>> rose: welcome to the programment we begin this evening with hillary clinton's speech attacking the economics and business career of donald trump. joining me general awe johnson, gillian tett and susan glasser. >> she has what so many people in the campaign has been looking for with a memorable one-line singers. she came out and said he would bankrupt the country like he bankrupted his casino. he had basically unreliable policies. she came out and said he's written business books and they all ended with chapter 11 and he bankrupted his companies not once not twice but four times. all of this shows she's finally coming out fighting and saying here's a candidate who is totally unreliable. >> rose: then we talk about another campaign issue gun control with charl hulse and evan osnos.

>> something very strange is going on. when one of these mass shootings happens, it actually drives sales of the gun companies because people feel more insecure. what you find if you spend time among sort of the literature of guns, if you go to the nra convention in louisville last month, if you read the books, if you listen to the speakers, the people who are very influential in the gun culture today, what you find is that there is a relentless discussion of the risks that are posed to you by things in society, by the idea that government is incapable of protecting you. but what they don't often say is that the truth is that your risk of being killed in a mass shooting today is smaller than your risk of being killed by lightening and yet the risks associated with taking a gun into your life, taking it into your home, radically increase the moment that gun comes into your house. >> rose: we conclude with the editor-in chief of haaretz, aluf benn. he has a provocative article in

foreign affairs, it is called the end of the old israel, how netanyahu has transformed the nation. >> it's about democracy. is democracy merely the rule of the majority or does it include judicial review, protection of minorities and more equality to israel's arab minority that is growing and growing not only in numbers but also in its political awareness and immense. >> rose: clinton's speech, gun control and the new israel when we continue. >> rose: funding for "charlie rose" has been provided by the following: >> and by bloomberg, a provider of multimedia news and information services worldwide. captioning sponsored by rose communications

from our studios in new york city, this is charlie rose. >> rose: we begin then with a look at hillary clinton's speech today in columbus, ohio. it was her first economic policy speech of the general election season. her remarks strongly criticize the business record and economic proposals of presumptive republican nominee donald trump. clinton often employed trump's own quote to discredit his economic ideas and warn of their potential to throw the country into recession. >> liberals and conservatives say trump's ideas will be disastrous. the chamber of commerce and labor unions. mitt romney and elizabeth warren, economists on the right and the left and the center all agree, trump would throw us back into recession. >> rose: the speech comes at a vulnerable moment for trump who has suffered a series of

missteps since winning the party's presumptive nominee becoming the presumptive nominee yesterday trump fired his top aid and campaign manager corey lewandowski. he will deliver his own speech today via twitter and will discuss the failed policies and bad judgment of crooked hillary clinton. from washington general awe johnson from "the washington post" and gillian tett of the financial times. joining us is zeus is a susan gf politico, we only have video of her but we would like to have her words as we begin this information. i'll continue in the studio with gillian. lay it out what you said she has residence. >> she's put so many people on the campaign to be looking for a memorable one-line singers. donald trump will bankrupt the country like he did his casinos. she came out and said he undermined his policies and he

written books all ended with chapter 11 and he bankrupted his companies not once not twice but four times. all of this shows she's finally coming out fighting and saying here is a candidate who is totally unreliable. >> rose: suggesting a cause of recession and global panic if elected. >> absolutely. she's trying to make him out as somebody who is completely irresponsible of economy. of course trump would totally disagree. world leaders and economists here in america all fear what a trump presidency would mean. >> rose: susan what you know already what's the reaction of this speech. >> it's interesting. trump is pushing back very hard. it's not an accident. i think he rescheduled his attack. hillary clinton's speech for tomorrow, the very next day after the speech. this is her crucial case. she has to make this case an under cut trump on the economy. she's leading him now in polls but interestingly enough as a new cnn survey out today showed actually the economy is one area where trump still seems to hold an advantage with voters. so unless she can under cut him on this very case that he's

making as his successful career as a businessman entitles him to be considered as president should not really be able to close the deal. i think this was really a crucial part of her pivot to the general election today. >> as susan said one of the big problems right now if you talk about job growth that is one area where they think trump will do a much better job than clinton. people don't believe hillary clinton's going to create jobs. >> rose: jenna what do you think of this piece today and what does your reporting today told you about people responding both republican and democrat. >> well, donald trump's whole case has been that he's a successful businessman that he's not a politician that he's going to run the country like he runs a business. and it was very popular in the primary, and in the general election, this is exactly what hillary clinton is trying to go after him on. he is trying to brand her as a politician, as crooked. we're interested to see

