>> rose: the death toll is rising in istanbul after suicide bombers attacked the main airport tonight. at least 28 people were killed, according to the government, 60 more wounded, and the numbers may be going up. the attackers opened fire at the entrance of the international terminal, then blew themselves up. this video is said to show the moment of one explosion, and this is what it sounded like outside. (blasts, shouting) all u.s. flights to and from istanbul have been canceled. holly williams is there. holly, what can you tell us? >> charlie, we are still trying to piece together exactly what happened here in istanbul

tonight. a turkish government official told us that police officers spotted three men behaving strangely near the entrance to the international terminal. they approached them, and there was then gunfire and apparently either two or three explosions. this video appears to show the aftermath of the attack, which officials are describing as a suicide bombing. you can see blood idea and lifeless bodies littering the ground, passengers being ushered away, and police and emergency workers at the scene desperately trying to sort through the chaos. now, ataturk airport i one of the busiest airports in the world. it is a global hub, packed with people at pretty much any time of day, so this will be extremely damaging for turkey and it's economy. >> rose: holly, who do you think might be responsible for this? >> charlie, no group has claimed

responsibility at this point, that we're aware of, but this follows a fate of deadly suicide bombings here in turkey over the last year, some of them including two earlier this year that targeted foreigners have been blamed on i.s.i.s. by the turkish authorities, but others have been carried out by kurdish militant groups that are locked in a long-running conflict with the tursh government. this country used to be regarded as an oasis of stability here in the middle east, but, charlie, the security situation is now deteriorating rapidly. >> rose: thanks, holly. >> rose: welcome to the program. we begin this evening once ben with brexit, and talk to zanny minton beddoes, gerard baker and tina brown. >> the reason we had this referendum was because david cameron thought having a referendum would quiet an argument within his party. most people in britain didn't

think about it very much but, over time, because tory politicians were blaming everything on the e.u., the e.u. became a scapegoat for everything people were cross about and just as tina said, there are many people who feel left behind and they were voting out of frustration against the status quo. i think this is just as much a vote against austerity poll six as globalization. >> rose: then we talk about politics u.s. version with catherine rampell, megan murphy and bob costa. >> trump is more comfortable at the moment talking about trade. integration is part of it. but when you see trump trying to navigate a general election audiences, he uses different language and nuance in recent days maybe talking about blocking people from terrorist countries and not just the muslim aspect so you see him not so much centered on immigration, it's about the broader theme of

economy and trade. >> rose: brexit and the presidential election 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: tonight we begin with the continuation of our coverage of britain's exit from the european union. e.u. leaders converged in todaye decision. prime minister cameron said britain will not be turning its back on europe.

>> britain will be leaving the european union but you want -- i want the process and outcome to be as constructive as possible because while we're leaving the european union, we mustn't be turning our backs on europe. these countries are our neighbors, friends, allies, partners and i hope we'll seek the closest possible relationship in terms of trade, cooperation and security because that is good for us and for them. >> rose: e.u. leaders, however, said britain could no longer expect full access to the e.u.'s common market without accepting the other conditions including the free flow of workers in. a statement to german parliament, chancellor angela merkel said there must be and will be a noticeable difference between whether a country wants to be a member of the european union family or not. the european parliament called for a swift brexit to end uncertainty, but merkel stressed the importance of giving the u.k. ample time to decide how to

exit. internal turmoil exists in britain. the leader of the labour party lost a vote of confidence this afternoon but refused to step down. the pound edged up 1% today and the british ftec rose. zanny minton beddoes joins me, editor of "the economist," and tina brown, former editor of the "new yorker" magazine and current president and c.e.o. of tina brown live media. i am pleased to have them on the program. zanny, i go to you for what's happening as we speak in london and brussels. >> you gave a good summary. the big news today was the labour part, corbyn dramatically lost a vote of no confidence. he said he's not going anywhere. we lost the prime minister. the prps said he's resigning

friday, now the leader of the opposition incredibly weakened. in brussels, david cameron -- i think brussels is probably the most serious place in europe today. we had theater in london and at the european parliament when nigel farage appeared at the european parliament to great up roar, but in plus also i think it was serious and david cameron went to the last e.u. council meeting and i think serious words were spoken but far and few between now. >> rose: are they going to have another meeting in which he's not invited? >> they are absolutely. tomorrow sends a very powerful signal of what's going on. the e.u. 27, the remaining 27 are going to have a meeting without him. david cameron was there today and will not be there tomorrow. >> rose: gerard baker and tina brown is here. tina, you spent a lot of time in this place. >> i certainly have. nigel farage telling the european m.p.s they've never done a day's work in their life,

