>> rose: welcome to the program. on the final night of the republican national convention in cleveland, ohio, donald trump made the most important speech of his life. he was introduced by his daughter ivanka. here are excerpts from these speeches. >> one year ago i introduced my father when he declared his candidacy. in his own way, and through his own sheer force of will, he sacrificed greatly to enter the political arena as an outsider. and he prevailed against a field of 16 very talented competitors. for more than a year donald trump has been the people's champion. and tonight he is the people's

nominee. (cheers and applause) like many of my fellow millenials, i do not consider myself cat gorically republican or democrat. more than party affiliation, i vote based on what i believe is right for my family and for my country. sometimes it's a tough choice. that is not the case this time. as the proud daughter of your nominee, i am here to tell you that this is the moment, and donald trump is the person to make america great again! (cheers and applause) >> trump, trump, trump, trump. >> real change, the kind we have not seen in decades, is only going to come from outside the system. and it's only going to come from a man who has spent his entire life doing what others say said

could not be done. my father is a fighter. when the primaries got tough, and they were tough, he did what any great leader does. he dug deeper, worked harder, got better, and became stronger. (cheers and applause) i have seen him fight for his family. i have seen him fight for his employees. i have seen him fight for his company. and now i am seeing him fight for our country. (cheers and applause) it's been the story of his life. and more recently, the spirit of his campaign. it's also a prelewd to reaching the goal that unites us all when this party and better still this country knows what it is like to win again. >> friends, delegates and fellow

americans, i hummably and gratefully accept your nomination for the presidency of the united states. (cheers and applause) u scrks a,u sa,u sa!

who would have believed that when we started this journey on june 16th last year, we and i say "we" because we are a team, would have received almost 14 million votes, the most in the history of the republican party and that the republican party would get 60% more votes than it received eight years ago. who would have believed it? who would have believed this? (applause) the democrats on the other hand received 20% viewer-- fewer votes than they got four years ago. not so good. not so good. together we will lead our party back to the white house, and we will lead our country back to

safety, prosperity and peace. we will be a country of generosity and warmth. but we will also be a country of law and order. (cheers and applause) our convention occurs at a moment of crisis for our nation. the attacks on our police and the terrorism of our cities threatens our very way of life. any politician who does not grasp this danger is not fit to

lead our country. (cheers and applause) americans watching this address tonight have seen the recent images of violence in our streets. and the chaos in our community. many have witnessed this vy lensz personally. -- sth violence personally. some have even been its victims. i have a message for all of you, the crime and violence that today afflicts our nation will soon, and i mean very soon, come to an end. (cheers and applause) beginning on january 20th of 2017, safety will be restored. >> rose: also this evening two very close friends of donald trump talk about the man and his quest for the presidency. they are tom barrack and steven

mnuchin. >> what i thought i would do is just give a reflection of the man as the messenger, not the message. the side of him that i have seen over ho years that people don't know for find it impossible to believe that he could be kind, compassionate, empathetic, all. >> rose: all things that you have seen. >> all things that i have seen, in those quiet moments when the cameras aren't flashing, of who he really is as a man and can you trust the decisions of a man like that. and in this position. >> if you look at what donald trump has done to the party and his contribution in bringing new people to the party, it's extraordinary. last night just as an example, we did close to $4 million in online donations last night. a republican has never raised this type of money online. and it significant fies the extraordinary support. we have over 700,000 unique donors that we have had in the last few weeks and we just

started this effort. i think you really see this is a movement. >> rose: we conclude with david sanger and ian bremmer analyzing a controversial interview that donald trump gave to the "new york times" on wednesday when he talked about his foreign policies. >> bob gates, his former defense secretary and defense secretary for president bush in his last major speech in europe, before he left as defense secretary, basically said if you don't begin to take your own share of the burden you're going to lose a generation of americans and others who have no memory of the cold war. and don't know why nato exists. but mr. trump takes it the next step to say look, i'm not just saying here is the goal. it would be nice if you meet it. i'm saying if you don't meet it, i'm pulling the troops back and i may not come to your defense. >> all about donald trump when we cont >> 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. >> we're in cleveland for the final day of the republican national convention. we're taping this program ahead of donald trump's highly anticipated address this evening. the speech comes a day after ted cruz refused to endorse republican nominee, causing further rancor within the party or certainly between donald trump and ted cruz. ted cruz's speech overshadowed the indiana governor, mike pence who accepted the vice presidential nomination. joining me now is tom barrack, he is the founder and executive chairman of connelly capital and a long time friend of donald

trumps it is now 3 p.m. in cleveland on thursday. later he will mount the podium and make a speech on behalf of his friend and then later this evening, donald trump himself will gived speech that is very important to this convention and to the image that he wants to present to the country. but welcome to the table we have here in cleveland. tell me, i want to talk about your speech first. what do you want to say about donald trump? >> well, you know, in seven minutes it's a tough job. so what i thought i would do is just give a reflection of the man as the messenger, not the message, the side of him that i have seen over 40 years that people don't know or find it impossible to believe that he could be kind, compassionate, empathetic. >> all things you've seen. >> all things that i have seen in those quiet moments when the cameras aren't flashing, of who he really is, as a man. and can you trust the decisions.