tomorrow, is it just going to be attack after attack after attack or is he going to lay out a more thoughtful critique of hillary clinton and also maybe lay out some of his own policy ideas. the reactions so far, you know, republicans, a lot of republicans are not going to like anything that hillary clinton says. they don't often believe some of the attacks that she's made. but especially at the higher levels of the republican party, they are worried about these attacks on donald trump especially when it comes to things like trump university where he has been accused of defrauding working people out of their money. >> rose: i wants to move beyond this. we've all talked about donald trump has had a back week and then a bad couple weeks. jenna tell me how bad it has been for him both in terms of how he reacted to what happened in orlando, what he said about the judge from indiana who he

talked about could not be fair because he had a mexican heritage. and what he represents today or yesterday in firing his campaign manager. what does this all say about where the trump campaign is. >> right. well i mean, it was back in early may that he became the likely nominee, and at that point a lot of people expected to start working on a general election campaign strategy. instead, he was of on off the rd a lot. when he's on the road he's campaigning in places like texas, a deep red state and arizona. and while he's out on the road, he has been making all of these, it's just been one disaster comment after another. he went after a judge who is assigned to a case involving trump university. this has nothing to do with the campaign, this is from his private business life. and he was angry enough to get up at a rally in san diego a

couple weeks ago and go after this judge, accuse this judge of not being able to handle this case because the judge's parents are from mexico. that's sent an awful lot of shock waves. instead of walking back that comment or clarifying that scawnlt ocomment or god forbid apologizing for the comment. he doubled down on it and seems to get himself in more and more trouble. and then there was the orlando shooting which could have been an opportunity for him to say here are the policies that i propose for preventing future attacks like this. and instead he's on twitter taking credit for having predicted that something like this would happen. so yes, monday was a pretty monumental day in firing his chain managercampaign manager, o had less and less power in the campaign over the last few weeks

but it was still a symbolic thing to cut that campaign manager from the campaign. this is an opportunity for donald trump to perhaps hit a reset button and start over again. but at the end of the day, he's donald trump. he's the one making a lot of these decisions, he's the one making these comments, and so if there's going to be a pivot or a reset, it's going to need to come from him as the candidate. >> rose: the one impression that connects to what we have said earlier that the democrats want to make this election a referendum on donald trump. >> well look, i think even in how they're using the attack on his business that we saw today from hillary clinton, she's turning it into a character issue. with mitt romney they tried to portray him as a cam es businessman. in the case of trump it's fundamentally about his suitability or lack thereof to be president and i suspect all of their substantive critiques will come down to that. here in washington in many ways,

the attention getting gap of the last couple weeks as much as anything was the poor state of the trump campaign's organization and finances. it was really like official washington agnawin agog he onlya million dollars in the bank with what was supposed to be a major national election campaign. it spoke to again the judgment issues the lack of professionalism, a sense by the professional political class here in washington that their party has been hijacked by an outsider who has sort of a callous disregard for the rules. and i think trump is still running in many ways a primary campaign. he's not turned to the general because he's not fully consolidated the republican party behind him. today he's meeting with evangelicals as if he were still running against trus ted cruz id of hillary clinton. there are questions of what kind of convention exactly are we going to face in cleave clevelan

july this summer. >> rose: you know all the major people in the world of economics and what they think. >> not as many as you charlie. >> rose: what's their judgment of the trump business record and the trump economic proposals for the country. >> most grown up economists are policy makers around the world are completely aw appalled in disbelieving what comes out of his mouth. the one calculation that everyone is frantically trying to make is is he going to end up just being a front man for the republican party and actually at some point the grown ups will come in and take over. i sat down recently with a group of republicans, senior republicans and one of the big republicans is trying to tell everyone around the table don't panic, actually trump will be the front man for the campaign

but people lying paul ryan will actually be in charge and precisely because trump has no funding policy machine operators, eventually republican funding policies and operators will come in and they will take control. so if you want, if you're a republican you would say actually trump's the front man you vote for him and you end up with something like ryan actually controlling it. >> rose: anybody who would object to that the most would be donald trump. >> o >> rose: -- of course.>> he's t. >> funding and lack of ideas. he doesn't have any pru policie. is he going to capitulate and let the establishment come in for him. will they be the plug and play machines for the election and frankly we don't know. >> rose: even if it works does that sound like a program for victory. >> it sounds like a potential program and whether that wins the race, who knows. >> rose: where do you think the trump idea is today jenna. what is it that makes them believe that they can turn this

