>> rose: welcome to the program. we begin in washington with politics. and we talk to al hunt of bloomberg and abby philip of "the washington post." >> the debate, this electorate is not like a speed boat. it's like a battle ship. it doesn't move quickly. and i don't think there is a huge change from monday night. >> trump has an achilles heel and it was demonstrated pretty clearly on the debate stage on monday night. he doesn't like being criticized. and that's one of the first things hillary clinton did when she got out there. she criticized him from taking money from his father to start his businesses. and that was the moment that he sort of derailed. he lost his cool. >> rose: and we continue with the focus on aleppo. joining me clarissa ward and philip gordon. >> the united states clearly has the military capacity to stand up to the syrian government and to the russians. but every time i think that

policy is put on the table, the president and those involve ask the question what happens next. if you believe that a response by air strikes from the united states leads the other side to say okay, we now get t let's come to the table and negotiate. that's a fine idea and you save add helpo. if as is more likely, they who are fighting for their lives, literally, respond with more strikes against your side and counterescalation, then you have to go the next step and where that may well end is the vy leapt overthrow of the regime, you get back to sort of baghdad or libya scenarios. and then possibly millions of refugees of all of those who had been supporting the assad regime that you just stood up to. and that's why that takes it back. that is why there are no easy all-- alternatives and why so much had been invested in the ceasefire which is sadly crumbling. >> and we conclude this evening with part one of a conversation with r50ed hoffman of linkedin.

>> it was a long thought out decision. we said well, actually in fact combining with microsoft, microsoft's primary mission is making-- productive, ours is making individuals. microsoft cares about individuals, we care about organizations or collects of individuals. we thought 1 plus one here can be much greater than two. is it five, is it ten. and that way we can add in or missions which are the missions are essentially friends. the missions are collaborators. and that can actually help us reach our mission. >> rose: politics, aleppo and technology. when we continue. >> funding for charlie rose is provided by the following: >> and by bloomberg, a provider of multimedia news and information services worldwide.

captioning sponsored by rose communications from our studios in new york city, this is charlie rose. >> we're in washington and we begin this evening with politics. according to "the new york times" review of latest state and national polls, hillary clinton has a 72% chance of winning the presidency. the general con sen shus-- consensus is that donald trump struggled in the first debate on monday as clinton put him on the defensive. neil sen ratings estimate the record-breaking 84 million viewers watched the debate. not kus is now shifting to the second presidential debate in st. louis on october 9th. trump's advisors reportedly planned to prepare him more thoroughly with just six weeks remaining until election day. joining me now is al hunt, a columnist for bloomberg view and a friend of this program and abby philip we welcome to this program for the first time. she is a national political reporter for the washington most. i am pleased to have both of them at this table.

welcome. >> thank you. >> tell me where the narrative has gone since the debate. >> well, i think if conventional norms apply, and i remember jeff greenfield telling you the night of the debate he is not sure if they any longer do, but if they do trump has had not only a bad debate but a terrible three days. 's tried to insist he won the debate. is he angry at his advisors and nothing has gone right. and so, so that's the state of play if conventional norms apply. i make one point. the debate, this electorate is not like a speed boat. it's like a battleship. it doesn't move quickly. and i don't think there is a huge change from monday night. i think the two things that are encouraging for the democrats is that he is so turned off a number of young people, apparently. i was at a college in philadelphia and you certainly saw that this week. they weren't that impressed with her, but they really weren't impressed with him. and secondly, i think he offended more african-americans who have been reasonably passive

because he is attacking barack obama who has a 52% approval rating in that sense it has been a very good week for hillary clinton. i don't want to exaggerate it, it is still a close race, she still has the advantage, 72% makes sense to me, but that means there is 28% that could go the other way. >> rose: what about this notion that he knows that he did not do well, even though he says he did fine. and his team is preparing him much differently. >> well, that may be. he hates to admit that he didn't do well because that would mean he's a loser. we know what he thinks of loser. he has got a problem in the debates because the next debate is a townhall out in missouri. and it's a lot harder to be on the attack at a townhall because are you taking questions from, you know, ordinary citizens. and, and he i think he showed the other night that he has never been in a one-on-one debate. he dominated those 16 persons and those seven person fields and that that stuff. she has done a lot of one-on-ones including against barack obama.

