>> rose: welcome to the program. we begin this evening with a political snapshot of the presidential race. we talked about john heilemann and mark halperin. >> the pressure will be on democrats. i don't think trump and his team will ever feel very much pressure as compared to what she will feel as the news tighten, if this case is close come the fall. because let's face it, while trump has been an uneven candidate to say the least, he is a great performer. she's not. and presidential politics, it frustrates the clinton people to no end, performance matters. >> rose: we continue with a look at the technology world as apple introotsz new products with a. we talk board of director henry blodget, steve levy, henry thomas and geoffrey fowler. >> sure we'll get a bigger one

next year and you'll have up grades and the cycle is maturing. it's the most profitable project in the world and trying to replace that is very difficult. the watch has done okay but hasn't lit the world on fire. it's really just growth. it's a huge company, it's got a very good business, it's still generating a ton of cash but where is the growth it's going to come from. >> rose: we conclude with a look at russia and its possible involvement in u.s. politics and u.s. political institutions. we talked to dana priest of "the washington post." >> we've got 10,000 comments about this story and i would say the majority of the comments rather than focusing on the fact that the democrat state is actually now here trying to do something that it has not done since the cold war. but it's so much more sensitive because of the elections and because people want to paint it

as propaganda by one party or the other. >> rose: politics, apple and russia when we continue. >> rose: funding for "charlie rose" has been provided by the following: >> and by bloomberg, a provider of multimedia news and information services worldwide. captioning sponsored by rose communications from our studios in new york city, this is charlie rose. >> rose: we begin this evening with politic, the presidential campaign enters the final stretch with six 62 days until the election. a new cnn poll has trump leading clinton among likely voters,

45-43. that's the national poll. trump has the leads between virginia and that are and they will face off on the first presidential debate on september 26th, that's three weeks. joining me now is mark halperin and john heilemann the manning editors of bloomberg politics, with all due respect and the star of show time political dock yew series the circus so many jobs for many people. i'm pleased to have them back at my little table right here. welcome. >> most important table in america. >> rose: thank you, sir. therefore i'll begin with you. >> fair enough. >> rose: give me a snapshot of the moment. how do we say there's a national poll in which trump among likely voters and with the small party candidates included is leading 45-42. >> well, we can say it by saying first of all the race is close and given all of the thing that happened over the month of august for many people thought that donald trump had done himself so much damage that he was unrecoverable and clinton

was on her way to a land slide victory. this poll and others at this time suggest that in fact the race is very tight. and that hillary clinton has substantial structural advantage in the battle ground states that she is certainly going to be the favorite to win the next election but it's going to make a race out of it given the month he has which is close as he is. this is all margin of error at this point, suggests there should be no breathing easy in brooklyn right now. >> rose: you call that a dead heat. >> you can't statistically all these polls that have her up by two or three nationally have him up in this case by two nationally those are all within the margin of errors. statistically those are all ties. >> rose: would you add to that sir. >> any democrat would come into this race with structural advantages because they're dominant in the popular vote and the electoral college. she's going to experience careful cautious hrd working candidate. it's kind of extraordinary given how horrible trump's august was given the position he's in. this is an electorate looking

for change. >> rose: that's a key word. >> change and job. it's on the comments how much he's been emphasizing jobs in the economy of late something a lot of the republicans wanted him to talk about for months rather than lawsuits and trump university rather than attacking the gold star family. the danger i think for democrats is, if trump does well in the first debate and the expectations for him will be so much lower than for her, the pressure will be on democrats. i don't think trump and his team will ever feel very much appreciate as compared to what she will feel as the news tightens, if this case is close come the fall. because let's face it, while trump has been an uneven candidate to say the least, he is a great performer. she is not. and presidential politics, it frustrates the clinton people to no end, performance matters. >> rose: do you still have the judgment that he's the best political campaigner you've seen since bill clinton. >> well he was in winning the

nomination. i've taking some reich saying that. with no staff, spending virtually no money. a guy whose never run for anything before i think that wa an extra achievement by a guy who showed the best political skills i have seen since bill clinton just in achieving that. since then i'm open to seeing the new data. he's been a horrendous general election candidate. things, i thought he would instantly switch to talking about jobs in the economy and change and switches demeanor to something a little bit -- >> rose: did they get him to do that. >> i thought he would execute it. so no, i no longer would say he's that great because i've looked at the totality of his career in politics about a year and-a-half, and the first part of it was stunning. a stunning achievement. and he is lucky that she's got so many problems with so many americans who don't trust her and don't see her as the kind of president they want that he's in this. he's behind but he's in it

because there are some structural things on the other side that work to his advantage. >> rose: when they have a chance to look at some of these f.b.i. questions it feeds the questions of absence of transparency, caution and perhaps bordering on full disclosure. >> i think that if there was a most valuable player in the clinton campaign in the last at report out on a fridaygomby afternoon before a holiday weekend. there's so many things in that report that are damning on their face and so many questions raised by them. but the nature of a summer holiday weekend and the fact that you know we're in the midst of other things. >> rose: is it our responsibility. >> there are certain geo political and there should be digging but there are questions that shouldn't have gotten the attention it should never have gotten. and the f.b.i. director who choose to put it out --