thing around? >> well, they won the primary. i mean he wasn't expected to be the likely nominee. he was not expected to make it this far. so few people a year ago believed in him. they feel like they have the perfect candidate at a perfect time in the country where there's a lot of dissatisfaction with both parties, with politicians of all sorts. and just like they have this magical rise to the nomination, there's a feeling that he can do it again in the general. but i think they are very quickly realizing that the general is a very different world. it's a very different game, it's a very different set of voters. and you have the whole country. he didn't run many television addads during the primaries. he mostly relied on free publicity. and now he's competing in all of

these states across the country, and this bare bones campaign that he has is just not going to hold up. >> rose: there's also this question, and both these, and i'll begin with gillian why he's not released his tax returns. she said today his potential lies of that as will. clinton quotes maybe we'll learn he hasn't paid taxes on his income. we've known that for the few years he paid nothing or close to it or maybe he isn't as rich as he claims. >> here's a real dirty fact about the tax coated. most big real estate developers do not pay any tax or only a tiny bit of tax. >> rose: because of debt or what. >> no. sitting at dinner here in new york city with some of the biggest real estate in the country. if yound up paying tax you're kind of an idiot because there are so many loopholes that any real estate developer can take advantage of. >> rose: unique to the real estate business. >> it's not just unique to the real estate business.

it's particularly egregious. i think it's highly likely donald trump has paid very little tax over his career. >> rose: you think that's the reason he's not releasing. >> i do. and the key point is it's legal -- >> rose: well then why not release it and say everything i did is legal. >> that's what we suspect he will end up doing. he's already given indication he will fight for whatever dollar of the american money on his tax returns. but it's going to make a lot of people pretty angry to see just how little tax he paid. remember mitt romney when those came out and showed little tack he was paying it didn't do him any good at all. >> rose: one thin the american public likes to know is fairness. >> absolutely. >> rose: fairness is one that is a strong conviction. if they think something's not fair that offends them. they're happy to be rich and to be richer than they are. but the thing that owe fenlz them is a -- offends them is something that's stacked against him. >> he hasn't shown he paid tax or a lot to charity and it's

hard for americans to think the way he's behaved has been faired. >> rose: and it will be measured against what he said before. >> i would imagine so yes. >> rose: before you go, the vote. >> the vote is an absolute cliffhanger, 50/50 right now. all eyes on thursday. frankly the thing that will drown out donald trump is in fact -- >> rose: if in fact the people who want to leave are victorious what does that mean to the economy. >> if wend up leaving there's predictions we'll end up with a recession and market turbulence. if you're an alarm es, you say it will be worse than the -- collapse. resource says not with a black monday which was when the pound collapsed but a black are friday this week if we do indeed have -- we have authority saying there's going to be a huge loss investment for the uk if indeed we blackout. >> rose: thank you. thank you jenna. >> thank you. >> rose: my thanks to susan

glasser first of all we had trouble getting a picture and then had trouble getting both picture and sound. so my apologies to her. i'm not sure where the problem came from but we loved having her here. back in a moment. stay with us. >> rose: the orlando shooting az bring the gun issue back to the forefront of the national debate. the senate voted down foregun effective measures on monday a week after a gun men pledged awe ladies and gentlemennance to isis killed 49 people. the amendments would forbid people from the terrorism watch lists from buying guns. they would also close loopholes and background checks. meanwhile the supreme court declined to hear a challenge to laws in connecticut and new york that ban assault weapons. joining me now from washington carl hulse of the "new york times" his story today looks at the senator's fate in the effort to adopt gun control measures.

