it defines the american experience. we are awarding $100,000 in total cash prizes, including a grand prize of $5,000. the deadline is january 20, 2019. for more information, go to our website, studentcam.org. >> this week on "q&a," cbs news chief white house correspondent major garrett discusses his book, "mr. trump's wild ride. the thrills, chills, screams and occasional blackouts of an extraordinary president.

brian: major garrett, your book "mr. trump's wild ride." you say this, this book is not primarily about trump's lies, rancor, lies or flamboyance. why? mr. garrett: because that is a fairly well covered aspect of the trump presidency. brian, i learned during the campaign that one of the biggest challenges come i mention this in the book about donald trump, as a political force, as a reality, american politics, is every day there are 10 to 12 or more really interesting things. but there are also three or four really important things. as i worked every day covering this white house, and as i work for 60 months covering the campaign, the biggest challenge, what is it? focusing on the important and not relentlessly being distracted by the interesting. and donald trump generates tremendous amount of interesting things, intentionally sometimes, unintentionally other times. so the book is about what happened in the first year and a half on the trump presidency, that we are going to as a country be living with and looking back on, 10, possibly 20

years from now as if not turning points, differences that last. as opposed to things that are somewhat transient and headline-grabbing, of which there are many where donald trump is concerned. brian: you open your book with, "major. fantastic." what is that about? mr. garrett: the first two words donald trump ever spoke to me. i never engaged with him before he became a presidential candidate, didn't consider him seriously. as anything in american life, except an oddity. never watched "the apprentice," never paid any attention to his flirtation with running for the presidency earlier in his life. we were in michigan, the first rally of donald trump's that i was assigned to cover for cbs, sitting in the first row way off to the left in a press conference before the rally. trump walks in, looks around, takes one or two questions, sees

me, and says, major, fantastic. and what he meant by that was, hey, there is a network correspondent on the front row at this press conference. this was in early august 2015. what did he say to himself? that must mean i'm getting somewhere, because until then, a network correspondent that he knew and thought of and that had some memory about was now covering his campaign. he considered himself personally, if not a breakout moment, a moment that he wanted to savor. brian: how did you set this book up? mr. garrett: in that opening, the prologue, i describe my first interaction with donald trump. all the things that were obvious that he was not intentionally telling me, but if i had been wiser and smarter, i would have paid closer attention to. so i take myself to task. that is why it is called, "what i should've learned." did i think anyone who cover the trump campaign, who covers the trump white house, who does not approach the american public and

say, you know what, i have had to learn a few things, i missed a few things, i was not as smart as i thought i was. if you don't say that, if you don't acknowledge that, you will have an instant credibility problem, because most of the coverage of the trump phenomenon was, if not skeptical, sort of this has no chance of happening. guess what -- it did. and those of us who were along that ride have got to take stock of what we could have thought more clearly, been more sensitive to, been more aware of in the moment. so i started the book by saying, "i missed a few things." "and i am going to0 acknowledge that right up front," so you can have a sense that i don't come to you as a reader, as this all-knowing, all-seeing, because i wasn't all-knowing and all-seeing.

then i take the reader, not a chronological or, because i think that is too static, but through the most important events as i saw them, of the first year and half of the trump presidency. some of those are foreign policies, some of those are domestic policies, some of them are successes, some of them are failures, but in totality, they give you a feel and explanation of what happened, not what didn't happen, what did happen. brian: you started with us as a guest with us many years ago, 27 years ago on the "washington --" we did not call it the "washington journal," i don't think -- anyway, here you are in 1991, just so that people can see what has happened to you in 27 years. [video clip] mr. garrett i think one of the : things this country is going

to recognize in the whole thomas debate is that black conservatives do exist. i think one of the small hurdles in the way our country approaches the issue of race is to get over the hurdle of describing somebody as a black conservative or a black liberal. brian: you were at the "washington times" at the time. mr. garrett: yes. brian: in the history of journalism, were there many of you who made it out of the "washington times" and into big media? mr. garrett: others did. laura gelman worked at the washington -- she worked for the associated press. lorraine waller is a reporter in town washington. she was on the business desk. others did. peter baker and i are probably the two best known. peter baker was on the metro desk at the time. a sensational reporter. but there are others, and what did we share, we were very young, very aggressive, we were looking for a place to work in washington that would give us a place to do that work and move on if we could, and we all have. brian: nobody cares about this much today, but back in those days, as you know, everybody called it the "moonie paper."

