♪ >> from our studios in new york city, this is "charlie rose." . trump is oneident step closer to getting his tax cut. the house boded -- voted thursday to pass his budget plan. more on this i'm joined from washington by al hunt of bloomberg and also mike allen, cofounder of axios. happening within the republican party when you had some criticism of the president by jeff flake, by john mccain,

by george bush, without naming and what does this mean, if anything, today in washington? charlie, it's republican party and were see more clearly the splitional stage that we've been seen in the house, that we look at so carefully with health care. now are seeing the trump and , andn part of the party the party where so many senators are now saying publicly what others are saying privately, behind the scenes. charlie, here is the twist, and here is why a lot of the coverage has been very misleading. the twist is that although senators and republicans around the country have made privately mccain andsms that corker and flake and bush and others are saying publicly, they

are going to keep it private trump. is strong in their state and their districts. he's now more commanding of the party than he has been at any time. there won't be a point at which these folks start to speak out against him. it's very strong with the republican party's, house and senate. if anything, mike understated the case. this is donald trump's party. think you have to go back to margaret chase smith in 1950 with the declaration of conscience against john mccarthy to find something like it. hasalked about how trump dialogue,litical political integrity. it had almost no public affect, if any. in washington, and particularly

out there in the country. jeff flake and john mccain speak out. then you look at someone used to think of as an independent as lindsey graham. charlie: so gets his tax cuts and tax reform? al: they get a tax cut. they won't get tax reform. that's what they desperately need. this is where republicans and trump are on the same page. they desperately need a success. it has nothing to do with economics but everything to do with politics. i think they will get a tax cut but almost no tax reform. you don't pass big things on a strictly partisan basis and have it succeed. righti think mr. hunt is about the diminished ambition of what they might pass. but even that may be hard. i will post this carefully, tell me if i'm wrong about this, but i think it will be harder than people think, the way the 1%

expresses to me that tax reform is everything. how do you pull off these specific cuts? this is one of the downstream , about for trump antagonizing these republican senators, that we agree that he is strong now, but if you've senators,2 republican so you can only lose a couple, senator mccain, senator bob corker of tennessee, already reluctant to vote for tax cuts that just add to the deficit. the president this week saying that bob corker, chairman of the senate foreign relations committee, could not win an election for dog catcher. andlose a couple of them, even modest tax cuts start to

look shaky in the senate. then over in-house, where you still have the math problem that you had during health care, you have the divided republican conference, if it starts to look uncertain on the senate side, they will take a tough vote to eliminate some tax breaks for interest that are important to me. that could mean that even tax cuts could go down. charlie: also on capitol hill next week, some of the giants of silicon valley are coming to testify. mike, we been hearing about the idea that these companies are so and they are so ingrained into who we are today, supervision,d some some monitoring and perhaps regulation, maybe even breaking up. does that idea have legs? does, and it's getting

increasing legs because it appeals to both republicans and democrats for different reasons. this could be a remarkable scene tuesday and wednesday on capitol hill, something we haven't seen in years. it's been years since they facebook, google, and twitter, testifying before the senate judiciary committee and the next day before the senate and house intelligence committees, looking into what happened in the 2016 election, what's being done preemptively ahead of 2020, and the subtext of that, as you say is, what else can be done to rain these in? democrats very concerned about the concentration of wealth and power, wondering if those companies should be broken up or regulated more. and own -- on the right, among republicans. so much suspicion of these platforms. a little ironically, perhaps, whatever effect the russian ads

had on the social platform, they seem to if anything have helped donald trump. republicans look at these ads as political actors, they look at them as advocates for the other side who want to open borders, so republicans would love to take those -- take big tex down a notch. always, mike said tell me if i'm wrong. i been trying for 20 years and have never been able to. i think maybe the bottom line will not occur. there is a left and right coalition that folks are angry at big tech. i think that will break down when it comes to what you can do about it. for all the concerns and anxiety , this is an enormously powerful group. remember their fight against the hollywood studios, who they clobbered four or five years ago. my guess is there will be a lot of sound and thunder, but in the