the piece of salesman type elegance he has, take about a cape-swelling idiot. to say such a thing, was so rude. i think it's absolutely fantastic -- >> rose: what's your opinion of boris johnson. >> boris johnson, what i really resent about boris johnson is he's led britain over a cliff and i believe he was completely unserious in the pursuit of it. i do not believe one minute that boris was a serious brexiter in any way. >> rose: a political move? politics. it was exactly the same thing as some of the republican candidates saying things like they wanted to abolish the i.r.s. they know that's not going to happen. he has no plan. he thought this would further the position with the right of

his party, give him cred with the right, with the e.u. kind of voter, and when the election came about he would be the leader of the party. he's now wrecked the car and has to drive it. >> rose: he will be prime minister in your judgment? >> highly likely. may who is already in the race is impressive but doesn't have his communication skills and boris is the great campaigner. >> it's certainly true that speaking on behalf of all of my countrymen this has not been a moment when we've lived up to the reputation of having a stiff upper lip. it's not exactly the spirit over there is it. a nation of bed wetters and panickers. (laughter) but it's not britain's finest hour, fair to say. a couple of things feed to be said and i don't fundamentally disagree with what any of you

have said yet, but it's important to remember that the british have long been deeply skeptical about european union. they joined the european economic community in 1973, ratified the referendum in 1975. what they joined was a loose association of states trying to improve economic cooperation among themselves, abolishing trade barriers and creating essentially a single market. britain liked that. the british didn't want to give up their sovereignty. steadily over the last 45 years like a kind of ratchet moving along, there have been a series of movements, ratified by treaties -- >> rose: an erosion of their sovereignty. >> absolutely. now britain's opted out of some of these things. the euro, the agreement which announced movement within a few countries with the exception of britain and a couple of others, have eroded sovereignty. the british people pretty

skeptical at the start. never wanted to be a part of a european superstate. the european union has as its animated position, it's stated position, and we've seen with the problem the euro's faced in the last ten years that a tighter union among the core countries is the essential if the project will survive, britain never want to be a part of it. it's easy to portray it as tina does, boris johnson running around the country behaving in an opportunistic way or racist anti-european sentiment, the british have been reluctant members of the e.u. i think this break will be messy and chaotic for a year or so, may be the best thing, because we will instead establish a relation between britain and the european union that will actually be more sustainable in the long term. >> rose: and with the rest of the world. >> with the rest of the world.

let's be clear, this is another one of the myths put about by the brexit people, whether an act of england-ism, people yearning for yesterday, wanting to go to the 1950s when britain was cut off from the rest of the world. not true. britain wants a trade deal with the united states and the former commonwealth countries. >> rose: and the european union. >> and want a trade relationship with the european union. boris johnson as he points out spent a lot of time in europe, he comes from atouche, family. you know, obviously there is an element in british life as in any country where there is a nasty racist xenophobic element. that wasn't the animating principle behind it. >> i think it was tremendous anxiety. i think the brexit is a metaphor for the overall angst that comes from globalization and digital

disruption. mostly because i think people can feel left behind, left out. it's the same anger we feel with the trump voter. >> rose: the quality and sources of the anger. >> the sense life is too fast, leaving everyone behind, they're cut out, their jobs are disappearing and nothing to replace it. those who say manufacturing will come back or anything will change with sovereignty, it's a lie. it isn't coming base back because of digital ditz ropings and the world is generally a different place. where i think both labour and the tory party have been at fault is that the real anguish about immigration is a subject no one is allowed to talk about and there i do think that the p.c. nature of media where everyone who even tries to discuss the issues that have been upsetting people are branded as racist. >> i agree with that completely. there is a desire -- quickly, again, people must understand in the united states that as a member of the european union you sign up to essentially an open

borders system. so anyone within the european union can live and settle and work and draw benefits and get housing and education in any other country in the european union. in principle, it means anybody in greece or spain or portugal or germany could move to the united kingdom. there is no control within the european union borders. there is a national sentiment and belief that national resources should be primarily devoted to the people who live there, in britain and elsewhere, but so many people oppose that to say we can't allow a system where anybody can come and live here. >> rose: let me get back to, first, the economic fallout. have we seen the worst of it or is the worst yet to come? second, is the idea this may set off a whole series of people