>> rose: you have political programs. >> it's talked about everywhere but it's difficult when you've got 72 hours of sunshine to bury it under. >> rose: right. when you look at her, and you look at the emerging constituencies, the obama constituencies they're coming her way. >> they're but not the way she's like. i would like to comment on something mark just said. i take some exception to the view that trump was an amazing performer. these a very charismatic guy. he also was helped enormously in the republican nomination by the weakness in the field. i think we disagree with that. that he had enormous luck in terms of not being faced by one single opponent who was willing to take him on in a sustained way. he made a lot of mistakes. no one in the republican field was able to make him pay a price

for those mistakes. we agree he's been horrible as a general election candidate in a lot of ways not only doing things we are kind of think are objectionable, saying things that are on their face racist, attacking a gold star family doing thing that would kill another candidate. >> rose: all over the place on immigration. >> all over the place. he's made a huge number of mistakes. i think what we agree about this too, the clinton campaign has a point which is that donald trump has not judged by a much too loose and certainly much looser standard, a lot of these stories hillary clinton has. he's involved in a scandal or questions are being raised by a paper play accusation related to the attorney general in florida where he gave a campaign contribution to her around the time she was deliberating about whether to go after him on a lawsuit. >> rose: she knew about him -- >> she says that. my point charlie is that story which the prima facia evidence points more towards play to play than anything that's happened

with the clinton foundation. and yet the clinton foundation has consumed, i think the clinton foundation is a subject worthy of a lot of scrutiny and she's worthy of criticism but they're right when they are say trump on a variety of fronts she's doing in an area of controversial that the press has skated over them. what's kept him aloft although television has discretion on what he says that is controversial or inappropriate, it's a case where no one has really been really focused with the degree of intensity and the degree of intensity or pervasiveness on many of the thing that are problematic in his career. his connections to russia. his tax returns, etcetera, etcetera. as they have on the issues that are problematic for her. he has benefited from that there's no doubt in my mind. >> rose: what about the

chain? do you notice any discernible difference in his campaign because of the change when manafort left and the two came in and steve came in. >> i think we've seen certainly the, if you look at his outreach that he's done to minority voters, two weeks of talking to african americans, to at least talking to african americans not necessarily always in their presence but talking about wanting african americans votes doing those things as much about trying to assuage as concerns of american educated women as well as trying to get plaque votes, she's very focused on understanding trump needs to do better with a certain subset of normally republican voters. >> i don't think that anything trump has done during this relatively good run he's had are things that paul manafort would object to. quite the contrary they're all consistent with the kind of campaign strategy and tactics he

wanted. >> rose: paul manafort wanted him to stay on message and the message was essentially economic and change. >> and to appeal to, simultaneously find a way to appeal to the base of republican party and the center of the electorate. selectively and to his advantage. i think bannen who has obviously working much more behind the scenes and kelly anne conway has more of an ability to get trump to execute. it's not a difference of strategy or tactics it's implementation. >> she's a pollster, she's someone who understands the use of language. i think that the election, i've been wrong about a lot but this is one thing i think i'm still wrong about. i've always said trump would win if americans see him as an acceptable president. and the whole contest has been are you an acceptable president and that's why so many of the clinton effort in advertising and out of hillary clinton own mouth already this week here are the 50 reasons this guys not

acceptable president. >> rose: you believe he would win if he was seen as an acceptable president simply because you believe that people are looking for an option to her. >> option to her but also change and a new direction in washington and the economy. and it's just hard to see given what hillary clinton is proposing compared to the last 50 years of democratic orthodox that she's someone who would fundamentally change how we're trying to help american's great jobs. i think he's created so many new problems for himself in being acceptable. he brings with him decades of history the clufnt have put out to say that is not acceptable. that's why the first debate is important if he comes across as acceptable, not best president ever or far away the best person but he's accept knowledge --