i don't think he has ever done a townhall like this before. he has to prepare differently than just for say the third debate with the fox news host. for this one. >> rose: all may be preparing differently. >> well, yeah, apparently. >> rose: what do you hear today in terms of what their strategy might be. there is all this talk about whether the hint that at the last debate that he might do a lot of things thathe didn't do because he was a gentleman last time. what he may do this time. >> there is a lot of talk both among trump campaign strategists and also from his surrogates about the hillry clinton and bill clinton of the 1990s. and the way that they are framing it is what hillary clin done-- clinton did to the women accusing bill clinton of wrongdoing is what makes her, you know, unacceptablement but it's a kind of tricky situation to, that they find themselves in. because hillary clinton's approval rating at that time went way up. and she became

immense-- immensely popular in the face of a a lot of adversity. and there is some clear dissengs in the trump campaign about whether this is the right route to go. it is clear that donald trump wants to go down this road. i think he feels most comfortable when he is going on the attack and when he is putting, you know, bill clinton on the defense, on an issue that he thinks is very uncomfortable and decidedly not politically correct. but at the same time, you know, his advisors recognize that it's hard to frame an argument like that against a woman, about her husband's behavior. and i think that's where the concern is. >> rose: he wants to make it an argument about being an enabler. >> yeah. >> rose: but you can't do that without looking like you are attacking. >> absolutely. and the clinton campaign are looking at this situation, and they're sort of smiling to themselves because they know, they have been preparing for this, as we all know for quite some time. i mean from the very beginning, clinton advisors have known that trump would be tempted to go down this road. they were never really sure

whether he would find a way in that wouldn't be sort of, ham handed. but they've been preparing for this and i think they believe that it's easy to make a-- to defend hillary clinton's behavior against someone who actually himself has a long history of infidelity and multiple marriages and so on and so so forth. so i think they feel reaped to go down this road but they also recognize that trump is less likely to do it in a way that is skillful and executed. >> rose: the interesting thing about this too i think, and you both know much more about this than i do is that he has had in a strange way a strong support from the evangelical community. >> he has. they have decided that issues like abortion and gay rights, although he really hasn't said very much about that are more important than personal behavior. i agree with what abby said it is not just the thrice married done alt trump with his check erred history but his two main surrogates have been rudy geu

geul ani and newt gingrich. geul ani's second wife found out hes was tumping on television and newt beginning riff-- i would not send those two people out to talk about marriage. again, charlie, the conventional norms, this is insane. >> rose: but it may not be as. >> talk about the iowa radio host made this point earlier today. he said you have several men who have long histories of infidelity and multiple marriages accusing or attacking a woman for her husband's infidelity. it's just playing into a ey've been trying to run awayt from. and that added to the flap over the miss universe contestant and donald trump shaming her for being overweight. i think for some republicans, they're looking at the situation and they're really ringing their hands. because this is sort of playing

into stereotypes about attacking women that they've been trying to dodge for a long time. and trump is already hurting in the suburbs with women. >> rose: it is a key constituents. unless he gets them, he has limited chances of winning. >> in pennsylvania, colorado, with those suburbs. >> and i think to go to the point you just made, it also detracts from what might be more winning issues for him. the clinton tun daition, even the emails which persist and won't go away. so every time he's going attacking bill clinton for a what now, 18, 19 year old affair, and hillary clinton for sticking by her man which is what the evangelicals used to say you should do. >> rose: or criticizing the women. >> yes. >> rose: then it just seems to me that he is losing an opportunity to talk about things that may. >> you add to that the fact that the los of people thought he did pretty well in the first 15 minutes of the debate. when he was right there, he was in the room with somebody who

had been secretary of state and had been a senator and had been first lady, both of the united states and arkansas. and he was there toe to toe, seeming presidential when he was explaining his policy. and how, why trade had an economic impact and why trade might have been at the source of economic dislocation. >> but trump has an achilles heel and it was demonstrated pretty clearly on the debate stage on monday night. he doesn't like being criticized. that's one of the first things hillary clinton did when she got out there. she criticized him for taking money from his father to start his businesses. and that was the moment that he sort of derailed. he lost his cool. he started to fire back at her for small slights. and that continued and escalated all the way until the very end of the debate when she dropped a well planned attack on him about his comments about miss universe, alicia machado. >> by saying, right.

and he didn't handle any of that well. and so trump can-- if trump can stay disciplined and not go off the rails when he feels like he's being personally slighted, he has a chance of sort of competing with her on the issues. but the problem is that the clinton campaign knows that he doesn't like to be attacked personally. and that's why they plan planted those traps for him. >> rose: tell me about young african-americans. >> well, i mean, it's the same is true of young african-americans as it is, of all millenials overall. they are unthuzzed by hillary clinton. i think they in some ways-- they're only experience with electoral politics has been with barack obama, with the candidate who they feel excited about, who they are mot-- motivated by, who they are inspired by. and she doesn't make them feel that way. and they feel very much like they have to feel that way about someone in order to want to cast a vote for them.