wanting to leave the european union and a stronger sense of nationalism and all the things tina and gerard have been talking about? >> can i quickly point out that when i agree with a lot of what gerard and tina said, peoplemake arguments. the idea people have been skeptical and agoly about the e.u. is not true. it's a fight within a small element of the conservative party and gerry characterized a view of a movement within the tory party. the reason we had a referendum is david cameron thought having a referendum would quiet an argument within his party. most people in britain didn't give two cent about the e.u., didn't think about it very much but over time because tory politicians were blaming everything on the e.u., the e.u. became a scapegoat for i've things people were cross about and as tina said there are many people who feel left behind and they were voting out of frustration and against the status quo and i think this is just as much a vote against austerity and austerity politics

as globalization because a lot of people in britain have suffered from the shrinking state and they are concerned about not having control over immigrants but for some it's a xenophobia but for most people there are doctors' offices, the schools will be too big and house prices going ut. so there are different arguments. to say britain is anti-e.u. for decades isn't right. >> 40% of labour voters voted to leave the e.u. >> that was a protest against david cameron. >> the most pro european union party there is. >> they won't want to remain in the predicament they have been in the last six years. they haven't liked it. >> that's taking constructionism way too far. it's clear what people were voting for. it's drew britain is deeply

skeptical. that's why we didn't go to the euro. >> there was talk of what people were voting for. people were voting against the e.u. because the e.u. was give bent to the status quo. now we're seeing the facts that people were not voting for anything concrete because they were promised a trifecta of things they couldn't v. some people were voting to stop immigration. some people like your description were voting for a little singapore, a free trading liberal nation. some were voting to get back to the '50s. they were different and completely inconsistent views and that's why we're in the predicament we are now. >> britain opted out of the euro because there was never popular support for joining the euro. the british did not like what was involved which was the surrender of sovereignty. the opinion poll was taken straight after the vote on friday after what was the most important issue of sovereignty, the economic or immigration, 53% of people said sovereignty. >> sovereignty has become a buzz

word. >> you have such a patronizing view. >> they don't. the most search time on google from the u.k. after the next day was what is the e.u. >> many brexit said the next day they were incredibly -- they didn't believe what they were voted for. they were promised this money was going to go from the e.u. to the national health care. >> people should have been given a test before they went into the polling. >> the maihem, the lies, the craziness in the media ahead of time, no one knew what to believe. >> the entire political establishment and corporate and city of london was in favor of remain. these are very -- the president -- president obama came to the united kingdom -- >> rose: but they made a

negative -- >> there is no public enthusiasm. you couldn't have gone to the british people and said, really, you want to be part of the great european ideal because there is no public support for that. >> gerry, every demographic voted. it was overwhelmingly the old voted for brexit not the young. >> the age was about 45 if you look at the difference. >> to get to your question about what the economic effects would be -- >> rose: can we settle this at all in terms of why -- >> i think it's all of the above. you can find people who voted for the reasons gerry did. you can find people who voted for the reasons tina did. you can find people who voted because they thought it was an argument between david cameron and boris johnson and hated all

tories. this is a vote against the establishment, i agree with gerry on that. we've had enough of the experts as michael gove said. it was the establishment, two fingers to the establishment from the british people. >> yes, it was that. but you can't separate that from the sentiment of europe. polls have shown this for 25 years in britain, it's not just confined to a wing of the conservative party andeth one of the labour party's problems. the labour leadership is out of touch with labour voters. this is a deeply -- again, not hostile but skeptical -- britain has long been skeptical and indeed skeptical about the whole european project and deeply opposed to -- >> because a lot of people have -- yes, and there are aspects and that's why we didn't join the euro quite sensibly. britain has a different relationship with the european union than many of the core

members and that's rightly so, but it doesn't mean that what people were voting for now was not powered by different arguments about why they didn't like the status quo and i honestly don't think that a large number -- a large share of the british public has been festering as the main thing they're concerned about for the last 30 years is anti-europe. that's what's happening in the tory party. >> rose: the questions i raised, the fallout, two the beginning to have the strong surge of nationalism and sort of right wing, for lack of a better word, politics. >> let me do the second one first because it links to what we have been talking about. i think we already are seeing a surge of popularrism of different flavors. we're seeing it on your side of the atlantic with donald trump, we've seen it in austria and poland. it's a big victory for the populist, angry brigade and should be a wakeup call for

everybody else. i certainly take the import of this event. what happens in terms of the economic event? in short-term clear uncertainty because we don't know what's going to happen, what final arakement with the european union will look like. that uncertainty hurts the economy, no one will invest or expand. in the long term how big the economic damage is depends on the kind of relationship we end up with. there is a simple tradeoff. as laid out by an ago, if we want to have full access to the single market, we have to both pay in money to the e.u. budget and allow the principle of the free movement of labor. if we want to put up barriers and have a very different immigration system, we'll not have full access to the single market and if we don't the economy will be worse off for it. a simple tradeoff. i think the e.u. in the end is a place of compromises.