he looked at the killing and the business and politics of selling guns i'm pleased to have both of them on this program. let me begin with you carl what has happened so far legislativively. give me a sense what happened so far this week and what might happen in the rest of the week. >> well as you said, the senate voted down these four proposals yesterday. it was fairly predictable even though everyone in the senate and probably most americans would agree that people on terror watch lists shouldn't buy guns, be able to buy guns. nothing is easiest i ohio in wa. there's a lot of -- ohio in washington. there's a lot of politics at play here. it didn't go anywhere. >> it was sort of an embarrassing defeat. everybody walked out of the senate last night feeling a bit meteomortified they couldn't do anything. >> rose: mortified because they succumbed to lobbying or mortified for what reason. >> i think it seems like such a

straightforward proposition, right. if you're on a terror watch list you shouldn't be able to go in and easily buy a gun. even the most conservative people said over the weekend we should be able to get together on this and they couldn't. so i think that's weighing on people's minds here. >> rose: why couldn't they get together. >> because the republicans, it's pretty complicated obviously but the republicans, they sort of react to the nra. the nra was against the democratic plan but did support a republican plan. democrats know that they have an advantage here, they know public opinion is on their side so they were trying to push for as much as they could get. there wasn't a lot of talk going on about a compromise. and that's where it got left. >> rose: that brings up susan collins. >> correct. so that is the news today. susan collins has been, you know, she's a centrist from

maine always known for trying to get a compromise going. she's been working for days now with both republicans and democrats, including senator hidecamp from north dakota who has been resistant to gun control measures in the past given her state and the make up and the voters there. and also republicans who include kelly -- whose got a cuff re-election -- tough re-election. they've come up with a plan. mitch mick connell said they will come up with a vote. it's a compromise between the republican and democrat proposals and so they're going to get another chance to vote on this but it's not sure that that proposal could even pass. it's going to take nearly all of the democrats and up to 20 republicans. the nra's already come out against it today so we'll see where it goes but there is some pressure to do something here more than there has been recently. >> rose: so where do you think the future looks? >> i think that, i don't know. it's going to be a close

probably vote but i think that christopher fee said thi -- murs today the big gun control advocate. he says movement. even if this were to pass it's a very small thing but i think there's a sense in washington they just need to break this deadlock on gun safety if they could get anything through the senate, it would be an accomplishment. the house probably wouldn't take it up. the house democrats are already rallying around this new cry today. they don't want to have a big break if they don't get a summer break if they don't get a vote on their own gun control proposal. so i think people see movement but it's glacial, charlie. it's so small, it's such a hard impasse to break. these families keep coming here and pressing for some relief after their sons, daughters, husbands and wives are killed. and it's very frustrating for

them but there does seem to be some minuscule progress. n't having a voteven even havins who are here all the time seems like an accomplishment. >> rose: your reporter at large making a killing the business and politics of selling guns, you look at the broader history and context of this. does anything surprise you about the decision in the congress this week? >> no. as carl said i think what we saw in congress was absolutely no surprise. and it's a reflection of this broader phenomenon that the last few months of work on this piece has really made clear which is that we have never been as americans farther apart, more polarized on the subject of guns than we are now. it's one gun owner said to me i have friends who have no guns and i have friends who have 25 guns and i have very few friends in between. your average gun owner today has eight guns. and we've reached a point at which either side finds the other side point of view

tely unimaginable. and so what we wanted to do was go back and figure out well what is actually going on. what is at the heart of the gun industry, what is driving this phenomenon. >> rose: what did you find out? >> well i'll tell you one of the interesting things. the gun industry is in a very unique position which is that on the day after the events in orlando, this tragic event which after all is a scar on the space of the nation, everybody agrees, the shares of smith & wesson the largest u.s. gun maker as we all know the shares went up 10% before trading even opened on monday. so something very strange is very going on which is when one of these mass shootings happens it actually drives sales of the gun companies, drives sales of guns because people feel more insecure. what you find if you spend time among the sort of the literature of guns, if you go to the nra convention in louisville last month, if you read the books, if you listen to the speakers the people are very influential in

the gun culture, in gun culture today, what you find is that there is a relentless discussion of the risks that are opposed to you by things in society by the idea that government is incapable of protecting you. what they don't often say is the truth is your risk of being killed in a mass shooting today is smaller than a risk of being killed by lightening and yet the risks associated with taking a gun into your life, taking it into your home radically increase the moment that gun comes into your house. so i met people all over the place who have bought a gun because they feel genuinely unsafe because of isis or because of mass shooting. but the solution that they're awe daunting iawe daunting is nc health experts say is close to making us safer. >> rose: some people say opposition to gun is simply opposition by gun companies and not by people who are hunters