end, not a whole lot will happen. charlie: there's this issue of , lots ofrassment conversation, lots of women coming forward. we've seen a lot of talk about what it means and where it's going. is this touching washington? where is it in the nation's capital? charlie, what we are seeing is that industry by industry, this is becoming a subject of conversation, of investigation, and what is fascinating about it, what is so instructive for your viewers, how quickly this has happened. three weeks ago, plus a day or two, that the new york times broke the story about harvey weinstein. and look at the industries it has touched since then, , i think media, and

next his government. you were right to bring in washington. one of the fascinating, leading-edge stories of this , associated press correspondents and a couple of statehouses asked around. just a few statehouses involved came up with hundreds of people saying that when it comes to lobbying, legislation, that some of these issues that arose in hollywood also are issues in state capitals. there you're going to see investigations activated. not the story of the year, it's going to be one of the stories of the year, because every industry has a list, every industry has targets. there are a lot of men who are likely worried they are next. the california state legislature already has taken action, and i think congress will be the next target. let's turn to the

president. notwithstanding what we said about senators and the former presidents, he's getting ready to go to china, and i want to talk about that. what are the difficulties that he faces right now in this fall season as he tries to get some legislative victory on the board, and he's got steve bannon out attacking the republican establishment. owne is he in terms of his presidency? he starts off with historically low popularity, and as we said earlier, he has great strength in the republican party, which means he has none among democrats and is really .eak among independents that's not a good political position. it might help with your own party caucus, but i don't think he engenders a lot of fear among democrats around the country. there's a whole question about whether he can govern. i think that was implicit in

some of the stuff that george w. bush said. to bringelly was going order to the white house, and general kelly just has had a our countryek which might never recover from. i think for all the successes we alluded to earlier, and i went -- i would add the opioid speech, which was a rare moment of looking presidential. i still think this is a very troubled presidency. mentioned the you china trip, and i know that has been on your mind for a while. the choreography of a presidential trip abroad is always a vital, but this will be one of the most fascinating presidential trips we have ever covered, because he could be going to japan where he will see the emperor. were going to south korea so many american citizens are worried about what might be happening on the other side of the border, and he's going to

china, where president xi has never looked stronger, his name written into the constitution. president trump will probably ask him for tips on how to get that done. [laughter] all this is designed to bring pressure on north korea, and that's why this is so delicate and fascinating, reporting this week. do you take the president to the duke militarized -- to the demilitarized zone? it's reported they decided not to do that. look andabout both the also the physical danger that might be involved. charlie: north korea will clearly be one of the topics there. we heard from the director of and alarming assessment of where the north koreans were. we have an interesting piece coming up on 60 minutes this weekend on this next subject.

al, north korea, where are we? there's certainly more talk about a possible military solution. , anda serious situation nothing is going to be accomplished without the chinese. china, imagine donald trump in the american constitution, somehow it doesn't all caps together. around much of the world, there's a feeling that the chinese leader is a more formidable and enduring eager than the american leader. -- enduring leader than the american leader. nothing can happen in north korea without the chinese. charlie: mike allen, al hunt, thank you so much. turning to further elaboration of defense in china, china's commonest party held its congress this week, it's 19th

congress. president she ching ping was in trying in the party charter. president xi emerges as china's most powerful leader in decades. in china, and maybe last two peerless powerful than you are. -- we are nowing talking to david ignatius. is -- set up he for me how xi became who he is. david: it was a coordination ofxi as supreme leader of the kind that china is not seen tsee house a tongue m --ao tung. he began consolidating power in a way that was not immediately clear, but we can now see was from the beginning a decisive

attempt to put his personal imprint on china and really change the nature of what is then a collective, shared, fairly cautious leadership after mao. was to seek toit purify a communist party that had become corrupt. he was correct in seeing that as china grew rich, the bribes that were being paid to party officials and generals in the army were beginning to weaken china, to eat at the core of the system and make people doubt the parties fitness to rule. as i noted in my column this morning, in the last five years, leadership, one .5 million members of the commonest party have been disciplined. 270,000 have been prosecuted. 11% of the central committee has

