♪ announcer: from our studios in new york city, this is "charlie rose." chare: we begin tonight with the cbs evening news and 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 from the hospital to u.s. district court to face a judge. sayfullo saipov was in a wheelchair, handcuffed and shackled. the police say the attack had been in the works for a long time. late this afternoon, federal

prosecutors filed to federal charges against the suspect sayfullo saipov. >> alleged terrorists view the city as a prime target for their hate filled crimes. the thing is, for the alleged terrorists like saipov, they will find in new york city something else, justice. >> according to the court filings, saipov chose october 31 because it was halloween and he believed there would be more civilians on the street. on one cell phone, prosecutors 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 very pleased with his success. sources also say police recovered knives from the truck and 10-15 pieces of paper which give isis credit for the attack. saying isis will live forever. we also have a more detailed timeline of the attack. the truck saipov rented turned

onto a lower manhattan 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. >> oh, my god. >> that crash, which injured four, including two children, was caught on cell phone video. sources tell cbs news that saipov said that was an accident. he wanted to continue down the bike path and over the brooklyn bridge. saipov attempted to get away, caring a pellet gun and a paintball gun. he was arrested after being shot by 28-year-old officer ryan nash. just five years on the force. once.t saipov >> i understand the importance of yesterday's events in the role we played, and i'm grateful for the recognition we have received. reporter: nypd deputy commissioner for counterterrorism john miller 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. but we are still delving identify to further what was that connectivity and did it have some meaning. reporter: saipov is being held without bail. the fbi today interviewed an associate of saipov, another , to see what information he might have. he is not a suspect saipov has . been on the fbi's radar but there was no indication he was planning an attack. thelie: we continue with aftermath of yesterday's terror attack in downtown manhattan. joining me now is fran townsend, the former homeland security visor for george w. bush. update me in terms of where we are and what information we have gained since you and i talked this morning? fran: he has been arraigned on charges now in new york city. he has been talking to the fbi, which was not true this morning.

in fact, there are reports that he asked the fbi to hang and an isis flag in his hospital room. he was bragging about the attack. we know, for several weeks, he went on test runs. there was an individual with him right before he tragically mowed down these people, and they are looking for this individual who also called the suspect's cell phone after the attack. and so he is high on the list. the other thing going on right now is, because of his 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. it allowed him to sponsor others, what we call chain migration. and so we are hearing from bond forstmann sources that he may have sponsored up to nine people. law enforcement officials are not 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 of isis overseas and they are looking into that now. he claims to have been self radicalized. but we are learning more, so one of the last things i will say that we learned about was in the car, we know he got out with his paintball gun and bb gun. and 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 recovered in the car. what happened was, when he hit the school bus, the knives went out of where he could reach them quickly, and so he got out with the fake guns. charlie: so if he had knives, he might have tried to kill some people? fran: that's right. what he is saying is that he intended to go from where he was if he didn't have a car accident to the brooklyn bridge, which is very reminiscent of the attack in london. this is clear this is a terrorist incident. what is unclear to me is how much contact he had with isis overseas.

but it may very well be this is the bleed out that we expected when isis is feeling pressure in places as they have like iraq and syria. they're going to act out in other places in other ways and this may be exactly what happened yesterday in new york charlie: what can we do as a society to prevent this? clearly, the best intelligence is a very good way. fran: right. charlie: if you know it's coming, you can do more. if you know who is likely to commit an act, you can do more. with surveillance and everything else. fran: that's right. charlie: you have to have good intelligence, and that depends on a good relationship with a community. what else? fran: we protect infrastructure in public places as best we can. think of areas in the times square around the 9/11 memorial, but this bike path which runs the length of the west side highway, for those watching not from new york, the entire length

practically of manhattan, that's impossible. it is right next to a six or eight lane highway. and so things like that are really impossible to protect. you take a cut at that in different ways. the nypd had reached out after the nice promenade truck in france. they reached out to 148 different truck rental companies. just like when we saw the backpack bomb which was a liquid bomb, they reached out to the suppliers of these parts. you try to chip away in a number of areas. the other thing, as you mentioned charlie, 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 effort to offer an alternative argument to someone who is likely to be susceptible?

