. >> rose: welcome to the program, i'm jake tapper filling in for charlie rose who is away on assignment. we begin tonight with deputy secretary of state tony blinken. >> these civil wars end in one of three ways. first either one side, one side wins. and that's not likely to happen here, jake, because whenever one side starts to get the advantage the outside patrons of the other side basically throw a lot more in. second, the party's exhaust themselves. unfortunately, that's not likely to happen any time soon because on average we looked at this. civil wars in history last ten year the this is year six and when you have multiple actor involved it is even longer. >> we continue where charles flan a began, the foreign minister of ire lands. >> the european commission decided to embark on an investigation of the british-- between ireland and

apple am we don't agree with their analysis. i fundamentally disagree with their findings. i don't believe there is any-- we don't accept that finding of the eu exition. >> we conclude with evan osnos of "the new yorker" magazine. >> you could quite about the pros peck of a trump presidency as sigh fie or as fares, or from the other side as fan fiction. we said no, no, this is something ver different. this began with an observation which is that one of the few ingvar things that union fies the supporters is that neerlt side really believes will do a lot of the things that he says. >> tony blinken, charles flanagan and evan os dnos when we continue. >> fund sk provided by the >> rose: funding for "charlie rose" has been provided by the following: >> and by bloomberg, a provider >> 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. >> good evening, i'm jake tapper filling in for charlie rose who is on assignment. we begin this evening with a conversation about deplom see and national security. in his u.n. address president president obama called the refugee crisis one of the urgent tests of our time and a test of our common humanity. meanwhile secretary of state john kerry says the ceasefire in syria is not dead. efforts to resume peace talks have been sub verted by, among other things, the bombing of an aid convoy that killed at least twelve people in a town near aleppo on monday. u.s. authorities say russia is responsibility for the incident. it followed an american air strike on saturday that was meant to target isis militants but instead killed 60 syrian soldiers. joining me now is deputy secretary of state tony blinken,

thanks for good to see you again. >> good to be here. >> i want to get to the refugee crisis but to get an update on why the ceasefire seems to have devol-- devolved or disintegrated, although i know you hope it hasn't. first of all the russians say that the aid convoy was not just an aid convoy. is there any truth to that at all? >> there isn't. the aid convoy was just that. an aid convoy. it was physicallee planned, authorized, had all the necessary permits, all the necessary markings. and it was struck, we believe, intentionally and egregiously 6789 and result, the effort that we put so much into with the russians to get a sesation of hostilities, to get humanitarian systems flowing and to create the conditions under which negotiations toward a transition in syria can take place, that is hanging by a threadment but what secretary kerry heard today from basically all of our partners is that they want us to try to see

if we can get this back on its feet. and that is what we are working to do over the next couple of days. >> the russians claim it was not just an aid convoy, obviously. ey have photographic evidence, i believe. >> the russians have changed their story on this. i think i lost count, four or five times over the last 24 hours. first they said oh yeah, maybe something was struck and it is because nousra struck something else in the country which is totally irrelevant in any event. then they said it wasn't us. then they said that the convoy basically spontaneously imussed, caught on fire-- come busted, caught on fire. they have been changing their story every hour. but there is clear information, from social media, from eye witnesses, from our own sources about what happened. but here's the thing. there is a strong desire to see if we can get this back on track. because if we do, if we do, if we get the sesation of

hostilities, if we get the humanitarian assistance, that means that lives are going to be saved. it also means that we'll get the syrian air force out of the skies over civilian pop lated areas because that is part of the deal. that would make a huge difference. and the barrel bombs, everything else they have been doing. and as a said, it at least creates the atmosphere in which it's possible to look at negotiations resuming on a political transition. so the upside of this is tremendous and it's why it's worth making this extra effort to see if we can get it on track. ultimately it's up to the russians. >> presumably, if the russians fired upon this aid convoy or if the syrians stick with russian armament there would be a reason for it. what do you suspect the reason would be. >> it's a great question. we just don't know the answer. if it was the russians, did the military do it, and the political folks didn't know? did someone make a mistake. it looks to us intentional. but we honestly don't know the answer. but here's what we do know.

