i've we are looking at a long august in the middle east as evidenced by the events of the last two weeks. there is one big change that may be robert didn't note. during the campaign, president trump was his own communications director. he went on all the shows, to

quote president trump. he has never reduced his on-camera visibility. it's great to sit down with maggie haberman and glenn baker. i think he ought to be out there as he was during the campaign. it worked and then. why would he change it now? charlie: on that note, thank you. we will be right back. stay with us.

charlie: we are joined by sebastian gorka, deputy assistant to president trump. he's been called by "the new york times" one of the most visible defenders of the administration. in an interview on fox news, he characterized himself as the president pitbull. before joining the administration, he was an editor for breitbart news where he worked closely with white house colleague steve bannon. i am pleased to have sebastian gorka on the program. sebastian: thank you kindly, charlie. charlie: we have been talking about a group of reporters about thei am pleased to have sebastin gorka on the program. first six months. tell me about how you assess the accomplishments and failures, if you may, of trump's first six months. sebastian: as i wrote on the six-month anniversary, it feels as if we have been here for 25

weeks. if you look at the successes already, the revitalization of nato, the fact that we have seen without the wall being built a 73% decrease in illegal immigration across the southern border, if you look at the 25 stock market records that have been broken, the riyadh speach, it's basically a reassertion of american leadership globally. ronald reagan had a simple platform -- get us out of the economic malaise of the carter years and revitalize the american sense of self and win the cold war against the soviet union. president trump has a similar three legates tool. wall,e economy, held the and defeat isis. osul,the liberation of lom we have gone a great way already. charlie: what has been the

biggest frustration for you and steve bannon and president trump? sebastian: this is a man who doesn't given to frustration, and other does steve. it's disappointment, i think. the biggest disappointment business event has make -- fa miasma of collusion that doesn't exist. you heard jared give his public statement. he released a public statement to "the hell" before he went -- to "the hill" before he went. we want to talk about fixing getting rid of obamacare, what has to be done with provisions on health in the united states, but is the obsession of the chattering classes with things that most americans don't believe exist or don't care about -- charlie: health care is not one of the things they care about.

they care about that, and you have to ignore it, so far, there has been a failure by the administration and republicans to deliver repeal and replace. sebastian: we have in this nation, thank the good lord, a separation of powers with the legislative and judicial, so the president has been relying on the gop and his colleagues on the hill to make this happen. they have another chance to do so. the record has been disappointing, but there's a chance for the gop writ large to do with the expect them to do. charlie: let me go back to foreign policy. you said, the first principle of our administration is plain to see -- america is back. under president trump, so is american leadership, and this recognition is a first step towards advancing our leadership, which cannot set the conditions for the security and prosperity of the united states

and its allies. the era for apologizing for america is over. when you say the era for apologizing is over, what exactly do you mean? sebastian: we mean it in diametric opposition to the last administration. we wholeheartedly embrace what th america stands for. as a judeo-christian nation we are part of western civilization. we want to build our relationships with the world on those immutable values that we see as being objective, whether it's with israel, poland. the warsaw speech is seminal. we say moral relativism, post secularism doesn't lead to the kind of world we wish to see develop, and when america withdraws from the world, it gets to be a dangerous place, whether it's the rise of asian, the militarization of china.

american leadership is essential for global safety. let me go through that. charlie: with respect to the rise of china, this administration would have done what in terms of the militarization, the advancement of their military strength? what would this administration have done? sebastian: we are doing it already. we are clearly sending a message, whether it's through our freedom of navigation patrols or other measures, that the global pathways, the veins of international trade are not something to be exploited by the or to beegime intimidating their neighbors into trying to close down those channels. the idea that they are creating search-and-rescue bases on these fake islands, but instead, creating military bases, that is not good for anybody. we are going to push back on china's militarization and say,

look -- charlie: what have we done is my question. sebastian: exactly what i said. courses.otting those we are using the u.s. navy to maintain the freedom of travel through international waterways, and unlike the last administration, if you will allow me, we don't give all of our playbook away. poker, youe playing don't show other people at the table your hand. the same goes to those who challenge the international order. charlie: it was the president who said he was disappointed by china's unwillingness to help on north korea. sebastian: absolutely. we have great expectations. there was a great melding of minds at the mar-a-lago summit. china to exert its diplomatic pressure on north korea. the president has said he's not satisfied with the result.

