♪ studios infrom our new york city, this is "charlie rose." charlie: to begin with the developing story of the attack in lower manhattan yesterday. >> that attack left eight people dead and 12 injured, the driver wounded by the police officer was taken to the hospital -- taken from the hospital to u.s. district court. sayfullo saipov was in a wheelchair, handcuffed and shackled. they said the attack had been in the works for a long time. afternoon, two federal

charges against the suspect. u.s. attorney -- >> alleged terrorists view the city as a prime target for their hate filled crimes. for the alleged terrorists like saipov, they will find a new york city something else, justice. reporter: according to reports, sayfullo saipov chose october 31 because it was halloween and he believed there would be more civilians on the street. they found 90 isis propaganda videos and 3800 propaganda images. saipov is in custody at a nearby hospital and apparently talking to police. sources tell cbs news he bragged about what he did and was pleased with his success. sources say police recovered knives from the truck and 10-15 beast of paper which devices credit -- pieces of paper which give isis credit for the attack. the truck saipov rented turned

onto a bike path that 3:04 p.m., killing three. police say he traveled at a high rate of speed for about a mile, hitting and killing five others before he crashed into a school bus. four,rash, which injured including two children, was caught on video. sources tell cbs news that saipov said that was an accident. he wanted to continue over the brooklyn bridge. saipov wanted to get away, carrying a pellet gun and a paintball gun. he was arrested after being shot by 20-year-old officer ryan nash -- 28-year-old officer ryan nash. >> i understand the importance of yesterday's events in the role he played, and i'm grateful for the recognition we have received. reporter: nypd deputy commissioner for terrorism says they are still investigating whether he was assisted.

>> i think we have developed a level of connectivity between him and others who, at various times, have been the subject of investigations. we are still delving backwards to identify what that activity was in if it had some meaning. reporter: saipov is being held without bail. the fbi interviewed an associate of saipov, another uzbek. costs has been on the fbi but there fbi's radar was no indication he was planning an attack. charlie: joining me now is fran townsend, the former homeland security visor for george w. bush. andpdate of where we are any more information we've gain since you and i talked this morning? fran: he has been arraigned on charges now. he has been talking to the fbi, which was not true this morning.

there were reports that he asked the fbi to hang and isis flag in his hospital room. we know, for several weeks, he went on test runs. there was an individual with him right before he tragically mowed down these individuals, and they are looking for this individual who also called the suspect's cell phone after the attack. another thing going on is, because it is immigration status -- you mentioned that he got in on the visa and became a permanent resident alien, which meant he had all the protections of a u.s. citizen. that allowed him to sponsor others, what we call chain migration. we learned that he may have sponsored up to nine people. law enforcement are looking for those nine people because they want to know, are those good guys or bad guys. what we are learning from his motivation is that it was isis related.

he may have had contact with individuals overseas. he claims to have been self radicalized. onewe are learning more so of the last things i will say that we learned about -- we know he got out with his paintball gun and bb gun. everyone is asking the question, why? in the isis playbook, they say get out of the car with knives or guns. it turns out there were knives in the car. what happened was, when he hit the school bus, the knives went out of where he could reach them quickly so he got out with the fake guns. charlie: so if he had knives, he might have tried to kill some people? fran: what he was saying is that he intended to go from where he was if he didn't have a car accident to the brooklyn bridge, reminiscent of the attack in london. this is clear this is a terrorist incident. what is unclear is how much contact he had with isis overseas.