when you step back, these civil wars end in one of three ways. first, either one side, one side wins. and that's not likely to happen here, jake, because whenever one side starts to get the advantage, the outside patrons of the other side basically throw a lot more in. second, the parties exhaust themselves. unfortunately, that's not likely to happen any time soon because on average we've looked at this. civil wars in history last ten years. this is year six, as horrific as this has been. when you have multiple actors involved as we do here it is even longer on average than ten years. so the third way these things end is by some outside intervention, either military or political. we're not about to intervene militarily in a way that would enthe war because we're not capable of doing that. and i don't think the russians ultimately will either. that leaves a political intervention. that's what we're trying to do. that is the way, as difficult as it is, as challenging as it is, to finally bring this to closure. >> i know that there was some pushback from the pentagon when

secretary kerry and the state department were pushing forward with this idea. and i know secretary kerry's argument is more than half i million people have been killed. or 450,000 to be precise. and millions more displaced. st the greatest refugee crisis since world war ii. we need to do something. the military said we can't trust the russians. and we can't get into an agreement with the russians because we don't trust them. why did your side win out? did president o bamar just think i'll try anything at this point? >> this isn't a question about one side winning or losing. this is, the fact is we're all on the same page and honestly not trusting our russian friends on this. that is not the issue. i don't think secretary kerry trusts them any more than anyone else does. but what it is about, it's about actions. and if they take the actions necessary to uphold their commitments for the sesation of hostilities, then good. we can move forward.

that's what we are focused on. it's not about trust, it's about actions. >> there is a lot of fear in the united states about the refugees coming in. specifically about people in isis implanting themselves, embedding themselves into the refugees. and i know that there is thorough vetting am but still, and also, frankly, about who these refugees might grow up to be. we just saw two attacks, thankfully neither were fatal for any of the innocent people. but one is somali refugee taken in as a boy with his family, the other an afghan refugee takens with a boy with hi family who grew up and became radicalized terrorists. >> jake first, any administration's first obligation is to the security of our fellow americans. and so when it comes to refugees, we're very focused on

screening, on making sure that people are bringing into this country pass the test. and the least likely way that someone would try to get here and infiltrate the country as a terrorist is through the refugee program. because it basically takes the longest through that program uo get to the united states. on average it takes two years with intense vetting from every conceivable agency. first vetting by the united nations because most refugees are referrallals from the u.n. and then by our own services. so that's the first point. and in fact, the overwhelming majority of people we take in, we focus on people who are in real jeopardy, women, children, the he wouldly, the sick. and families that are actually ininn tact. there are almost very, very few, less than two percent unattached adult males who come in through this program. so that is the first point. as a matter of security, it is not the way that someone would come in trying to do harm to the country. but the second thing is this.

the overwhelm magazine jort of people who are leaving everything behind, uprooting their lives, putting their lives at risk, putting their families at risk. putting themselves in the hands of traffics, high seas, they are fleeing terrorism, fleeing violence, fleeing conflict. and we have a proud tradition in this country of taking people in, in that situation. and you ask who do they grow up to be? well, you know, i was with a young woman the other day who started her life in sola-- somalia, as a result of conflict fled to yemen. as a result of conflict there, went to egypt. as a result of conflict there, and after having had teub teub for a year-- tu bercu lo circumstances, circumstances came here as a teenager, she wound up in minnesota, she finished at the top of her class, class president, captain. soccer team, 4.0gpa. that is who comes here. that is who grows up here if we give them that chance.

and certainly most, and overwhelming majority of these individuals are if not that exempt larry because that is pretty outstanding are normal peace loving people. but there is a fear. and in fact donald trump, jr., i done know if you saw but he tweeted or retweeted a picture of a bowl of skittles and it, the caption said something along the lines of if somebody told you that three of these skittles were poisoned, you know, would you eat from that bowl. i don't know if you saw that. and i don't know what your response to that would be. > look, i don't do politics in my current job. i see it and i really have nothing to say. this is an emotional issue for you personally, refugees. it is, look, we are all the product of our own stories, our own narratives. the stories we hear growing up. i think this true of so many americans because virtually all of us are in some way, at some place an immigrant story, a

refugee story. in my case, i had a grandfather who fled-- from ukraine, came here, was welcomed by the united states. built a terrific life, contributed to the united states, sent three sons to ivy league schools. a step mother who fled communist dead of night on a train from hungary. came here because the united states welcomed her. built a great night, contributed. and my late stepfather was born in poland before the second world war. he went to school with 900 children. he was the only survivor of that school during the holocaust. he spent those years in virtually all of the concentrations camps you can think of. at the very end of the war, jake, he was on a death march out of concentration camps. and he made a run for it. made it to the forest in bavaria, despite being shot at and show survived is escaping this death march. hid out in

the forest. after a couple of days, he heard the sound, this rumbling sound. and he came out from where he was hiding and instead of seeing the dreaded swastika, what he saw was a five pointed white star on a tank. and he ran to the tank. and the hatch opened and an african-american gi stood looking down at him. and he got down on his knees and he said the only three words that he knew in english, his mother had taught him before the war. god bless america. and the gi lifted him into the tank, in effect into the united states, and into freedom. that is who we are. that is what we are. that is why this matters so much. it really is about who we are as a people. >> why do you think there is such a climate of fear in the united states right now about this issue? >> jake, you know, itsee-- it's