so it's challenging for her to overcome that. and frankly, it may be im-- impossible for her to overcome that. that is where the surrogates come in. but with african-american-- . >> rose: obama, sanders. >> michelle obama. >> rose: best of the group. >> the best of the group. and we saw, you know this eck would, it's really amazing to see a first lady go out and command a rally-size crowd. you know, first ladies are usually in small rooms, they're doing hand to hand sort of campaigning. michelle obama can fill probably a stadium if you wanted her to. and she can command a stadium. that's very unusual. but it's a really powerful tool. and hillary clinton has a lot of challenges with getting african-americans to believe that she is trust worthy. i also think that michelle obama and barack obama play a huge

role in that because their character with african-american voters and right now with 52% approval rating with most americans is fairly unimpeachable. >> rose: thank you for coming. great to you have here. thank you. >> thank you, charlie. >> rose: we'll be right back. stay with us. the battle of aleppo brew even more dire this week. an earlier ceasefire noashted by the u.s. and russia collapsed as assad's forces relaunched an offensive on the rebel-held city. two hospitals were targeted by air strikes early wednesday morning. last week a u.n. aide convoy was hit killing at least 20. analysts estimate close to 200 air strikes pounded aleppo over the weekend. the latest assaults being described as the worst yet in syria's five-area civil war. joining me now is philip gordon of the council on foreign relations, special assistant to the president and white house coordinator for the mid-- mid e8 east from 2013, to 2015. also clarissa ward, a foreign correspondent for cnn, i am pleased to have her from london. and i begin with this question for you, clarissa.

how bad is it and when will it ever stop? >> well, charlie, i can't believe i'm saying this because every time we have this conversation, i say that i don't think it can get any worse. because the situation is already so bad. and yet in the last week we are seeing quite clearly that things on the ground in eastern aleppo, the rebel-held part of the city are, indeed, worse. and that's primarily because the russian and syrian air forces have started to use what appear to be bunker buster bombs. this is a new low even by their standards. previously we had seen them using cluster bombs, those homemade barrel bombs, also incendiary devices but this is the first time we're hearing about these bunker buster bombs. and of course the casualties are high as a result. more than 200 people dead in less than a week. hundreds more injured. half of the casual -- casualties according to save the children are, in fact, minorities. and all of this is happening

against the back drop of a seige that has been ongoing for months. you're talking about now, i spoke to people in aleppo today there is very little left in the market places. just a few vegetables. nothing left in the stores. no gasoline to get around. very little diesel to power generators because, of course, there is no electricity. and as you said this morning, two hospitals and a bakery hit. so the situation is even worse than it was a week ago. and certainly no end in sight, charlie. >> rose: philip, remind some people-- of dress den. >> i remind people of sahr sahr, groz nee t reminded people of the st. louis worst humanitarian situations and atrocities that we have seen for 70 years. >> rose: i don't want to be naive but how can the world stand by and let this happen? >> the wor

the situation of decision makers. okay, what do we do? and if the answer is we respond with equal forgs, we use our own air strikes, you know, we've seen this sort of thing before, escalation, if it leads to counterescalation by them, then your question to clarissa was, could this get worse. it could actually get worse. and thin, you know, its if not aleppo it's iraq or other-- . >> rose: it could get worse in aleppo. it could get worse in other cities that are held by rebels. >> absolutely. aleppo has been the big prize and that is where the russian and syrian focus is right now. but syria is a big country. there were 21 million syrians when the war started. sadly so many of them have been killed or displaced. but aleppo is just one of the battleground cities that are still at stake. and if this goes on, i think

we'll see more seiges and more refugees and more killing. >> rose: so there is nothing to stop the air strikes. >> the reason that the administration and the world, frankly, put so much hope in this ceasefire is frankly because of the dirt of alternatives. because the main alternative to that is just some counterrer escalation. the world has been-- many countries have been supporting the opposition for five years. with arms to try to put pressure on the syrian government and on the russians and iranians to come to the table and have a negotiated solution. we've seen the response to that. it's just more and more force. beyond that, a direct escalation. the united states clearly has the military capacity to stand up to the syrian government and to the russians. but every time i think that policy is put on the table, the president and those involved ask the question, what happens next. if you believe that a response by air strikes from the united states leads the other side to say okay, we now get t let's