of a man like that in this position. >> and you want, how will you make that case? >> i can make it through some vin yets. >> rose: of stories. >> of stories of invisible stories. not the stories of his wealth or power or celebrityship, of those quiet things of humanity that i've seen him do that stuck in my minds afoot prints over all these years. >> when did he tell you he wanted to run for president the first time. >> you know donald, the first time, probably ten years ago. and you know, he is an amazing guy. because when you think of it, there's a lot of powerful rich, accomplished businessmen who are never celebrities. and then he created the donald. >> right. >> so as you know when he talks about himself he's talk income third person. he talks about the donald. it's the caricature that you created. and along that way, the human touch that he had was always

endemic. so we started to talk about it almost a decade ago. but i always thought it was a negotiating tactic for his celebrity. and i think the last time it probably was in earnest. but i think as he gained self-confidence and found this aggravation, this social imbalance, this little fuel that we're seeing-- . >> rose: economic discontent. >> yes. >> rose: since this year people are troubled and they're looking to find something new, something beyond the establishment, something beyond the political party they have known. >> exactly. and the social imbalance for him actually, people misread it. he's not a trust fund guy. his dad was the son of two german immigrants and his mother was a scottish immigrant. so that was a self-made man from

queens, pretty tough on donald. so donald's natural alliance actually is with the little guy. so when you look at-- he is not a man of wall street. he's not a man of finance, he's not really even a man of the real estate peer group. so i think that his-- . >> rose: he is? >> he is a disrupter. he is the airbnb to marriott. he is a man of his own. that can step into the middle of the fray and take the heat. and through his vision, create a reality. it's unusual. >> rose: he wants to be president because he thinks he can makena difference? >> absolutely. he has-- . >> rose: i'm not talking ego, how much of it is-- look, that's . >> that's a great question. and i really couldn't answer it. i'm sure a lot of it is ego. you test yourself, right? i mean what sain person, a businessman of his ilk would

walk through this fire and take all the punishment if there weren't a couple of objectives. so i'm sure ego is one of them. that he thinks he's smart enough, tough enough, capable enough to get there. and on the other hand at the end of the day i think he really looks at i'm the beneficiary of an unbelievable system. he is so far over his skis from where he actually in his own mind thought he would ever get. >> rose: let me pause. he is so far over his skis in life. >> yes. >> rose: than he ever thought he would ever be. >> for sure. >> rose: in terms of wealth, in terms of fame. and now perhaps in terms of political power. >> exactly. >> rose: smart man? >> very. intripsically and academically. first class. he has all of those academic disciplines in his quiver. but uniquely instinctively

smart. he has one of the best gut feels one-on-one for people, sensing the situation. when we talk about the art of the deal. ed art of the deal is a little whimsical. he's incredibly prepared. and what people don't know is the detail level that he really draws on. >> rose: there is a central criticism of him, tom, that he is not given detail. that it is not detail. he says i'm the best negotiator. when i negotiate with the chinese, you know, i will create a better deal. it is not about the spervegs. he talked today a bit about nato. this morning in the "new york times." raised questions as to why they are not paying their fair share. the companies remembered, were members of nato. that's a valid criticism. president o bma has raised that criticism. but what also he said, which scares a lot of people, and maybe it's the foreign policy establishment, and maybe he wants to scare them, but they hear that and they think well, america has to live up to its agreements.

if it signed the nato agreement and if a baltic country is prepared for america to come defend them, they ought to be able to depend on that. and if america a-- is attacked, america ought to be able to expect natoo to come to its defense tooness look, it's a tough topic. let me give you my opinion of what i think he's doing. and it's backed with some substance. because i live in that world. my business as a finance year lives off trade and trade agreements mostly on an international basis. so the criticism of nato is not just his, it's the hoover institute. >> it's also president obama. >> and it was born out of world war ii. so if you look at the marshal plan and looked at what happened to a destroyed europe, 17 million dead, 20 million injured, 30 million homes destroyed, and a europe in decay at a time where we were really concerned about the soviet union, so nato has nothing to do with north america. it has everything to do with europe.