even larger than this issue. it's understandable. there is so much going on in the world. an people know about it immediately. that it creates as much heat as it does light. and there's a sense of confusion and chaos. and the president has spoken very eloquently to this. when you look at what is happening overall, overall, this is never been, there has never been a better time in human history to be on this planet. in terms of the progress that we have made. people are healthier. they're wealthier, they're wiser, better educated, they're even more tolerant, again overall. and as the president said, if you can pick any time in history to be born, not knowing where you would be born, what your race would be, your ethnicity, your religion, sexual orientation, you would pick today. but despite this progress, too many of our fellow citizens in the united states feel left out and behind that show the system is not working for them. and unless we can address that, then i think thoses who would

make hey out of concerns that are understandable to people feel when things are changing around them, including new people coming too their communities, it is going to be very difficult to sustain what we have been trying to do the divide that we have right now is really not between left and right, democrat or republican, conservative, liberal. it really is between people who would erect walls to ward off these problems and those who want to keep building bridges. i think the bridge builders are right. but they have to be able to demonstrate that this more open world, and an american open to the world works for all of our fellow citizens. >> what do you say to people who say, who look at the world now and say it's more dangerous than it was when president obama took office. it seems scarier whether it's isis and syria and iraq or north

korea, farther along in its development of a missile that can deliver a new clear weapon or russian encroaching on the ukraine. i could go on but i won't. what do you say to those people? >> look, there are tremendous challenges and it comes from the fact that among other things, in so many ways, the nation state, the basic krublght-- construct that we have been living with is under challenge from many different directions. and especially under challenge from all sorts of new actors who weren't present in the system we were living in and world war ii, particularly nonstate actor. you combine that with an information revolution, which as i said, basically brings you what is happening at the far corner of the earth instantaneously. so you know if there is a problem. immediately. and there is also this sense that you know, if the government hasn't solt of the that problem, by the time it first gets into your interven us information feed that show it's failing,

we're not addressing the problem, that does feed a sense of insecurity. you know, i think the president sees himself in part as a circuit breaker, in the sense that there is this huge pressure every day when are you in government dealing with these problems to just do something, to react. and his approach has been to say wait a minute, let's tack a step back. let's understand what is happening. let's think through the response and let's work it that way. not to just be reflective and react itch. sometimes in the short term that can cause a political cost, but it also feeds into those who say you are not acting desighs itchily. but you have to marry wisdom to strength and that is what we tried to do. >> let's talk about that. because the president has said, he said that interview before in the atlantic about how proud he was of his decision not to use force after threatening to use force against assad, after he

drew that red line. there was a diplomatic effort undersustain with russia by secretary kerry and the foreign minister of russia to remove chemical weapons. and for some time president obama was very proud of that. we know now that assad continues to use chemical weapons we know now that, i'm not blaming it on president obama but we now know that the the crisis in syria is caused the worst refugee crisis since world war ii, tremendous instability in the region that a lot of our allies are unsure of the commitment of the united states as that red line was not followed through on. how was that fred not being carry out. how was that the right decision? what could have been worse than what we are seeing right now

which is such a disaster? i just disagree, it was the right decision and here's why. what was it about, exactly what you said. it was about chemical weapons and their use by syrian regime and the line that was drawn was about that use. we were prepared. the president was prepared to use force to try to deter assad from continuing to use chemical weapons. but we could not have taken out the weapons themselves, the stock piles, that would have created a catastrophe. the military response that was designed would not have ended the assad regime, that wasn't his purpose it was to send a message and hopefully deter him from using them further. as we were doing that, of course, we got into this engagement with congress to see if we could get their support. that became complicated and as that was happening, the russians came in. and together we were able to get assad and the regime to give up the vast stock piles of chemical weapons that they had without

firing a shot. and far more effectively than had we actually used military force. because again as i said it would not be directed against the clem kal weapons. they can't do that. >> they are still using chemical weapons though. >> two things, the overwhelming majority of the stock pile, the infrastructure has been removed or des-- destroys, that means for the neighboring states starting with israels the strategic threat of a chemical weapons arsenal is gone. you ra right as a tactical matter, tragically, horriveically they continue to use weapons and what they seem to be using is now color even which is not in and of itself a prescribed chemical. but when used as a weapon, of course, is prohinted by the chemical weapons convention. >> business was part of the deal. >> and part of deal was them signing. >> they are in violation of, there is no doubt. but i still believe very, very strongly that in terms of what we were trying to accomplish, which admittedly was limited to getting rid of the chemical