come to the table and negotiate, then that's a fine idea and you saved aleppo. if as is more likely, they who are fighting for their lives, literally, respond with more strikes against your side and counter escalation, then you have to go the next step. and where that may well end is the violent overthrow of the regime. you get back to sort of baghdad or libya scenarios, and then possibly millions of refugees of all of those who had been supporting the assad regime that you just stood up to. and that's why that takes it-- that's why there are no easy alternatives and why so much had been invested in this ceasefire which is sadly crumbling. >> rose: let's go back to the russians who are part of the ceasefire. what is it that people that clearly want it to stop. because we've seen the horrifying pictures of children. but what do the people that you know in syria want to see done? >> they would like to see the international community put a stop to the abject horror that they have been living through now for five years. and i understand exactly what

phil gordon was just saying and he raises some very important points. but the reality is that inaction is a form of policy as well. and inaction has consequences as well. and you talked about the refugees that could be unleashed if the assad regime was to be overthrow. we already have a refugee crisis the likes of which we have not seen in decades. the european union has been in danger of unraveling, practically, because of the millions who have been spilling out of that country with the rise now, of course, of these far right wing parties responding to that mass influx of refugees. so the reality is that 70% of the people on the ground inside syria are sunni muslims. they will never, ever accept the regime of bashar al-assad that is not me speaking from a place of personal buys. that is just-- bias, that is the absolute fact and reality. you can talk to anybody on the ground or outside syria who does not support bashar al-assad and they will tell you there is no

going back to how it used to be. there is no putting the genie back in the lamp. so at this stage, that is simply not an option. then you start to look forward. what are the options. and i agree wholeheartedly with what you said about the dangers of escalation. but the air strikes have got to stop. because as long as the air strikes go on, you can be sure that what you are seeing happening on the ground in northern syria is the generation of one of the most dangerous incubators for terrorism and extremism that we have ever seen. and as long as we consider the destruction or defeat of isis to be a major national security priority for the u.s., we cannot continue to ignore, surely, what is happening with the syrian civil war. because the two are inextricably linked. the one is providing, is the giant festering wound, if you like, that is infecting the rest of the body. and it promises or threatens to go way beyond the borders of just syria.

these aren't las vegas rules here. what happens in syria, doesn't stay in syria. >> rose: but are you saying, to make sure i understand, you and i were at a conference and listened to some people talk about this issue with military experience and experience in the region. are you saying that simply the focus has to be on this civil war because the civil war is breeding the terrible things that are happening in aleppo. so u.s. and the world's focus has to be on the civil war and stopping assad because he is the perpetrator of these awful crimes. >> it's a chicken and egg situation. unfortunately, everybody would like to be able to just deal with isis on its own and it's much easier. we just go in there and do some strikes and we don't have to have many troops on the ground and we can rely on our allies. we don't seem to have much in the way of good allies on the rebel side in the syrian civil war. but as you said during this conference, we heard a lot of people saying the same idea, much more experienced than intelligent people than i am,

charlie. you can't solve one problem with out dealing with the other. they are ininextricably linked it is a chicken and egg situation. >> rose: is there a priority to do something about assad right now? >> i don't know if it's a priority. let me say i think clarissa's description of the consequences of what has been done for five years is exactly right. nobody should underplay that at all. the humanitarian first and fore most but also the strategic consequences with the refugees that are destabilizing syria's neighbors. destabilizing europe, fueling sectarianism and fundamentalism around the world. >> rose: pop lism. >> and poplism which is also undermining europe. and terrorism. brussels, paris, san bernardino, all of this in part derives from this horrible sectarian killing and to a degree the perception that you have this iran-backed shia backed dictatorship bombing sunni muslims on a daily basis, horrific consequences. but you started asking me about dress den. some of these parallels are also

important to keep in mind in dress den it was also unacceptable 57bd horrific. so we went to war. and we invaded and occupied and we did whatever it took. and my point in just discussing these alternatives and reminding us why we're still trying to get this sort of ceasefire is i don't think anyone should believe that there is a light option that resolves this problem. we also mentioned-- . >> rose: there is no easy solution and no lightfoot print solution. >> people want to believe that just a couple of air strikes, you sometimes read in the paper a recommendation, let's just hit om airfields or helicopters. again, if you believe that hitting some runways or helicopters or even shooting a plane out of the sky leads assad and russia to come to the table and say all right, we get it now. a transitional government. we'll get rid of assad. the source of the problem with sunnies will never live with him. if you believe that that happens, then let's do that. i think much more likely is you hit some airplanes. and some runways and some