mr. garrett: yes, they did. brian: were you ever labeled that and did you -- when you were inside that paper, did the reverend sun yung moon have an impact on the content? mr. garrett: not at all. other than to finance it without the money, the paper would not have existed. but other than that, putting the money behind the newspaper, i never felt any editorial interference at all. to the contrary, the people who ran the paper were given what i consider to be free rein. but the idea of the moonie paper, the unification church paper, that anyone who works there, there was something wrong with them because they took that job. but peter baker proved that wrong, i proved that wrong, laura gelman proved that wrong. other journalists proved it wrong. all that we were looking for, young, aggressive, eager journalists in washington, was a place to find a home. and we did. and i don't think any of us said, this will be the only job we ever have in washington. it was a springboard. and an effective one. brian: what year did you leave there and where did you go? mr. garrett: 1997 i left after serving for more than a year and

a half as the deputy national editor, in charge of all political coverage in 1986, of the presidential campaign. i went to leave to write my second book, "the 15 biggest lies in politics," because i had reached a threshold where if i stayed at the "washington times," i would go into senior management, and having been an editor and line editor, not being out in the field for more than a year, i learned that it was not what i love to do in journalism. what i love to do was be where the story was happening, and to bring it back. i went to write my second book. landed at "u.s. news," was a senior congressional correspondent for two years. then, frank brought me into the interesting world of television. i have been there ever since. brian: what is your best memory of cnn that had an impact on you? mr. garrett: well, it is not my best memory, but it is by far my most indelible memory. being in sarasota, florida, with george w. bush the morning of 9/11. brian: what is your memory of that experience? mr. garrett: it has every aspect

of the tragedy, horror, and disbelief that every american felt. but on that morning, and i have described this in other interviews and speeches, every day except that day, there is a pyramid of information atop which the american president sits, a vast array of information collected by the cia, national security agency, fbi. and that pyramid of information sends all sorts of signals to the president about what is happening, threats, everything else. that morning that pyramid fell like this. and the amount of information that the president of the united states had to act upon was not altogether that much higher than any other american had. -- had in those first frightful hours after everything happened.

and i know that because the senior officials who were with the president there did not know what was next, did not know what they were most afraid of, what to be most afraid of, and how to begin a reaction process. so that pyramid of information, for a few hours, collapsed, almost flattened, and then gradually it had to be built back up, and the president had to be in charge of steadying the nation and then leading the nation. that is, without a doubt, my biggest and most unforgettable takeaway of that day. brian: what did you do next? mr. garrett: we were in sarasota for three days, couldn't get out. brian: i mean with your job. mr. garrett: i was there until april of 2002. brian: what did you leave, and where did you go? mr. garrett: cnn decided to do without me. that is what we call in the industry, being fired, or not for cause. they just wanted to move on. it happens in television. there is an old expression that you are not really a television reporter until you have been fired. brian: they tell you why? mr. garrett: they said we are

moving on. we are choosing something else and doing something else. totally within their prerogatives. we had a very equitable settlement, because they knew that they had no cause and they had to make it equitable to avoid friction, let us say. and they did. and then i went to fox, and i was there for eight years. brian: what was that like? mr. garrett: i worked for brit hume, a tremendous leader, a great journalist, and i had a lot of fun. i covered two democratic presidential campaigns, that was a great ride. i covered the hillary clinton-barack obama campaign of 2007-2008, which, brian, i thought at the time, would be the most fascinating presidential campaign i would ever have the chance to cover. and then came 2016. brian: why did you leave fox? actually, before we do that, what was your biggest memory from your experience at fox? i mean, fox gets an enormous amount of criticism from what they call the mainstream media in this town. is it deserved and why did you leave and what do you remember about your experience? mr. garrett: journalistically, when i was there from 2002 to 2010, i worked alongside a lot

of people who put together what the marketing team called fair and balanced journalism. i just called it journalism. tell both sides of the story, and get out of the way. that is what brit hume would ask everyone to do during the signature broadcast. tell both sides of the story and get out of the way. and the audience will appreciate it. and those who cover it will appreciate it. they will not say it publicly, but they will appreciate it. and that is what i did and that is what we did. i don't know if i have a really particular indelible memory at fox. brian: any difference for you at fox from cnn? brian: any difference for you at fox from cnn? major: no. i did what i did. when i came in, everyone knew and saw my work as a journalist, and knew i would get the story, knew that i knew how to get the story, and left me alone. i never, ever dealt with anything other than the normal, creative conversations, any lively engaged and curious newsroom goes through. that is because of the standard

established by brit hume. brian: one of the places you can find enormous criticism of the mainstream media is on talk radio. this is only 30 seconds, we put together a montage of the kind of things that are being said on talk radio. first is chris plante, a stepson of bill plante who used to be at cbs. major: a dear friend and colleague of mine. brian: then, there is a rush limbaugh and sean hannity. this is what they say almost every day about what you do at cbs. rush: the democrat boot lick, mummy-wrapped news media, they are doing their bidding. sean: the media is praying to the unstable. they are playing to the infirm. they are playing to the loosely-coagulated in the brain. >> these people really need help. they have no, let's say, they don't want to adhere to truth anymore. that is a sad thing.

