announcer: from our studios in new york city, this is charlie rose. host: we begin with politics and the special counsel's role in investigating the russian involvement in the last election. the focus is on paul manafort and richard gates. both pled not guilty. george papadopoulos pled guilty to lying to the fbi about his relationship with the russians. with me is a reporter with the new york times. let's do the timeline. paul manafort joins the campaign

to wrangle delegates and he is out in august. all of this has to do with the campaign and this indictment has to do with his work in the ukraine. why is this relevant? >> before he joined the campaign, paul manafort was working abroad at the intersection of business and politics and would export american-style campaign consulting to the ukraine and do business with oligarchs in the ukraine and russia and he had these business ties. where this connects is, he was coming to the trump campaign and he was in contact with some of the oligarchs and the russian contact. it appears that he owed a lot of debt and had outstanding

financial relationships with people in eastern europe and russia and that is the crux of why there might be more here for the council and the reason he is in trouble is, as he was working for the ukraine, he was lying about working for the ukraine. if you are working for a foreign power, you have to register and he did not do that. he claimed that he was working for a center in london and it turns out that he was running a lobbying campaign for the ukrainian political party. >> the indictment was detailed and it had bank accounts and they found that he had spent $850,000 in clothing in four years. who does this detail give pause to in the administration? >> a good question. if you are inside of the white house, this is terrifying. mueller has access to tax returns, he got bank accounts from cyprus that paul manafort had access to and he charted the money flows. as we know, the trump family has business connections in russia and was trying to do deals with them and selling apartments to

ralphie -- wealthy russians. michael: was doing a lot of business with people who had money in russia and eastern europe and it is easy to understand that mueller has access to all that money flow and he will be able to see and track that. if anything suggests a running financial relationship between trump and some of these interest, it will show up. host: how wide of range does mueller have? >> it is not that wide, but he is allowed to investigate crimes discovered during the investigation. manafort, he found that out during the course of investigation and there is a prosecution and trial set for next year. host: it was leaked that there would be an indictment. over the weekend, it was, "who

is it going to be?" a lot of people thought it would be michael flynn. do we know why it wasn't and were you surprised it wasn't flynn? >> i had money on manafort or gates and those three men are the lowest-hanging fruit in the investigation. paul manafort was under federal investigation for some activities in eastern europe, the ukraine, and russia. michael flynn, we know he had not disclosed properly that he was working on behalf of a foreign government, turkey. that has been out there and it is on the ground for the prosecutors to look at. i am not surprised that there would be some mix of that and there are a bunch of sealed indictments that have not come

out and we are all waiting to see who is next. host: the name that nobody said was george papadopoulos. he is new to a lot of people. who is he the most concerning for? reporter: donald trump and jeff sessions. the reason is, you saw the first indictment come out with gates and manafort. instantly, the white house said, it is not about the campaign and it is all -- a few hours later, here comes the papadopoulos guilty plea and it shows that this was a named foreign-policy adviser who sat in meetings with jeff sessions and a meeting with president trump and was trying to arrange meetings with russian interests and the russian government.

host: the administration says he is an intern. reporter: it is true, but we are seeing, with manafort, papadopoulos, clovis, who isn't a guy who has a lot of expertise in foreign policy, is a side effect of the trump campaign and he could not get the best people, the top-shelf foreign policy people. he got carter page, a guy who claimed to be an oil executive, an george papadopoulos. this was not a heavy hitter and he is one of the five people that the campaign put on a form policy committee and he was empowered to work on behalf of the campaign to set foreign-policy. what we will find out is how much other officials knew about his interactions and conversations with russia. host: it also shines a light

that jeff sessions "misremembered" again. >> he is towing a line on conversations with russian ambassadors and we are seeing a changing of the story and it will the interesting to see what the paper trail is. a lot will depend on what sessions can credibly say about what he knew about the conversation and what kinds of permissions papadopoulos had and what he was carrying back-and-forth, in terms of information, offers, and ideas. host: most people did not know about george papadopoulos. >> we knew who he was and we

knew he was in the circle. i think -- host: it didn't leak. >> it tells me that mueller knows a lot that the media and the public do not. he knows a lot. there is material. i am familiar with paul manafort's business in the ukraine, but there was material in this indictment that i have never seen before and it was fascinating. you can get, when you are a prosecutor like him, you can get cyprus banking records. manafort casted a veil over his activities and was lying about them. the papadopoulos part shows you that there are not many leaks coming out of the mueller operation. a lot of leaks are coming out of the feds. he is running a tight ship and some shoe will drop next, but it is not there which. -- clear which.