weapons arsenal and the infrastructure, that was largely accomplished and largely accomplished without firing a shot. so we still have the problem of their residual use, tactically-- am some of these weapons. and one of the things we're working now is through the united nations, we've had an organization that has apons and ascribed uses of responsibility and now we need hopefully with the russians supporting it, not trying to block it, moving forward on their base and account ability. >> president clinton, bill clinton came to feel that what he did do or did not do in rwanda was the greatest failure of his presidentee-- presidency in the international a rinna. do you ever fear that syria will go down as president obama's

rwanda? >> jake, i think any of us who were in anyway responsible for our foreign policy probably go to bed virtually every night, wake up in the morning thinking about syria. and feeling a tremendous sense of frustration. and a sense of responsibility. look. the responsibility in the first instance, of course, is with assad and what he has done to his own people. there is also responsibility to go around in the neighborhood. it's not as if anyone in the region actually was able to effectively stand up and do anything. there is a lot of spobilityd on the hands of the russians, iranians and others who propped up the regime. we have worked this relentlessly over the last six years. and we have tried to do it in a way that we thought could best answer the problem consistent with our own interest as well as hopefully our values. and so we've been by far the largest provider of humanitarian assistance to syria and people affected by the conflict. we have supported significantly

the syrian opposition. unfortunately that hasn't su fiesed to change the facts on the ground. but we have supported them. we have worked relentlessly starting with secretary kerry to find a diplomatic way forward. i do not believe that an american intervention of the kind for example that we saw in iraq and syria would produce the result we want. contrary, it would make things worse and get us enmeshed in a quag mier. and beyond that, it would actually be an additional recruiting tool for the other big challenge we are facing in the region which is isil. and by the way, that is a challenge that i think we've been addressing very effectively. we now have daesh on the run, on the rope os in both iraq and increasingly in syria. >> deputy secretary of state, thank you very much, we appreciate your time and canneddor. >> thanks for having me, jake. >> we continue this evening with foreign minister of ireland charles flanagan, ireland

cochaired the united nation summited on refugees and my granteds on monday. representatives from 1934-- 193 member states met to doaferl a coordinated approach to the refugee crisis. the number of displaced people has surpassed world war ii levels with more than 65 million people fleeing conflict, violence or political percent keution. in other news, last month the european commission ordered ireland to collect 14.5 billion dollars in unpaid taxes from apple. the irish government is appealing the ruling. i am pleased to have charles flanagan on the program. welcome, thanks so much for being here. >> i'm very pleased to be here. >> first of all, just for people who might not be completely familiar with the details of ireland and apple, you don't want to give apple the 14.5 billion dollars, right? you want them to not have to pay that. explain that to our viewers. >> this was an analysis by the e surks-- eu imhition on the

relationship between apple and ireland. ireland of course prides it self on our foreign direct investment, particularly investment from the united states which gives jobs to in excess of 100,000 of our people. so the european commission decided to embark on an investigation of the relationship taxwise between ireland and apple. we don't agree with their analysis. i fundamentally disagree with their finding. i don't believe there is any money due. we don't accept that finding of the eu commission. rather we have appealed it a as you said at the outset. we appealed it because we believe it should be the subject of a judicial decision, so we appealed that to the european court. there are a number of inconsistencies with this analysis. a number of flaws in this report. we want a judicial decision because we don't accept the findings. >> in this country, politicians running for office often talk about how low the corporate tax rate is in ireland as a way of trying to say that the corporate

tax rate in the united states should be lower. ireland really prides it self on having this low corporate tax rate. what would it mean if ireland were not able to attract businesses the way you are currently able to? >> well, ireland is a very good place in which to do business, proof being the fact that so many of the high-tech companies so many of the pharma corporations in the world find themselves citing their hq or major plant in ireland. we are the gatedway for the european union, english speaking people, market of 500 million people in that union. but as well the fact that we have an attractive tax rate at 12.5% corporation tax. that is only one aspect of what ireland has to offer in terms of being a good place in which to do business. we have a talented, young, enthusiastic and active workforce, prepared to adapt to the appropriate nature of the job at hand.