been prosecuted for corruption or other crimes. the same thing has happened with the military. 13,000 officers have been sacked . 50 generals have been replaced. during the last five years of reign, you've had basically a complete turnover of the leadership in china. that means he now owns china, he is responsible for every bit of foreign and, security policy. once upon a time, collective blame and credit were shared. not anymore. the point of my column this morning was, that is a little bit dangerous, when you own responsibility for a country's biggest china, if things go wrong, you have to take the blame. there is nowhere else to share it. i have been hearing from the china watchers that i respect

the most, murmuring that even as has consolidated power, the chance that he could have a misstep down the road may actually increase. charlie: what happened to his close friend and ally who was on the standing committee, but was no longer on the standing committee? if he'd stayed on the committee it would give xi an opportunity to say were no longer honoring our 65-year-old rule. david: there's a lot of speculation about the chief xi's campaign, it in theught his tenure senior position might have been extended its kind of a forerunner of a similar extension for xi when he

finishes his second term as general secretary. it has been a term -- 10 year term limit and is thought maybe he would be the forerunner to break that mold. it didn't happen. there are all kinds of rumors, and i note for your viewers that this is speculation, but there are rumors that there may be family.nvolving his the most likely theory is that xi wanted to save this mold breaking for himself and didn't want to use that unusual tool to early for his ally, but down the road five years, say perhaps it's time for me to continue as leader rather than turn over to someone else. the important point is, there is no one else in the wings. it's the first time in a decade there has not been a next generation leader preselected. so we'll head to the end of this 10 years without any obvious

successor in place. charlie: most of the people in standing -- and the committee are over 60 themselves. arexi'sthey xi'semporaries -- they are contemporaries. xire is speculation that doesn't want competition, but he's going to have a group of contemporaries, essentially unchallenged rule. dominates both the politburo itself and the standing committee, which is the key ruling body, four of the seven members. he is really in the driver seat in every way possible. now that he has

consolidated all this power and stands alone, will china be different? will it be more aggressive? does it have ambitions for greater influence around the world? think that maybe the most important corollary of the party congress we've just seen. is being more explicit and direct about its ambitions. to be a global power. talked a lot in his lengthy speech about the strategy known as one belt, one road, which is the chinese idea for consolidating trade all the way to europe, through central asia. projectingchina economic and ultimately military power. xi also in his report to the party sketched a process of

growth for china not simply through his tenure, but all the way to 2050. in that sense he has ambitions that go beyond his personal -likeion to be a mao leader. he has what he calls the china dream. china sees american power weakening. is preparing its own instruments infill the space that china's eyes, america's giving up. charlie: you see the rise of chinese technological companies that are in some cases bigger than the companies they were paralleling. thexi made note of the specific areas he wants to dominate. go down the list. one thing he did not talk about

specifically but they talk about often in other venues is want him computing -- quantum computing. ie scope of china's ambition think is central now. americans need to see it clearly. is hide andphrase ide the time to hang out in the shadows is over. charlie: coming to china, a man .rom the west what is the significance of this, and what might come out of it? david: i think presidents trump -- president trump's visit to asia and particularly china, is the most important trip of his presidency to date. the chinese understand that trump is reaching out to embrace

who through last year's presidential campaign at china. trade, allping us on that rhetoric is gone. as my veryeks of xi good friend, a very good person. he likened him to a king, and he did not do that critically, but almost enthusiastically. he may have ambitions of his is abut i think he sees xi kindred spirit. they are both kind of big guys physically, tall and burly. they have a direct, emphatic style of leadership. xi is sometimes known as big daddy xi. i think trump would love to be seen in a similar way. i think the chinese will go all