>> they consider paul manafort a flight risk and he and gates are under house arrest. reporter: what we know is that he had set up transactions in cyprus. really fascinating. in some ways, the indictment lays out paul manafort as a case study into how wealthy americans hide their money. .the trick is to park your money into offshore accounts and you bring onshore the things you want to pay. to avoid that, you have the offshore companies pay the bills

for you to the vendors. whatever person is decorating your house or somebody else. we saw, in great detail, how that works. the passports, i think we will hear more about them. why did he have three question mark sometimes, you get an extra passport because you are visiting israel and you want to visit an islamic country that does not like israel and you may want a second passport. once you have multiple passports, it is possible to use them in an interesting way to cloak or hide places you are visiting. you can use a passport to get to london and use another to get to cyprus and you can hide a lot about the movement until somebody bothers to check and compare the passports. i suspect that we will hear more about what the purpose of the three passports was and i do not think it was an accident that he lost one. host: they were not amused or

pleased that the lawyers went to the media. what do you think about the courtroom and how long we will be involved in the trial ? >> manafort and gates art maintaining that this indictment is misleading and they have not done anything wrong and will fight it. my question is if the men have enough money left to spend on lawyers to fight this kind of a case. this will proceed on its own track. you will see a case that is built around tax evasion, money laundering, failure to disclose work for a foreign power and i will be focusing on and listening for whether, at some point, the progress of this trial creates opportunities for or additional pressure for robert mueller to use to get these guys to tell him more about donald trump. host: what is next in the investigation? reporter: it is a tight ship.

what i see, based on the public facts, is an experienced prosecutor moving extraordinarily quickly, very fast. he indicted paul manafort within days of getting the records from cyprus. second, he is moving from the outside in. he has papadopoulos as a cooperating witness and it is possible that he was cooperating before the indictment was unsealed. there is a lot that george papadopoulos could be saying and we will find out if there were any conversations he had while wiretapped. that will be interesting to find out and i suspect we will learn more. >> what is a question that interests you? >> the question i am really intrigued by is whether -- so, we know about two prongs of the russian effort.

one was to help the trump campaign by offering damaging information on hillary clinton to bolster his aside for various reasons. the other was the social media informational warfare campaign. they have thousands of facebook accounts and used them to divide the country and target voters. the open question that nobody has been able to answer is whether the efforts crossed paths, whether there was an exchange between the trump campaign with voter targeting and what the russian intelligence agencies were doing to go after american voters and that is a critical question. host: aside from all of this,

the president's duties carry-on. will the investigation have an impact on the trip? >> it already has. he tweets about fake news and the investigation within minutes of his plans departure on the trip. excuse me. on the other hand, we see that these trips are so busy for the president that some of his instincts to engage on twitter and to start fights get repressed in that time and we saw that in the middle east. twitter quieted down for a couple of days and it is possible to see that. i am not really sure where he is -- i am not really sure if where he is affects mueller. >> thank you.