brian: what do you say? major: first of all, i hear that in the heard that during the campaign, when i met trump supporters at more than 75 trump rallies. i have given speeches on this. i say that, when i am introduced -- that is a nice introduction, but really, what you should know, my name is major garrett. i am a semi-well-known member of an industry with record low popularity and approval and declining market share. and everyone laughs, because i'm being self-deprecating, but i am also making a point. this industry, the one i am in, has to reconcile itself to these two facts. long before donald trump came along. credibility, as defined by democrats, republicans, and independents for the last decade, before 2016, was on a steady descent. steadier among republicans, but still steady among independents and self identified democrats. and what was happening simultaneously? market share was decreasing. i asked out loud repeatedly, was that a coincidence or a cause? i think our industry has to come to terms with that.

are we approaching every stories -- every story with the same level of curiosity in both directions and rendering that story in a way that our audience can believe is credible, believable, and bankable? not necessarily true to them, but true and defensively true, overtime. that is a question you have to ask all the time. and when you see evidence like i just described, i think you have to ask that question more profoundly, deeply, and persistently. i understand some of that is a trope. some of that is criticism, because taking down the mainstream media creates a market incentive for those who are competing with the mainstream media, and we are all competing for audience, for ears and eyeballs, so some of that is said for marketing purposes, for our critics. but, if it had no basis, it

wouldn't work, and it does work. and we have to ask ourselves, why? and one of the things i tried to do in the book is explain and show people what actually happened in the first year and a half of the trump presidency. there is, i think, in the entire 326 pages of the book, one blind quote. everything else is attributed. everything else happened in full public view. i give assessments of what happened behind the scenes. but this is something that you can literally, in my opinion, humbly, take to the bank and believe, because it happened and i am describing it as it happened. brian: here you are may 3, 2018, in a news conference room briefing in the press room at the white house with sarah sanders. major: have you been advised not to wade into this, to protect yourself from any potential legal exposure, by giving either false information or information that proves later not to be able

to be withstood in court? sanders: no, but i would always advise against giving false information. major: but, jonathan's question earlier, when you say before that you gave the best information you had at the time, and it turns out not to be correct -- brian: explain to those of us who watch it from afar, what is going on in that room? and is she telling the truth every day? and why is there such an antagonistic attitude in the room against her? major: it is a good question. it is one that the white house internally thinks of all the time, probably more than those of us who sit in those rows think about, and maybe more than trump supporters might imagine. they are sensitive to it. why is this antagonistic atmosphere in the first place, and why does it persist? some of that, quite obviously, has to do with the rhetoric the president has turned toward the news media.

that is part of the psychology of this interaction. when the president says at rallies, as he repeatedly does, we are fakes, we are disgusting, we are dishonest, we are liars, we do all of this intentionally and the audience turns and screams and brays at us. that has a psychological effect. no human being is immune from that. i dealt with it during the campaign. i have dealt with it at rallies since donald trump was elected president. does sarah huckabee sanders always tell the truth? i will only quote her. there have been several times in the briefing where she said, i gave the best information i had at the time. which speaks to a process question inside the white house, which i think, is different than other white houses i have covered, which is -- the best information i have at the time may be limited, and everyone knows it is limited, but they're gonna go with it for the moment and see if they have to back away from it. they are going to test that proposition. sometimes it has worked out, sometimes it hasn't.

the dynamic in that room is, and this has always been true of every presidential daily briefing i have done, they have a message that they are trying to drive. we have a set of questions that either tries to illuminate that message, or knock them off that message to get at a deeper truth, whether it be politics, legislation, or things that are in development behind the scenes that they are not ready to talk about. all of that is part of the tension of that room that always exists. one of the reasons it is more tense now is that the briefings are far more infrequent than they used to be. and they are shorter. so the pressure builds in the room to get questions asked and answered. when you don't have lots of briefings and the ones you do have are short, 19, 20, 21, maybe 22 minutes, there is more desire to get in there and "scrap," if you will. then there is some showmanship that goes on.

i have never been one to orient myself in that direction. other reporters have, no criticism, it is their style, just not mine. but fundamentally, if there if as a white house reporter, the most important part of your day is a briefing, you are not doing it the best way. most of the best information about any white house is developed outside, then you bring it in and you require them to ask and answer what you have developed outside of that briefing interaction. brian: just a couple small questions about doing your job every day. how many people are with you at cbs, from cbs, with you at the white house? major: i have at least two crews every day, a videographer and sound person. that is 4, and then anywhere from three or four producers who come in and out of a booth where we work on any given day. then, there are lots of people back in the bureau that are part of the newsgathering and development of the story for the evening news or the cbs this morning. brian: when you go out and stand

in front of the camera live on the evening news show, is your report written, or do you read it off a teleprompter? major: it is written by me and i never use a teleprompter. brian: how do you do that? major: i memorize it. brian: you memorize it? major: most of it is track. most of it is prerecorded. my voice is laid down over the pictures. we do that around 5:00, 5:30 p.m., 6:00 if it is a harum-scarum day. that is all done. and there are maybe 15 seconds of me at the end. there is something out the top and all of that i commit to memory and i present. i don't like to read off a teleprompter. there is something unnatural and artificial above that for me, which is probably why i will never be an anchor -- i guarantee, i will never be an anchor. [laughter] brian: how many different presidents have you covered? major: four. i covered george h.w. bush when i arrived here in washington in january of 1990. but i never covered george h.w. bush presidency from the building, meaning inside the