it may very well be that this is the bleed out that we expected when isis is feeling pressure in places like iraq and syria. they're going to act out in other places in other ways and that might be just what happened yesterday. charlie: what can we do as a society to prevent this? intelligencebest is a very good way. if you know it's coming, you can do more. if you know who is likely to commit an act, you can do more. you have to have good intelligence, and that depends on a good relationship with a community. what else? -- weplease retract protect infrastructure in public places as best we can. the bike path which runs the the west side highway,

the entire length practically of manhattan, that's impossible. it is right next to a six or eight lane the highway. things like that are impossible to protect. you take a cut at that in different ways. the nypd had reached out after the nice promenade truck in france. 348 trucked out to rental companies. the backpack bomb, they reached out to the suppliers of these parts. you try to chip away in a number of areas. the other thing, you look at immigration, communities, often times when people immigrate from muslim countries, their center of socialization in the united states becomes the mosque. it's not sort of a community center that exposes them to the larger community and more likely assimilates them. charlie: have we made any progress in the off -- in the effort to offer an alternative argument to someone who is

likely to be susceptible? fran: i don't think we have. i also don't think, in fairness, multiple administrations including the bush administration, which i was a part of, have failed at this. it doesn't work coming from a western voe and especially coming from a western government voice. you need credible voices in the region. i think the reforms we see in saudi arabia are a very good start. this is the site of the two holy mosques in that guy and medina. and medina. when the crowd prince says he will return saudi arabia to a more moderate islam, that can have a huge impact on muslims worldwide, so i take this as a hopeful sign. charlie: your police department is as good as it gets, and they look for -- clearly, the thing you worry about his copycats, people who might see this happening in europe, when there

was one incident, there would be another incident. is there anything we can do about that? fran: not really. what you want to do is share the information you are learning in real time. the end by pd -- the nypd is very good at pushing that out to other police departments. who he the nine people sponsored is important, finding the guy who was with him just before is important. you want to understand, is there a network, what prompted him at that point in time to commit this crime? it's hard. i do worry about copycats because we've seen it before. charlie: they keep coming. fran: thank -- thank you for coming.

♪ charlie: robert gates is here. he's had a long and distinguished service in public service. he was director of the cia under george h.w. bush before becoming secretary of defense under george w. bush and barack obama. he is the only secretary of defense in history to be asked to remain in that office by a newly elected president. you just returned from china. tell me what's going on over there. magazine called the most powerful ma jinping. robert: i think there's a case

to be made for that in terms of control at home, a booming strategies that are aimed at expanding chinese influence very broadly throughout asia, africa, the middle east. the whole one belt, one road trillione, this $1 initiative to build ports, airports, communications systems, railroads all across central air -- across central asia, southeast asia, africa, and so on. in military terms, that's not true. president states remains the strongest in the world in that respect. in terms of power at home and inexpensive policy, i think you could make that case. charlie: do you make the case also based on the principle

that, when there is a rising power,nd established they inevitably end up in war? robert: i don't accept that inevitability. i'm familiar with the book that describes this trap, and i think that there is no geostrategic reason that the united states and china should be adversaries. competitors, yes? rival -- competitors, yes. rivals, probably. it requires management on both sides of the equation, on the chinese side and our side, to avoid heading in that direction. charlie: do you think there is a commitment on their part to be as careful as they possibly can? robert: i think so. the last thing they need is a military conflict with the united states. they have a lot of issues at home. i talked about a lot of the good

things, powerful things, but they facing a lot of problems at home from the environment to the transition from an investment-based economy to a consumer-based economy. they've had as many people move from rural areas to the cities in the past 10 years as the entire populations of britain, france, and germany, 200 million people. charlie: history of civilization, more people have risen from poverty to the middle class in china. robert: the result of that is claim think the party's to legitimacy is not communism as an ideology but an improving standard of living for the people. as long as chinese leaders can deliver that, they are probably safe. that's the only basis of the legitimacy of the regime at this point. charlie: that was a central point in the three and a half hour speech, the supremacy of the communist party. robert: one of the things that

xi is doing is reestablishing discipline both within the party for those outside the party. companies, businesses, the population as a whole, and the military especially, is that the party is the end all be all. second question -- until 2008,ink that envious ofly were our sustained economic development and our economic model. one of the things that a lot of people may not appreciate is the degree to which our financial crisis in discredited our