and second amendments. >> there's a pretty strong argument to say the gun occupies a kind of political and economic never neverland is the way i'd think of it. there was an act in 2005 called protection of commerce in arms act. almost a capitalist history. this is a law of gun company against any civil liability for the criminal use of their products. what that means all of the normal processes which would steer an industry to change the way it does things, not in some fundamental way but even in small ways to prevent for instance guns from getting into the hands of people who might do harm to the public, even those kinds of pressures have been relieved. and it's a very strange situation because the gun industry in many ways says that it stands up for the free market for the truest ideals of american commerce and yet it has in a sense been protected from all of the normal processes. take for example if you take exxon mobile as an example of a

case where a company that found itself as a result of the exxon valdiz prices, forced to change some of the ways it did its business. you transpose those same dynamics into today where the biggest national crises we confront as a country are these kinds of mass shootings day in and day out. none of those have any kind of affect on shaping the company's behavior. they continue to do things exactly as they did the day before. >> rose: carl, when you hear bad and i'm sure you knew most of that, what dynamic could change it? i mean after new town, after orlando, because it was the largest mass murder, everybody says at long last now. but it passes and we get back to business as normal. is there some combination of factors, some effort to take on

those forces opposed to more effective gun control laws. >> yes. i think you have to start in one place that there are a lot of republican lawmakers who truly believe that the second amendment needs is sac sacrosant and needs to be protected. those folks are not going to join in those efforts. what you need to do is convince the people who aren't in that position, you know, and you have to show them and they have to learn that the nra in some ways need to reduce their fear of the nra that it can take them out. now lindsey graham today said you know, he is part of the collins coalition but today he said i'm usually with the nra but i'm not going to be with them on this. this is common sense and if somebody has to get into this to prevent future mass killings i'm willing to take a that risk.

he's in south carolina and owns guns and hunts. if you're going to get some kind of gun control legislation seriously through a recognition there. now the nra as i'm sure etc irvs reported a lot in doing his stories something called mythical power, right. lawmakers really do not want to cross that. that's happened and evolved over the years. so the nra, they definitely don't want anything to pass that they are opposed to because that's going to show a weakening of their position. you've seen this and other lob - lobbies in the most. once people see think can make a move in opposition to you and you don't pay a huge penalty then that can build into bigger momentum. but i think people's mind set in terms of the politics just have to be changed. it's you huge political weapon gun control.

democrats are obviously pretty eager to take advantage of this situation politically themselves. they are really going to go after the republicans on this issue and they already are. there are a lot of politics at play and you have to get people to set that aside. you have to see what happens with the collins thing. >> rose: the orlando shooting was historic in some respects and commonplace in others. >> i think it was commonplace in one grim respect which is by one count this was the 130th mass shooting we've had this year. what i think is change and what has the potential to really change in frozen conflict over gun politics is the idea of moving this out of congress. congress in so many ways is freesen not just on gun politics but on a whole range of issues. if you start to get into the state legislatures and this is one of the things you've begun to see on the gun control side that some of these new organizations which have come into being since the sandy hook massacre in 2012, they have real

money behind them, backed in part by mayor bloomberg of new york but also there are other sources of funding. and what they've begun to say is look we're not going to get anywhere in congress. those positions are dug in but if we go state boy state and -- state by state and they've begun to use the gay marriage approach the model of going state by state and finding individuals, particularly younger voters, younger volunteers people who are willing to take this on as an issue they say we're going to be able to close what's been their greatest obstacle over the years and these what's known as the intensity gap. the idea is if you are a gun owner they are you are fighting to hold on to something you think is going to be taken away. if you're somebody who is concerned about gun violence it's a more abstract issue. they're saying look when there are 130 mass shootings in a year between now, between the beginning of the year and orlando, this is no longer an abstract issue. this is something of direct relevance to voters whether they feel it personally or not. and that has the potential to at

least begin to change the chemistry of the issue on the state level. >> rose: i don't want to speak for him but i'm asking because you study this michael bloomberg has made the point they're presented to go where some people who are very strong gun supporters at the same time are allied with a portfolio of policy ideas, and they're saying even though you're with us on all those other things, if you're against us on the issue of gun control, we're going to support your opponents. >> that's right. >> rose: attack particular the nra has used in the past. >> the nra's used it very effectively in the most and they advertise their succession. they'll say for instance we have a 98% success rate when it comes to the candidates that we endorse and the candidates we oppose. mayor bloomberg has said we're going to begin to do the same thing meaning we may have a lot we agree with you on but if you're not on the side we're on with guns then we're going to use all of our resources and

all of our considerable money to run against you. that's a meaningful threat. what you've also seen is there has been a change in mood among some on the left. the idea that the nra was this insurmountable force, a mythic force as carl would put it has gun to erode. if you big into the those the 98 peppers success rate or 98 plus success rates they're taking races they know they're going to win because that keeps their numbers high. one of the favorite points you hear these days from democrats mobilized on these issues is the nra is a paper tiger. maybe not as strong as they think it is. i'm not willing to go that far. i think you still find significant and deep commitment to it in a lot of the country, but what you're finding is that there is a recognition that congress is incapable of moving on this. if it was incapable of moving after 20 children and six educators were killed in an elementary school in 2012 it's hard to imagine what it is going to move the congress today.