white house gates. i think i flew on one flight for george h.w. bush because they had no one else in the newsroom and they put me on the plane. but that presidency i covered from the distance of congress, which means i got to do cool things like state of the union. i will never forget my first state of the union address. being in the house chamber. on that very first row and looking down at the rostrum, and seeing everyone there. it was one of those moments in my life where i said, this is what always dreamed about, i always hoped i would have a chance to do this. now i am. it was unforgettable in that sense. brian: george w. bush. major: bill clinton, barack obama and donald trump. all up close, every day. brian: i want to ask you something. i have never seen an article written about this and i have been around town for a long time. found i have noticed this seems to be a change with donald trump administration. this is a former anchor for cbs. let's watch scott pelley back on february 16, 2017. i want you to explain this. scott: today, we learned the

length of the president's views. 28 days. after four weeks of being blocked by courts, challenged by congress, and held to account by the public, president trump called a hasty news conference and went on offense, with the familiar tools that built his career. bluster, bravado, exaggeration , and a few loose facts. brian: i don't remember anchors doing what they are doing today, by saying, "the president lies." and scott pelley was the anchor there for some time, and all of a sudden, he disappeared. he went to "60 minutes" and we never saw him again. what happened? major: there was a change, quite obviously. brian: i know, but why? major: the network decided that they wanted a different anchor. networks are allowed to do that, networks possess that power, and the results since then, speak for themselves.

to your point about, an anchor intro that is so forward-leaning and heavy on adjectives to describe, feels different in the trump era, sounds different in the trump era, and strikes many supporters as if not over the top -- aggressive in a way that they, like you, never heard before. what is that about? one of the things i talk about in the book is trump himself likes to pick fights. and likes to do things that rattle the norms. rattle the norms of expectations, rattle the norms of what we think about, and we have commonly associated with the american presidency. and as i point out in the book, donald trump is unique in many ways. among the ways he is unique, he

is the first person elected president who never served in the military, never led armies to successful battle, or served in previously elected office. and what i say about that is it is telling us as a country, something new about what our expectations are for who should be in the oval office. that is changing before our very eyes. and donald trump is a representation of that change. and the way he is perceived, because he is a disruptor and because he is so different in the office and does not do things the way previous presidents have, there is an edge. there is an edge to the presentation. there is an edge to the evaluation. and that seeps in. brian: is that ordered by the producers of these programs? major: i can say for everything that scott pelley said, scott pelley wrote. brian: did it get scott pelley in trouble?

major: i don't believe so. brian: he was not removed because he was angry about donald trump? major: not that i am aware of. brian: i mean, if you watched it , every night, we got this. anchors across the board are stunned every night. they are shocked. you sit and watch it and you go, whatever happened to journalism? major: taking the question at its full measure and full weight, i get that question a lot. and the first thing i say is i am one person. i am one journalist with a long track record. you can read everything i have ever written. brian: yeah, but why do you think this is happening? major: because i think, and even those close to the president who like him and admire him, know this about him, appreciate it at one level and know this on another level, he provokes outsized emotional reactions. he does. that is one of the things that his strength and his weakness.

one of the tension points within the campaign and within the presidency is to channel just think that president trump provokes within people. on the positive side, for people who admire and respect and adore donald trump, it is at almost a level of adoration. it is almost feverish. they know it and they love it. and for those who can't abide donald trump, there is something so visceral about their reaction. they don't even know how to cope with it. and this is a reality that is going on and playing out in our american politics. it is not just about politics, i think it transcends party. i describe donald trump in the book as proto-partisan. he is bigger than partisanship. because there is this emotional dynamo that he spins within people. he does it intentionally, sometimes he doesn't even know

that he is doing it. but, that it happens, is influencing every aspect of american life, cultural, economics, politics and in ways you have detected, the way that journalists interact with this ongoing story. brian: so, you were in the obama white house, you have been in the trump white house. major: bush white house, clinton white house. brian: people that like donald trump think that president obama was given a pass by the media. major: they do. brian: you know these people up close. do you know anyone in the media, mainstream, if that is what you want to call it, that likes donald trump? and do you know anyone from your time in the white house that liked barack obama? major: let me answer it this way. i like them both in a general, generic sense. brian: but you know what i'm talking about. you know the chatter about -- once the cameras go off, or people stop and say, i can't

stand this man, versus, i really like this guy, i'm happy he is president. major: so, you're going to think that this is a dodge, and i will accept that as criticism. one of the things i have done in my career -- i've worked in places that are, let us say, different. i worked at the "washington times," fox, cnn, cbs, i've written cover stories that as a freelance journalist for the "weekly standard" and "mother jones." i might be the only person who can say that, by the way. what is the common denominator? the checks both cleared, so that is one common denominator. [laughter] major: i worked in lots of different places and bumped into and been in newsrooms of very different constructs and characters. and i have always operated the same in every place i have ever worked. as a result, i don't spend a lot of time engaging with my colleagues about who they like and who they don't like. a, because i'm not interested in