fran: no, 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, has failed at this. i have come to the conclusion that it doesn't work coming from a western voice 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 seat of islam, the site of the two holy mosques in mecca and medina. they have greater authority in the muslim world, and 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 that as a hopeful sign. charlie: the new york police department is as good as it gets on this. fran: absolutely. they are the best. charlie: 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 in another city. fran: correct. charlie: is there anything we can do about that? fran: not really. what you want to do is share the information, what you are learning in real time. the nypd is very good at pushing that out to other major metropolitan areas and police departments. that is why finding the nine people who he sponsored is important, finding the guy who was with him just before is important. you want to understand, is there a network, what can we know about it, what prompted him at that point in time to commit this crime? but it is hard. i do worry about copycats because we've seen it before. charlie: thank you for coming. fran: thank you. ♪

♪ charlie: robert gates is here. he's had a long and very distinguished career in public service. he was director of the cia under george h.w. bush before becoming secretary of defense under president george w. bush and barack obama. he is the only secretary of defense and u.s. history to be asked to remain in that office by a newly elected president. i am pleased to have him back at this table. welcome. robert: thank you, charlie. charlie: you just returned from china. tell me what's going on over there. "economist" magazine called the most powerful man in the world xi jinping. robert: i think there's a case to be made for that in terms of

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

principle, that when there is a rising power and established power, 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. rivals, probably. but adversaries, i don't think so, but 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 the chinese want to do that? that 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 face 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 last 10 years as the entire populations of britain, france, and germany, 200 million people. charlie: and in the history of civilization, more people have risen from poverty to the middle class in china. robert: the result of that is that i think the party's claim to legitimacy is not communism as an ideology, but an improving standard of livingor the chinese ople as long as chinese leaders can deliver that, they are probably safe. but that is 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: absolutely, and of the

one things that xi is doing is reestablishing discipline both within the party, but also in terms for those outside the party. companies, businesses, the population as a whole, and the military especially, is that the party is the be all and end all. question. what do they think about us, today? robert: i think that until 2008, they probably were envious of our sustained economic development and our economic model. and i think one of the things that a lot of people may not appreciate is the degree to which our financial crisis in 2008 and 2009 discredited our economic model in the eyes of a

lot of people around the world. and that lingers. that is still there. charlie: it had such repercussions around the world. robert: absolutely. and 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 government is so divided. so it is very 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. so 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, one way or the other, they have simply not had those distractions to focus on developing at home. robert: they have been able to focus at home.

and i think that one of the serious consequences of now having been at war for 16 years is that it has contributed to this sense of impatience 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 here at home and not be so involved in the rest of the world? why do we have all these troops around and so on, and why can't we begin to fix the very obvious problems we see every day in this country? so i think it is 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 lives, but that -- i've always believed that the the patience 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. because americans are not instinctively internationalists. they just want to tend their own garden, if you will. charlie: america is a good place. robert: and i have also been very leery about the use of force abroad because -- not whenever we have to for our own national security, but presidents need to understand that there's a limited appetite in this country for sending troops into war. charlie: president obama understood that, didn't he? robert: i think he did. charlie: may have gone too far? robert: part of the problem we faced is that, when we get into a war, everybody who is advising the president to do it always says it will be real short.