>> some of the social media ads paid for by russia were on display in capitol hill and they were shocking. representatives of facebook and google testified about russian attempts to influence the 2016 campaign and what should be done to prevent it from happening again. we are joined from san francisco where she covers the tech industry for "the economist." what did the senators want

answered? reporter: the senators are interested in the extent of the russian campaign and they are trying to get their heads around this. the tech giants were evasive and they underplayed the threat that russia had manipulated americans and they came forward and said that they found evidence of fake accounts and advertisements that were directed at americans that were seen and might have influenced votes. so, the senators were pressing the tech giants for details on how widespread the manipulation was and the other question was what giants would do to make sure that nothing like this happened again in the 2018 election. >> did they offer any details? reporter: they showed us some of the advertisements and fake accounts for the first time and there were fascinating one. there was hillary clinton

dressed up as the devil battling jesus and it said, "if you want jesus to win it, like this." if you engaged, you can be targeted for more material. we saw 150 americans, a huge percentage of americans -- 150 million americans, a huge percentage of americans, were exposed to this and we saw the extent of the russian messaging and some of the specific messages, which i think were surprising in their directness. host: in watching the hearing, the tech giants and the senators were talking past one another and said "we are a platform," which is the "i don't recall" of the tech industry.

>> it is like when the nra says "guns don't kill people, people kill people." they don't want any responsibility for how the true are being used. they are very wary. i think they are being cautious and they have good reason to be. you look at how international platforms are used and they get takedown request from the authoritarian governments or requests on information about users, turkey, egypt. so, they have to be careful about setting a precedent of complying with government or

being responsible for speech on their platform. they say they are not the typical media company. where the response is insufficient is, facebook, especially, has done an audit and found a few thousand advertisements, they say, that were paid for in rubles and that is kind of the above went -- the equivalent of investigating crimes in which the door was left open. looking for rubles is insufficient and something that didn't happen was a complete audit of all advertisements that facebook and twitter offer. they have complicated tools for companies like coca-cola and unilever. in this case, they are downplaying their ability to do a full audit. host: senator feinstein said,

you do something or we will. should they be afraid of that? what could congress do? reporter: there is frustration and the general counsel was there, not the ceo, were trying to be humble and deflected the pointed questions and the frustration bubbled over. when it comes to action, i think that there is a real disconnect between the rhetoric and a feeling that america has been betrayed by large tech giants. so, right now, there are a couple of things being

considered. one is a bill proposed that requires transparency with political advertisements and bringing digital ads of to the same standards that others are held to and the giants are saying that they are in favor of transparency and they are going to implement more transparency and disclosure. they are not quite sure about details of regulation and proposed regulation and whether or not they would support that. this week, we saw the proposal for tax reform that would be highly favorable to the tech giants and lower the corporate tax rate. on one side, you hear these angry and disappointed claims coming from the senators and you have the reality that there is not that much that is being suggested that looks close to passing that could change their

fortune or behavior. >> let's look at the optics of what we saw. we did not see familiar faces. one editor of the columbia journal of review said that the tech giants will show up for burning man and viewing parties, but not senate hearings. we did not see zuckerberg or jack dorsey. >> they did not show up and mark zuckerberg was at headquarters in silicon valley on an earnings call and announcing record profits and revenue and seeing the facebook share price surge. it was a day of dissonant realities, if you will. you are looking at the tech giants' interests, not submitting the ceo to hostile questions and giving journalists the ability to talk about

zuckerberg or jack dorsey humbling in front of senators. they made a right choice in sending general counsel's there -- counsels there. it is not out of the question that there is another hearing where the bosses are forced to show, if we get more investigations and disclosures in the extent of the interference. there could be a second act. host: something you talked about is the isolation of the tech giants. they don't feel in line with the democratic or republican party. what happened with them being on an island by themselves? >> they were an industry that depended on the democrats for sympathy because they were very

tech-forward and a lot had been put in top seats, but democrats feel betrayed by the tech platforms and they feel at the russians influenced the 2016 in elections for the worse because of a lack of oversight and fake accounts and the democrats have moved away from tech. the republicans are not as anti-regulation as they were and it is playing well to criticize tech. you see a elizabeth warren on the left and abandon on the right talking about regulating tech or breaking up big tech. it is a tech-lash in washington and it is unclear that either

side really wants to own the tech industry and work on their behalf. host: they are not doing a rope-a-dope. they are spending money on lobbyists. >> in one sense, they're are well-positioned and these are profitable companies with a lot to spend. what microsoft did not do well and why they saw a lot of backlash in washington is that they did not manage the washington relationship early and google and facebook set of large offices and we see amazon doing the same. they are in a difficult position for a few reasons.