>> rose: it was in fact a defense against russia. >> absolutely. and in turn-- . >> rose: the soviet union at the time. >> and then russia in turn five years later started the warsaw pact, as kind of a balance. so i think all donald is staying-- saying. and by the way he's academically pretty good. when i talked to him about it, about the facts. in other words, the initial reaction, he is just bowling, he is just positioning. he is not, he actually gets a lot of the substance. but i think what he is doing an all of these issues is sayk look, none of it is working. because now you have bureaucracies. so you have nato. you have gap. you have the marshall plan. you have the wto. you have the imf. nobody knows what any of these entities do. and why are we paying for them. it's all foreign policy, right? it's all foreign policy related. and our foreign policy doesn't work. so i think what he's doing in a smart way is saying look, i'm throwing a little bit of fire, and i know, into the frying pan.

and people are going to be concerned. but them beings concerned is a good thing. >> rose: you are actually saying that while you think he understands the issues, he also understands the value of inflammatory rhetoric. >> yes, absolutely. >> rose: he gets it. >> totally. >> rose: because that will create a discussion. >> yes. >> rose: and that's what he wants in the end. >> exactly. >> rose: it's what he came out of nshting tactics. >> yes. >> you start not with what you think will you get. >> sure, because you're when you go to negotiate with. nato or with gat or with the world bank or the imf or the wto, they're now huge bureaucracies themselves. they're not going to erode themselves. so i think at a time where we're all sitting here saying there is no way out of entitlement, how do you reverse a budget for anything? and it's not the president. the president is a con sil yaiter. he is an executive. >> rose: so when he has all these names in calling hillary

clinton crooked, calling ted cruz lying ted cruz, and all the things that he said, and even what he said about swron mccain, does that have a purpose. >> look, he's a friend so i can disagree with him. i don't personally like any of it. and the reason i don't like any of it is he's better than that. he doesn't need to go there. >> rose: so why does he go there? >> because he caught on to something, this fishure in the american people that is against the grain that worked. so if he would have been presidential the way you and i would, and he can do it, by the way, the way you and i would have liked him to do it at the beginning, he would still be on the apprentice. he would not be-- he can only be where he is if he had done what he did. >> i believe. so and by the way, i think everybody in-- look, how can you say hillary clinton is not capable. i mean wesleyan, yale, two

time-- she is amazingly accomplished it is simply a decision between status quo and disruption. >> rose: if you could define this election, that's what it is about. >> to me it is, 100%, status quo versus disruption. >> rose: which is in one word change. >> yes, so status quo which is eroding and fading and nobody understands it. the problem is we're all prisoners in our own prison. so when i sit down and talk to really smart people, not as smart as you, but that understand finance, but don't understand trade, or don't understand foreign policy, or don't understand the intervention of the central banks, right, we're all captivated, living with $19 trillion of debt, we keep printing money and the debt is not secured by anything. it's too overwhelming for the average individual to think through. right? we just can't figure out where it is. so i think hillary and ted and marco and all these people, they are all first class. they wouldn't have gotten to

where they have gotten if they weren't capable and competent and elegant and well meaning. >> but that is not how you characterize him. you are saying if you hadn't characterized him that way, he probably wouldn't have wong. >> i don't think so. >> the galvanizing use of language. >> it was his way around the club. otherwise the political rhetoric and legacy would not allow him even in the room. so the only way he could get in the room was to knock the walls down. >> which raises an interesting question for me. how much of it is said for effect and to get around and how much of it reflects who he is and what he believes? >> so this is my opinion. and he will be angry at me for saying this. because if you ask him that question, he says it's absolutely not for effect. >> right. >> this is the way it is, i'm going to build a wall. they're going to pay for the wall, right? i'm an arab american. i'm a lebanese immigrant. i'm the epitome-- . >> rose: of the american dream. >> of the luck, the blind luck

of the american dream. but i'm a catholic but i grew up with sunnies and shias. so i have this conversation with him. i say you are not really saying-- he says yes, i am really saying that i will stop them all until they help us. now out of that half my life is spent in the middle east. i run a public company, and the public company has lots of private capital silos. and countries like abu dhabi and qatar, khalifa and the saudi arabia with the young pris. >> are allies, they themselves are trapped by fundamentalism. and they need our help. but our foreign policy there has been waiving. when they are have a war in yemen and the iranians are backing one side and sawees are backing another and we're funding both sides, it's a bit confusing to them. so even they are saying okay, i

get it. we first have to take responsibility for stopping this fundamentalism, this terrorism within our own borders. and it starts in the middle, the mosque. so if you have a mulea who is breaching that some 16 year old boy should strap on dynamite and walk through tel aviv or new york city, we're going to hold you responsible. >> rose: were they actually preparing it over the internet. >> right. so they're all saying yes, we agree. but america has got to back us in this. if america backs us in this, otherwise we'll have fundamentalist revolutions ef everywhere. but they look and say we don't understand america. it starts with the shaw of iran was your person. i call it the catch and release program. they're our person so we don't want them. we remove the shaw of iran, bad situation. iraq, same thing, saddam hussein, egypt, same thing. libya, same thing. we just keep moving down the middle east. >> rose: so are you saying they don't know whether we are on their side and will stand up with them even though we have