it. and b, i don't think it is what our job should be about at any level. if you were to ask me, major, how many people in the press corps love donald trump, i would say, that is probably a very small amount. probably. have i polled them? no. will i ever? never. brian: what would they have said about barack obama? major: they would have said over time, he is unwilling to accept legitimate criticism, he thinks he is way smarter than everyone else is, he is a historic figure , and i probably like him more than i dislike him, in a general sense. brian: let's show some video of you on july 15, 2015, in a news conference in the east room with barack obama. major: as you well know, there are four americans in iran.

three held up on trumped up charges according to your administration, and one, whereabouts unknown. can you tell the country, sir, why you are content with all of the fanfare around this deal to leave the conscience of this nation and the strength of this nation unaccounted for in relation to these four americans? president obama: i've got to give you credit, major, for how you craft those questions. the notion that i'm content as i celebrate, with american citizens languishing in iranian jails? major, that's nonsense. and you should know better. i have met with the families of some of those folks. nobody is content. brian: what was it like? major: i knew it was coming. brian: you did. major: as soon as i stopped talking, i could see president

obama's reaction in his eyes. i interviewed him six times during the campaign when i worked for fox. evidence, i would suggest, that he appreciated, not only the audience that i spoke to, but me, in the locker room of fox. we had, with the exception of a self-declared white house war on fox early on in 2009 by the obama administration, a solid, professional relationship. it was not the first time at a press conference he said, i got a hand it to you major, they way you craft the questions. did he think i was being lawyery, stopping him and preventing them from questioning? i take pride in the way i put my questions together. but i knew he was going to come at me. and i told myself, and i mention this in the book, don't do anything with your face. don't look away. don't shift in your chair.

just take it. you've asked the question. he has the opportunity to come at you with everything he has got. and i had a very strong sense that he was going to, which he did on his terms. other presidents have been louder and more boisterous, but that is about as hot as barack obama gets. but, that is a great question. well constructed, and it touched a nerve. and he knew it, i knew it, the audience knew it, and as i write in the book, from that point forward, in ways he had not before, when he spoke of the iran nuclear deal, which was the underlying subject of the entire press conference, he mentioned, by name, the four americans. there was a shift in his appraisal and willingness to place the rhetorical weight of his presidency behind those names and through intermediaries of all four families, some directly, i heard words of

appreciation. brian: did the obama white house come after you after that? major: no. that afternoon, i walked into the then-press secretary's office. i'm not spoiling any confidence. i walked in, said, are we good? he said, all good. it's all business. ask. answered. that is the way this works. you ask a tough question. you get a tough response. and guess what, the american people get to evaluate it and that is the way it is supposed to happen. brian: one of the chapters in the book is about jeff sessions. here's some video from january 10, 2017. you can explain it once we look at it. it is former senator al franken questioning jeff sessions, who was one of his colleagues at the time. >> if there is any evidence that anyone affiliated with the trump campaign communicated with the russian government in the course of this campaign, what will you do? >> senator franken, i am not aware of any of those activities.

i have been called a surrogate at a time or two in that campaign, and i did not have any communications with the russians. and i am unable to comment on it. >> very well. without divulging sensitive information -- brian: what's the importance of that, to you, in the book? major garrett: the importance is two-fold. one, that answer -- "i had no communications," turned out to be something that became disputed in the sense that jeff sessions as a senator and as a surrogate, had had communications. there is a separate debate about how important those communications were, what they actually led to or did not lead to, but on that basis, "i did not have any communications" -- that was not a defensible assertion by jeff sessions. that answer and the dispute over

that led him to consult ethics attorneys within the justice department, which led him to recuse himself from all matters relating to the ongoing russian investigation. the second part of it that is important is, and i learned this as i reported in the book -- that question was based on a breaking news story that had come from cnn. senator franken mentions that, jeff sessions takes on the question and sort of goes in directions that are defensive and not responsive to what senator franken actually asked. i point out in the book, and i know this from people who were counseling jeff sessions at the time and look back on it and wince at the way it was handled. he could have said, if there's evidence, i will give it to the relevant authorities and you have my word on that. end of answer. but he diverged and went off into these other areas. at the time, this was late in the first day of the