it seems to me that there is a prospect that we end up with an arrangement economically close to what we have now and actually possibly we don't exit. not certain. otherwise, we have an arrangement that is very close. >> rose: you said? i think that zanny is absolutely right. i don't see the motivation europe has to give us everything we want, give the u.k. everything it wants or brexiters what they want. >> rose: the e.u. said they gave a lot to david cameron before. >> there is no motivation. whole european project is a question of a tradeoff between sovereignty and economic integration. we'll see. i mean, i think -- you know, look, one thing we've seen, unfortunately in the last few days, is the people who campaigned for brexit really didn't know what they were

campaigning for and that's deeply reprehensible. look, there will be a negotiation. my guess is that there will be, despite some of the rhetoric we've seen, there will be a desire to find an accommodation with the u.k. exactly as zanny said, the risk is they can't give too much to britain because there are these separatist tendencies in lots of e.u. countries, so they can't seen to be rewarding britain leaving the e.u. as merkel said, there are duties and privileges and if you don't want the duties, you don't get the privileges. but i still believe it is in nobody's interest to have the u.k. leave the european union, work with the european union, have a relationship with european union determined byta rifs, 10%ta rifs on all goods, that would be no good for anybody. it would be bad for german manufacturing, bad for the

british economy, it would be bad for everybody. there will be a desire, pretty certain, to find some accommodation which will be some version of access to the single market as zanny says in exchange for some obligations but short of the burden of full membership. >> in david cameron's resignation, we're in complete chaos, so the idea of any orderly path to this very, very complex matter now is so besmirched. >> rose: until at least october, november? >> there will be a new conservative leader by september 9. >> that takes time. is may be one time when actually going slowly isn't so bad. i agree with you, tina, uncertainty is bad so you want to have clarity as fast as possible. on the other hand, the europeans can't actually do anything until britain triggers article 50. article 50 is beginning to leave. until we do that, there is nothing very much that can happen.

if we take our time thinking about it, i think that, frankly, one leader of the parties, we'll have to have is a laying out of what the two parties see as the future in europe and there will have to be another general election. you can't have a referendum which was one clearly but without any clarity about what comes next be the only thick that drives what the situation will be. >> rose: when might that take place? >> your guess is as good as mine, charlie. i have given up predicting what happens when. i think we'll have a new tory leader by september and a new labour leader sometime soon. i expect a general election sooner than later. >> we have a new prime minister by early september. that prime minister could choose to call an immediate general election. that takes six weeks so you could have it by the end of october. that would be tight. what would you be campaigning

on? david cameron stepped aside, there will be a new prime minister. we won't know whether he she, what kind of deal they'll want from europe. so the guess is, until we know what they want from the e.u., what they want from this negotiation, it's going to be hard to have -- >> rose: they don't know that. who's going to be the new leader of the labour party? >> i don't know who's going to be the new leader. the name is ban died around including cooper, many others. who knows. you know, if you ask me would we be talking about a new labour leader now, i would not have thought we would be here this fast, i don't know. >> jeremy corbyn was so lukewarm -- >> i don't think he would survive that.

when you blithely say who is going to replace jeremy corbyn as leader, he has been voted a massive vote of confidence from his own members of parliament. he was elected by the members of the party who are much more left wing and are furious at the m.p.s. so you have a more divided party than the conservatives. >> not necessarily all the members are. you're absolutely right. jeremy corbyn is in an extraordinary position that he is despised by the m.p.s, loved by the labour party and viewed skeptical by the labour party members. >> rose: another question, britain has had real influence within the european union, fair to say? >> waning recently. >> rose: but what will be the future role in the european union for angela merkel? >> well, i think one of the reasons is that he would not -- she would like the brits to stay