been their ally, whatever the instance is. >> yeah sz and done-- . >> rose: donald trump says what? >> donald trump says look, i don't care. you start taking care of your own. the good allies,ed ones who are there, right. and it's mosesly the gcc who are there to help. and say and we will protect our allies and punish our enemies. so if you want to start helping us, on you cleaning your own house first, now syria is a mind bog elling problem. but it's really that. it's predict ability on both sides. and amazingly, the arabs looking at us say you know what, we have to figure out a way together to do. this because it is a problem. and europe is saying the same thing. three million, three million refugees moving to europe is a gigantic problem when there is no hope. right, when there is no hope. >> it is a humanitarian crisis on the one hand. and it's a issue of great concern for recipient countries who want to do the right thing,

because of its economic burden as well as other issues. >> exactly. and look, islam is like cath old civil t is going back, looking at cath old civil at the time of the crusades. of course it's harsh at times. but what is harsh is when young people don't have a future. i was at the refugee camps in lebanon. and unicef which did an amazing job. i was almost in tears. 500,000 kids, 500,000 under the age of 14, and if we don't give them hope, there's only one place that they can go. >> rose: actually that reflects the dealings of a friend of mine who is a former deputy director of the cia saying you have to find an alternative narrative. and you have to figure out at the core, it is as much about being able to break that bond that the people who are preparing, this extreme version

of fundamentalism, you have to find out what an alternative narrative and how you can get to them with that. and that's what you have to do to stop it. and that's the only way you can stop. because if you go here and you destroy isis, it will come up somewhere else. because isis came from al-qaeda and iraq. >> and this is a challenge. >> rose: so let me ask you about this, the muslim ban, you are a lebanese catholic. >> yes. >> rose: it offends people who believe it's not american. this is not the country-- this is a country that welcomed people. it welcomed your ancestors, or you. welcomed donald trump's ancestors. welcomed my ancestors. that's who we are. and to say i'm going to ban people because of their religion is not what we are. >>. >> look, is he the-- .

>> rose: do you agree with him? >> i agree with him for a starter, country. in other words, saying it, i don't agree with him doing it. but i agree with him saying it because no one knows who he really is. so every arab country is sitting going wow. will he really do it? they're asking the question, he is saying yes, i will really do it. so our friends, abu dhabi, dubai, qatar, saudi arabia, are already lining position to say i need your help to do, this and then i can start winnowing away at fundamentalism. i will do it. i will get there. and we'll do it together and we'll have a clearing process. >> rose: how did he come to this, is it all instinct or did he have a series of people from the region or academics or former state department people. you, who gave him a tutorial in this kind of. >> i think a lot of it is self-made. i think at the edges he does have arab partners, amazingly enough. he has chinese partners, he has

mexican partners. he's talked to me about it and i think his point of view for america is sound. is he saying look, until i get a handle on it, it's just shut it down and then we'll figure it out. so it is not so far fetched. it's outrage us when you think of it being religious oriented. and my personal belief is it won't happen. because as soon as you have a coheesive foreign policy that tells the middle east we will help our friends, we'll benefit our friends and punish our enemies, and you draw hard lines around the enemies. so when you draw a line around the enemy, you make it stick. >> you're saying that ear's-- here's a man that really decided he could be a president, could be president in the last four years, set out to do that. there was, and he was wise and smart and savey to see that there was a huge discontent that nobody was in the leadership. and from day one began to talk about that, had to do with immigration and a range of other

issues. but he is now coming to power. and if he is elected, will in a sense start with start with an almost a beginning point. >> yes, exactly. and i think watch, here's what i look at the measure of how good he's going to be. and he's really technically he's very good. as a businessman, as an astute discipline arian. his vice president pick, picture perfect, hard to argue with. i went to a transition meeting, chris christie, the head of the transition team, he's amazing. and the process that they are using to staff those 4,000 jobs now, is the best i've ever seen. most met odd kal, most thoughtful, the recruitk process of what they're looking for, how they're recruiting talent. so i think that he will do it. i think he will surround himself

with unbelievably talented people who are not of the system but understand the system. >> rose: tom, thank you for coming. >> thank you, great to be with you. >> rose: good luck. we'll be right back. stay with us. joining me now is steven mnuchin, donald trump's national finance chairman. the campaign faceses a substantial fundraising deficit against hillary clinton. i'm pleased to have him on this program, welcome. >> great to be here. >> rose: is the party united? >> i think the party is united. i think there has been a bunch of talk, obviously last night in terms of ted cruz, but ted cruz came out and supported a lot. and whether he supports donald or he doesn't, i don't think is terribly relevant. i think you see, and this has been an incredibly exciting week. >> rose: he told those delegates to vote your conscience. > well, i don't really think that's all that relevant. i think that again, if you look at what has gone on this week, and it has been incredibly exciting. i have been here from monday on.