troops. and they who are fighting for their lives then escalate even further, not just in aleppo but some of the other places i talked about but then it's back to you. and where that probably ends is with an escalation whereby we have to stand up to the russians, shoot --an planes, violently overthrow the assad regime. that's how most of these end. it's how i ended in iraq. a no fly zone for more than a decade, sanctions for more than a decade. ultimately it's a problem. >> rose: while hughes ann was in power. >> he was in power and ultimately to the degree he was the problem, just as we define assad was the problem here, we had to innovate and occupy. >> rose: is that the only thing that can bring assad down, that kind of invasion. >> i think close to that. close to that. for the reason i said. there are a lot of people who are backing him simply fighting for their lives. and they are afraid the alternative to him means their end, just as the sunnies that were described-- . >> rose: and the russians will not stand by and let that happen

to assad you assume. >> five years of evidence suggest that they feel they have a very profound interest in avoiding regime-change in damascus. not that they love assad. and i think the russians have told us, and i even believe, they don't have any particular trust for assad and if he were to be gone, that would be fine with them. what they oppose is the united states and allies coming in and overthrowing a regime. the very principle of regime change they hate everywhere. georgia, ukraine, central asia, they worry about it in moscow. they just want to avoid the notion that if people take up arms against their local dictator, then the united states and natdo and the west come ntion and helps them and helps them overthrow, they have a principled thing. but beyond that, i think they believe that the alternative to assad is not the stable moderate government that we would like to see. but jihadism, afghanistan, somalia. and that is why we keep hoping they will help us get rid of them and they keep doing the

opposite. and that's the reality that we have to confront. >> rose: we have no leverage with them, obviously. >> we have some and i think we should use more. >> what would that be. >> the criminal response to not implementsk the ceasefire now should increase pressure on russia. i think they're actually making a mistake even in terms of their own interest. because they are going to provoke even more fundamentalists and even terrorists who will tern their-- turn their sights on russia. they are going to alienate their relations with the arab world which might consider some sanctions and we should consider the same. there needs to be a price for the russians for what they are doing. we offered them an out. this ceasefire was an out for russia. they could avoid at least in the short term regime change. they could protect their interests in syria. they could be seen as a major power in the middle east. they could work with the united states to fight who they consider their enemies, these extremist groups in syria. that was a real out it was not pleasant for us.

nobody here wanted to do that. but they could have to a degree, declared victory. and instead we're seeing them push that away. and then do what they are doing in aleppo. so i do think they need to pay a price for that. >> it only send ends when the russians understand that they are going to pay a price. syria can't hold, the syrian regime can't hold aleppo or all of syria. the rush arnes arnes can bomb ao as long as they want. they are 250,000 people there who will continue to refuse to live under this regime. and the regime doesn't have the man power to hold it. i think they are fighting a lost cause and they need to realize that. >> rose: some are arguing as you know, clarissa, that there was a power vacuum and the russians moved into it and have been there and they have affected what they wanted to do, which is to keep you know someone in power because they hate the idea of-- chaos and they hate the idea of trieblism

too. so back to what the president says. what would come after, is the president right or is there an alternative that would come after that he's not thinking about, clarissa? >> well, let me just get quickly to this idea of what russian-- russia stands to gain in this. because i think you touched on an important point. right now russia has actually, i would argue, relatively little to lose in this gambit it is costk a fair amount of money, fair enough. it's not costing them a huge amount in terms of casuals-- casualties or loss of life because st primarily from the air it is giving a lot more leverage on the diplomatic field. they don't care. russia does not care, believe me, about the u.s. naming and shaming them in the united nations and elsewhere and on the world stage. and when you talk phil gordon about russia having to understand that it will eventually pay the price, i'm just curious as to what that price is. because i think right now russia does not feel that it has any price to pay.

and because when we talk about the u.s. diplomatic he efforts, while well-intentioned, if there isn't something underlying that diplomatic effort, if there isn't some major leverage most often would be probably the threat of force, at least on some level, then essentially what you are talking about is u.s. diplomatics asking the russians really, really nicely to please help them out. and every senior western diplomat that i have spoken to srt of behind closed doors has said that they feel that they are being asked to perform miracles with their arms tied behind their backs. >> because they go to the russians and they say all of this and the russians don't care. the russians are pursuing their own national interests. and relatively little cost to them. and there is not very much that i don't see that the u.s. can do with the status quoa in order to make a difference. now in terms of what the president has said about what, you know, what the future would be. again, if you had private conversations, charlie, and i

know you know this better than most, with white house officials, with former administration officials, they will tell you that there is an enormous amount of pressure on the president at the moment. there has been a cabbing av knee of criticism-- criticism about the lack of a robust syria policy on behalf of this white house administration. there is a strong feeling among many that president obama will continue to be haunted by this for decades to come. but the response of the white house in the face of this kind of oppressive pressure while it may be not so much in the public arena, more in the or the sort of elite circles of washington, that pressure is there, and the response has been not to say maybe we made a mistake and we should reassess this, but to actually say we're going to double down on this, this is the best decision we ever made, and that is our story and we're sticking to it. >> two things. on the russians, i agree there should be more, and i would like to see more. but it's not a walk in the park for russia. there is the financial cost.