economic model in the eyes of a lot of people around the world. that lingers. charlie: it had such repercussions around the world. robert: absolutely. i think that they see the united states -- i think they see some opportunities right now because we are so divided as a country and because our coverage -- because our government is so divided. it's difficult for us to do big things, whether it is to fix our infrastructure, to have big foreign-policy initiatives like they have underway, much less some of the other domestic issues. they see our paralysis right now, i think, as providing some real opportunities. charlie: some people say, while we have been mired down in afghanistan, the middle east, they have not had those distractions to focus on developing at home. robert: they have to do is to

focus at home -- they have been able to focus at home. i think one of the serious consequences of now having been at war for 16 years is that it has contributed to this sense of inpatients and exhaustion on the part of the american people in terms of engagement internationally, and sort of a sense of, why can't we focus on our problems at home and not be so involved in the west of the world -- in the rest of the world? around and so on, and -- why do we have all these troops around and so on, and why can't we fix the problems in this country? it's not so much that the chinese see that we have been distracted by those wars, although it certainly has taken a lot of time and treasure and -- i've always

believed that the patients of the american people for international engagement is very limited. the only time we've been able to do it effectively is when we've had effective presidential leadership. the americans are not instinctively internationalists. they just want to tend their own garden, if you will. aboutlso been very leery the use of force abroad because -- not whatever we have to, for our own national security. but presidents need to understand that there's a limited appetite in this country percent in troops into war. charlie: president obama understood that, didn't he? robert: i think he did. part of the problem we faced is that, when we get into a war, everybody who is it rising -- who is advising the president to

do it says it will be real short. more often than not, that's not the way it turns out. chinese have been able to take advantage of this american impatience with international involvement to gain a march on us in a lot of places. charlie: have we lost respect around the world? robert: i think so, for two reasons. first, what we already talked inut, the financial crisis 2008-2009. second, our paralysis at home. charlie: in washington? robert: yes. and our inability to do anything big, our public schools, infrastructure, immigration, a whole host of issues. we can't get anything done. earlier people

questioning our economic model. i think there are people around the world who are questioning our political model. maybe the way the americans do it isn't so hot. maybe this more authoritarian state capitalism that you see in russia, china, elsewhere, maybe that's the way to go. charlie: so people around the world are looking for a model, they say, let's look at the united states, they are in paralysis. china, they are in control. robert: they are expanding robustly. look at these thousands of miles of high-speed rail to have built, the bridges, airports. look at the difference between laguardia airport and the airport in shanghai. i think this is not irrecoverable. , think we can get back there but only if we begin to fix our internal political problems. charlie: what's going to happen in north korea? robert: i think, what we've seen

is, i think the president has got this right. we've seen basically the failure of a quarter century of policies. the clinton administration made a deal with the north koreans, the north koreans cheated and walked away from it. the bush administration tried to do a deal with the north koreans. president obama tried strategic patience. the result of all of this is, combined with an acceleration of nuclear testing and missile testing under kim jong-un, is today we face a north korea that either has a ballistic missile with a nuclear warhead on it that can reach the united states or soon will. so what do we do now? first of all, i think a dose of realism is in order. the notion that kim jong-un can be persuaded at virtually no

cost to give up his nuclear weapons, i think, is a fantasy. he looks at gaddafi, who gave up his nuclear program, he's dead, his regime is gone. saddam had no nuclear weapons, he's dead, his regime is gone. ukraine gave up almost 2000 nuclear weapons in net 94 based on a commitment by the united states, the united kingdom -- in 1994 based on a commitment by the u.s., the u.k., and russia. the russians have occupied crimea and most of eastern ukraine at this point. i think kim jong-un looks at this and says, nuclear weapons are the only way to guarantee the survival of my regime. i think we cannot accept a nuclear north korea, not only as a strategic risk, but it will probably lead to proliferation elsewhere. charlie: south korea, japan. robert: we have to be realistic