acceptable. >> rose: you can trust him. >> that sort of suggests the trajectory of the race is more in trump's hands than her hands. in the end if you think about the structure advantages she has, the battle ground advantages, the advantage -- all of the things he's said that would be disqualifying for almost anybody else with the republican nominee. if she executes and runs a good campaign is a good candidate, executes, she should win this race. >> rose: if she executes it will trump his ability to transform himself into acceptability. >> it will. look, in 2004, james carville said if james bush thought elect it would be most incredible and he did because he made john kerry unacceptable. >> rose: rather than getting out -- >> yes. he did that too but in part by energizing people to say we can't let john kerry in the

whitehouse. barack obama did the same exact thing against mitt romney. what happens in the country, i made mitt romney unacceptable. we're seeing the exact same thing now. hillary clinton will lose if she doesn't make donald trump unacceptable. but she and her team with trump's aid and assistance has done a fantastic job making the discussion more days than not about all the reasons why you can't trust donald trump to be president. y got time to make himself acceptable. >> rose: and the debate is the most important event. >> but what gives the people and the clinton camp second to none is the number of americans who have already decide he's unacceptable and are so unlikely to change their minds about night. >> rose: good to see you. >> thank you charlie. >> always a pleasure. >> rose: back in a moment. >> rose: apple is set to announce new products at its media event tomorrow in san francisco. the unveiling of the new

iphone 7 has been highly anticipated. are speculating about possible changes that world's best selling smart phone. update to the apple watch and eos software are also expected. we want to talk about apple and its features including its products with henry brokerage imloaj and editor. steven levee is the ted you are in chief of backchannel and nicholas thompson editor of new york.com and geoffrey fowler personal technology columnist. i'm pleased to have these e people at my table. what are we going to see tomorrow. >> we'll see, new products and it will be pretty boring. some of our tech experts will disagree with me. maybe a better camera, a couple of nice features. >> lately in the last couple

years, apple want secrecy has fallen apart. what the rumor mill has been able to come up with. the turns out what you get there. i'm hoping we're wrong and they'll come up with something that totally astounds us and surprises us. but in new phone which is pretty eagerly anticipated because it's been a long time since upgrade is implemental things, better power, a better camera and something that alarms a lot of people which is removal of the headphone jack which is going to cause some disruption to people. >> rose: why are they doing that? >> well, the reasons people give is because it's a little thinner to use the regular section there and there's this intriguing idea they might want to switch us to wireless ear buds. >> rose: they can sell -- >> they don't like wires, we don't like wires. >> potentially that's really

exciting. apple had a history of removing things and people get outrage. what no cd drive, i can't take this. the world is coming to an end but it turns out you don't need that. but the headphone jack removing that and switching us to wireless actually increases what it can do. if you think about a phone talking to you, you really can't have your phone talk to you when it's in your pocket but when you're using wireless ear buds then your phone can carry on a conversation with you. so maybe down the road that's what they're going towards. >> it's a totally interesting. there are a couple good things bit. it makes it more waterproof which is marginally useful and if you think the tiny space getting rid of the space gives you more things. apple might be wrong,ate might be too annoying with things they plug in. >> there has been a big improvement in the last year in e wireless technology in headphones. now you can get ones that are actually completely independent.

you're not tethered like two dogs on a leisure, it makes you experienced and feel connected to the cloud and internet kind of like that movie her where she had that relationship with his os maybe you'll have relationship with syria in the ar with the unveiling of the year and i think it was in fact on september 7 if i remember. but there's this question does apple still have the same capacity to generate hot new products. geoffrey. >> the big question here really is the pace. so apple has trained all of us to expect that every two years we're going to get a new iphone that's going to make people really just salivate. want to wait in line for it. what we're seeing from what we've heard so far about this product tomorrow is that apple either can't keep up with that pace anymore or it's trying to change our expectations for how often we're going to get really new technology in a maturing

form like this. >> rose: are they doing this because a they can't keep up, this can't keep delivering those kind of products which would be an admission whatever was is no longer there or circumstances have changed. or they're looking at a new business model. >> it's really happening is this was a once in a lifetime product that they in vented. out of whole cloth the most profitable product in the world it's changed people's lives we're connected 18 hours a day, we run our whole lives to that. it is hard to one up that. if you look what's really going on talking about incrementalism this is getting a little bit better every year but we got so spoiled by apple coming up with amazing new thing every year or two and that's what people are hoping. >> rose: fundment question is are they shifting. can we detect any sense that apple is looking at the future and saying there's a better market out there for some of the things other than the products we have? >> well, it really is about the ecosystem. i think maybe we're moving away from the time where we're just