we've got a very good track record. u.s. companies like ireland. like the way we do business. they like our culture, our people, they like our city of dublin and indeed the regions of ireland. so we would continue to offer u.s. companies a very, very good and appropriate and suitable location in which to do bises. >> are there politicians in ireland who are saying 14.5 billion dollars in taxes, wow, we could do a lot with that money. >> yeah, the far right and the far left are saying that. however i don't believe that money ever existed. nor does it exist. apple pays tax in ireland, has paid its due taxes to the full. apple pays tax on what it produces in ireland. everybody has an iphone. mine is in my pocket. that iphone is designed, in silicon valley, it's made in china and i don't believe it's just or fair that ireland should

be an international tax collector. and those are the reasons we have appealed this flawed decision. another reason being that the eu commission finding dates back as far as 1991. our tax laws have changed. significantly since then. i don't believe it's in the best interest of business, or indeed in the best interest of law to allow for a retro speks. ireland works closely with international bodies and the oec in particular in order to assure that we have a tax regime that is fair and equitable. and that corporations pay their fair share of taxes. we're satisfied that apple pay their fair share of taxes in ireland. we have appealed this decision and we look forward to wing the judgement. >> if you don't, are you afraid apple will pull out and other companies will pull out. >> no, we're very proud of what we can offer apple and, indeed, other major corporations in terms of their relationship with ireland. and we're confident that the

european cuter will find firmly with us in that record. >> we'll talk about that in a second. ireland is a proud member of the european union and northern ireland, even, voted to stay although obviously not everyone in the u.k. was with northern ireland. but is this not precisely the kind of thing that the european union or related entities are doing that frustrates so many people in the european union and ultimately may have played a role in brexit? >> ireland has enjoyed very much its relationship within the european union. ireland and the u.k. joined together, 43 years ago in the first of january 1973. it has been a hugely positive relationship, in spite of the fact that the u.k. has embarked upon a process of leaving the union. ireland won't be leaving the union. ireland will remain firmly at the heart of europe because we believe that there is un knit in

strength and that we have much in common with our union mean partners. i was very disappointed as indeed my government colleagues were that the u.k. decided to leave the european union after a period of 43 years. however, i accept that result as a democrat and we've now got to plan accordingly. but you're right, this is going to present us with a major challenge because of our unique relationship with the united kingdom. our closest trading partner, our nearest neighbor, we share a common language, a common legal system, we share a common parliamentary democracy, we have much in common with our nearest neighbor. and indeed it would be difficult to have a situation where the united kingdom will be out of the european union and ireland will remain within the european union. and you refer to a very serious problem. and a great challenge. as far as northern ireland is concerned. northern ireland being still a

part of the united quing dom. but the people of northern ireland in their vote opted by a significant margin to remain, to remain in the european union. however, northern ireland itself is not a un tear member of the european union. it is part of the united kingdom and it is the united kingdom that will decide on its membership. the new british prime minister indicated she will embark upon the process of removing the u.k. which includes northern ireland from the european union. that is going to happen early next year. the process is going to take a couple of years. i don't underestimate the very seriously complexities that are involved. but what we would like from an irish perspective, that the status quo will be retained in so far as it can. but that's going to be very difficult because like any club, like any organization, one

cannot withdraw your membership and enjoy the benefits of that membership. so we're awaiting to see what the british ask is going to be. since the result on the 24th of june. have i had an opportunity of meeting with each and every one of my 27eu foreign affair colleagues. have i impressed upon them the unique situation on the ireland of ireland not only in terms of our trade. but we have a common travel area which we have enjoyed since our independence in 1922 where it would be people from ireland can live and work, enjoy welfare benefits in the united kingdom and similarly citizens of the united kingdom can do so in ireland. and of course a matter of the peace process, in northern ireland is a post conflict society. it's political institutions are fragile. its society that has suffered greatly from hostilities over the years. and there were times when the european union played a very important role in facilitating

that peace process, indeed as did the united states over the yearings with senator george mitchell, more recently snror gary hart and it is the success of the american administrations have offered support and nurturing our peace process at the withdrawal of the united kingdom from the european union. it's going to test that stability. it's going to test that certainty in terms of peace. and we have the legal framework which is the historic good friday agreement which of course charts the legal relationship between northern ireland and the south and east west between london and dublin. so i have been impressing on my eu colleagues, at foreign minister level, and indeed here in new york to my american colleagues both in washington and new york, the unique situation in which the island of ireland finds itself. and the challenge of brexit which must not be underestimated. >> and in fact, given that so much of what drove brexit had to

do with immigration, and the refugee crisis, you're going to have to change the border situation with northern ireland that you currently have. >> one of the great advantages of our peace process is that the border now between northern ireland and ireland is invisible, over 30,000 people every day cross the boarder from north to south, from south to north in order to work, in order to attend college, in order to go to school, in order to visit family members. but since 1-9d 98. >> an open border. >> an open border in fact, the only visible signs are the fact that in northern ireland, which operate by miles whereas in ireland, so the road science is perhaps the most significant change one travels from north to south or from south to north. >> the fact that this will be a eu frontier. the fact that this will be the