out to make the visit as friendly and successful as possible. they will have big welcoming ceremonies, the chinese can put on a spectacular show. will be efforts to make the relationship appear personal and warm and involve the family's in some way. is issue we should focus on whether the chinese are actually willing to deliver more on north korea and trade in particular. president trump has made a big bet that china will help you really squeezing north korea. will help them get more from north korea in terms of actual negotiation about the rep program than any president has gotten before. he also hopes that the very unbalanced trade relationship u.s. has had with china for decades will change, that a more will recognize

balanced playing field in trade. that's the way both sides are setting the table. both sides have such strong interest in this visit being successful, headlines will probably be positive, but the chinese will have to move something, especially on north korea. charlie: we will be right back. stay with us. ♪

charlie: roger altman is here.

he's the founder and senior investment manager of ever court. .- ever core he has an op-ed in today's washington post in which he writes, the election of donald trump was the greatest presidential upset in modern u.s. history. writesnow an absence of legislae achievement and dismal approval ratings, many americans already seem to feel his victory as the equivalent of a 100 year flood, in other words, type of surprised that today's voters won't see again, except they will. i'm pleased to have roger altman back at this table. why will they? roger: they will because the underlying cause of such voter economic.ink his

i think there are basic facts that frame that if you look at wage trends, household income trends, the financial condition of american households and income mobility, you see stagnation. wages have not risen in this country essentially for 40 years, 0.2% as of the end of last year. real, immediate household income has not risen in 20 years. the federal reserve does a survey every three years of what they call the well-being of the american household. last year what they found was quite stunning, 46% of american households could not meet a $400 emergency expense without borrowing are selling something. that signals aid extreme voter discontent. so you are suggesting the american dream is over, because the dream was that each generation would do better than its predecessor.

roger: the data shows today, some profound research shows that for those who were born in 1980 and the 1980 cohort, who are roughly 35 years old and in their prime working years, only about half of that cohort is going to live better than its parents. if you were to measure the 1990 25-27 years old, and haven't done that yet, but you would likely find that less than half is going to live better than its parents because the trend has been going down steadily for 40 years. charlie: and why is the trend going down steadily? websiteost economists three or four factors. globalization, technology, decline of unions, and stagnant results on education in this country. college completion rates, for example.

these trends, unfortunately, our very deep-seated and very long-term, and they are not likely to abate. therefore there is nothing to suggest that this vast income stagnation is going to change, and therefore, the anger that we saw in 2016 i think is the beginning of a period of election volatility driven by that voter anger, and we will see continued surprises, and trump is just the first. charlie: yet you say it's possible to imagine a bold , business tax reforms, steps to increase college interest rates, and better protection against abuses and work schedules and all that. you are saying it's possible to imagine, but are you saying you can imagine it, but it won't

happen because of the political gridlock? world, ifa perfect there are five or six great big steps the country could take which, at least over the next years,rs, seven or eight could well move wages up, and i cite a few of them there. about one trillion dollars-$2 trillion over 10-20 years. that's something we should have done 10 or 15 years ago. we are nowhere near doing it. it's a perfect example. charlie: it's on the agenda, but after so many other things. sides agree we should have an infrastructure initiative but they cannot agree on it so it's not going anywhere.

democrats typically view this as grants to mayors and governors and that's not perfect either, historically. it's a type of thing that's a perfect example of what we could do in a different political environment, but we are not doing. cannot say to yourself with a straight face that were going to take any of the steps that could possibly have a medium-term, upward impact on wages. and there is debate on whether income pressures that have kept wages as they have, come from cultural factors such as rebellion against the establishment, or something out? -- something else? roger: you know there is a big debate as to what really caused the election result of 2016.