like rabidly waiting for that next piece of hardware because what's more interesting now than the actual device is what the device can do. the artificial intelligence inside it. a few weeks ago apple called me to coopertino i had an audience, luminati and how they were building ai into their products there. people thought apple was lagging behind, google and facebook and other places and building intelligence into their products there. and apple really wanted to prove that they were actually building it in there. so there's things, there's actually a brain inside your iphone that does neural nets and deep learnings and other thing that tells me ensures your privacy that it matches them they thought with the other companies. >> rose: and google id mine. >> there's a product with google now which apartments paste w

hat -- anticipates what you do now. if you have an iphone someone calls and the pepper's number is not in your contact list but they'll look at your e-mail and see you've e-mailed this person that might lead to so and so. >> that's a big interesting question of apple. one is this trade off. if you want to be really good at artificial intelligence provide information to people that they don't know how you're going to provide it. you have to share hat e-mail across different services. once you start doing that you give up privacy. apple in the last year has made a huge stand for privacy and encryption. google cares about it much less. they give about getting you all the information you need and all of their products as seamlessly as possible. >> rose: they want to know as much about you as they can. >> apple could know everything about you and share across their products has this core problem of betting on privacy and enscription. >> rose: go ahead geoffrey and i'll come back. >> beyond the are art fish intelligence challenges apple faces with its privacy stance it's starting to lag its chief

conspirator samsung in serious way. i've used iphone for years but something funny happened in the last year. if i take a trip or going some place interesting i take two phones with me. i take a samsung phone because it can now do some things in its own ecosystem that apple just can't do. i can have virtual reality experiences on a samsung phone. i can pay at cash registers that just have a magnetic stripe. so samsung has taken all of these years of development and is finally catching up with an ecosystem with products of its own that had their own cache and that is the most dangerous thing of all for apple to lose. if beyonce doesn't want to use the new iphone they're in trouble. >> rose: going after different price points has that changed, going after the same consumer today. >> in the u.s. they're going for that very high end premier phone. note 7 was if you buy outright it's like $850 price point. and how we buy phones has changed as well in terms of now

we're mostly paying out of pocket the full expense of the phone rather than the subsidy of 200 to 300 years ago. it's making people think which of these phones do i want. >> rose: in terms of samsung what happened to note 7 in terms of introducing new products. >> you can light a fire. >> rose: what does this say, nicholas. >> one thing it says is this is the best possible moment for apple to introduce the iphone 7. i mean this is a problem -- >> rose: iphone 7 is catching on fire. >> a major recall. if you have a major recall of your competitor it's the time to put out new products. a lot of people are going to say i sent back the note 7 i'll buy the iphone 7. i don't think it says anything in particular about samsung. companies release products sometimes they fail and samsung has a good track record but it's bad timing for them and good for apple. >> rose: when we look at apple, where it's going as well as face book which is the competition today and what are

they looking at artificial intelligence for example between apple, amazon, google, facebook and microsoft. >> where apple has really lagged is in services. apple music they did a big pitch, really winning people over with that, a lot of problem in the product. people think we're going to have a better apple music tomorrow. but apple's cloud doesn't really compete all that effectively with google's or amazon's cloud. amazon is head of the rest of it in all of that. really that is the business model of the future. apple has done a fantastic job making money with hardware there but the success can't continue unless they keep, they bring that success of services. >> this is incredibly interesting because apple is great at hardware. to make a grade hardware you get the product you have to focus a

launch state. to make a great product you have to iterate it every day. whether apple is structurally to be set up, there's a product division, engineering decircumstance it's not set up where there's individual product divisions like other companies. that may explain the corporate dna, corporate structure and in fact it has a history of that so people who work at apple are a little bit slower wanting to go into the survses division because they think it's not going to succeed. it's not clear if apple is set up to compete in a way that steven says they'll compete in the future. >> what they'll say is actually we're better poised because the whole inof enchi law de where they say no one has our advantage of doing the software and hardware. they were explaining siri to me and how they improved siri's ability to recognize what you said. because we have the hardware we can improve our recognition software by placing the microphone in different ways.