dividing line between the european union and noneuropean union presents us with a real challenge. because i believe that it is not in the best interest of anybody to have a heavily fortified or hardboarder from the east coast of ireland across to the west. i think we can work it out. we face very difficult challenges in the past. i believe it's important in the context of the it emerges between the agreement of the united kingdom and the european union, that special consideration must be given to the unique situation which is the border. because a heavily fortified board certificate in nobody's interest. it will bring back the peace process decade. it will operate to serve as a great disadvantage for our people north and south. >> the refugee crisis caused by the war in syria is one of the reasons for brexit, i think it's fair to say with a lot of people

uneasy about open borders. and who exactly is coming in to their country. are the people of ireland at all concerned when they see, although very few of them actually were refugees, if any, but when they see the terrorist attacks in paris, when they see the terrorist attacks in brussels, when they see stories about when being assaulted and worse in germany, does that create an environment where your commitment and the commitment of the government to the european union and the project of the european union to help assimilate these people, most of whom are peace loving and fleeing hell in syria, does that make it more difficult? >> i accept that this is one of the greatest challenge faced by the international community. but in particular, as you mentioned, by the european union. i believe we need to device a working formula that will allow for a level of humanitarian aid, be evident from within the

european union. obviously the best platter in which we can approach this is by addressing the real causes of conflict in the first instance. this say mat thary we have been discussing in the u.n. this week. the coming together of over 192 states and sitting around the table and in many of the meetings on the margins, devicing a strategy that will ultimately use all our influence, the international community, to bring to bear on the administration and those engaging in conflict in syria, of the need to cease hostile-- cease hostilities. the need to work out a political solution rather than a military solution. but in the mean time we've got to address the humanitarian challenge of our times which is the displacement of over 65 million people, particularly those from syria and across northern iraq, people who are

suffering immeasurably from conflict and who are left with no choice than to flee their homes, their communities, their villages, often times with no more than a nap sack on their back. and i believe it's important that the european union play its role in terms of a powerful international body of the world's wealthiest states, that we would play a roll in ensuring that we can alleviate the yeun suffering. ireland, for example, has agreed an instake of 4,000 refugees. we're working towards that already this year, or by the end of this year. we will have received almost a thousand refugees from syria. now i accept the fact that ireland isn't the first port of call from syria. we are an area of some distance in terms of prox imitied. we've got different culture, language, climate. and some syrian refugees, it is a challenge in terms of language, in terms of opportunity, in terms of the

mental trama that they are suffering. so i think that all the european nation, all our states need to step up to the plate. and of course i had the teuntd of engaging with some of my u.s. colleagues, i was struck by what secretary of state john kerry said and i wish to acknowledge the leadership that he is showing on the international stage to ensure that everybody can play their part, be it the united states or canada, on this side of the pobd. but also from my own perspective, members of the european community. >> let me ask you a question. i hope you don't think me rude. but you talk about the biggest refugee crisis since world war two, 65 million people displayed-- displaced and talked about ireland taking in 4,000. that does in the seem like a lot of people. i know the united states has been criticized for not taking in as many as other countries have taken in even though they are a bigger, richer country. but 4,000 to me. >> i'm anxious that be done at the earliest opportunity and acknowledge that there have been some bureaucratic delays in terms of the paper work, in

terms of the administration. in terms of, you can't just open your doors and accept the first 4,000 people that arrive in the port or arrive at an airport. there has to be process. there has to be regulation. there has to be law and order. but i believe it's important that all eu states and all the international community play their part. ireland is a small state. we have agreed to accept 4,000 and i don't accept that this is an issue that will be resolved in an early opportunity. we will have the 4,000 relocated, recessed to be welcomed in our community right across the island of ireland in terms of our villages, our people have responded very positively. and we will insure that we play our part in what is the greatest humanitarian challenge of our time. >> charlie flanaga, thank you so much, we appreciate it. >> thank you, very pleased to be here. >> thank you.

we conclude this evening with evan osnos a staff writer for "the new yorker." his article this week imagines what donald trump's first term as president might look like. evan, good to you have here, thanks for being here. >> thanks. so first of all, i need to offer you something of an apology. not that i ever did anything about it but when i first read, you wrote a piece last fall. >> last summer. >> last summer about all of the white supremacists, white nationalists, neo nazis, et cetera, that crowd. >> right. >> supporting donald trump. when i first read it, i thought evan, you were in china too long. are you overreacting. >> right. >> yes, there are a few of these characters but it's not really part of is is his supporters in any real sense. actually i was wrong. i never said this publicly before. i was wrong there are really a great deal of white supremacists