there is the risk which i think is almost a certainty that they will be pro-- provoking terrorist threats against russia. they did a similar thing in aleppo against groz nee. they might feel like they got a handle on it. but that provoked some vicious terrorist retaliation against russia. and i think they should probably be prepared to see the same. like i said, they're alienating relations with a lot of countries in the region and in europe. you know, there are significant financial sanctions on russia over ukraine. there is little prospect-- . >> rose: which is still in place. >> which is till in place, which is hurting the russian economy which is already hurting significantly because of low oil prices. and which is hard to imagine even though syria is not ukraine, if the russians were some what constructive in syria, i think you would see some european countries saying you know what, they are being helpful here. we can work with them, let's move forward and have a more positive relationship. under this circumstances it is not going to happen. and they will continue to feel the scwez and i think in the long run they can't accomplish their goals either.

that is why there has always been some hopes that they come back to the ceasefire which is really the only way forward for thiment. in terms of the president's reluctance to use force and-- . >> rose: because he says he doesn't know what is going to happen, he doesn't want to be bogged down in a gawg mier, been there done that. >> been there done that. i just want to underscore the threat of force, you have to then be able-- not be able, you have to be willing to use. people often want to get away with just calling for the threat of force. that's fine. the threat is not going to get it done. you are going to have to be willing to actually do it and take it, just one reminder, we mention all the parallels. think about libya. in libya we also wanted to use leverage and threats in order to get qaddafi to stop doing similarly horrific things and ultimately to leave. so we did a no fly zone, provided aid to the opposition, made threats and kept trying to get him out. how did that end? it ultimately ended with seven months of war, massive nato bombing and the violent overthrow of the regime. so i think it's a perfectly legitimate argument to say this

is so important, so catastrophic, we should be willing to do that. i think that's legitimate. what i have a problem is is the suggestion that we actually dnt need to do the big and hard things but we'll threaten a bit of force or a bit more leverage or a couple of air strikes. i think that doesn't get it done. >> rose: it can be nothing but depressed, thank you, philip. thank you clarissa, great to see you. >> thank you. >> rose: back in a moment, stay with us. reid hoffman is here, one of silicon valley's most respected and safiest investors. in 2002 he could founded linkedin, the social networking site for career-minded professionals. in june microsoft announced plans to acquire linkedin for more than $26 billion. the deal is expected to close later this year. hoffman is a partner at graylock, the venture capitol firm has backed some of tech's biggest successes over the last

decade. including bets on facebook, dropbox and airbnb. he's also taken a public stand on the presidential election, has pledged to donate up to $5 million to veterans, if donald trump releases his tax returns. i'm pleased to have reid hoffman back at this table. we8 come. >> thank you. >> rose: let's just take what is in the introduction first of all and talk about the donald trump and the bet. >> yeah. >> rose: you want him to release his tax returns. if he does, you will give five million dollars to. >> veterans organization. >> rose: right. >> we thought that -- >> rose: go ahead. >> so there is this guy named pete keernan, a young marine vet from iraq who launched this campaign on the site called crowd pack which is we as people who put our life on the line deserve transparency in our presidential candidates. i looked at this and i thought it was brilliant it was the right alignment of people who have demonstrated the deepest public service. together with, well, you want to be a public servant. you should be transparent, right. so i said this is great.

i approximate going to 5x match this and frankly, by the way, you know, one of the things i would be happy to say, i will do the five million, doesn't have to be a match. i will do the five million if donald trump releases his full income taxes the way that presidential candidates should. and the reason is, is because we have a right as a people to know who are the people who would o would want to be our leader. >> rose: are there documents that say something different than they say. >> exactly. the income taxes don't lie or if they do you are in big trouble with the irs. ates in the did he bait kickf it off, one, two, three, four. you have something to hide, are you not as rich as you think are you. or you say you are. you don't give as much to charity as you say you do. all those kinds of things. >> well, i think it was-- it's appalling. i think it could be-- i think it could be he's not as rich as he