and doing the other things on the phone to enhance our software there. so they think that that is their big advantage and that they do software and the hardware. >> rose: jeffrey, -- geoffrey do you want to say. >> yes, what keep people loyal is the happy trap. this notion that you're trapped in that apple ecosystem your family and friends use apple so you can share photos, that's a service, you have imessage so you can share messages with them and do new animations and irs10 that's coming as well. apple needs to keep building that trap so it's more of a pain to leave the apple ecosystem than it's worth. >> rose: what's the new ios going to be about. >> well it's got a couple new features. i've been testing a beta version they made available to the public for the last bit. the biggest change i think really is, two of them. one is in net messages. you can do interactive thing you

can draw notes it's more like snap that and will only work with other people who are using apple devices. and the other thing to its photos app, photos is the number one thing people do with their phones these days. it has the intelligence built into the phone not into the cloud but in the phone for privacy reasons that it will scan those images, try to make some sense of them, identify this is a picture of a dog, this is a photo of your friend steven and pull it up for you. >> rose: geoffrey, where are we in the battle between apple and the f.b.i.? >> well, i believe the f.b.i. said it figured out how to crack that phone itself. >> rose: right. put that into bad business. >> we haven't heard the last of that. >> because you know, as long as the f.b.i., other government agencies can't get hold of that encryptic content, they're going

to want it. so i think that showdown is going to come around again. it really is going to be, you know, probably up to the next president to really decide where we are on that. we have not come up with a definitive encryption policy to say how hard the government is going to push. >> rose: congress for sure. >> yes. so now, facebook and what'sup they're doing that same kind of encryption. maybe the won't be apple but facebook that will answer to that. >> rose: apple in the marketplace how is it doing in terms of its stock and in terms of whatever changes there has been and is it coming back. >> the main issue is that this project again the iphone is running its course. it's now maturing, sure we'll get a new one tomorrow, maybe we'll get a much bigger one next year and you'll have a lot of upgrades but the product sick cycle is maturing and it's most profitable product in the world and you try to replace that with new things it's difficult. the watch has done okay but

hasn't lit the world on wire. it's really just growth. it's a huge company it's got a huge business and still generating a ton of cash but where is the growth. >> rose: that's coming from china. >> that's right. and there will be market growth but the smart phone mush has a whole has really slowed down it's a much more mature market even in china where apple has been losing share to some of the cheaper manufacturers. >> rose: that was always a fear wasn't it. >> apple folks or fans will say they have the high end and that's where the profit is and that's true but that profit pool isn't growing that aggressively. as they move to a services model that's where you wants a much wider ecosystem. you want to have the phones in as many handses you can. >> rose: how much has been in the stock price. >> 20% off its high. it's not severe at all. it's hanging in there so incredible profitable generating tons of cash. >> rose: what is the google market at. >> i haven't checked the latest. >> it's almost -- >> rose: didn't google pass

the halfway point. >> they did. >> yeah. >> i was just saying apple is almost exactly the same price it was a year ago. it went up and has been going down a little bit since december. >> rose: we talked about here video. facebook obviously video is important to facebook, it's important to clearly to all new apps are crazed about video. where are we and how has this shift taken place. >> it seemed like a couple years ago they missed a product cycle where everyone was expecting something brand new to come out. there was a lot of focuses on it, it was going to be a tv and revolutionize tv and tv sort of disappeared and annalists and cited to create a new tv but working with the content providers and it's been difficult to do it. >> rose: what do you mean. >> well, i think at least been

reported in the walled street journal has been reporting on this apple has gone on and basically said we're apple we want your content we want to package it and sell it through and they said that's great but it's going to be under these very stringent term and they have not come to terms yet. tv is the next big digital media market that's going to get ultimately disrupted but it's going to take a long time. there's a golden age for television contempt. apple is starting to make their own content. they'll put together some sort of service. ultimately the tv world will change and are form over the next 10 to 20 years and apple should get a big piece of it but it will take time. >> rose: have you decoupled. >> from apple or television. >> rose: cable. >> i have not because i'm a sports addict charlie but pretty much everything else, served very well. >> rose: geoffrey. >> i didn't cut the cable but i shaved the cable which is an increasingly popular option

where you just get down to the basic channels, hbo and you supplement it with these other appear al. appearal promised us with the apple tv will change the fundamental experience and has put out the best streeping box out there for sure. most likely a giant phone on your wall but it still hasn't really you know made the experience where i just pick up my remote and say i want to watch the game and there's the game but they can't get the immediate companies on board. they don't trust apple because they saw what happened with music. >> itones. >> rose: can you argue as long as the big sporting events there will always be a place -- >> sporting events is on twitter now. when they first moved to the sporting events to cable, remember they were putting play off games in cable, you said you always watch it on broadcast. that doesn't happen anymore. >> rose: tennis is covered by