>> rose: let me go to an interview i had last night in washington, yesterday afternoon in washington with the vice president. >> the woman a doctor head of the trauma diems at one of the major hospitals in new york said i used to be able to pull, she held up a 22 caliber rounds. i could pull this slug out of someone's lung and save their life. i could do it out of their, then she held up a nine millimeter bullet and the slug was like this. she says this blows the lung out of the body. and what happens is, its velocity and the amount of force that is injected. so what happens is now, if someone didn't have the equivalent of an ar15, it was a different weapon but similar, a lot more people would be alive. and many people would have been shot. so the reason why the assault

weapons and high caliber weapons are so bad, i mean locale borrow weapons is so bad -- caliber wins is so batted becaus bad bey deliver fatal blows when they strike someone. you just get that across. >> rose: some of the wisest and smartest people in the country with experience like you have not been able to get it across. >> well the reason is as i said, the opposition is, i will not mention his name but one, i put together proposal to the president after new town proposals about executive and legislative action and we gave very close to getting extended background checks etcetera. i had one senator call me. he said even though my state, 70% of the people who agreed with me, there are 200 protesters outside my office. and so it's the intensity with

which the people on oppose and the funding that comes from the nra and other gun groups that is so, are so well organized. >> rose: are you convinced some will argue that if someone is intent on doing great violence they will find a gun. >> let's assume that's true, okay. whether they find a gun or they find the equivalent of an ar15, depends on how much damage they can do. it's a quantum difference. you give me a nine millimeter block and you have a three-eight revolver i'll kill more people as quickly. you shoot as many but i'll kill more. so it matters the weapon and its caliber and its lethality matters. it's like if they don't have a gun i've got a baseball bat or whatever well they're not going to kill as many people or get to

as many people. if you have multiple rounds and magazines that hold 19 shots, and you go boom boom boom boom they're not automatic but boom boom boom boom as opposed to, you know, like everybody thinks of the western the old six shooter, you got to ticket out and you got to work -- take it out and you got to work it. it matters the amount of carnage that can occur as a consequence of what type of weapon. >> rose: evan this is what you wrote. the greatest legal and political question around guns today are not what types of weapons will be allowed to use in the future but who can use them and why. >> if you think about it, every time there's a mass shooting we tend to focus on the instrument at hand. if it was an ar15 as it was in new town, that's what people talk about, the idea of reimposing a federal assault weapons ban. no>> rose: not only new town but or what happened owe as well. >> in orlando it wasn't an ar15.

we can get into it but it was a slightly different gun. it was a semi automatic you can say military-style rifle. these kind of technical distinctions is something that, anyway it becomes kind of a football. >> rose: it was not an ar15 it was something else. >> that's right. but i think what we can say is, what many people agree who study this issue very closely is that the next big legal frontier for guns is not going to be whether or not ar15's are going to be on store shelf, it's probably going to be this question of who in fact is entitled to have a gun and how can they carry it because two decades ago after all it was illegal or strictly controlled in 22 states the idea that you could walk out of your house with a consealed gun. today it's now legal in 50 states. the big gun case which was after all the district of columbia versus heller which the supreme court decided in 2008 when they said basically there's an individual right to self-defense within the home.