and was very hopeful that the referendum would go the other way is if the brits are not there, she loses an important broadly free market ally and the other big power will become france, and france is distinctly more protectionist and statest than angela merkel is. >> that fuels her own really sort of right-wing elements. >> she has an election in over a year in germany. that's where all the focused will be. her decision last year was widely welcomed for humanitarian reasons was a political disaster. she we want from 55% to 25% approval rating. >> rose: didn't that take political courage on her part? >> you could call it courage but again you could say is it wise to say we'll allow a million-plus people to come settle in the country and by the way also signaling come on in,

everybody, that was the message. anybody can come in and try to venture out. so she's got her own problems. i agree with sannie, britain has been -- zanny, britain has been a good ally to german. the last thing i the germans wat the being without the european union. >> the wrapped up emotion, the rash statements, the kay no, sir that ensued, nothing good is going to come out of. this it's all very well to say maybe in a year or two we'll get everything we want, but the fact is now europe is in absolute turmoil. if you are a terrorist or anybody who's threatening -- if you're putin, you're happy as a clam right now at the state of this turmoil. >> rose: how does putin take advantage of this? >> well, again, the germans have always had this a ambivalent relationship with russian, we saw recently this last week the german foreign minister saying we're being too hard on the russians. so we need to be careful that we

don't assume the admitted turmoil in europe is somehow helping poobt, which it doubtless is because there actually are unfortunately strong elements within europe themselves that are really not prepared to take a really firm line against them. but we've seen that repeatedly and germany is -- >> when putin is quiet, something bad is being planned. it always happens when he goes quiet. >> rose: go ahead. before we descend into a deep deep -- festive gloom. >> rose: there is a glimmer of light attend of the tunnel? >> plenty of reasons to be gloomy, but over the past years we've talked indeed on your program about how the europeans have a fantastic capacity to kick the can down the road, to procrastinate. angela merkel is the absolute master. even a verb in germany which means to put off decisions till

you absolutely have to take them. the e.u. is brilliant for that. we face something no one in the e.u. really wants, most british m.p.s really want. there is no clue how to get out of it but no one wants to deal with the consequences now. it seems to me we have a classically european situation where i don't quite see how it happens yet in large part because of the domestic politics gerry talked about, but i wonder whether we end up with something less cataclysmic than we worried about. we had the vote to leave, then the collapse over the chaos in british politics. in the end the europeans kick the can and come up with compromises. >> that's worked out well for them, zanny. this is why the euro is -- and by the way the other person brilliant for kicking the can is david cameron. he wa>> mumbling through is theo

of boris johnson. >> a long proud british tradition. but it's going to be very hard -- despite zanny's desire to cling to the wreckage of the european union, i think it will be extremely hard for -- 17.5 million people voted last week to leave the e.u., the largest number of votes cast for any position or party in british history. no political party's ever got that number of votes. no referendum was ever achieved -- there was no idea like zanny turning around and saying, that's not right. >> that's entirely inaccurate. i'm saying if you look at the history of the european union, bert or worse, we have had referendums in other countries that have changed their mind. this is different in scale and i'm acknowledging that. but the story of the european

union is one where you walk up to the very ellen of the precipice, kick the can, i'm now mixing metaphors, but you end up with compromised notions. the european union, you're right, bad at performing and turning itself into a better place but very good on keeping the show on the road. >> the map of those who voted for brexit matches the reasons who had mad cow disease in the 1990s. >> that's been overdone, the split in the country. scotland was certainly a heavy vote for brexit, but 60/40, and it's not quite a yellow and blue map -- >> rose: was the idea of europe dead? >> i'm not quite sure anymore. i think the idea that you can create a europe -- what is what they claim to be a union, a single european unity to which

people feel a strong sense of belonging and identity of the union, never going to work and i think we're exposing the flaws in that and what you're doing by trying to force people -- this is the tragedy of europe -- by trying to force people into this single unit unit, you are creating more and more and more tension and it will end badly. >> rose: lastly, tina. we keep on saying that everybody felt this dislike for europe but there is many people in the u.k. and many of the younger people who have that more multicultural upbringing and raised in that system where they were at school with 30 different nationalities and they love the freedom of movement and being part of an international world, they see it's a bigger world and it's a digital world without borders. in the digital world, you can play chess with somebody in russia. that is a fact. >> it's never the argument made for remain. the argument for remain is don't do this, you will fall off a