the interests are+ diverse and some companies are coming out in support of issues and others are against it. you see that with what is being proposed and it would hold tech companies responsible for sex trafficking that occurs and a tech giant from the valley is in support of it and you see a disconnect amongst the giants and a further problem is that they have to lobby a lot of different government agencies. unlike pharmaceuticals, where you know that you have to be on top of the fda and what they are considering, tech is regulated by different groups and, in the past, they have really struggled to focus their attention to avoid pushback and manage their reputation.

host: to circle back to what we were first talking about, this could really go to any kind of false information on these platforms and that is the big issue. >> the issue on our cover this week is if social media is bad for democracy and there was optimism that platforms like facebook and others would help include new voices in democratic movements that were not possible to hear through established media and we did see some of that and i think that we are seeing the dark side of social media and we are seeing how these can be used for hate speech and i think the big

picture is if social media will bring us together or pull us apart and if social media firms >> i think the big picture is if social media will bring us together or pull us apart and if social media firms will take responsibility so that they can be used for good and not evil. host: thank you. >> thank you for having me. ♪

♪ she is one of the most celebrated writers in the last 50 years. the books include "slouching towards bethlehem" and "magical thinking." she has a documentary about her nephew. here is the trailer. >> my first notebook was given to me by my mother and it was suggested i amuse myself by writing down my thoughts. i did not have a clear picture of how to do it. senseemember having a that i wanted this to continue. >> she is quite extraordinary. her writing grabbed the reader. what a refreshing voice. >> she is writing about all sorts of disorder. >> i have always found that it

is less scary. >> she wanted to go there. she wanted to get in on that. >> my husband, my daughter, and me, we finally got out. >> everybody showed up to this house, spielberg, martin scorsese, warren beatty. >> everything seemed to be going well. >> the interesting part of the story is the failure to plan for misfortune. >> i got a call saying i have something terrible to tell you. john died. john -- >> grief is the hardest thing to write about. she did it as a reporter. >> it was a coping mechanism, as it turned out.

>> she makes you do things that nobody ever major do before. >> incredible. >> it changed my perception in a way that was not expected. >> she has rightly earned distinction as one of the most celebrated writers of her generation. >> i did not plan it that way, which is very like life itself. charlie: i am pleased to have griffin back at the table. everyone we have known and lived with. everyone gone. what made you do this? >> i was making a short film and i was asked to do a trailer to accompany the promotion for blue knights and we had a great time doing it and she read her book

and she loved being involved in this process. at some point during this time, i realized that there had never been a documentary about her by her own choice, so i just pushed my luck and asked if i could do it, if she would agree. it took her all of -- she said , ok, and that was it. i went, oh my god. this is a big one. charlie: why did she never become a filmmaker? >> become a filmmaker? like directing? charlie: like nora ephron. >> right. right. charlie: do you need a guide here? she started as a reviewer at vogue many years ago. i would love to see that.

the actors would have to lean in to hear her direction. charlie: that would be good. >> which is a great quality. charlie: exactly right. you set out to make this. help me. you read everything. >> i did. charlie: you dived into the deep end. >> from the moment she said yes i went, oh boy. this is a subject who is beloved and people have ownership in, such personal connections and is has influenced writers to become writers and people moving to new york it, so i knew that i had to get it right. the first thing i did was read everything she had written in chronological order, starting with her first article on self-respect for vogue. i just went all the way through. when you are related to someone, i would get their books for christmas every year and scribe,

so of course we read the book when they came out, but never in one sitting. they are still your family and you don't think of literary references while you are talking to them. so, i had that perspective of actually seeing the woman who who was my aunt, who also dug deep throughout her profession to find out what she thought. she said in part i write to see what i think. >> the fascinating thing on self-respect, which is like a moral tome, she writes about living a life, excepting the consequences, being able to live in the bed that you made. it was written when she was 21

years old and it is wise and the character that wrote that, the person who wrote that, is virtually unchanged. she came to new york has someone californian. charlie: to write for vogue. >> she won a contest. you could either go to paris or new york, and she chose to go to new york, thank. charlie: we benefited from the fact. >> we certainly did. was she happy with participating? >> typically sort of indifferent. it took me six years to make it year would go by and she would and ask how it was going. it took six years. not working every day. has the money came in, i was shooting. it was a process of stopping and starting.