what that case did not do was to say what happens then you get outside the home. it left open this enormously important question and that question is where in fact wimpy pull be able -- will pea people be able to use guns. there are laws in whole range of states that he removed obstacles to that kind of carrying. it's the beginning of i think a very hard conversation. are in fact the public presented to have guns in all kinds of area of public life where they had previously been off limits. >> rose: who uses ar15's, and for what purpose? >> when you talk to people who buy them if you go for instance to gun shows or you go to the nra annual meeting you will hear people say they use it for sport. thee go froinls to the gun range. a few people use it for hunting it's not a very good hunting rifle and some people say they use it for home defense in the case somebody comes into their house. but i think there's another element here. there's a piece of it, people who were e about, there are

survivalists who were e about the break down of tote and that's the gun they need at that moment. the ar15 has become a kind of political totem in saying i have an ar15 or i own it is a way of saying that you subscribe to a set of ideas and that you're fighting against what you consider to be an encroachment on your values and your political identity. just today there was a congressman who posted that he was proposing a series of bills that would make it easier in fact to get a gun and have a gun in washington d.c. after the orlando massacre. he had posted a picture of himself holding an ar15 and said he had it for 20 years he olds it proudly and a defederal of the second amendment. in some ways it's become disassociated with what you actually use it for and biomarker much more of a political symbol. >> it seems to me the gun most often awk shunld off a you

so much. >> thank you very much charlie. >> rose: the book making a killing the business and politics of selling guns and carl hulse from the "new york times" covering this and many other important issues. thank you both. >> thank you so much. >> thanks charlie. >> rose: we'll be right back. >> rose: aluf benn is here editor and cheer of the noon haaretz a well-known observe public figure in society. staged an attack on prime minister netanyahu last week and plans he tends to run against him. he was replaced by leiberman this year. in the latest issue of northern affairs magazine in it he called the end of the old israel, how knelt who hanetanyahu transforme

nation. i'm pleased to have him at this table. welcome. >> thank you charlie. >> rose: what has changed. what has benjamin netanyahu done to or for israel? >> well, he's been around for many years in israeli politics and he was elected 20 years ago. he returned to power seven years ago as kind of central rights converse con servative and most of his energy was focused on lecturing the world against nuclear iran and in the ends lecturing against the deal that was eventually reached with iran. then last year he won the election. in an up hill battle but he won a very decisive victory. >> rose: surprisingly. >> yes. and according to those in the campaignn't tcampaign even to no some extent.

he went after the voter base of the smaller far right wing party. and convinced them to vote for him. and he won decisively and then he had to choose. either once again building kind of centrist collation what we call unity government in i real with a labor party. or build more homogeneous right wing coalition. that was the dream of many people in netanyahu's political base. once he took out the leftists, the two state solution was the idea off the table worked towards making israel's occupation controlling the west bing permanent. west bank permanent and the world would get used to that because what's happening in syria, what's happening in america and what's happening in europe. in that process, his dream of many years which was unfulfilled

which was we called it 20 years ago to replace the elite in israel, to change the course, to stop the city's idea of giving away land to the palestinian state. wanted it to appear achievable. and to build a coalition that is kind of radical government that wants to change the country. to push in what they call new elite, people were marginalized before. to make, to criticize anyone thinking about democracy or equality from israel to treat them as foreign ideas that need to be criticized. judicial by the supreme court a rule against the majority. and so far day after day see more and more of that.

so the country is changing. >> rose: -- was at this table and we had an engaging conversation but he straightforward said i'm no longer in favor of a two-state solution. and a range of other arguments. so i thought he comes from the true right of israeli politics. >> the righted in terms of the peace process or the old right and left division which was about the future of the west bank, the future of the settlement and so on. this belongs to the right true blue all the way. but he found himself isolated because he was also in favor of civil rights of the rule of law, of independent judiciary. and more and more he found himself to be a representative not of the newly or the present day right wing but of the old

guard and it goes all the way to david --'s labor party and the founders of israel where he actually comes from. >> rose: does that include begin. >> begin was an interesting case. he was the founder of the right wing. before i was born he was treated as an extremist. but begin being in opposition for so many years was 29 years in opposition before winning the election in 1977. he had a lot of respect for dissent for debate for an independent judiciary. even more so begin did not replace the senior leadership of the civil service or the intelligence community or the military. he kept them in office. either because he want to legitimize his own rule through the civil surinvestments ma surr

because of the professional many and independentents advise and so on. people to the right to this day criticize begin for that because they said well the left wing lost the election but they remain in power through their influence in the media, in in the court and military and so on. now netanyahu and his coalition would like to change that. they can't do it over night but they want to create an atmosphere that would fulfill the change much faster than it is today. >> rose: is there no more left in israeli politics that has any sense of strength or numbers or possibilities. >> well, apparently there is but it's -- >> rose: being a party of paris, the party of ... >> o it was shown the new name f