that is why the president set on with the heads of state of south korea and japan to take the north korean issue to the why the council and president had a conversation with a xi jinping to tell him what he thought about what china needs to do. right now, we are going to maintain our policy of peaceful pressure when it comes to north korea, hoping china can step up, but the president takes no options off the table. charlie: wasn't that the policy of the previous administration, nudges president but president bush and president clinton? sebastian: not at all. the previous administration it into the national security strategy both the concept of leading from behind, which is oxymoronic, and the other obama bumper sticker, which was "strategic patience," which means we don't do

anything, we let others act. if you look at what we did in afghanistan with the moab bomb, we did not talk about red lines. toused 59 cruise missiles stop syria from using chemical weapons against women and children. that is different from strategic patience or leading from behind. charlie: have they used chemical weapons since then as far as you know? sebastian: if we stay in the unclassified domain, no, that is not what we used. syria did not do it. charlie: what you think the effort is in finding a cease-fire with the help of israel and jordan between the russians and the effort that is there to create some sort of cease-fire that could create some transitional government? toastian: we are very happy

see the cease-fire that was negotiated at the g20 with the inclusion of jordan and russia. that is massively important. it is geographically restricted, but we wish to see it expand. at the end of the day, our one objective in syria is to stop the bloodshed. the president wants to stop the bloodshed. there will have to be some political resolution. the political resolution in syria cannot include the assad regime as it stands. that is what we are going to say now, but we are satisfied with the way things have developed a since the g20. charlie: do the russians agree with that? sebastian: the fact that it is holding right now is very significant. what we are doing by sending certain messages through the use of force and otherwise is hoping that both the kremlin and other nations, if you look at beijing and north korea, what we are

trying to do is to make them think about their internal alliance. how far will you let a client state go before you say, this client is doing things that undermine my national interest? i think we have sent a clear message, and russia's cooperation in syria is account -- is a positive sign. charlie: in respect to nato, you say, being strengthened, has the president always intended to adhere to article five even though there were questions when he admitted it in one speech or another? sebastian: absolutely unequivocally. article five is the bedrock of the most successful modern military alliance and is nonnegotiable. charlie: the president didn't say it at the first speech he made when he went to nato after he was in riyadh. sebastian: the president is the key, the master negotiator.

what he wanted to see happen, he wanted to minimize the freeloader affect. if dues are $100, and 70% of the members pay $10, you aren't going to want to be a member. we wanted equitable burden sharing. did? what the president when the secretary-general came to washington, he said, absolutely, 2%. the president knew exactly what he was doing, and the seriousness of the alliance has been bolstered by people saying ok, we are going to pay for our defense in an equitable fashion. economist" wrote that president trump's idea of the united states' role in the world represents a fundamental break from the role the u.s. has played since world war ii. a, do you agree with that, and b -- sebastian: sebastian: no, i don't. is the president's foreign policy in accord with the fundamental tenants of

american policy following world war ii throughout american history of the late 20th and 21st century? sebastian: absolutely. what was that foreign policy after world war ii built upon? it was built upon the idea that evil exists. 's went and liberated death camps, when they fought on iwo jima, it wasn't predicated on some squishy comments about multilateralism. it was predicated on the fact that real evil exists. threats to decency exist. there will always be a totalitarian threat, whether it is fascism or jihadis. it comports with what we are seeing today. the last eight years, find one u.s. document under the obama document that used the word "evil."or it didn't exist. the multicultural relativism denied that. we are back. we believe these threats exist.

the president said, we have to defeat evil ideologies, because they are the modern version of the totalitarianism of the past. i think our foreign-policy jails much more with the original foreign policy of the united states during and after world war ii than the last 16 years of the bush administration and obama administration. charlie: you don't think president obama saw isis as evil? sebastian: if he did, he never said it, and they talked about violent extremism and local grievances, mumbo-jumbo from the social science world, which in fact seemed to predicate that the terrorist was the victim. we don't think terrorists are victims and, they must be killed or captured. that is how the world were -- how america saw the world during world war ii, and that is how president trump sees the world today. charlie: you can agree that there are a number of ways to fight terrorism.

you need both hard power and soft power. sebastian: i jettison the idea that joe and i came up with, the dichotomous concept that there is soft or hard power -- charlie: your secretary of state believes that soft power and diplomacy plays a role. sebastian: absolutely, but what we believe in is that there is a spectrum, a palette of tools, and what we wish to reassert is statecraft in the original sense where all the tools of national power are used concurrently. it's not either/or. we saw the talk over the last eight years that led to the rise of isis, the empowerment of iran, a militaristic china. diplomacy is great, but if there isn't the option for force, it's just words on a piece of paper. not aieve in statecraft, binary, either/or diplomacy or war. that is an oversimplification. charlie: let me talk about the

first time i met you at a dinner where we sat across from each other in washington, and i asked you, i want to understand steve bannon, and you said, take a look at a speech he made at the vatican. what would i have learned from that speech? i listened to it, but i want you to tell me what i should have learned. sebastian: very much a longer version of our discussion over the last few minutes, that this man believes there is objective truth, that there are founding principles of this republic, freedom, liberty, dignity of the human being based upon their being made in the image of the creator, and there are and there will always will be those who wish to kill or enslave you. steve understands there is a connective tissue between the third reich of 70 years ago and the jihadis of isis today. steve bannon understands that we have a civilization we are proud of, the judeo-christian civilization, and there are people who wish to destroy it.

♪

♪ >> positive earnings and rising confidence push wall street higher. to records, in fact to read the asia-pacific is expected to build on that permit yvonne: -- permit. yvonne: u.s. inventories said to have fallen sharply. >> g.m. warning of a downturn in the second half of this year, slashing production to bring inventory back in line. yvonne: the senate salutes john mccain after his health scare.