says he is. so he wants to say i'm a really, really successful businessman and yet he's not. who knows. he hasn't really said. could be he is gaming his taxes. like he claimed he was smart because he doesn't pay taxes. it's like no, no, we are american citizens. we have a duty to our country. we are proud about being americans. you only pay the taxes that you owe, but paying, not paying taxes isn't smart. >> rose: it is also not smart if you want the votes of working men and women who can't hire fancy tax experts and lawyers and all kinds much people to come in and mib miez-- minimize everything at every step. >> exactly. and it's like, be proud to be an american. be part of the country. that's what is critical. and then is he as philanthropic as he claims he is. you can look at the trump foundation. hasn't given money to that in years, his own money. who knows how he gets other people to give money, that is odd. >> rose: are you simply against donald trump or strongly in favor of hillary clinton? >> i'm strngly in favor of hillary clinton. i actually think one of 9 best

lines is she says i prepared for the debate. i prepared to be president. i think that's a good thing. she has great rating as secretary of state, great ratings as senator. a lot of experience as first lady. she is probably the most prepared candidate in american history for knowing the the skits are in the job. and the john requires skills, that is the point. >> rose: you should know and i know you do that there are people who can argue about the accomplishments of the obama administration which she was part of during the four years that she was secretary of state. there are argues about what they achieved or didn't achieve or could they achieve more. >> look, i think you can always achieve more. part of what we do in silicon valley is we always think of how we learn and you can always do more. you have to remember that the administration started with this disastrous iraq war which was handed to them, a financial crisis, a bunch of other things. you say it isn't just like an artificial thing. given these crises, how well did you do. i think the administration did very well given those crises. >> rose: but do you understand

too, you don't have to be for donald trump or against donald trump to appreciate. there are a lot of people who a get part of this system that works for you doesn't work for them. there are a lot of people where you are familiar with. >> yup. >> they are hurts. >> very much. >> rose: somebody come as long and says nobody has fixed it for me. nobody has made it better for me. i'm open to a new argument. >> i think that say great thing. look, i think we as leaders have failed them. we should be doing much better to give them a future that they are included in. and this is one of the things actually, a bunch of my friends and i think about how do we create technologies that enable better middle class jobs, better economic inclusion. what are the things we do in order to do that. i mean obviously linked in is part of my thing which is helping people understand how to invest in themselves. how to figure out, how to connect to opportunity. that being said, i understand the anger. and i understand the look, you guys say this globalization, this immigration that helps us. >> doesn't help me.

>> rose: doesn't help me. >> my factor where i worked for for 30 years just moved away from here. >> yup. and i can't get a job. >> and so db. >> and i'm 55 years old. >> as americans we should work on that. >> right. >> i think it's worked. it ought to require the best brains beyond washington too. that is the point. >> i hundred percent agree. and literally, i hundred percent agree and i think hillary is the right choice to fix that. i think trump asserts, i will fix it. no policies. no background on doing it. you know, a slogan does not fix a serious problem. >> it will fix it but it will change tax structure but he also will fix it by funnishing the chinese so that they won't have an unfair trade advantage. >> yeah, there may be ways to negotiate the china trade arrangement, that may be pornlt thing to do. i think trump's history of how he does business with other folks leaves a long wreckage of nonfunctioning relationships. we want a functioning relationship with china. so. >> rose: the largest economy

and growing. >> that is good for the rust belt. how to negotiate it well, that requires skills. that is the reason why someone who has been doing it is important. >> rose: unless you get the chinese to build factories in america, that is what we have to do. >> that might be. jees build factories here, that may well be upon. >> rose: a moment of humor, what is this. trumped up cards. a game, democracy isn't. you can buy it in your local game store. >> actually just online. trumped up cards.com. well, you know, online, internet guy. i have this idea of making this comparison card game like apples-to-apples, cards against humanity. in january, and i made it initially for frepsd. that was the deck i gave you. and then we had so many people laughing out loud and thinking it was actually informational, that we said all right, we should make a public version. a version that is actually, in fact, that everyone can get. and we of course made it in the appropriate trump gold. and so the thought is you can play with your friends and you

can think about what is the selection. what does it mean that a reality television star is running for president. and how do you think about that. >> rose: all right. >> let me turn to your company, linked in. you sold it to microsoft or are you trying to deal to sell it to microsoft for 26 billion. how long ago 12k you form the company? >> well, so almost 15 years. you know, late 2002 was when we started working on it. it has been a labor of love. like all labors of love,-- . >> rose: at what a place was facebook at that time? >> facebook in 2002 hadn't been started yet. >> rose: had not been. >> had not been founded yet. hadn't even. >> mark was not at harvard. >> he either just got to harvard. >> rose: so you started linkedin before facebook was a reality. >> yes, that's right. back at that time it was like friendster which probably most people don't remember. >> rose: yeah, right. and so you decided that this was-- what online needed was a place that a lot of people of a