and the energy that has been at this convention is extraordinary. if you look at what donald trump has done to the party in his contribution in bringing new people to the party, it's extraordinary. last night just as an example, we did close to 4 million dollars in online donations last night. a republican has never raised this type of money online. and significant fies the extraordinary supported. we have over 700,000 unique donors that we have had in the last few weeks and we just started this effort. so i think you really see this is a movement. and i think there is a lot of bernie sander supporters and others that are supporting donald. >> rose: what is the evidence of that? >> i think we have indirect evidence of the contributors. >> rose: you are talking about fundraising which is part of what you are responsible for, as national finance chairman it is said, and the evidence is you are way behind hillary clinton. >> i wouldn't say that at all. >> rose: that is the conventional wisdom. she spent 49 million already, you haven't spent a dime in terms of television ads. >> that doesn't mean we are way

behind that just means she's spending a lot. let's look at the facts, okay. we started this erts five weeks ago. you have a unique situation that donald funded the entire campaign up to getting the nomination. >> rose: and used free media. >> used lot of free media, he has extraordinary social following. he has over 20 million people that follow him through social media. and if you look at what we have raised, we have raised $51 million in five weeks. that was through the month. you look at he contributed about 60 million, okay, to the campaign so far. and if you look at hillary who did raise more than the 51 million, raised about 70 million. she has been doing this for ten years an we've been doing this for five weeks. >> rose: you are saying we are not that far behind and we can raise every bit as much money as she can. >> we can raise as much money as we need which will be hundreds of millions of dollars. and i think she will need a lot more money because she has a staff over -9d00 people, we have

a staff of 150 people. which also gives you a view as to how he is going to run the government and how she is going to run the government. >> rose: how are you doing with traditional financial sources in the republican party? >> i think we have been doing well. there have been people on the sidelines. i think governor pence coming on the ticket has helped a lot. i think a lot of people are excited to join and he will be part of our fundraising effort. and there's a whole bunch of new donors that haven't donated to the party before. >> rose: what did governor pence bring that attracted him? because evidently, and you can confirm this, the family liked him a lot. >> it did but one of the things i would say and donald was consist ent on this. he was looking for someone to run with him who had government experience. donald understands that he has not been a politician. and he thought it was very important to have someone who could help him govern. and pence brings a terrible history of both being a governor and being in congress. i think there's a lot of experience that he brings to the table. >> rose: when did you know he

was going to run for president? >> i actually knew over a year ago. he was actually, he came to los angeles and we were having dinner and he talked to me about him running for president. >> and said i'm going to do this. >> rose: he did. >> and i need your help. >> no, he didn't say he needed my help at that time. he was just talking to me about it and asking me for my opinions. and i have been following along. he actually didn't ask me for help until only three months ago when he won new york. that's when he decided he really needed help in terms of fundraising. he called me the feks day and asked me if i would come on and be the finance chairman. >> there were people who said no one believed it was possible. when he first said this, did you believe it was possible? >> i did. because i heard it last time when he was thinking of running. and he was very serious this time. i think very few people thought-- . >> rose: what was different between the two times? >> i think this time he thought it was the right time. i think he was very close last night to doing it and for a bunch of different reasons he decided not to i think this time

he really wanted to do it. he saw it as an opportunity to help the country. >> rose: this idea of where the country was, and his decision to run, did that just happen to be a very, very productive convergeence or did he see the discontent in the country? and knew that he could address that. and if he could address that well, he could be successful? >> i think he did see it. and i think more, he felt like he had an obligation to address it. you know, this is a hard thing to do running. i travel with him all the time. and trust me, this guy has more energy than anybody i know. and he's doing this because he really wants to help the american people. >> rose: of all the criticism, what offends you the most, hillary clinton said on monday, he would be the most dangerous man ever to run for president. that's the political world. but i'm asking what criticism offends you the mostment and you find most egregious and most untrue. >> i mean i would say that's

probably the single one that i find most untrue. i think this guy is very, very careful. i think that although he doesn't have military background, he is going to bring very serious advisors on board in terms of military, defense and foreign policy. he's going to surround himself with an extraordinary cabinet and he's very careful, he's very thoughtful and i think he will be a great president. >> rose: he attracted a lot of attention when he talked about nato in an interview with the "new york times." >> yes. >> rose: my question also is will he say to naft blanca we no longer are going to be party to the nafta agreement. will he say to those organizations that we are a party to, we are no longer going to be. we want to renegotiate everything? >> i think the first thing he's going to do. and again we're looking at this now. and they are sound policies that are being built to be able to execute these things on day one. and i think the first issue is he's going to expect the counterparties, the other