espn. >> so now i think one day they'll be able to say i'm sorry, you can only watch it on this on-line service there. whoever going to come up with the right one is going to get those games. >> one thing that's interesting from apple's perspective as people stopwatching their tv or the market breaks down people spend more time watching videos on their phone. when you think of on-line voappedz you i -- videos you think about watching voappedz or watching business insider or watching all kinds of videos on their devices and that's much time watching on your screen which is good for apple because d devices you want to look at.re >> rose: is are they going to want to be a much bicker content provider. >> i'm not as excited i am about that as i am about the apple card. >> the only player that hasn't made a sit com yet. >> rose: in terms of its

video efforts and amazon. >> amazon they put a beach head there. i think netflix has to be looking in the rearview mirror. >> net flick is a wonderful model, a much more modern tv network. they have a much more flexible whenever you want, wherever you happen to be. it's just a much better model than the old television network. and the television network is probably the most prime for disruption in the tv world. because charlie rose can go anywhere, whoever is going to cut you the biggest check you will be happy to be distributed by them. >> rose: send them my way, will you. geoffrey go ahead. >> where apple is falling behid is virtual reality. their current generation phones really cannot be used for virtual reality experiences and by everything we're hearing so far doesn't sound the new eye phone will that have either.

like a higher resolution screen that samsung has put on their iphone. >> for apple there's one thing that we don't know about, it's some building somewhere or maybe the basement of a giant spaceship they're building in coopertino it's an augmented reality doing something far advanced than what we know now. if i were apple, i would be looking not at virtual reality but augmented reality. they've got a lot of engineering talent and that seems to be sort of squarely an applesque enterprise to do. >> more task to hire the best engineers and the best companies. >> i wouldn't be surprised if it come out somewhere all of these augmented reality engineer they're sort of getting sucked into the coopertino vortex. >> rose: geoffrey what's the next big thing is the artificial intelligence or virtual reality or some new thing that they are

just beginning to talk about in silicon valley. >> i'm really interested in that augmented reality or mixed reality as you might hear folks talk about. there's a company in florida of all places not here in silicon valley but that are called magic leap working on some stuff they've been very secretive about, very apple but sounds like incredible and it's ability to sort of make you feel that virtual things are in the room with you. i totally agree if i were apple i would have my own team developing that or buy magic leap in a hurry. >> google has a lot of money in magic leap and on the board of magic leap. >> rose: hoorls the most impressive, facebook or google in terms of looking at company development and scooping up the best. >> i think it's facebook. >> rose: instagram being a good example. >> what's happened is the only way you disrupt a giant like facebook as dominance in its field is to wait for the next

paradigm to come along. for this paradigm in mobile, you can't beat facebook. but if something new comes along maybe then there's the opportunity to do it. so mark zuckerberg says do you know what this virtual reality might be the next paradigm i'm going to buy the leading company in virtual reality and make a ten year investment in developmenting what virtual reality looks like. >> it's a very powerful set of acquisitions along with other acquisitions along the way. but that said google has done extremely well in an artificial intelligence in big of buying up companies and prioritize that. google cannot be counted out. we don't know what apple has done because we know far less than upal. google let's everybody in but with apple you got to stay far away. to the extent they are haven't done it is probably because they're so focused on their core products. >> they stepped up their hiring. >> rose: geoffrey they're going to be in the car business. >> certainly seems that way. everybody wants to get it in some form or fashion either

making the car or the software that runs it. it makes as soon as. one of the biggest most, penses pieces of technology in our lives that is sort of still running on he have very old technology. >> charlie there's a mass hallucination in silicon valley and that is apple will suddenly produce automobiles and sell them. this is all the rage a year ago. not going to happen. >> apple car, they're going to make cars and compete with porche and bmw going down the road. no. hundreds of engineers they've got working they're going to fire them all. >> cars. it's possible but it is a long way down the road to do this. tesla -- >> rose: one of their executives -- >> tesla is in a good position but it's extremely difficult. the idea that apple is going to suddenly roll out a car with all

the dealerships and it's going to become a very big business over night just seems an only credible leap. software and services within cars, absolutely. and they are in a great position to do that. but in terms of actually producing the automobile, i'm extremely subsequent cull. >> i'm not completely confident but in 202 we'll see -- 2021 we'll see some kind of apple car. >> uber. uber's running self driving taxis in pittsburgh now. >> even with google, it's a leap to assume they're actually going to manufacture cars. self driving cars were clearly headed there and who is going to create the technology and how are they going to operate and so forth. >> google is not good at hardware. >> if you have the software you have the car there. the expensive part maybe they could have someone else but it could be an apple car not made