cliff. >> rose: with that, thank you. sannie, thank you for joining us. good to see you again. >> you're welcome. good to see you. >> rose: back in a moment. stay with us. >> rose: we continue this evening with politics on this side of the atlantic, the house select committee on benghazi issued its final report, the 800 page report offered new details about september 11, 2012, when four americans including the ambassador were killed by islamic militants in benghazi, libya. it also further rebuked the conduct of the department of defense, the central idence of wrongdoing by former secretary of state hillary clinton. democrats sharply criticized the committee which persisted for more than two years and cost an estimated $7 million. also today at the steel industry firm outside pittsburgh, donald trump gave a speech on global trade. he praised the british referendum decision to leave the

e.u. and decried globalization saying it wiped out our middle class. >> skilled craftsmen and trades people and factory workers have seen the jobs they love shift thousands and thousands of miles away. many pennsylvania towns, once thriving and humming, are now in a state of total disrepair. this wave of globalization has wiped out totally -- totally -- our middle class. it doesn't have to be this way. we can turn it around, and we can turn it around fast. >> rose: yesterday, trump hired jason miller, veteran political strategist and former advisor to senator ted cruz. miller will be trump's chiewn cases director, a significant hire indicating a move toward a more traditional campaign structure. joining me is catherine rampell, an opinion columnist at "the washington post," megan murphy the washington bureau chief of

bloomberg news, and from washington bob costa national political reporter for the who's. welcome all. bob, tell me about trump's speech today. >> just a few days after secretary clinton went to cincinnati with senator warren, you see trump coming to the ruts belt, going to western pennsylvania, talking to a steel town, the blue-corpcollar workes and trying to arouse the voters who he believes are the heart of his campaign and tried to right his message after a trip to scotland, changes in the campaign personnel, and coming back to what he ran on a year ago when he launched his campaign, trade, economic populism and trying to set the table before the convention. >> rose: immigration? not so much at the center. trump is comfortable talking about trade. immigration is part of it. when you say trump navy gait ago general election audience, he still want to build his wall,

but when it comes to barring all muslims temporarilier from the country, he used different language, nuance in recent days, taking about blocking people just from terrorist countries and not just focusing on the muslim aspect. you see him centered on the broader theme of the economy and trade. >> rose: trump changed, talking about trade, the muslim ban less, more about the appeal to reagan democrats and rust belt workers from the middle class? >> pretty extraordinary feat by any measure, given the sort of race we're in and how things have changed so much with him as a candidate and just in response to economic populism globally. we have a republican candidate who publicly called stood for scrapping nafta, withdrawing from t.t.p., anti-globalization. at the heart was

anti-globalization, something president obama, something business leaders, something is it chamber of commerce here has been actively pushing us to take more of our place at the table. >> rose: those interest groups you just spoke, the president and the the chamber of commerce, and business -- >> are traditionally aligned behind the republican candidate. this shows how difficult these waters are going to be for republican donors, for business leaders, for everyone to unify behind someone whose core message on economics and trade is actually anathema to many of the core tenets of the republican party. >> it's upsending republican orthodoxy thus far. if you're a republican donor, i don't know what you're thinking now. the u.s. chamber of commerce basically issued a statement saying this would be disastrous for the u.s. economy. >> rose: go back to the campaign. this idea of appearing more

presidential, has that gained a stronger foothold, bob? >> it has and it hasn't. when it comes to the campaign's operation, we see trump's campaign becoming more professionalized. the addition of jason miller is an important one for many months, who picks a 20-something spokeswoman, has been at donald trump's side and been the main way of communicating with trump in the press. now they're trying to build a messaging operation. miller comes from cruz's campaign. miller is also important because he's a link to the movement right. he worked on matt bevens gubernatorial campaign in kentucky, worked for different conservative candidates. that's ahead of the group ahead of the convention in cleveland that remains in many quarters resistant to trump. but trump himself, if you watch his twitter feed, look at his comments in his speech today, this is a man who's populist, celebrity focused, extemporaneous and not ever on a script and when he, is he adds his own commentary.

>> rose: let me turn to the democrats because it's also in the news the last couple of days. what do you make of the two ladies in blue? hillary clinton seeming to have fun with the senator from massachusetts. >> you know, i think if you'd asked those people a month or two months ago whether elizabeth palmer would be the vp pick, whether she was a serious contender for that, people would have said november not so much, that that is high risk, and that pairing, so they personally like each other, that perhaps elizabeth palmer in delivering bernie supporters but alienates the middle of the road voters hillary clinton will need to draw and keep on board. but now seeing them, the body language changed, the language from the campaign changed, that slide ruler seems to be going over much more closely. there is no question there was an excitement and dynamic. >> rose: it is a possibility more likely than before even though they're not anywhere