we will get this done real quick and be out of there. more often than not, that's not the way it turns out. i think the 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. i think so, and i think so for two reasons. first, what we already talked about, the financial crisis in 2008-2009. second, our paralysis at home. charlie: you mean in washington? robert: yeah, and our inability to do anything big, to deal with our public schools infrastructure, immigration, a , whole host of issues. and just we can't get anything done. so i think -- i spoke earlier of 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 isn't so hot, because look at them. 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: and they are expanding robustly. look at these thousands of miles of high-speed rail they have built, all the bridges, airports. look at the difference between laguardia airport and the airport in shanghai. i think this is not irrecoverable. i 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 have 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, offered some real inducements. the north koreans were interested. president obama tried strategic patience. and the result of all of this is, combined with an acceleration of their 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. charlie: and we can do nothing to stop it. robert: 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 1994 based on a commitment by the u.s., the u.k., and russia. re ukraine's territorial integrity. guaranteeing ukraine's territorial integrity. 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. i think it not only is a strategic risk, but it will probably lead to proliferation of nuclear weapons elsewhere. charlie: south korea, japan. robert: we have to be realistic

about economic sanctions. i think thanks in no small part to the president's tough talk, we finally have the chinese' attention and they are taking measures economically they have not taken before. the sanctions will not bite and cause kim jong-un to give up his nuclear weapons before he has tested and deployed them. charlie: so? robert: so my view is that the solution, if there is a diplomatic way out of this, it has to begin with an agreement between the united states and china on an outcome. charlie: that is exactly 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, which means the north. and that is going to require some diplomatic concessions on the part of the united states in exchange for north korea's commitment. charlie: to what? robert: recognition, signing a peace treaty, perhaps an assurance that, like president kennedy gave premier khrushchev, in 1962, that we will not seek to overthrow the regime. in 1962, it was about castro. now it would be we would not seek to overthrow kim jong-un or the regime by force of arms. but 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 capabilities in asia, more in south korea, japan, a float, and all of that is inimical to

china strategic interests, probably more of a naval presence, possibly reintroducing tactical nuclear weapons into south korea. in other words, we can't get to end stateble in that china is going to like the consequences. so they need to work with us figuring out what that will look like and how 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: yeah. but 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. china does not want collapse -- charlie: do we want a unified korea that is indebted to china? robert: i think that -- i think the we would have to think about

-- if we got to a point where the north koreans had actually dismantled their nuclear weapons -- my view is, unlike the iranian deal, any deal at this 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. charlie: you get the impression occasionally from what the chairman of joint chiefs or what the secretary of defense james mattis says, that maybe there are alternatives we don't know about. is it possible that maybe there are ways 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. charlie: right. robert: it has been six years since i was secretary. but i think, even then, that is only -- that does not stop it forever. you can delay it. you can make it harder, but i think once they have possession of the technology, the only way you prevent them from ever deploying nuclear weapons that can reach the united states or our allies is through some kind of a political agreement. charlie: has donald trump done great damage to the american presidency? first ofell, i think, all, i think he's identified something that political leaders in both parties either ignored or were ignorant of for a long time.

and that was 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. and how even those who are in the lower middle class who felt they were just one firing from being homeless, a loss of a job. and i think he has grasped the disdain of those people for the elites. and you know the elites brought them the crisis in 2008, they brought them this political paralysis in washington. this paralysis predated donald trump. think he has grasped a part of the country that has felt very neglected. i wish he were more of a unifier, 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. our politics have always been partisan. nothing has been said in politics recently that is worse some things are a constant in american history. this divisiveness that we are even families -- where families can't talk about politics because they are so divided around the dinner table is a place we do not want to be as a country. i would like to see him try and lead us out of that. i do not know if he can. we will see. charlie: do you believe it is as bad as -- you saw what senator corker said. you saw what senator blake said. clearly there are republican leadership who wants to work with him and are prepared to say, either question his fitness

or they believe the only thing they have to do, because it is now his republican party is to work with him. robert: he is the president. barring some unforeseen circumstance, he is going to be the president for more than three years. and so, what do you do? i think it is up to everybody, both in the congress but also in the white house to figure out a way to work together. to get some of these things done. i think there are a lot of people who agree with his aspects of his agenda from tax reform to getting the allies to pony up more, share more of the costs. charlie: barack obama wanted them to do that as well. kurt: yes. -- robert: yes. the problem is, i worked for eight presidents, the thing i noticed in recent years is an