by apple. >> rose: and have johnny design it. >> that's right. it would be a giant ipad. >> rose: so looking at the decision in europe and the tax questions for apple, what are the ramifications of that. >> it's just exposed -- it is theatre to the absurd charlie. apple set up 20 years ago a way to dodge taxes in the u.s. by funneling them through a subsidiary perfectly legal. it all collects there. the idea is eventually it will be taxed in the u.s. when they bring it home but they will not bring it home until they get a tax holiday. meanwhile europe spotted this huge pile of chips lying on the table and made a dive for it and has now seized it and the u.s. is saying this is out rages, how could you do this. what this hopefully will lead to is congress to act to reform the u.s. tax code for a global economy. where we acknowledge that our

companies operate all around the world and in fact in many cases have more sales outside the united states than inside the united states. >> rose: isn't that bad management to bring that cash home if you were tim cook. that would be managerial malfeasance. >> at a 35% tax rate that's why they have been keeping it where it is. given the current situation maybe again congress comes in with a lower rate or maybe there's a tax holiday which is all the companies wait for which is absurd because you know at some point there will be a repatriation holiday where you bring it home. but apple's position is perfectly logical. look we're taking advantage of the tax laws as they are. it would be against our fiduciary duty to bring it home and pay the tax. >> when does the fiduciary duty end. how many accountants do you hae

to hire and come up with crazy earlier schemes to fulfill your fiduciary duty. >> what apple did is created an entity and looking at irish tax law on existence. they did this very funny thing. they have an actual physical plant they do real stuff in ireland and they have this vapor thing. is it in your fiduciary duty to take a risk and somebody will notice and you'll get hit with something hard. it will be in apple's long term interest to be a little more clear and don't play by the exact letter of the law but what's real and what's fair so in the future you don't have a day where you've got a huge tax bill which is not good for any company. >> rose: thank you all, a pleasure. we'll be right back. stay with us. >> rose: u.s. intelligence officials are reportedly investigating what may be an extensive covert russian campaign to disrupt the upcoming presidential election. officials are concerned about possible russian attempts to break into electronic voting seize tums. russian hackers were allegedly responsible for hacking the dnc and other political organizations this summer

although the obama administration has yet to blame russia publicly for these intrusions. president putin has denied any moscow involvement. he and president obama discussed that the escalation must be avoided. presidential candidate hillary clinton said that russia is trying to sway the election in trump's favor. dana priest is joining me. she and her colleague broke this story yesterday. they are investigating what they say as a broad covert russian operation in the u.s. to sow public distrust and u.s. political institutions. how firm do they believe this is true. what is the evidence they have. and when will we know more? >> well, i think they believe the election part of it is one

part of a broader what they call covert influence operation on the part of the russians inside the united states. this is something that the russians have been doing in europe for the last several years since perhaps 2012 in particular when they saw their influence waning, when they really got worried about nato expansion, when they took over crimea, and now we're seeing it come to the united states. and part of that operation is they believe to disrupt or at least to sow distrust in the u.s. election process. and they aren't saying what particular part of the process because they probably don't know but their willingness, the russians, to get in and at least cause the american public to question the results of the election. they don't think that russians are trying to sway the election to one candidate or another. but really they are trying to

weaken the american public's trust in the system. in the system of elections but also in our government at large and that's the larger covert influence operation they're looking at. >> rose: in fact, in government depenses on credibility and respect for the institution of government. >> right. yes. and in europe, you know, again this is a covert operation so it's not supposed to be revealed, they are very clever hackers so it is very difficult to attribute it directly to them. but in europe, they've done a whole range of things. everything from funding campaigns not entire campaigns but funding individuals, giving loans and then also hacking into election commission for instance. they did that in ukraine, they did what's called a denial of service attack in which it almost shut down the ukrainian election commission. done the same things in latviya

and estonia. they are using influence which is a difficult thing to prove but i think the law enforcement agencies here have made it a bigger priority to try to prove influence as well or at least to detect it and report it to the larger intelligence community. it's really two sides. you have the domestic side which is led by the f.b.i. and the department of homeland security but you have the international side and is led by the intelligence community at large all being coordinated by the officer of the director of national intelligence. because the floor awe -- forein assets will be looking at ruksz, what they are doing and looking at assets abroad, what russia is up to and who they are using that sort of thing. >> rose: three ones are