about sanctions. thanks in no small part to the president's top talk, we finally chinese' attention. the sanctions will not bite and cause kim jong-un to give up his nuclear weapons before he has tested and deployed them. , ifiew is that the solution there is a diplomatic way out, it has to begin with an agreement between the united states and china on an outcome. charlie: that's what henry kissinger says, too. you have to go to china, have to have an agreement on what north korea and south korea are going to look like. robert: you have to sort of show them what this will look like at the end and how you get there. the ultimate has to be

denuclearization of the peninsula. that's going to require some diplomatic concessions on the part of the united states in exchange for north korea's commitment. recognition, signing a peace treaty, perhaps an assurance that, like president kennedy gave premier khrushchev, that we will not seek to overthrow the regime. in 1962, it was about castro. that we will be not seek to overthrow the regime by force of arms. the other side of that coin is letting the chinese know what happens if we don't reach that kind of an agreement, which is a lot more u.s. missile defense asia, more inn south korea, japan, a float, and is of that is inevitable --

enimical to china's interests. in other words, we can't get to thatceptable and state china is it going -- end state that china is going to like the consequences. we have to take it in several steps perhaps, but ultimately get to a point where the north has no nuclear weapons. charlie: we have to speak to china's fears? robert: yes. china does not want a peninsula under the control of the united states, a unified korean peninsula that is basically allied with the united states. -- doe: we want to unify we want a unified korea that is indebted to china? robert: we would have to think

about -- if we got to a point where the north korea had actually dismantled their program -- my view is, unlike the iranian deal, any deal at this point has to include any time, any place inspections. they have shown they cannot be trusted. i think there is a diplomatic path. i think, going to the north koreans first simply won't work. i think we have to begin this process and see if we can reach a strategic agreement with china on what a nonnuclear korean peninsula looks like. impressionu get the occasionally, from what the secretary of defense james mattis says, that maybe there are alternatives we don't know about, that maybe there are ways to stop them that we have not yet spoken about.

that doesn't make sense to you, does it? robert: unless you are talking about some kind of secret weapons capability that i don't know about -- it has been six years since i was secretary. is i think, even then, that only -- that does not stop it forever. you can delay it, you can make it harder, but i think once they have the possession of the technology, the only way you prevent them from ever deploying nuclear weapons that reached the united states or our allies is through some kind of a political agreement. charlie: as donald trump done great damage to the american presidency? robert: first of all, i think he's identified something that political leaders in both either ignored or were ignorant of for a lg ti.

that is that there are a lot of people in this country who felt like the political elites were ignoring them and ignoring how close to the edge they are. even those who are in the lower middle class who felt they were just one firing from being job.ess, a loss of a i think he has grasped the disdain of those people for the elites. the elites brought them the crisis in 2008, they brought them this political paralysis. this paralysis predated donald trump. grasped a part of the country that has felt very neglected. unifiere were more of a , of somebody who was trying to bring us together as a people.

i think that's what we need now. we've had a lot of divisions in the united states, ever since the beginning. have always been partisan. nothing has been said in politics recently that is worse than what adams and jefferson said to each other. some things are a constant. this divisiveness where even families now can't talk about politics because they are so divided, i think, is a place where we don't want to be as a country. i would like to see him try and lead us out of that. i don't know if he can. we'll see. do you believe it is as bad as -- you saw what senator corker said from tennessee, you saw what senator flake said. clearly, there is -- clearly, the public leadership in the house and senate want to work

with him. even though they may say it in that,e, they believe because it is now his publican party, they have to work with him. party, theylican have to work with him. robert: he is the president and barring some circumstance he will be the president for three more years. what do you do? i think it's up to everybody, both in the congress but also in the white house, to find a way to work together. i think there are a lot of people who agree with aspects of his agenda, from tax reform to getting the allies to pony up more of their costs. charlie: barack obama wanted them to do that as well. robert: yes. frankly, i is -- and worked for a presidents. presidents.at -- 48

-- for 8 presidents. the thing that noticed lately us, they don't devote the time and energy to relationships in congress. when it comes to negotiating on something like tax reform or whatever, if you have established a relationship, even a friendship with somebody on the hill, it's going to make a difference if it's on the margin. i think that's people in the white house have not worked the congress hard enough to try and establish those relationships. i think it makes getting deals done. the one thing we've seen with obamacare and we are to see it with some other things -- any major legislation that is voted by one party is at risk of being reversed in the next election.