sociologist think it's primarily cultural factors and anger toward the establishment, as people see the establishment, and economists, many of whom economic factors i talk about. in my view, they are interrelated. tthink it's one issue, not wo, but at the bottom of it all is the vast stagnation charlie:. you were an advisor to secretary of state clinton. did she believe in this? did she appreciate and understand this? it,r: she did understand and didn't need any help from me to do that. most people think about these issues understand it. charlie: but it speaks to the economic discontent, the problem people are having, it speaks to all those things, yet they listen to another candidate. there are so many factors

that explain her failure to win, but i think you had a very angry electorate, for the reasons we are talking about here, and he was able to tap into it because he was talking about blowing everything up and changing everything. this unhappiness and stagnation, that appeals to people. charlie: look at the economy today. 3%,ust had a recent report, we have stock markets going through the ceiling. what is going on? there is a widespread view right now in the investment community that we are seeing what they call synchronized global growth. we are seeing an acceleration of global growth.

china doing better, europe finally beginning to come to life, and some improvement in the u.s. growth rate. 3% is a goododay, report. that's the main factor driving markets to these breathtaking there isnd i think reasonable data to suggest that global growth is doing better. the imf has changed its forecast and so forth. i happen to think the stock market is that scary levels, but that is a whole different issue. the data i talk about in this piece -- the stagnation incorporates the latest data. yes, the economy is doing a little better over the last couple of years. average hourly earnings have reflected.that's all charlie: all those economic

factors, whether market factors, gdp factors, employment factors, signaling the economy is sort of coming out of -- if anybody said we are going to be able to grow at 3% plus for the next quite a few years, we would see wages and income improve. roger: our demographics, the declining size of our workforce as the population ages and a large percentage of, for example, working age males are not in the workforce, for all sorts of reasons, and the opioid epidemic is one of them. demographic center say we don't have the capacity today to grow on a steady, year after year basis of 3%. we have about a 2% long-term

growth potential, just based on the size of our population. anylie: you're saying politician who says we can --ieve gdp growth of 3%-4% roger: if you could wave a wand and take the steps we talked about, you could get the gdp growth up in five years, sixers, something like that. we have the capacity to grow at 3% for the next 10 of them 15 years, we don't. we would have to have a very different immigration policy and see our population as a whole start to grow, instead of be stagnant. is aannot grow -- growth function of basically productivity, or capital and labor, if you put it that way. the workforce in this country is not particularly growing. 3%-4% innnot grow at

the long term if your workforce is not growing. problem toeing this a great degree because it's population is actually declining. to see the economy show a 3% growth rate, don't get me wrong, that is great. inre has been a little blip wages in the last two years, but the long-term trends are not changing. we just talked about the economic results that are in. do you expect to see, if we don't do any of the things it's slippingre, further in terms of wage and economic growth? roger: there is an enormous debate about the long-term demand for work, and whether technology is going to undermine the long-term. --rlie:

roger: i am a bit pessimistic on that. historically, i think the accelerating pace of technology, which is astonishing, suggests to me that it's going to undermine the demand for work. so i think over the next 10-20 years, we are going to see this continued stagnation and very unhappy voters and that will produce election surprises. over the long-term, it looks difficult to me charlie:. charlie:steve bannon said we will either have economic nationalism from the right or from the left. one outcome that would not surprise me would be to see 2024, the2020 or

exact opposite of trump. i don't know if we have a tradition, we have a dynamic in the modern era where voters tend to want to opposite of what they just had. bush,following george w reagan following carter, and exact opposite of trump would be someone like sanders or elizabeth warren, someone like that. it would not surprise me at all if that's what we get next in this era of surprises. so polarized, and of course the politics reflect that. wave ford a massive both houses of congress went the other way, in this case democrat, and democrats would pass lots of legislation, yes,

but i don't see that happening. i don't see this that -- i don't see the pendulum swinging that far in this country. charlie: stay with us, we will talk about the kennedy assassination. who knew that phones would start doing everything?

entertaining us, getting us back on track, and finding us dates. phones really have changed. so why hasn't the way we pay for them? introducing xfinity mobile. you only pay for data and can easily switch between pay per gig and unlimited.