intelligence officials convinced it's coming from the russian government or from non-governmental hackers of the like. >> the operation they believe is a government operation. they've seen this template in europe. they've been briefing members of the hill on the european template and in the context of their new conditioner about the united states. they have more evidence in other countries right now but they have seen with the dnc hack with the probing of the lookion records in the two dates and with the hacking that they believe has gone on in other parts of the republican and democratic party, they believe that this is part of the broader influence campaign. with a they haven't done and why you haven't seen any reaction on the part of the whitehouse is they haven't gotten the kind of firm attribution they call it to

the dnc hack for example to allow sanctions against the individuals that did it. like in the sony hack they actually named pla the army there, they actually named the individual hackers are those who are responsible for the hacking of the sony hack. they don't v at least we don't know, they might but we don't know, we have not heard and we're still hearing that that's not quite the level of detail they're at but they could be and we just haven't heard. >> rose: let me make sure i understand you. they, the officials do not believe that they are trying to swing this selection in favor of one candidate or the other. >> that's right, they don't. they believe they're trying to sow distrust in the process in general. and that fits with what they've done in europe. in europe, they are trying to

weaken the public trust and institutions. in some cases they have supported backers, they have supported canned -- candidates more likely to support russian interests but they don't believe that's the case here. it's really the matter, the whole point is to destabilize and the u.s. public and their trust and institutions in order to strengthen the positions that putin would take. i mean the russian economy is not strong. they don't have so many of the tools that we have. so they are doing something that's very inexpensive to do relatively is to use largely cyber and disinformation to try to weaken u.s. positions going into international or that sort

of thing. >> rose: putin believes in an interview i did with them the u.s. tries to influence elections and influence the rise and fall of governments in other countries including russia. >> right. that is an excellent point. in fact there are people in the intelligence world who have said this is revenge. it's revenge for what putin sees as u.s. interference in his own, in russia's sovereignty and that sort on thing, including he's kicked out most if not all of the non-governmental organizations that were allied with the u.s. or that were american-led because he believes that they were, you know, cia propped up or something but really they were, you know, pro democracy institutions. and very broadly speaking, also cracked down on the russian media so really he controls now 99% of the television broad cats. he doesn't really care about

print so much but so what russians are getting is all now russian propaganda. because at the same time they have built a much stronger russian propaganda television network and channels. so these crushing in russia that way. >> rose: do intelligence sources that you speak to believe this is a much bigger issue than we now accept or believe are suspect. >> yes. and i think the reason that they've been reluctant and they have been to talk about it or even help in any way, help us figure out what's going on is because it's in the middle of the election, both sides are using it against the other side to score political points. in a lot of our comments we've got 10,000 comments about this story. i would say the majority, the vast majority of them are political comments rather than focusing on the fact that

russia, an anti-democratic state is here trying to do something it has not done since the cold war. it's much or sensitive because of the elections and because people want to paint it as propaganda by one party or the other. >> rose: there's no answer to this and the clinton people will tell you and you'll understand the question, clinton people will tell you there's no evidence so far and the f.b.i. did not find any evidence. but the question that looms is whether the russians could have easily hacked into hillary clinton's server and in fact if they could, did they and do they have access to all those things as she later deleted from her server. >> well, i think what can be agreed upon is they are trying to hack everything. you know, they have hacked the whitehouse, they've hacked the opm, the office of personnel

management. so of course this asked this question and the lack of evidence doesn't mean definitively that it didn't happen because these things are done in a way that are very difficult to find often. but so far, you know, the investigators say that hasn't happened. i think you know, i'm trusting that we would find out out. >> rose: the hackers are so sophisticated they will leave trays that are discoverable. >> i think they know they tried and i'm not sure about perprivate server but they tried everything and everyone. but the thing that's different is they try and often succeed but they don't make it public. and that's what dwufts do, we do it absolutely we do it around the world. we saw that from the snowden documents. we have cyber command and that's part of what they do.

so the governs is the dnc hack that information became public. and that's a step with a haven't seen taken before. >> rose: dana, thank you so much. >> thank you charlie. >> rose: a pleasure having you here. thank you for joining us. see you next time. captioning sponsored by rose communications captioned by media access group at wgbh access.wgbh.org

>> rose: funding for "charlie rose" has been provided by: >> and by bloomberg, a provider of multimedia news and information services worldwide. >> on tomorrow's pbs newshour a report from chicago on the spike of deadly gun violence ripping

this is night business report with tyler mathis heating up, a flurry of deals helps lift the market and to a record close. cracks in the economy. investors t addst to the s be about pace of economic growth? and made in space. one company is bringing the digital future to the final those stories and much more tonight on "nightly business rep for tuesday, september 6th. good evening, everyone. i'm sue herera. tyler mathisen is off evening. call i ove tuesday. germany's bear is sweetening its over for