close to a decision, you think? >> i would add that libdz elizabeth has been a very effective attack dog which is very important in this campaign. i mean to the extent that donald trump got where he was was opponents were pulling punches or were not particularly effectively attacking him, you know, getting him to say things that made him more vulnerable, she has been quite successful and it's hard to undervalue that in the pick. >> rose: the role of attack dog. >> right. >> rose: i was thinking this morning can you imagine the vice president debate if the attack dog from the republican side is governor christie and the attack dog from the democratic side is senator warren, that would be a debate. >> that would be a matchup. that would be a fierce matchup between those two, and i think both are grappling with the issue of do i want to attack dog someone who can take this on, or do i want someone who removes this stain, someone who's

unimpeachable, has an impeccable track record and brings that gravidas and clean slate. >> and right demographics. with elizabeth palmer you get et elizabeth warren, you get massachusetts. with chris christie, it's unlikely he'll pull over the voters. there is a reason the presidential candidates have gone for people from swing states because you're pulling in more of those voters. >> rose: barack obama, joe biden i think went for balance in terms of -- >> right, there are other forms of balance but it was more about finding that balance rather than finding a more aggressive, you know, sort of attack dog on the campaign trail. >> rose: what did you think of a warren-clinton romance, bob? >> it's a powerful moment to witness, and the question that looms over secretary clinton's campaign is she has this checklist of possible traits she

would like to see in a running mate, someone from a specific region, someone maybe who gives a different generation, but i spent nine days on the trail with senator sanders and something is happening in the american left inside the democratic party and there are ideological winds blowing throughout this democratic primary process, even as it winds down. you see sanders reluctant to endorse, and warren, she may with an appearance be nodding toward clinton, may be nodding toward the political wind, but there is a lot of activism on the left that wants to see someone actually on the ticket. the tim kaine or tom vilsack, maybe that's not enough for a left that wants to see a real progressive on the ticket. >> rose: who would it be other than warren? sharrod brown or something like that? >> sharrod brown is someone i hear from clinton insiders. tom perez, labor secretary,

comes out of the left. >> rose: labor and latino. that's right. drawing the parallel with the u.k. as well we see with jeremy corbyn who very much has been now voted down, but we still see rallies and support for him on the street and ignoring the real left. >> rose: opposed to members of the parliament but he had the labor rank and file in his favor. >> exactly. >> rose: where is trump on his own selection process? when somebody said there was a split between trump and family and him, i'm not sure who said the source is, there is a question as to when they would announce a vice president pick. should i read into that they have narrowed the choice and perhaps selected their running

mate. >> based on my reporting, trump has not made a final decision but it's a very short list. llewylieu wean douse ski is gond paul is now running the process and manafort is very preferential toward a senator, someone who helps trump navigate washington. names i hear are rob portman from ohio, senator richard burr from north carolina. senator bob corker from tennessee, and as a potential pick, maybe not the first, jeff sessions of alabama, someone who wouldn't necessarily expand trump's appeal but is a sitle senator from alabama. >> rose: interesting, is portman up for reelection this time? >> so is richard burr and it's tough to see how they would leave the reelection races. but if you look at north carolina, ohio, the trump campaign sees the rust belts,

industrial areas in the northeast and mid atlantic as key areas where trump needs to be competitive. >> rose: is it automatic manafort has this support and the encouragement and the relationship and the dialogue with the republican establishment to get them on board hopefully? >> with the message, this is the issue, and can he keep him on script. we were discussing that -- the speech today, while it cuts against so many tenets of the republican party for so long, actually in delivery and conciseness and his cadence and some of the lines he returned to about making america wealthy again, those are the sort of things that if he can stay on that messagaged stay away from drifting on immigration and language about mass deportation -- >> rose: and personal attacks. although that has been a core, successful part of his campaign, actually. so what people want to see, what establishment wants to see is discipline, organization, and

the ability to actually turn people out on the day to see the message. >> rose: and money. i think it's not only the content of the message but the scriptedness in and of itself seen as virtuous. mitch mcconnell this weekend said i think it would be a good idea if donald trump stuck to the script, meaning when he goes off message, whatever it might be, that's more dangerous, where he's liable to say things more inflammatory that maybe gets a nice cheer from the crowd but that gets played endlessly on loop and ends up turning off a lot of potential voters. >> rose: does it matter george will is leaving the republican heart, that hank paulson is supporting secretary clinton, that richard armage is supporting secretary clinton and other reps are leaning that way? >> it's a significant trend we're seeing within the republican party, people moving away, uncomfortable with trump. trump supporters would argue that he's expanding the party,