who are really firmly behind donald trump's campaign. so i am sorry that i doubted you. >> i appreciate the point. because frankly i doubted myself on that story too. because if you remember the story was basically, i went out and started talking to people about. >> in all am-- alabama. >> i was in alabama, ohio, indiana, a few places where people who were white nationalists started to say look, we are really excited about donald trump. and i couldn't figure out if this was meaningful. that is the hardest thing when are you doing political journalism. how much is something meaningful. a lot of things exist but how much does it affect the process. at the time i did hesitated a bit and i thought i don't know if this is going to matter as much as i think it does. it turns out it has become a defining piece of the candidacy and i'm glad we wrote that. >> we should point out before anybody is tweetedk or sending angry letters. we're not calling most supporters of donald trump any of that. we're just saying of that small community, there really, really excited about donald trump. >> and we said as much in the

piece. >> why, why are they excited. donald trump's daughter converted to orthodox judaism, his sonl is jewish. he has several jewish grand children. he says that he dubt hold any of these views. why do these groups have such faith in him? >> because they see in him somebody who is willing to in his case, i think, sort of gleefully violate the norms of polt particulars which have prevented certain kind of discussion from being on the main stage. >> such as? >> such as the idea that immigrants to the united states are not just a policy question, but are in fact some sort of moral and physical assault on your sceurtd. he talks about it in harsh ways, ways that really had almost no place in conventional politics. and all of a sudden he started talking about it with his very announcement speech. there are a lot of people who like donald trump for legitimate reasons and then there are people who like donald trump for what i think many americans would describe as whereins he had don't agree with, reasons they find repug nantd and try to

understand both of these. in fact fa there are many, many more reasons than just two. try to understand all of these different elements has been part of this candidacy and one of the hard things that all of us have struggled with. >> yeah, i agree with that. i just think i have been saying for a long time inharntly the messages of your government is broken. your government is not protecting you from terrorists. your government is not protecting your border. your government is not looking out for your job with their trade deals. >> it saul about what-- look, something was happening last summer when donald trump was endorsed by the largest theyo nazi website 12 days after he announced his candidacy. as donald trump would say, something is going on. it was incumbent on us to figure out, why is this happening. and what does it tell us ultimately not just about donald trump but really about the mood in the country. because siems from the fringe we begin to learn something more about the underlying structural mood, if we can call it that.

>> so let's talk about your piece. what would president trump do. and i would imagine that a lot of people picking this up in, you know, the bible of liberal new yorkers, a magazine i read every week. >> yeah. >> would think oh, this is going to be good. >> you took this as very, very seriously. this is not, you know, he paints the white house gold and et cetera. >> yeah. >> and pimps air force one. >> right. >> you could write about the pros peck of a trump presidency as sci-fi or as fares or from the other side as kind of fan fiction. we said no, no, this is something very different. this began with an observation which is that one of the few things that union fies both the supporters and opponents of donald trump is that needer side really believes will do a lot of the things he says. republicans will tell you 42%

according to a recent poll don't believe he would build a wall which is after all the central promise of his campaign. we said well what would he even moore, newt gingrich, ett cetera. and there is a flip side to how president obama has governed so often by executive order with his pen and a phone or whatever as he said in the last couple of years, there is a flip side to it. >> it's true. this is a vuller in availability that the trump campaign identified which is as stephen moore said it, his official campaign advisor, if you rule by executive order, you are then vulnerable to the possibility that these things things can be overturned. one of the things the trump campaign is planning is the first day project according to a republican close to the campaign. which is that on the first day or within a few days of taking office, donald trump would seek to, as one source put it, to

erase the obama administration's legacy. by issuing 25 executive orders, for instance. that way systemically go through and try to undermine some of the cornerstones of the obama administration. >> such as. >> so for instance, one of the things president trump would have the legal authority to renounce the paris climate agreement. doesn't change the agreement other countries signed to but could withdraw the united states from that. there is a process, it wouldn't happen overnight but would begin that process. another thing a president trump could do on day one and this is what they are talking about, in the campaign, they are talking about what it is they are thinking of doing. another one is suspending the syrian refugee resettlement program. another one is restarting exploration of the keystone pipeline. and another one is perhaps to relax background checks. this would involve a directive to the atf which would say that one of the orders that president obama put in effect no longer applies and so on. there is a process. if something has gone past what

is known as the rulemaking phase then there is a process of public comment it wouldn't happen overnight but what donald trump could do is with the use of his pen, in effect, he could have a much larger effect, i think, on our political status quo than democrats and i think a lot of republicans imagine. >> of course a lot of what he would want to accomplish would have to be done through legislation, repeal og bama care, for example. it is hard to imagine president obama, i'm sorry, it's hard to emergency president trump without imagining that the republicans keep the house and the senate. >> that's right. >> it seems very unlikely that he would win and the republicans would lose the senate. i mean it's very difficult to imagine. so he would have a cooperative capitol bill. >> yeah, one of the assumptions inside the campaign according to newt gingrich who is at that point i think the most senior political advisor to donald trump, knows the hill, knows his way around washington.