the only way you get long-term solutions to problems in this country is through bipartisan solutions. charlie: two other things. i just returned from qatar. i went over there to talk to the him year and others -- talk to the emir and others. the american secretary of straight -- secretary of state is trying to mediate this. at the same time, we are very committed to those sunni countries who are trying to be part of a united effort against terrorism. this?should we be in we got friends fighting each other. toert: i think the effort try and mediate the dispute is absolutely worthwhile. frankly, there's nobody better qualified than rex tillerson. charlie: we talked to the parties. they said they are getting signals from washington that --

robert: trying to fix that is very important. having these guys at each other's throats is not helpful. when i became secretary, i had good relationships with leaders in qatar. i had put a branch of texas a&m university in doha. secretary, the relationship between the u.s. and qatar was in very bad shape. the qataris were doing a lot of bad things, including on al jazeera, that were very offensive to the bush administration, including giving a platform to people we thought were terrorists how showing videos of american troops being .illed in iraq the qataris were allowing funding of various groups, extremist groups, and so on. charlie: allowing funding, meaning they would do it themselves or they had --

doing ithey weren't themselves but when these groups would open bank accounts in qatar, there was no effort to block that or -- qatarhe u.s. would press on this, the qataris -- if we went to them and said, so and so has a bank account, they are a terrorist group, we want you to close it. they would close it. the problem was that they were never proactive. they would go after these on their own. that's at the heart of the dispute -- they would never go after these on their own. that's at the heart of the dispute. the fact that the qataris give safe haven to the muslim brotherhood. they see the muslim brotherhood has diverse. there are some moderates and some extremists. that's the qataris view. the gulf arabs, as far as they are concerned, all of the muslim

brotherhood is bad. that's kind of at the core of this dispute and the fact that they think qatar has sponsored groups that they think are trying to overthrow them. charlie: are they right on that, that the qataris have sponsored groups that are trying to overthrow the united arab emirates? robert: for example, an office extremiststhe palestinian group, in doha. they've allowed the television to have an office in don't -- that taliban to have an office in delhi. -- in doha. charlie: when you raise that issue, they say, they were asked to do that by the united states. robert: that's true, but that was a long time ago, and they are still there. the problem with us, with guitar, is that they have -- ar, is that- with

they have not gone far enough with these groups. i think there is a way to negotiate the impasse between them but i think the qataris will have to change some behaviors. charlie: why do you think the administration is not as tough on the russians as many people thought they should? robert: i haven't got a clue. as i said when i introduced rex tillerson for his confirmation hearing, the challenge for the administration -- this was back in february -- the challenge for the administration is figuring out how to push back against putin's interventionism, his and, at thegery, same time, try to figure out how to stop what i think is an increasingly dangerous downward spiral in the relationship

between the u.s. and russia. particularly, where you've got our militaries operating in close proximity, for example, in the baltic sea where you fat russian jets coming within yards of american wars -- where you have had russian jets coming within yards of american warships. how do you do that? there's no doubt in my mind that putin intervened significantly in our election, that he intervened in brexit, that he tried to intervene in the french election. i haven't got any access to classified information but based on everything i've heard, for some reason, he left the germans alone. he is clearly focused on trying to discredit and delegitimize western institutions and democracy. i think he sees it in part as

revenge for what he sees as u.s. intervention in his election in 2012. he believes the u.s. was behind the revolutions in georgia, --aine, can understand it, i'mtude is, you did doing it. there's no question in my mind that it is continuing and that he takes great satisfaction in the greater consternation and division that he can create in the last, the more that he can undermine western institutions, the happier he is. charlie: i'm out of time. thank you. back in a moment. ♪ retail.