, ifirmation hearing process believe. and at the time, many of those closest to then-senator sessions, the designee for attorney general, thought it was going great and they let their guard down. they thought they got through most of the toughest questions . and they were feeling good about where they were, and they were looking over -- not looking over in another direction, but looking ahead to the next day or two and anticipating that this was going smoothly. this question sort of came out of nowhere. they weren't sure it mattered. they didn't catch the import of it until somewhat later. that happens in politics. everyone thinks everything is so mechanized and so structured. because frequently it is. but there are real moments where things are missed. an answer is given that is not foundationally defensible, and then, things start spinning. and the things that spun out of that are, if not central, deeply embedded in the story of the jeff sessions and this administration. brian: seeing al franken, who had to resign from the senate because there was the pressure

on him from his female colleagues, because of allegations of sexual -- major garrett: some admitted misbehavior his part, yes. brian: i have to ask you what it is like working on cbs when your c.e.o. has just been run out and possibly will pick up $120 million before it is all over . and charlie rose, one of the biggest names in the business, was fired. what is it like in your own organization, having to deal with this? major: of course, it is difficult. people you know, respect and admire. i knew and interacted with charlie rose all the time from my perch in washington. i would occasionally go up to new york. i saw him on the set. and then i walked off the set. i was honored enough, once, to be a substitute host on his pbs show, one of the great thrills of my life. because charlie rose had this place in our industry. les moonves has a place in our

industry as an accomplished television executive. they also have these other aspects of their lives. what matters to me, and i think what has to matter to everybody, is that reckoning now goes all the way. the elevator used to stop. as i have said in many speeches, after the supreme court decisions in the late 1990's that told companies, "it doesn't matter if you know, you have to take a proactive effort to communicate to your employees or what the standards are, and do everything you can, before anything happens to discourage this kind of behavior, hostile work environment, sexual harassment, the like." that all happened through all ranks, except the top ranks. now, it is happening at the top ranks across america. brian: what is the impact on the industry of all of these people

that you know well, i am sure, you can go down the list of all the people that have been run out, including matt lauer and others, what has been the impact on the way that the public looks at the media? major: that is a bigger question than i can answer, what the public thinks about the media. i think the public is absorbing this has we are all absorbing it. the media is not the only place this is occurring, it is a conspicuous and highly visible place where this reckoning is occurring, but it is occurring in other aspects of american life as well, as it should. the effect of it is, to say, these standards apply universally. and when they apply at the very highest echelon, that reinforces that they apply everywhere else, and my point earlier was, it had been applying everywhere else for a long time, but not up here, which created a perception gap about how serious organizations really were about

these standards. now, communication is absolutely clear. the standards are real. they apply universally. and that's the kind of workplace we need to achieve. and we're all better for that. brian: i want to reach from page 171 in the book. this raised another unusual aspect of trump and the russian investigation. time and again, the explanation was incompetence or amnesia. in my experience around trump and his team, incompetence was an acceptable explanation for absolutely nothing. everything trump does is great. his team is great. his people are the greatest. achievements everywhere, and yet, numerous russian-related revelations have been chalked up to ineptitude. major: that is the established record. when they explain, or they seek to explain, what questions arise from the russian investigation,

when you get to the specifics -- there was no collusion -- but, to the specifics, either people do not remember, or they blundered, they made a mistake. and sometimes it is characterized as an innocent mistake, but it is still a mistake. and i find it fascinating and worth noting in this book, to be clear, it is not about russia or the russia investigation. i say very clearly, i don't even know what the bottom of that story still is. i have people who have told me, oh my gosh, this person will be indicted tomorrow and you need to get on that, but it never happens, it all just drifts away. i don't know the bottom line of robert mueller's investigation is, or isn't going to be, and most people don't either. those that pretend they do, should stop pretending. i don't know. but what i do know is, amnesia or incompetence has been the most reliable pillar upon which trump people and trump officials have leaned against when dealing with some of the uncomfortable facts or revelations that of have come along as a story has

progressed. brian: you continue to write in there the trump world also suffered a plague of amnesia on one topic and one topic only, russia. trump forgot. pence forgot. flynn forgot. kushner forget. eric trump forgot, kt mcfarland forgot, hope hicks forgot, spicer forgot, sanders forgot, everybody forgot. how is it that russia and only infectcould in fact -- top trump personnel with amnesia, how could all those people forget? major: that is the public explanation for what happened that is presented to them in a later sequence of events. i remember this did not happen, blanket denials, oh, well this happened. well, how do you explain this happening and you saying that it did not happen? i forgot. brian: how much has that led to people saying that the president and his administration are lying again? major: i think one of the

reasons the russia story continues and has this -- if there is smoke, there must be fire aspect to it, is because denials had to be recanted. situations have to be acknowledged that weren't originally acknowledged or re-contextualized. and people say, aha. you said this thing then, now you have to say this thing now. what's going on? that's one of the things that keeps the russia story part of the conversation. i recount in the book that there was a blanket denial from the campaign during the transition, which meant that it was no longer from the campaign, it was from the presidential transition -- no foreign contacts of any kind. i didn't make them say that. no reporter made them say that. they said that. well, you know and i know and everyone in the world knows, that's not true. there were contacts.