unwillingness in the white house to devote the time and energy of cultivating relationships in the congress. it is not going to get somebody to change their mind on something that is basic. negotiatingcomes to on something like tax reform or whatever, if you have established a relationship, and even a friendship with somebody on the hell, it is going to make a difference. if it is on the margin. i think people in the white house have not worked the try and hard enough to establish those relationships. i think it makes getting deals done. the one thing we have seen with obamacare and we will see it another things, any major legislation that is voted by one party is at risk of being reserved -- reversed in the next

election. the only way you get long-term solutions to problems in this country is through bipartisan solutions. aboute: i want to ask you two other things. i just returned from qatar to thisto people about conflict with the saudi's and with the emirates and the egyptians. at the same time, we are very much committed to those to beies who are trying part of a united effort against terrorism. what should we be, where should we be? we have friends fighting each other. robert: i think the effort to mediate the dispute is absolutely worthwhile. frankly, there is nobody better qualified to try and do it than rex tillerson. he knows all of this. charlie: 20 talks to the parties, he says they are getting signals from washington. robert: i think trying to fix

that is really important, in having these guys at each other's throats is not helpful. that said, when i became secretary, i had good relationships with leaders in --ar because i put a branch an engineering school, and when i became secretary, the relationship between the u.s. and cutter was in a very bad shape because the cattery's were doing a lot of things, including where veryra, that's offensive to the bush administration. including giving a platform to people we thought were terrorists, showing videos of american troops being killed in qataries were allowing extremist groups. i persuaded -- charlie: allowing funding? they were doing it themselves? robert: no.

when people would open bank accounts, these groups would open bank accounts in cutter, there was no effort to block that and so on. when the u.s. would press cutter on these things, the qataries, if we said so and so has the ink account, we want you to close it. they would close it. the problem was they were never proactive. they never would go after these on their own. and shut them down before we came to them. that is at the heart of the dispute with the gulf arabs, that and the fact that the to thes give safe haven muslim brotherhood. they see the muslim brotherhood as diverse. there are moderates and extremists. that is the qataries review. the gulf arabs, as far as they are concerned, all the muslim but -- muslim brotherhood is

bad. that is at the core of this dispute. the fact that they think qatar has sponsored groups that are trying to overthrow, and so figuring out -- charlie: are they right, that the qataries have groups that are trying to overthrow the emirates? example, in the extremist palestinian group in doha, they have allowed the taliban to have an office. so, -- charlie: i am asking this. when you raise that question say, we were, they asked to do that by the united states. that is true. that was a long time ago. and they are still there. withnk the problem for us, qatar is that they have not been

aggressive in going after these extremist groups. problems with the gulf arabs is much broader. i still think that there is a way to negotiate a way out of this impasse between them. arei think the qataries going to 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 be? robert: i have not got a clue. i will say this. as i said when i introduced rex tillerson for his confirmation the challenge for the administration, and this was back in february, they challenge for the administration is figuring out how to push back putin's interventionism, his general thuggery, and at the same time, figure out how to stop what i think is an increasingly dangerous downward spiral in the relationship. charlie: between the u.s.? andrt: between the u.s.

russia. particularly where you have got our militaries operating in close proximity to one another. for example, in the baltic sea where you have had russian jets coming within yards of american warships. incidenttial for an that escalates, i think, is very real. how do you do that? mind is no doubt in my that putin intervened significantly and our election. that he intervened in brexit. that he intervened -- try to intervene in the french election. it is interesting. i have not got any access to classified information, but based on everything i have heard, he left the germans alone. but he is clearly focused on trying to discredit and delegitimize western institutions, western democracy. and i think he sees it and part as revenge for what he sees as

u.s. intervention in his election in 2012. in the u.s., he believes the u.s. was behind the revolutions togeorgia, ukraine, cure stand, and so on back in the 2004, 2005 time. his attitude is, you did it, so i am doing it. but there is no question in my mind about the threats of it and that it is continuing, and that he takes great satisfaction in the greater consternation and division that he can create in the west. the more he can undermine western institutions, the happier he is. charlie: there are so many more questions, but i am out of time. thank you. a pleasure to see you as always. obligates, back in a moment, -- bob gates, back in a moment, stay with us.