countries, first thing they have to do is honor these agreements. if you look at china, china is not honoring many aspects of the wto. if you look at nafta there are specific areas of nafta that are not being honored. in nafta there is a component that is supposed to be reviewed after a period of time. so i think it's going to be a combination of reviewing the existing agreement, making sure the countries are living up to what they said they would do. and then looking at where there are changes that are important for american interests and american workers. >> rose: that at heart he seeslife life in terms of winning and losing, number one. and he sees life in terms of, on the other hand, a negotiation, is that a fair appraisal? >> that is. and i think the first part of it, the winning and losing is he has to win to become president. he's very focused on doing that. but in terms of negotiation, this is a man who has negotiated very successfully-- successful agreements through his life and he knows in dealing with other

countries throughout the world, it is going to be a negotiation. but in terms of-- . >> rose: and a good negotiation, everybody knows, the worst thing you can do is for the other person to walk away and feel like they've been beaten to death. you want people to come out thinking they were a winner also, do you not? >> absolutely. and the trump presidency wants agreements that are fair for both parties. for our country and for the other country. and for them not to be one-sided. but the most important part of this is they have to be fair to the american public. and the american worker. >> rose: has he changed since that time you had that conversation a year ago. has the campaign, has the experience, has sth enormous challenge of running for president changed him? >> i think it has. i think he is much more thoughtful on many of these issues. i think he understands these issues better today. i think he's also heard from the american public over the last

year and really understands, as you said, he is a messenger of what's going on. >> rose: and running is also a learning experience. >> it is, indeed. d i think that the aspect of competing against the republicans was very different than what he is doing today, in going after hillary clinton. >> rose: what is it about him as a familyman? >> i think he's done an incredible job in instilling values and work ethic in his kids. and that's something very hard to do in a family business. but i will also tell you a story i just heard. they had christmas dinner every year and there were two tables. one table was for the grownups and one was for the kids. half the time donald would sit at the table with the kids because he really enjoyed it and wanted to be with them. >> rose: what do you worry about in this campaign? do you worry that this is going to be such a campaign that will be so mean and so dirty that it will spin out of control.

>> i'm not concerned about that at all. what i worry about is making sure that the american public understands what the trump pence presidency is all about. >> rose: so tell us now, what is it really all about? >> i think it's about making america great again, what it really means what does it mean making america great again. it means creating opportunities for the american worker. making sure that america is safe again. if you look at what is going on in the world today, there's very significant foreign policy issues. there is very significant security issues. there is very significant terrorist issues. and this is going to be a big part of this presidency. >> rose: who was his most important economic advisor? >> you know, there's a bunch of people. there's really, there is a big group of people. and actually i think we will put out a press release this week. >> rose: listing. >> listing the economic advisory council. so there is a group of about ten people that are a combination of business people and economists

that have been advising the campaign. and tom's on that list. and are you on that list. >> i'm on that list. and there are others who i don't want to yet announce. >> rose: you have a very good life in los angeles. >> the weather is terrific there. >> rose: can you imagine going to washington as secretary. treasury, say. >> let me just say first of all, i would be honored to serve this country and serve donald trump in any roll that he wants me in. and it's a bit premature to worry about those rolls. the transition office has not yet started. >> rose: thank you. >> we'll be right back. stay with us. donald trump sat down for an expensive-- extensive shall extensive foreign policy on wednesday. they questioned the commitment to natdo and said allies might not be automatically defended if under attack. his comments were met with heavy criticism. here to talk about the interview

with the "new york times" national security correspondent david sanger. he could wrote the article with maggie haberman, also ian bremmer, he is a founder and president of eurasia group. here it is, trump plays down role of u.s. in foreign crisis. says the nation should fix our own mess before coming involved abroad. david sanger and maggie haberman, this came out of an interview with donald trump on wednesday. >> wednesday afternoon. >> rose: tell me about the ver would you. >> this was the secretary part of a conversation that we began in march which we may have discussed a few months ago. >> rose: we did. >> and this is i think mr. trump trying to lay out what his foreign policy principles are, how they differ not only from what president obama is doing, what secretary of state clinton would do if elected. but even from the orthodoxies of the republican party. and that's what is so fascinate being it the republican party has been the party of