no one else lets you do that. see how much you can save. choose by the gig or unlimited. xfinity mobile. a new kind of network designed to save you money. call, visit or go to xfinitymobile.com. charlie: on thursday night, the trump administration released thousands of government files regarding the assassination of president john f. kennedy that took place in 1963.

the documents were made public in accordance with the 1992 law that are there release after 25 years. president trump out to advisors in withholding certain documents over national security concerns. joining me is dr. larry sabato of the university of virginia. his team of researchers is currently reviewing these 80 files. please to have him back on this program. welcome. let me begin with this. what are historians looking for here? i know you're continuing to look at these documents. what might they find? larry: there are little gems, little nuggets throughout. i think gradually, these nuggets will fill-in pieces of the puzzle we had never quite fully understood. what are we looking for? we are looking to see if anything contradicts the basic conclusion reached by most

people who really examined the assassination, that lee harvey oswald was the shooter, probably the loan shooter, that is my view, in dealy plaza. we want to know more about him. we want to know what his motive was. we are still unsure about the motive, unfortunately thanks to jack ruby. had he not shot oswald, it's almost certain the police would have gotten from him his motives rather quickly, by hook or crook. anything newhere to know about why jack ruby did it? in these documents we have seen so far, and i want to stress, we have not come close to finishing the work just on the, and the ones that trump held back may well include more information about ruby and oswalt and everyone else. that is the good stuff. what we've got right now basically doesn't change the

timeline of the assassination, doesn't change the basics, but it does add some very interesting little qualities to it that we were not fully a mill your with prior to this. charlie: like? i will give you an example. one document had been released in part before this and this particular document shows that a phone call was made to a reporter at a cambridge newspaper in the united kingdom. 05 p.m.l came in at 12: dallas time, 20 five minutes before president kennedy was assassinated. the anonymous caller said, you'd call the american mc, there's going to be big news coming out of the united states. either that's the greatest coincidence in world history, or it suggests call the that somebw something from some source about what was going to happen in dallas.

what is new about it is, we didn't know that british intelligence had checked that out and checked the reporter out. to the extent they were able to do that, they validated it. they were never able to find the person. impossible,s it was particularly if you are calling from a phone booth. so we will never know who that anonymous person was, but it certainly was on. charlie: what else, that is a fascinating tidbit. there's a cuban intelligence person in 1967 who is chatting with another cuban in an interview, and they were discussing the kennedy assassination. one of the cubans said to the lee harveyknow, oswald must have been a pretty good shot. the second cuban said he was, he was very good, i knew him. was it true? maybe they were bragging. if it were true, how did he get

to know the harvey oswald? embassyt the mexican where lee harvey oswald spent six days? we knew about a few hours that he went to the soviet and the cuban embassy. what happened? suggested tooover the war in commission, his sources had told him that fidel castro said, as on wall was leaving the cuban embassy, i'm going to kill john f kennedy. missed: i'm sorry, i that. who said that? larry: j edgar hoover. no, oswalt said that. goinge: oswalt said i'm to kill him and prove my fealty to the revolution? larry: that is what they edgar hoover said to the warren

commission. they downplayed the mexico city reasons. for obvious president johnson, j edgar in various others, ways formal and informal, communicated to chief justice warren and others on the war and commission that the last thing they wanted was for anything to come out of this commission that could trigger a nuclear war between the united states and the soviet union. johnson feared that the american people, if they thought the soviets or the cubans had anything to do with this, would demand retaliation, and that it what inevitably lead -- it would lead to nuclear war. charlie: and then there was someone named el mexicano. no one is entirely sure. this is a very odd instant. we are investigating it. i'm going to take a pass on that

one for the time being. charlie: because you don't know enough yet, or because it is so tantalizing, you want to have more before you say any link? larry: both -- before you say anything. larry: both. here,ve role information you have a lot of gossip and rumor and innuendo, and people writing down anything that anybody who called in and said, and of course, a lot of it is .ust junk it wasn't true then, and they may not have even taken time to debunk it. charlie: one theory of the cia up fbi, they wanted to cover their own, for lack of a better word, incompetence. charlie, they dropped the ball on lee harvey oswald. think about this guy. he was one of the few american defectors to the soviet union. who wanted to go to the soviet union back in -- back then?