charlie: kurt andersen is here. he is an author and host of the award-winning radio program studio 360. his latest book is called "fantasyland, how america went haywire, a 500 year history." it is the ultimate expression of america's national character. for understanding america and the age of trump. please to have curt anderson back at this table. welcome. my audience i assume is familiar with this.

we talked about it at that time. give me the sense of a 500 year history. all the way back to martin luther. kurt: whose anniversary is practically today. charlie: books are coming one after another. kurt: we began importantly as a protestant country, that is to say the english people came in here and maybe america we know today. they were not just protestants. they were the most fervent fanatical faction of a fervent fanatical faction of the fervent fanatical faction. that was important in defining who we are. rejecta is that we can our leaders as they rejected our catholic leaders. the idea that finally the truth was ours to find if we just read the bible closely enough. that was part of it. meanwhile, the other english settlers closer to your part of the country and virginia were there thinking they would find gold being promised there was

gold. and never finding it. for --oming and dying there are two different groups who passionately believed either the unprovable in the case of the puritans who thought this or the goldtimes, hunters in virginia who were sure this was a different kind of garden of eden and they would find gold. those were the founding pieces of the american character along with not believing in experts, not believing -- being antiestablishment and all the rest. those -- that was the first bit of dna that went through a lot of twists and turns over the last several hundred years to get to where we are today. charlie: before we are there we get to the 1960's. kurt: we do get to the 1960's. we also have these various new religions that grew up as they did nowhere else.

we had show business grew up as it did nowhere else. and blurred the distinctions between the real and fictional. charlie: fantasy industrial complex. kurt: which was not just pt barnum and his fans of claiming he had mermaids on display and george washington's 161-year-old nanny on his -- on display. they were untrue. that was part of it. religion from the very get-go and america, as no worlds, was -- as nowhere else, was a kind of show business. andgelists in the 1700s 1800s, before we had televangelist were doing performances. rather than simply reading sermons. that is the fantasy industrial complex that absorbs everything. it absorbed politics as well as real estate. charlie: an american

exceptionalism played a role. kurt: it is a real thing. america was the first country created from scratch. authored like a novel or play, is authored. all along, for, better and for worse, who believed themselves to be heroes in this great story. this big land where individualism in its most extreme form ever was what we were, and what we pursued. all of that worked great, in my view. and as i write. for all of the eccentrics and the extremes, it worked because essentially the grown-ups were in charge. because we had a set of bullet --ents, religious establishments, media establishments, that kept the lid on. ii, we wouldd war

dominate everything in the world. the most penetrating culture. kurt: right. and then we got to the 1960's. in part, because of this great prosperity, it allowed everybody to come a while, let's carried this to the max. let's take our liberty and everybody's entitled to their own version of reality to the max. charlie: and willed upon our own rule -- and we will define our own rules. kurt: again, much of what happened in the 1960's, great. environment of consciousness, fundament -- feminism, this idea that empirical reality had no special privilege, that science and reason had no special privilege of above magic and make-believe and whatever i want to make of reality. on the counter cultural wayacademic left was a new

of thinking. then you also had this thing that happened simultaneously, fundamentalist systems in --rica of going back christians in america of going back to the extremes of religious belief. i'm not even talking about political belief. but of religious belief. about the end times and about creationism, and about speaking in tongues, and all the rest. beginning in the 1960's, it explosivevolatile hybrid thing that i think has led through the means of the internet. charlie: the relationship from the sick -- 1960's and all we have been talking about to the arrival of the internet in 1995, two 2016, the country elects donald trump. kurt: right. more and more, as we had