internationalism, free trade, certainly since the end of world war two t was of course one of the founders of nato. so three months ago when maggie and i went to go see mr. trump, he was discussing how the united states would pull back from nato, from japan, from korea, if they didn't pay a larger burden of keeping troops there. yesterday he went a step beyond when i asked him, so imagine for a moment that the russians went into one of the baltic republics. >> rose: not an unimaginable circumstances. >> certainly not. i just came back from the bol particulars. i was in estonia. they are thinking about it every day when they watch the russian bomber rums-- runs and sub marines off finland and so forth. and he said that he wouldn't automatically come to their defense. he said he would take a look and see whether or not, what their contribution to nato and to us. he said, had been. so he was putting an economic test whether they were spending

enough, ahead of the article five commitment that all members of nato sign up to when they have it an attack on one is an attack on all. >> rose: what is your response to this? >> well, i think that trump certainly would respond some what differently with the take. although the interview was t same, you know, he said look, i want to maintain these commitments. i'm all about maintaining these commitments. said it a bunch of times but said i'm not going to allow these guys to be free rider. >> rose: that was a term president obama used with jeff goldberg. >> absolutely. this is what is so interesting. the republican establishment on foreign policy, none of them are here. mike pence was part of that group, frankly, until just a week ago. and they disagree with absolutely everything here. but we can't dismiss the fact that the average american really does find resonance with what trump is saying that the americans are continuing to say we're going to be the global

sheriff, the global policeman and the allies. the funny thing about this is the countries getting all the attention, the baltic states are some of the very few that are actually paying more than the 2% suggested per gdp for defense. >> rose: talking about places like britan and france. >> what he is really talking about are places like italy and canada that are paying virtually nothing for defense. no one will attack them soon. >> rose: whether it is president obama or donald trump, they are both talking about. >> that is what is fascinating about this. becausing the dike no sifs the problem that donald trump has offered is basically the same diagnosis that president obama has offered. i was at the nato summit a few weeks ago. he was there, he was chas tieing the countries that had not paid up two percent or more. >> rose: and that was the number, two percent. >> that's right. and that's the number they sort of agreed on as a loose target two years ago. bob gates, his former defense secretary and defense secretary

for president bush in his last major speech in europe before he left as defense secretary basically said if you don't begin to take your own share of the burden, you're going to lose a generation of americans and others who have no memory of the cold war and don't know why nato siss but mr. trump takes it the next step to say look, i'm not just saying here's a goal that would be nice if you meet it. i'm saying if you don't meet it, i'm pulling the troops back and i may not come to your defense. >> there is a consistent element, though, of mr. trump's critique of american for are foreign policy. he made the same argument about japan an south korea in the last interview. i said to him if we pull back than the japanese and south koreans are going to doubt whether our new clear umbrella covers them. do you have any problem if they build a new clear weapon. i said he said i don't want them to but they are probably going to do it anyway. so they may well. >> there are a few questions that need to be teased out with

where trump stands. one is he's also talked about nato as kind of an archaic, increasingly obsolete organization. so is the issue that he's going to have this individual test with individual countries and the ones that pay the fine or something broader that we have an alliance where the majority of the burdens on america, most other countries don't care. the brits are saying brexit and their new foreign secretary isn't paying attention to the rest of the world. many of the europeans are going their own way, the germans, french, italians all going different ways on russia. 2017s no probably unwound to a degree. is he basically saying i want to restructure this the way i'm saying i want to restructure nafta. we haven't seen that from him yet. newt gingrich came out this morning and he was asked about estonia and his response was well look, it's basically a suburb of st. petersburg. >> he said that on cbs this morning. >> he did. he said i don't know that i want to risk a new clear war to

support them. that is consistent with what trump has been saying but that's talking about a fear of interest approach, not our problem, as opposed to the balts are paying enough. has trump really explained where he stands on this, not necessarily. final point, one other thing i think is really different that came out of this interview is that he basically said look, we're not interested in looking at the internal values of the countries that we're talking to. so with turkey, for example, that is sort of going after human rights internally and is becoming more putin style, as long as they are providing support for the alliance, that's what matters to us. that is a real departure from what we have seen from trump historically. >> here's the question that i still don't find, i have pursued newt gingrich this morning it is that yes, this is nato and yes, this is an agreement. is it like countries around the world and began to say can we depend on america if that is the

mindset? does that mean, that they might begin to say well, maybe we better look elsewhere? for relationships. >> i think it is absolutely saying that. and if trump had come along ten years ago, this might be less of a concern. but we have now gone through a number of years where major american allies whether they are europe, middle east, asia, they're all saying we don't know how committed america is to us. we have open questions in our mind. and i think if trump becomes president, they're going to be increasingly certain that americans aren't committed to them. an many of these countries feel like they do increasingly have options. this is why the u.k. for example was tilting towards china on the asian infrastructure investment bank. this is why the french decided to go to the lisbon treaty after their bombing just for europe for common security. >> what would obama do am sph we had the move only estonia. would obama risk new clear war for that. >> well, whether he would risk it is one thing am i can tell