what newt told me is they assume essentially they would come in with control of congress. and if they were able to do that, that would give them the ability to do a lot more than for instance president obama has been able to accomplish as president. so one of the things that now i should add there are a number of things that they receiptically democrats could phil buster. so if he tried to overturn obama care, democrats could resist. if he tried to lower taxes, democrats could resist. but there are also i think one of the things we're coming to discover is that we're in an era in which parliamentary rules are changing as well. and it's not inconceivable that a republican congress, a senate for instance controlled by republicans could rewrite the rules on the filibuster that it would make it much harder for democrats to resist. >> which harry reid, the democratic leader did to a degree when it came to some nominations when democrats had control of the senate. >> exactly. when harry reid said basically we're going to throw longer allow filibuster for jud itionz nominees, that opens the door a

crack for a filibuster at all. >> how likely do you think it is that donald trump will win. there are those of us who go on-- looking at western sites over the last three months the odds going from something like 20% for hillary clinton's 80%, getting better and better for him, worse and worse for her, i think it it st 43-57 now for a lot of people in new york, very uncomfortable direction. >> yeah, i mean "the new york times" today would say 75% chance of a clinton, 25% chance, one in four for instance. >> i think that i don't pretend to have any special knowledge of what could happen. what i do know and what we have all discovered following his campaign for the last year is that the-- there is absolutely no way to assume that the things we thought were true a year or two ago in politics are true today. so to believe for instance that a certain kind of debate performance, we're all think

being what will happen in the debates. it would have been conventional wes dom to say if donald trump came in and showed hes with unfamiliar with basic facts of foreign affairs, basic facts of national security as he has in earlier republican debates, that this would be disquawling, it hasn't been. >> or if he referenced his crotch. >> which has turned out to be a recurring feature in this campaign. so it is a cliche to say nobody knows anything. >> i'm sure, i know are you agnostic on a trump presidency because that is your job as it is minement but i'm sure you have many liberal friends who are terrified. what is the best case scenario that you tell them in conversations? i have heard people say, for instance, look at the end of the day, he wants to be a good president. he doesn't really have that many idea logical convictions. >> right. >> he wants to get things done. >> uh-huh. >> he wants, you know, better economic climate, stronger internationally, et cetera.

and he is a deal maker. >> i will add one thing to your question. certainly i think there are a lot of liberal friends who are terrified of a trump presidency. >> i should say that. because it's actually interesting, particularly if you think about the news in the last few days. george h-w bush may or may not have said he will-- let's soo seum he said he will vote for hillary clinton. he actually speaks for an entire wing of traditional republican politics in a way. i have run into a lot of people, today in fact, i was in a couple of meetings with republicans lifelong republicans who are appalled at the idea that america may recruise-- recuse itself from its traditional inception of american power. the idea that we are in a position to go out and to, you know, when we talk about american exceptionalism, what we mean is the willing, to put aside our narrow self-interest for some broader con sengs -- conception of what america's interests are in the world. for a lot of republicans that is a scary thought that we would no

longer take an interest. donald trump said, i quoted in the piece, i want to take everything back that we have given to the world. i understand what he means. t what if you actually apply that principle to recent history it means the united states would have found itself in a position of being even more on its heels about, for instance, chaos in the middle east. we would have been even more unable to respond. so what i would say is actually there is a reason why we spent 8,000 words on examining what donald trump is kanl of doing in office. because it turns out he is capable of doing a lot. th me, eric posner is a legal scholar at the university of chicago studies what it is presidents are able to do and not do. he said every school child learns about checks and balances. the congress passes law, supreme court decides if they are consistent with the constitution, what people have not followed is that over the last hundred years the powers of the presidency have expanded significantly partly by laws passed in congress and partly by acquiescence on the par of the congress. so the point today a president is able to do a lot more than americans generally think they

are able to do and what happens is when they do those things. it is a fate accompli. it is then up to the other branches of government to roll them back. one example, george w. bush after september 11th as we all know created a domestic surveys lan program-- surveillance under the nsa by executive thortd. there were protests at the time, quiet, sorted of civil protests of a kind, there were legislators who opposed it, there were lawsuits filed. but it takes a long time to undo these things. and eventually 15 years, 14 or 15 years after he passioned that executive order, was the-- was the metadata program explicitly rolled back. so donald trump could do a lot and do it fast and he can do it with enduring effect. >> and in fact you note in the piece at the beginning, presidents kerry-- carry out generally more than 70% of their promises, thanku-- thank you so much. the story what would president trump do on news stands today, thanks for joining us. >> my pleasure.

thanks, jake. >> 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 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.