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

then people truly felt they were entitled to their own opinions. , i firmly believe that donald trump could not have been nominated for president or elected president until that the lines blurring between the real and the fantastical became so acute as it did in the century. charlie: the arrival of fake news. kurt: of fake news. i am going to believe whatever i want to believe. dam the experts, dam the mainstream media like charlie rose. charlie: you have alternative facts, fake news, and i believe what i want to believe. what gives you the right to say what you believe -- or what you say is a fact is more relevant than what i say is a fact? , as the used to have rest of the developed world still does, there is a certain class of experts and various realms and domains where we say

yeah, they know more than i do. ok. that is true of science, or that is true of whatever. in america, we had so delegitimized all those -- and going to such an extreme of liberty and individual democracy -- that your opinion, your belief, your hunch, your feeling in your gut is equal to or so. to anybody's fact. charlie: it is amazing when you look at these polls that show how many people believe barack obama was born outside the united states. kurt: or was the antichrist. charlie: that whole range of things. kurt: 5 million illegal voters, half of republicans believe that was true. charlie: it even goes to what happened in 9/11 and all the range of things. kurt: correct. vaccines cause autism. charlie: how do we come out of this? kurt: that is a good question. i am not a decline stte or the

sky is falling guy, having thought about this and read deeply into this and this history, it has made me -- i do not have a strong conviction that we are going to snap out of it. that the pendulum will swing back and it will all be good again. us who believef that a shared set of facts and realities is the only way a society can function effectively. there are some of this people, some of those people voted for donald trump, plenty of my conservative republican friends who did not vote for donald trump but care -- share my concern that we all need to share a set of facts. i think there -- if those among us who believe that we have gotten out of control in this way and entered fantasyland make

this an important thing, that they teach their children, stand up for in the newspaper columns, and whatever their politics are, they have a chance to make it get worse. think we will roll it back to the way it was when you and i were younger. steve bannon, for example thinks that populism is on the rise. but not necessarily come from the right. it may come from the left. talking far what i am about politically is much more consequential on the right. that does not mean people on the left are not -- can't beat predisposed to believing untrue things if it confirms their previous ideas. so far, that has not happened. as much. -- populism which has lots of dangerous things, also is a different way of saying every person's beliefs about

anything are as legitimate and valid as the people who know something about that subject. that is the bad. to me, that is the danger of populism. charlie: when you also see -- donald trump's hold on those people who elected him is still pretty clear. and pretty strong. is some linkage here and there, but it is mostly held . they say he is 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 is trying to. kurt: yeah. both with him and with his supporters, i wonder what -- how much of the time does he know he is telling untruths? is he? lying or is he unbelieving.

think he definitely lies, but on the other hand, on the case of for instance obama and wiretapping me in trump tower or 5 million illegals voted, i think he might have passed a lie detector test on those two things. that obama was not born here. charlie: if you want to hear those kinds of things on the internet today and on certain variations of where there is radio or television and certainly the internet, you can hear those views expressed before seven. there is somebody saying something that whatever you want to say gives you privy to say it. kurt: that did not used to be the case. there have always been crackpots and crank ideas around. you had to do subscribe to a newsletter to get them. or a magazine that came every two weeks here at today they are everywhere.

that is the new condition that i do not know how we escape. you think thedo impact of the molar investigation will be? -- of the molar investigation will be? but norm's lot in the rule of law. kurt: yes. i hope people still believe that, even though in the last 24 hours, the president said our judicial system is a joke, it is a laughingstock. that is dangerous talk. hopefulo think and i am -- i cross my fingers, i have all my superstitious, knocking on wood's hoping, that that is where it will stand. of unimpeachable integrity and this process will have an effect. not -- i am not even talking

about of getting rid of donald trump. but of saying here is what happened, here are the laws that were broken, now the judiciary congress, do what you will. is calledhe book "fantasyland, how america went haywire, a 500 year history." kurt andersen.

♪ >> you are watching "bloomberg technology." let's start -- start with a check of your first word news. president trump chooses jerome powell to become the next member of the u.s. bank. if confirmed by the senate, powell will succeed janet yellen when her term ends in february. president trump once the gop tax overhaul signed into law in time for the holidays. pres. trump: we are working to give the american people a giant tax cut for christmas. we are giving them a big, au