you this, he went and stood in the as tonnian parliament and he said the nato treaty and our obligation is to come to your defense apply equally to the old nato members and to the newest. and we will be here for you. now partly you've got to do that because the big part of your deterrent is con fining the russians or any other adversary that you mean it. >> rose: but if you say things like, this you don't convince him that you mean it. >> that's right. i think the biggest concern that comes out of what mr. trump said to me and to maggie is that if elected, mr. trump will come into office with the russians probably eager to go testing. now it's possible that to mr. trump, this is nothing but a negotiating ploi. this is just like how he would deal with a negotiation, he said to me a few times, this interview and the previous one.

he said it is not going to be a problem, because in the end they will pay the money, they will come around, they will do it. >> rose: what is interesting, we did an interview with a friend of his who said just that. a lot of this is a negotiating employ ploi because that's how he sees the world. it's making a deal, it is not a foreign policy though. >> i pressed him on this a few times you will see in the transkript which we now posted on the time site. he doesn't see these alliances as necessarily in america's interests for their own purposes. he sees it as a financial transactionment and so if we are defendk a country and running a trade deficit with that country, this doesn't make sense. he said this doesn't sound very smart. now a lot of people would say we have a lot of reason to be out in the pacific, apart from our trade relationships. we want to keep the north koreans from adventurism. we want to be out there early so that they can't lob a missile toward the united states. we want to contain the chinese

as they expand in the south china sea. when i pressed him on this, he did not see those as interests that were so great that they would overarch. >> a tha is what i think, is the transactions al nature that trump brings to american strategy, if you combine that with the issue of values, he doesn't see america's alliances as long-term relationships that are aligned in terms of world view. it's much more how are we doing these vees a vee these individual countries, are we getting a good deal. that's interesting because it means american foreign policy under trump is becoming a lot more chinese. it's much more unilateral, much more transactional, quid pro quo, win-win, that's exactly the way xi jinping is seeing himself engaging with other countries. >> rose: two last questions.

this from the clinton camp, hillary clinton's campaign put out a statement invoking ronald reagan. ronald reagan would be ashamed. harry trueman would be ashamed. republicans and independents who helped build nato into the most successful military alliance in history would all cam to the same conclusion. done all trump is tempermentally unfit and fundamentally ill-prepared to be our commander in chief. that came from the clinton senior policy advisor. >> so i asked him about the history and i said look, you've had a lot of republicans. we talked about nixon because there have been a lot of comparisons to the trump approach and nison approach including the madman theory and appear to be out of control and so forth. and he said you know, this is an entirely different era. our problems today bear no resemblance to our problems 40 years ago. even when i pressed him again on america first, a fraidz that first came up in our last interview when i had asked him whether or not he would character his approach, he said i done mean it in a historic

sense. i mean it in a today sense that we are going to, almost as if history starts now. and that's fascinating. i don't know if that's because he actually believes that the historical conditions don't apply to today's problems. or if it is because he's less familiar with the histor cal issues. whatever it is, he's viewing it as in the moment. >> rose. >> i will say that one thing that impressed me is that since in between those two conversations you had, trump did get more bursts on the basics of foreign policy. he actually was making sense on who's connected to whom, who doesn't look whom inside syria, isis, the kurds, a sad. >> you may disagree with is his argument but can give him credit for drilling down on his argument. >> this wasn't ben carson, he may be intellectually lazy, but is he not stupid. ed fact that he realized this is something he will need to talk more about is to his credit. this is a real problem for the establishment in the u.s. because they are not prepared to go after a populist foreign policy.

they haven't had to deal with it in any of their careers. they are now going to have to, this will be serious in the upcoming election. >> two things coming up. he is going to start to get intelligence briefings as soon as this convention is over. and those intelligence briefings which president obama and james clapper, the director of national intelligence will tune up to whatever level they want to reveal to him. those intelligence briefings will begin to give him a set of the threats of the world and the inner related nature, it will be interesting to see if they change his thinking. and then he goes into the foreign policy debate. >> yeah. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> thank you for joining us. see you next time. for more about this program and earlier episodes visit us online at pbs.org and charlie rose.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.

man: it's like holy mother of comfort food.ion. kastner: throw it down. it's noodle crack. patel: you have to be ready for the heart attack on a platter. crowell: okay, i'm the bacon guy. man: oh, i just did a jig every time i dipped into it. man #2: it just completely blew my mind. woman: it felt like i had a mouthful of raw vegetables and dry dough. sbrocco: oh, please. i want the dessert first! [ laughs ] i told him he had to wait.