were they inept because, if we acknowledge one, we have to explain, we don't want to explain, we don't -- they said it. it is part of the record. it is part of the record that didn't withstand scrutiny. that's happened more than once. and this explanation or the subsequent explanation either in incompetence or ineptitude, seems to be visited upon one story and one story only, russia, and not others. brian: you talk about movies in the book. why? major: i love movies. i am a huge movie fan. not nearly as well-versed as movie critics, i don't even fancy myself an aspiring movie critic, but i do love movies. i love books. but i also love movies. and movies talk to america. and part of the cultural resonance, what we carry with us, i think, is informed as a broad society, as a mass society, by movies.

and it struck me as i was, to be honest, taking breaks from writing the book, watching lots of movies just to clear my head and move in different directions and take a break, because i wrote this book while i was doing my day job, something i do not recommend and will never do again -- i came across movies that struck me as sounding as if they were representing something or a set of fears from a different era that people giving -- viewing them now might feel were coming to life in some way. brian: 1957, andy griffith, "a face in the crowd." let's watch an excerpt. >> this whole country is just like my flock of sheep. sheep. rednecks, crackers, hillbillies, shut-ins, everybody the has to jump when somebody else blows the whistle. [laughing] >> they don't know it yet. but there are all going to be fighters for fuller. they are mine. i own them. they think like i do.

there even more stupid than i am. so i've got to think for them. brian: your point. major garrett: great scene. good movie. the point of that part of the movie is andy griffith's character, lonesome rhodes, has become a star for spinning on television the wisdom of the common american person. and he describes there the people who love him most. there is an aspect of the people who love him most as portrayed in that movie, that i came across at trump rallies. people who have to answer when somebody blows the whistle, someone who is in a position where they are working two or three jobs, can't get ahead, feel frustrated and are looking for someone who has, if not the answer, a set of answers different than what they have been hearing before. and the point of that movie is,

this can be misleading, it can be possibly manipulative. and that aspect where lonesome rhodes, andy griffith's character, says, "i gotta think for them," was part of a warning signal that the writer of the point in time was saying hey, be afraid of someone who thinks he or she has all the answers. be skeptical of someone who may approach you that way in any walk of life. that is not something that is uncommon or not attached to politics in general, but i write in the book, those people who had those fears back then might look at the trump phenomenon and say, i am feeling those same fears now. i don't say that they are the same and i don't compare donald trump to lonesome rhodes. but i say that those writers were talking about something that they were fearful of and those fears, to those who think exactly the way those writers did, might feel to them now as

if they are coming to life. brian: in your book, you quote a lot of people you have met around the country and trump supporters. major: yes, for a precise reason. i wanted the book to not just reflect my experience here in washington, but the people that i have met and people that as a practical matter, every month, through cbs news, that my dear colleague dean reynolds, talks to month by month and gets their take on what is going on in the trump administration. to get their take and voice if not a balancer or more level assessment. brian: you have a character by the name of jimmy in your book. i wonder how much of this has to do with the way that you see some folks out there that follow either donald trump or anybody. he paused for a moment and looked as if he was going to walk away, but decided to add one more thought, "i like who he picked for vice president, mr. pence." you ask why. "well, what he did in arkansas,

i mean, arizona." indiana, you said, hopefully. "indiana, arkansas, wherever it was, i mean, he turned it around." how often have you found people have no idea what is going on? major garrett: that's not what i say in the book. what i say about jimmy and others is, they may lack what i would regard or most people would regard as a precise understanding of person, place, and thing. but what matters to them, and this is where i really try -- and yes, this is an advertisement for the book, full on. i try to humble myself about what the truth means to them because the truth and the way it matter to them, guess what, mattered in the country because the truth as it mattered to them led to the election of donald

trump as president. and the truth that matters to them is, is it impressionistic? yes. is it specific in key respects? no. but it doesn't make it any less vital or less motivational to them. and i would have conversations with trump supporters about facts or times or things, and they would say, "yeah, yeah, yeah, but i'm interested in a larger truth." he speaks larger truths. he speaks about big things and tendencies and trajectories. and that is what i care about." ok? i am not in a position, nor should i ever be, to say your sense of things, impressionistic or otherwise, is invalid. it is valid to them. and them acting on it made it valid for the whole country. brian: 40 seconds from another movie. tell us how this fits in. "seven days in may." burt lancaster and frederick march. >> i am prepared to brand you for what you are, general.