bringing new people in, but if you're not keeping those conservative rank and file, the movement players we thought they were with goldwater in '64 and reagan in '76 and '80 and helped build the modern republican party, if trump ignores them, trump is ignoring the george wills of the world, he's not courting them or caring they leave, if those voters don't show up, you have a potential problem in november. >> rose: finally, there is also -- not necessarily finally -- benghazi. here after $7 million they said and all these hearings to come back and say, well, the state department didn't do certain kinds of things, that there was not a sufficient reaction in benghazi to what was happening that night, but what impact does it have on this campaign? >> i'm not sure that the latest in unending series of investigations and hearings is really going to make that big of a difference. seems like they're trying to draw out this potential scandal for as long as they can.

they see that it still has value to their base. potentially to voters who are on the fence, who are turned off by trump but are skeptical of hillary. it doesn't seem like it's actually going to bring any new facts to light at this point given how many resources have been devoted, it's more about maintaining the width of scandal, keeping that floating around her campaign for as long as possible. >> rose: she tried to address the issue of trust today saying i lont quite understand it but i'm going to try to figure out and how do i respond to it. >> she has had difficulty with that issue basically throughout her political career, and trust is very intertwined with authenticity and she has had struggles with authenticity basically since the beginning. eth not really clear how one regains it at this point given there is such a wide and well-healed apparatus intended to destroy the trust. >> rose: what is his pathway to victory? >> his pathway to victory is to

be change. he has so many problems on paper, voters are concerned about his vulgarity, his racial undertones and explicit statements, they're concerned about his policies, but he's not clinton and he's not a political insider. if he can rouse the working class voters around the country, who are disgusted with political elites and aren't happy with trump himself but want total change, he can maybe have a narrow path to victory in some to have the rust belt states like pennsylvania, ohio, virginia. >> rose: and north carolina? and north carolina. >> rose: and -- your state. >> rose: yes, indeed. what's her pathway to victory? >> very similar to president obama's. when you look to the democrat graphics, it's expanding on to coalition he built. donald trump will find it difficult when you're only taking 20%, less than that, of the latino vote and less than 10% or 7% of the black vote in this country, there isn't really

a pathway forward on the numbers as they currently stand unless he takes a huge share of the white vote. for her, they have been very effective of targeting not just minority groups the way we think of minority groups, but communities across, lgbt, section of the community that have been allies, expanding it, reinforcing the message, doubling down on women, maybe insuring they know exactly what donald trump said, whether about planned parenthood or watching on abortion, his road is more difficult. >> her pathway to victory is not being trump. he unfavebles are historically high but his are higher. that so many voters find him so repugnant they're looking for any alternative. to be fair, there are a lot of voters on the other side motivated by the not hillary

aspect of trumpness, but for her it's really a very motivating factor. i actually went to a rally last week in raleigh of all places, and it was billed as an economic policy speech where she talked about her tax plan, her college affordability plan, all sorts of things relating to worker protections and unions and everything else, minimum wage. and when i ask people what part of her policy platform do you like the best, the response most frequently was she's not trump, right? it's not so much i think some aspect of her message that people are holding on to. >> rose: does that mean this is a campaign of personality, not issues, bob? >> that is the wildcard here because what makes trump different than a george mcgovern in '72, painted a figure as the hard left, or barry goldwater in $64 as a figure of hard right, the trump doesn't come from the hard right. he's often portrayed like a far right leader in europe, but he's

a celebrity candidate, a nationalistic candidate, but not running on a platform of implementing all these different conservative policies. it's a reaction to seven angst in the cungt and he has a high profile. so what we're seeing is a campaign hard to predict because it's not right versus left. it's a murky center in a time of unease. >> rose: bob, catherine, megyn, thanks for joining us. see you next time. for more about this program and earlier episodes, visit us online at pbs.org and charlierose.com. 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. >> rose: on the next charlie rose, a conversation with ian bremmer. join us.

>> the following kqed production was produced in high definition. [ theme music plays ] >> yes, "check, please!" people! >> it's all about licking your plate. >> the food is just fabulous. >> i should be in psychoanalysis for the amount of money i spend in restaurants. >> i had a horrible experience. >> i don't even think we were at the same restaurant. >> and everybody, i'm sure, saved room for those desserts. >> you bet.