he was a very strange person before that. he had been arguing marxism in the marine barracks and gotten in fights over it. then he comes back after having with money provided by the state department and almost immediately is campaigning on behalf of fidel castro in new orleans. the story gets more complicated, but essentially, he stood out like a sore thumb. he was a missed it. he was a sociopath. both the cia and the fbi knew it. they were tracking him in various ways. the shocker is, not only did the fbi and the cia not communicate regularly with one another, neither of them ever told the secret service about lee harvey oswald. this assassination could definitely have been prevented. the noncommunication pervaded the government all the way up through 9/11. it sure did, and it was

supposedly fixed after that. i bet there are still problems we don't know about, because it is human nature. agencies want to reserve information to themselves. they have the power as long as they have the information. which is another reason they are arguing so strenuously to keep many of these documents hidden, but at -- are you suggesting, or do you know, that those documents that have been redacted, that they are withholding for now, are some of contaings that really the questions that most everybody wants to know more about? words, what they're hiding under national security reasons is the very thing that most people, analysts and knowrchers, no contains -- contains possible further understanding of what happened? that would be my guest.

it cannot just be that there is the name of some source and they are suggesting that the ones who are living -- and there can't be many -- would be in danger, potentially. now they are adding their families, too. people have families for generations in decades and centuries. is that going to be the permanent excuse for keeping this private? there's got to be something that gives us a new theme, a on the assassination, and they are not interested in letting everybody know what that is. charlie: did hoover ever talk about this to any degree? larry: only privately. a president, some of the people in the justice department, and senior people in his own operation. he had strong opinions about lots of things. he was furious at the dallas police department. the fbi called and asked what they needed, that it was essential to protect oswald.

the dallas police department said we don't need anything, everything is fine, nothing will happen. and we know what happened. hoover went through the roof and called it inexcusable and realized immediately what it meant. no into conspiracy theories. we will be talking about this 200 years from now. not uni, but others. charlie: robert kennedy's son told me in dallas that his father never believed the warren commission, or something close to that. had a theorysay he as to what had happened, but said he was troubled by the warren commission's report. true, andt's exactly i've had a chance to talk to a couple of the kennedys over the years, and they all report the same thing. that it seemed impossible to bobby kennedy and also to jackie kennedy that this was the product of one man's imagination

, that he managed to carry it off. although strange things happen. if you look at human history, some of the least people can take care of some of those with the most to offer. but the kennedys thought as -- at various times, that it was castro seeking revenge or the anti-castro cubans seeking revenge because of the bay of pigs, or that the soviet union item been involved, or the mafia , who knows? , every evidence we have piece of investigation that has been done by a neutral party, not trying to prove a particular theory, suggest that all small at least was the lone shooter. if others were involved, that's another subject entirely. it's possible there were people behind oswald. charlie: larry, thank you so

much. a pleasure to have you on the broadcast. thank you for joining us. see you next time. ♪ is this a phone?

or a little internet machine? it makes you wonder: shouldn't we get our phones and internet from the same company? that's why xfinity mobile comes with your internet. you get up to 5 lines of talk and text at no extra cost. so all you pay for is data. see how much you can save. choose by the gig or unlimited. xfinity mobile. a new kind of network designed to save you money. call, visit, or go to xfinitymobile.com.

>> 7:00 a.m. here in hong kong. we're live from bloomberg's asian headquarters. welcome to "daybreak" asia. the top stories this tuesday, the russia inquiry charges three people associated with president trump, among them former campaign manager paul manafort. the president denies cligse collusion and points the finger at the democrats. the white house says the arrests have nothing to do with him. and from bloomberg's global headquarters, i'm in new york where it's just after 7:00 p.m. on this monday. social media struggling under the weight of fake news. facebook now saying the russian posts reached more -- almost 130 million users in the