an egoist with a napoleonic power complex and an outright traitor. i know you think i am a weak sister, general, but when it comes to my oval office and defending the constitution of the united states -- >> somebody has to teach you about the democratic processes that flag represents -- >> don't you presume to take on that job, mr. president, because frankly, you are not qualified. this treaty with the russians is a violation of any concept of security. you are a criminally weak sister. brian: what is the topic of that movie? about at is disagreement between the pentagon and the sitting president over the nuclear treaty with the soviet union. there are those in the pentagon who believe that it is hurtful, deeply, dangerously hurtful for the country for this to go through. the clash between civilian leadership and military leadership. the military wants to be more

aggressive and believes the president is dangerously placing the united states in a weakened position. and one of the constructs of the movie is, what is weakness, what is strength? what is, and frederick march later on in the movie talks about a disease of helplessness caused by the nuclear age. people feel they can't make things happen, they feel powerless and frustrated in their inadequacy. and as i say in the book, "nuclear age" was the phrase then, we might call it age of terrorism now, we might call it age of globalization, where people feel a sense of powerlessness, a sense of frustration. a sense that the system that they believe in, and have believed in, is either incapable of addressing their needs, or no longer oriented toward

addressing their needs. and if i came across a theme through trump supporters at all these rallies i went to, it was a sense that either the system does not work or did not even bother to think about working as they thought it to work, or they wanted it to be appearing to work on their behalf, and that disconnect is something donald trump jumped right in the middle of, and that every capable politician, even a newly minted one as donald trump was, learned how to navigate. brian: january 18, 2018. your podcast, "the take out podcast." i got a bunch of questions on why is the president's lawyer talking to you on a podcast. here in the january time was ty cobb and your podcast. major: is it, from your vantage point right now, ty cobb, a virtual certainty that the president will have some q&a with the special counsel, robert

mueller? >> that's my belief. major: when do you believe this investigation will reach its conclusion? >> there's no reason not to conclude soon. major: what's soon? >> soon would be in the next four to six weeks. brian: he's gone. john dowd is gone, there is no interview, so why would ty cobb talk to you? major garrett: interesting question. [chuckles] i didn't know the answer at the time. i took what is sometimes described in our industry as a flier. hey, ty, would you ever consider doing my show? yeah, when do you want to do it? what? yeah, when do you want to do it? are you serious? sure. i will do it. what i didn't know was -- i learned later, and i talk about in the book, ty was trying to move the president toward an interview with mueller in late january. they had a date selected, 27.

-- january 27. and the point of him appearing on my show, not a sit down interview, or a network thing, kind of interesting, kind of out part of the network sphere but not exactly, kind of an oddball place, was to lay the predicate for the president, you can do this. we can work it out. let's do it sooner rather than later. also a signal to robert mueller, because in that interview, ty cobb says, i have respect for robert mueller, i think he is a formidable but fair prosecutor. the president shouldn't worry about a perjury trap, meaning robert mueller's institutional knowledge and illegal skills and character would not lay a perjury trap for the president, sending signals in all sorts of different directions. that show generates global head lines. the first time i podcast popped up and got significant notice.

and that began the unraveling. because john dowd, as related by ty cobb in the book, reacted quite negatively to that appearance. he was becoming evermore fearful about the president sitting down with robert mueller. and as i point out in the book, think about where this story would be now if, in fact, the president had an interview with mueller in late january before so many other revelations and other things had come to pass. brian: before you go, the university of missouri, journalism? major: yes, sir. and political science. two degrees in four years, it was an active time. brian: where did you meet your wife? major: that is a two-part question. [laughing] major: because i met my first wife in las vegas, nevada. she was a reporter at kles, the cbs affiliate. i was a reporter at the "las vegas review journal." i met my current wife here in washington. she was the professor of political science at villanova. she's now the director of the graduate school of political management in george washington university. brian: what year did you marry

her? major: 2016, right after the primaries ended. it was not the best idea, but we struck while we could. brian: you have three kids? major: yes, i do. from my first marriage. brian: how old are they? major: 22, 23, and 18. brian: the book is called "mr. trump's wild ride: the thrills, chills, screams and occasional blackouts of the trump presidency." our guest has been white house correspondent for cbs news, major garrett. thank you very much. major: thank you. ♪ >> for free transcripts or to give us your comments about this program, visit us at q&a.org. q&a programs are also available as c-span podcasts.

♪ >> next week on q&a, jeffrey engel, director of southern methodist university's center for presidential history, on his book about president george herbert walker bush and the end of the cold war titled, "when the world seemed new." that is next sunday at 8:00 p.m. eastern and pacific on c-span. >> join us later for a conversation about reporters and confidential sources in the government. watch live coverage at 7:00 p.m. eastern here on c-span. professor christine blasey ford has agreed to testify thursday about her sexual assault allegation against supreme court

nominee brett kavanaugh. judge kavanaugh will also testify at the hearing. coveragell have live thursday. you can also watch online at c-span.org or listen on the c-span radio app. directoreek, executive of the open markets institute, discusses his concern over companies possibly becoming monopolies and threatening democracy. he is interviewed by technology reporter for politico. r, we might have to start separating search, separating search from youtube. but this isradical, something we have done many times in the past. 1982, it with at&t in with at&t in 1913. we have done it with dozens of

large corporations over the years. as the people of the united states to structure the political economy in a way that is safe for us. >> watch "the communicators" tonight at 8:00 eastern on c-span2. today, secretary of state mike pompeo, ambassador nikki haley, and security advisor john bolton help a news conference at the united nations in new york city. they answered questions on plans for a second u.s./north korea summit. this is 20 minutes.