hey, i just set down with david and we had a great conversation and he sends his love. she would go, ok. ok. charlie: she didn't say, what did he say? does she like me? i'm glad to talk to david. i hope he is well. >> he is so great. you know, she, i think that she -- i am not even sure that she thought that i would finish it. i worry about that every day until the money came in from netflix, but then i showed it to her. i showed a cut i never would have shown. charlie: three hours or so? >> three-hour cut. i just wanted to give her the opportunity to say stop right now. charlie: has she begin to write

both journalism and novels, did she feel like one was more than than the other? >> she started as a nonfiction writer. she loves stories in novels and she writes and does not know where her novel will go. charlie: we're sitting here and talking about her like she is somewhere. >> she is probably sitting at home and watching television. i think her interest is always particularly strong in essays and nonfiction and writing about politics. silver helped her. what did he do? who played roles in this world of media. -- thats someone that

said, how would you like to go to salvador and write about this brutal civil war? and she lept to it. from readingknow her earliest essays that she would actually make a beautiful transition into writing about american politics. of which she, not that she didn't have any interest, but she didn't think that would be her strong suit. mean her strong suit was culture or something else? >> her strong suit with something more personal, her confronting everything from to things that would be insights that she would have that other people would relate to so strongly in their own lives. he saw that you could write about cheney.

such a devastating piece that he should be hiding under the bed from the moment he reads it. just have character insight into deciphering the message that the politicians don't want you to hear, and what the media is really saying, the underlying message. that turned out to be her strongest talent in her political and writing about salvador. differ from do she another writer? hardly an expert on her, but i think that she is more aggressive and more assertive and is very much on the equal plane. joan is quieter and i think she

world she iss is a very comfortable in and makes other people talk to her. this is why she likes to write about musicians. they just let it all unfold. so she could hang out with morrison, and morrison wasn't the most effusive speaker, a difficult personality, but they would meet joan and open up. charlie: she and john, how long were they married? >> they were married in 1960. charlie: i love the fact you would go to restaurants and you would see them there together eating. you would see them, and i always watch this in new york when i go out to eat, are they talking to each other. they were always talking to each other. >> they would carry the conversation from the cab. they were just always interested

in each other. there is another thing about john being in a restaurant, people often never believed that they were not competitive and other,e famous than the being competitive in that way. , when john would he sawne restaurant, if someone craning to see her and was blocking their view, he would move. charlie: that's great. >> i love that about him. charlie: there was a time where they thought they would divorce. >> which we found out by reading life magazine. that famous piece that she wrote while during an oncoming tsunami in honolulu.

she is there, her child is very young, and she and john are mulling whether they should split and she makes this equation between the seismic shifts outside of the window of their hotel room and what is going on between them. and we, as family members, my parents, we had no idea. they have always been john and joan, one word. charlie: they read everything each other wrote. >> john edited that piece. she wrote it. i am thinking of getting divorced and leaving my husband -- how do you like that? did you think that paragraph was good? i don't know. i am not so sure. charlie: unbelievable. >> it is incredible. i love that. charlie: when she found out she was going to have quintana and got a call from the hospital.

>> yeah, it was like a call out of the blue. i think they were not really thinking about that whole lot. they wanted to have a child. they could not have a child. one of their friends knew the gynecologist at the hospital and this guy called and said, we have this baby. st. john's hospital, and they got in the car right away and went and picked the baby up and drove home on the 405, and joan bonded with quintana, a two-day old infant. charlie: and then john dies. heart attack. charlie: heart attack. heart attack. he had always had heart issues , his "ticker," as he would call it. and he would write about it of