under pressure like never before. and it's connected technology that's moving companies forward fast. e-commerce. real time inventory. virtual changing rooms. that's why retailers rely on comcast business to deliver consistent network speed across multiple locations. every corporate office, warehouse and store near or far covered. leaving every competitor, threat and challenge outmaneuvered. comcast business outmaneuver.

charlie: kurt andersen is here, the host of the pediatric -- the peabody award program "studio 360." his new book, "how america went haywire." the ultimate expression of america's national character. i'm pleased to have curt anderson back.

my audience i assume is familiar with this because when there was a piece in the atlantic, we talked about it at that time. give me a sense of a 500 year history, all the way back to martin luther. kurt: it was the anniversary of putting up his theses. we began importantly as a protestant country, the english speakers that came here. they were not just protestants, they were the most fervent, fanatical faction of a fervent ferventl faction of the fanatical faction of puritanism. in definingortant who we are, the idea that we could reject our leaders, the idea that finally the truth was hours to find if we just read the bible closely enough. that was part of it but, meanwhile, the other english settlers closer to your part of the country in virginia, where their thinking they would find

gold, being sort of promised there was gold and never finding it after coming and dying. these groups that passionately believed either the unprovable in the case of the puritans who thought this was that they were coming here for the end time, or the gold hunters in virginia who were sure that this was a different kind of garden of eden. those were the founding pieces of the american character along with not believing in experts, being antiestablishment, and all the rest. that was the first bit of dna that went through a lot of twists and turns over the past several hundred years. charlie: we get to the 60's. we also had these various new religions of different kinds

. we had show business that grew up here as it did nowhere else. it blurred the various distinctions between the real and fictional. the fantasy industrial complex, which was no just pt barnum claiming he had mermaids on display and george washington, 161 years old on display. these things were excitingly untrue. , as nowhere else, was often come at its most successful, a kind of show business. andgelists in the 1700s 1800s, way before televangelists, were doing performances rather than just reading sermons. that is the fantasy industrial complex that kind of absorbs everything. it absorbs politics as well as real estate.

american exceptionalism is a real thing. america was the first country. from scratch, authored -- country created from scratch, , by theseike a novel people, for better and for worse, who believe themselves to be heroes. this big land where individualism in its most what weform ever was were and what we pursued. all that worked great, in my view. eccentrics and the extremes, it works because essentially the grown-ups we in charge, because we had aet of establishments, politil establishments, religious establishments, media establishments, that cap they laid on the craziness.

lid on: -- that kept a the craziness. charlie: at the end of world war ii, we were the dominant country in the world. kurt: then we got to the 60's. in part because of this great prosperity, it allowed everybody to be like, let's carry this to the max, let's take our liberty, and everyone is entitled to their own version of reality to the max, and we will define our own rules. much of what happened in the 60's, great. civil rights, environmental consciousness, feminism, many more things. the idea that empirical reality had no special privilege, that science and reason had no special privilege about magic and make-believe and whenever i want to make of reality. that, on the kind of countercultural and academic

left, was a new way of thinking, but you also had this thing that happened simultaneously, fundamentalist christians in america, as it happened nowhere else, of going back to extremes of religious belief. i'm not even talking about political belief but religious belief about the end times and about creationism and about speaking in tongues and all the rest. that -- the beginning of the 60's, it created a kind of volatile, explosive hybrid thing ed,t i think has indeed l through the means of the internet -- charlie: the relationship through the 60's and everything we've been talking about to the arrival of the internet in 1995, to 2016, the election of donald trump. more,i think, more and

beginning in the 1960's especially, various beliefs that used to be considered fringe like the john birch society or various types of flat earthers, became empowered to have those beliefs more and more. then, the internet gave them more than that, the power to recruit more, to feel like they were part of a community, to create their own reality with their own websites, with their own facts. that was there. some cynics especially on the right, in the republican party, used to that to their political benefit. we got to a point where too many americans felt entitled to their own fat as well -- their own facts as well as their own opinions. charlie: you're entitled to your own opinion but not your own facts. kurt: people began feeling like