the labor party is going, if the election was held today, they would win a single digit number which never happened before. >> rose: right. >> so the left wing in israel left the leader. >> rose: they would have less than ten. >> less than ten. now they have 24. it's total disaster. so the left in israel, center left. nobody likes to be called left anymore. the leader that would energize the country, the voters and lacks a narrative. and the leader of the sig sign - zionist. >> rose: it's about the right and the far right. >> it's about democracy. the democracy merely the rule of the majority or does it include judicial review protection of minorities and more equity to

israel's marybethity that is growing and growing not only in numbers but also in its political awareness and demand. >> rose: those people who are now in power and the new coalition that netanyahu has to those who argue that for not to be a two-state solution will be some vairk variation of aparthe. >> they are arguing they are anti-semite or hating jew. somehow the world would get used to that and the palestinians would get used to that and practically even if it wanted. first of all netanyahu is renewed defense minister leiberman said they supported a two-state solution. but i guess that few people believe them when they say that because they never show any practical moves that would even facilitate it. when there's any hint of any

external idea like the new french peace initiative, netanyahu says it's a wrong idea it should get off the table and so on. and the extension is going on. now there's a big debate about the soul of the military and about the rule of law within the military. which again the right wing is against the military leadership that appears to be more conservative. >> rose: if you live in america you read american neums or live in israel and read american newspapers there's constantly these full page ads that have all these of former israeli intelligence officers, assad and all kinds of people and they're all saying look this is going the wrong way and we have to stand up. do they represent minority of individuals or does that represent a decided opinion among the national security people in israel. >> at least among the higher echelons and retirees.

i'm not sure if the platoon commander or just ordinary gi's would hthink that. important recently we saw what we call the revolt of the generals. former prime minister you know him very well he lashed out at netanyahu like no one else has done in the past year. he called the government, he warned of budding fascism and israeli government. he warned of netanyahu in the country of the cliff and losing it, being hijacked by an extreme right minority and moving, leading the country to disaster. and barack said he was not going to run but it's not between running being the prime minister or stay at homement for the first time you could see alternative counternarrative to the government.

>> rose: a lot of israeli politics is fear of external forces or iran or terrorism or the arab world or whoever it might be. and yet it was said the other day there was no existential threat to israel. >> the arab spring revolutions and the civil war in syria destroippedestroyed the potentit of arab state invading israel. and there is some kinds of deternal balance of deterrence between israel and hebz la hezbd the attacks we saw in israel were done by individuals with no organization and people carried knives and tried to attack soldiers at check points. the most recents one in tel aviv was a shooting attack by a couple terrorists who used make shift guns. but they were not affiliated or as far as we know led by any

major -- >> rose: killers here. >> in this case it was tools but still it was kind of improvised. clearly these attacks that have been going on for several months now put the government to a test because the right wing government is supposedly supposed to scare off the terrorists. and it could. so he was in a way also i believe netanyahu was trying to make him goo tha into the scape. >> rose: the article about israel how does that play itself how. who is likely to win and what will be the determining factor? >> the test of the political system in israel. by the way not only on the left side, on the right side there's no visible and clear alternative to netanyahu as well because the

aspiring leaders on that side leiberman and bennett leads smaller parties that don't appeal to the wider audiences. to build a narrative and to find a new leader that will turn back the country into a more peaceful more engaging rest of the world. and rebuild democracy from within. >> rose: does haaretz have influence. >> we hope to have, you know. we're the voice of lib rule libn israel and we were alone for most of the past year. but now we see there's more people are raising that flag of standing up to these replacements and demolishing of democracy idea of the coalition. >> rose: thank you. back in a moment. stay with us.

captioning sponsored by rose communications captioned by media access group at wgbh access.wgbh.org

>> rose: funding for "charlie rose" has been provided by: >> and by bloomberg, a provider of multimedia news and information services worldwide. on the next charlie rose an analysis of the expeach on hillary clinton's economic policies and conversations with olivia wild. join us.

this is "nightly business report" with tyler mathisen and sue herera. extreme caution. fed chair janet yellen warns of considerable economic uncertainty and gave no indication interest rates will ride any time soon. housing heats up. linnar posts a strong quarter. why does the ceo want to get back to basics? rainy day funds. we all need them but millions don't have them and there's one group of americans who especially lack a financial umbrella. all that and more tonight on nig"nightly business for tuesday, june 21st. good evening. i'm sharon epperson in for sue herera. >> welcome, i'm tyler mathisen. considerable uncertainty. that is how janet yellen characterized the