course. he became fascinated with the valves and the arteries. he wrote about a quite beautifully. he compared it to music and the body, but onhe christmas eve quintana was admitted to the hospital with septic shock and it was very serious. and the trauma of his worry for quintana brought the unexpected heart attack. sudden as joan writes, life changes in an instant. charlie: go to clip this is from four. the show. this is joan talking about writing "the year of magical thinking." here it is. this is the first book you wrote without john. >> yeah. >> i had i had written a couple of pieces

after he died before i wrote the book, but this is certainly the first book. my first novel was written before we were married. charlie: he would read everything. >> he read everything. yeah. yeah. so that is something i miss. me a sensewould give of being safe. if he said it was ok, i would proceed. if he said it was an ok, i would rewrite. charlie: and you do the same thing for him? >> yeah. so that is sort of thing you rely on. ,t the time it happened somebody said, well, you can rely on and develop new readers. it is not the same. nobody else has that.

charlie: this is another clip. this is clip number three. she is on the show and she talks about how she learned the rhythm of writing. here it is. this is 1992. >> oh my. charlie: goodness gracious. >> i taught myself how to type. i am not a touch-typist. i still do it this way. i taught myself how to type sentences, typing out hemingway sentences over and over again. charlie: looking for? >> how they work. they appeared to be simple and , but you would come away from a string of them with a feeling of whatever he had in mind that he wanted you to feel. obviously there was something going on in the sentences and what was going on was the withholding in the information. there was withheld information

in the sentences. it has to do with a rhythm. i can't really explain. charlie: but you got it. >> she described what she is famous for, the withholding. learning to do that by typing hemingway sentences is kind of ingenious. charlie: there is a famous story, which i do not know if it is true or not. i want to believe it so badly. the newhompson was at york public library and somebody happened to be there when over and said, what are you doing? he was reading shakespeare. he said, i am trying to get the rhythm. >> i believe that too. charlie: don't you want to believe that? >> something really bloody, too. i'm sure. charlie: the death of the daughter?

>> quintana. it was, it took her weeks to recover from the first visit to the hospital after the septic shock. and so, the funeral for john is not going to happen until she was able to attend. she wanted to go to california to go to malibu with her husband jerry, and they were newly , married. but it was like the next day. she was already quite frail and had just been out of the hospital. the airplane lands in los angeles and she falls and hits her head and goes into a coma , from which the required a great deal of physical therapy it.et past

when she came out of the coma and she was in a wheelchair and had to learn how to walk and ave, and it was i think just part of her started to break down. she just really did not want to be around much longer. charlie: what to do want us to come away with from this documentary? >> i want people to feel like they witnessed a life lived, who came from descendents of homesteaders. very significant thing. who came out with the donner party. joness john' character. you don't take shortcuts. it is a rowdy that she has lived

by, and she has outlived all of her friends for a reason and is . she is from strong western stock. charlie: what is amazing is you would her arm and it is thin, to -- andd i'm going yet you know that there is a strong, like a bull. >> ica john wayne movie in that soul. i see cattle ranches. charlie: all that stuff from the west. >> all that stuff from the west. i would not have seen that, if i had not made this movie. she was my aunt. john's wife, who i have known -- i grewe, but i saw up hearing her described as

fierce onbut the inside. i see that strength inside of her. charlie: the title is "the center will not hold." >> a paraphrase of the second poem.g, the yates phon you know, she wrote about using "slouching towards bethlehem," her most famous essay from the 1960's and she was writing -- everybody else was writing about peace and love and the hippie movement, everybody riding around in volkswagen bugs. she goes there and she is looking that families that have fallen apart, runaway children, she is looking at the center of that had the fabric

been pretty strong in the 1950's when she was growing up and before then. here the 1960's had come along just falling apart at the seams. that'll decade was just one of massive chaos. charlie: thank you. >> thank you for having me. the film is called "the center will not hold." thank you for joining us. see you next time. ♪

♪ yousef: confidence in the king, president trump backs saudi arabia's corruption crackdown. the nation's attorney general says the arrests are phase one. >> north korea, tackling the north is top of the agenda. we are live in seoul, korea. yousef: william dudley announces his retirement, but says the transition