they were entitled to their own facts. i firmly believed that donald trump could not have been nominated or elected president until that process of delivering g theine -- of blurrin lines between the real and the fantastical became so acute. news, that of fake i'm going to believe whatever i want to believe, damn the experts and the mainstream media like charlie rose. charlie: we have alternative facts, fake news, and i'll believe what i want to believe. what gives you the right to say is more say is a fact relevant than what i say is a fact? -- aswe used to have this most of the rest of the world still does have, there's a certain expert in different

realms where, ok, they know more than i do. in america, we had so do you legitimized those gatekeepers -- so delegitimized those gatekeepers that your opinion, your belief, your hunch, you're feeling in your got -- in your -- in yourerior to a gut, is superior to facts. charlie: the belief that barack obama was born outside of the united states. kurt: or was the antichrist. 5 million illegal voters, half of republicans believe that was true in 2016. charlie: it goes down to 9/11 and a range of things. how do we come out of this? kurt: we've known each other a

long time. am not a decline -- declinist. having written this history the past few years, i don't have a strong conviction that we're going to snap out of it, that the pendulum is going to swing back and it's all going to be good again. i think that those of us who believe that a shared set of facts and a shared sense of reality is the only way a functionan effectively, there are some of those people, and some of those people voted for donald trump. i have conservative republican friends who didn't vote for donald trump but share my concern that we all need to share a set of facts. us who, if those among believe that we've gotten out of control in this way and entered

fantasy camp sort of make this -- fantasy land sort of make this an important thing, we have a chance to make it get no worse. i don't think we're going to roll it all the way back to the way it was when you and i were younger. charlie: steve bannon, for example, thinks that populism is on the rise, but not necessarily from the right. it may come from the left. kurt: so far, what i'm talking about politically is much more consequential the right. that doesn't mean people on the left can't be predisposed to a -- predisposed to believing untrue things if they can firms -- if it confirms previous ideas. populism, which has lots of dangers, bigotry, nativism, and the rest, also is a different way of saying that every

person's beliefs about anything are as legitimate and valid as the people who actually know something about that subject. that, to me, is the danger of populism. charlie: you also see that donald trump's hold on the people who elected him is still pretty strong. it's mostly help. they say, he's exactly what i expected, he stood up to the establishment, he takes no prisoners, and while he may not have gotten everything he promised, he's trying to. and histh with him supporters, i wonder, how much of the time does he know he's telling the truth? time is he lying

compared to believing the untruth? i think he definitely lies, but, on the other hand, on the case, for instance, of barack obama wiretapped me in trump tower or 5 million people illegally voted, he might have passed the lie detector test on those. even perhaps that obama wasn't born here. charlie: if you want to hear those kinds of things on the internet today and on certain radio,ons, opinion, television, you can hear those 14ws expressed 20 47 -- /seven. -- 24? /seven. kurt: that didn't used to be the case. you had to subscribe to a newsletter to get them. maybe a magazine that came every two weeks.

that is the new condition that i don't know how we escape the downsides of. charlie: what do you think the impact of the robert mueller investigation will be? to say there is a norm and that norm is a law. i hope that people still believe that. in the past 24 hours, the president said, our judicial system is a joke, a laughingstock. that's dangerous talk. -- ithink, and i'm hopeful crossed my fingers, i have all my superstitious knocking on that isoping that is where it will stand. have ans process will

effect. i'm not even talking about getting rid of donald trump, but ,f saying, here's what happened here are the laws that were broken, now, the judiciary and congress, do what you will. charlie: the book is called "fantasyland: how america went haywire." kurt andersen. ♪ 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.

7:00 a.m. in hong kong, live from bloomberg's asian headquarters. i am yvonne man, welcome to "daybreak asia." republicans rollout their tax proposals. ironclad says he sees will for the first revamp in three decades. says his fed would keep a close eye on financial sector risk. bloomberg's global headquarters, i am betty liu in new york, where it is just after 7:00 p.m. thursday. the iphone x the finally hits the stores, are you excited?