similar sort of interest in terms of their professional lives. >> yes. >> rose: could communicate with each other. >> yes. so the thought was is that part of what the internet changes, we all have our identities online. having your professional identity online can make a difference for what kind of jobs you can find. what kind of economic opportunities, what kind of learning opportunities. the best way to improve a system is enable people to help each other. so for example, i'm connected to you and you say hey, do you know rose: over 430 million.sendy.d >> yes. >> rose: facebook has about 1.3 billion or something like that. >> yes, yeah, and it may even be bigger than that, who knows. >> rose: and where can it go? what is the possibility of linkedin? >> so we hope to enable every professional. what we mean by professional is someone who can learn better skills at their job. it's not like lawyers and doctors. it's actually everyone. it could be a coffee store manager. it could be anybody, able to

change their economic tra jectory, to be able to make a better of themselves in terms of what kinds of economics they make, what kind of jobs. >> rose: by connecting to other people who may have ideas or connections. >> ideas, information, connections for business, learning opportunities. any thing that allows to you invest in yourself and have a better economic outcome. >> rose: why did you sell it? >> well, we both jeff and i, jeff weiner, the c.e.o., we both lead the same way, we are in service to the milings. how do we enable our members to have the best possible, you know, experience of investing in themselves. and it was a long very thought out decision and we said well, actually in fact, combining with microsoft, microsoft's primary mission is making orgs productive. ours is making individuals productive. microsoft cares about individuals, we care about organizations, they are collections of individuals. so we thought actually in fact 1 plus one here can be much greater than two. is it five, is it ten. and that way we can add in our

missions which are the missions are essentially friends. the missions are collaborators. and this could help us reach our missions. there are a ton of people who use microsoft products, productively every day. maybe we can be underlie office. underlie windows, underlie, like there are things question do to make it more helpful. >> when you looked around and said big five, they seemed like the best fit. >> yeah. in order to get to, for our mission. >> rose: for your mission. >> for our mission, help individuals with their best possible economic opportunities. help them be more productive. those are the things that we care about at linked in. look, we're perfectly happy with people being entertained, pr fekly happy with people kind of having a public discores on funny cat pictures or anything else. that's great. that should be part of people's lives. it's awesome. that's not what we do. what we do is we help you get to the best possible ways of doing your job or the best possible-- . >> rose: has it been an

acceleration of growth in the last several years? or has it just simply been. >> it has been a light acceleration but a light acceleration of big numbers. >> rose: so the mass is heavy and therefore. >> exactly. but you know, you know, it took us 468 days to get to our first million members. and now we are over 430. >> rose: let me take about the other things going on out there. there is much talked about twitter. i hope are you not on the board of twitter. >> i'm not. >> rose: i don't nope you are not but you might not be able to talk about it if you are on the board. who is going to buy it? there is a talk that, you know. >> have i no inside information on it. >> rose: disney is shall. >> i have read about disney and the press. >> rose: sales force. >> i have read about sales force and the press. sales force because of twitter as a place where a lot of people express dissatisfaction in customer service and maybe the customer service cloud of sales force might be integrated.

that is the speculation. i think given that twitter is really about the conversation of what is happening right now, customer service being a small part, that would be kind of a surprising acquisition from my point of view. disney also, i'm not sure. obviously with sports and everything else and wanting to strengthen online, but twitter is about now. twitter is about like okay, what's happening right now. what is the conversation right now. and it does a really good job of that. so when i look at kind of the speculation of the possible buyers, it confuses me a little bit. and i don't know i literally have not talked to jack. >> rose: jack dorse. >> yeah. >> talk about virtual reality. >> so there have been many cycles where people describe virtual reality as the next big thing. >> right. >> and we're in another one of them. each time-- virtual reality is better. if people haven't checked out virtual reality, they should. it's now to the point of well science fiction, maybe we will take our classes for our visd

kidses, maybe that will be in virtual reality. maybe discussions and conferences maybe the charlie rose show will be in virtual reality. you know, so i think there is a lot of pros pefnlgt i think before we really see those kinds of science fiction futures we'll begin to see more mass market adoption of either a movie thing or entertainment thing. and i think where the technology is definitely good enough for it, are we there yet? we're maybe there three years. >> rose: you mean maybe they would film a movie in virtual reality. >> the way that you would actually show up to experience a movie. >> rose: and just i'm sure we have demonstrated on this program and i'm sure everybody that watches this knows about it, if you were watching a movie that had been made for virtual reality, would you feel like you were on the set. >> exactly. >> rose: you feel like you are there. >> you would be sitting at this table if they were filming this in virtual reality. >> exactly. >> rose: you could look at him, look at me, feel all of that. >> yeah. now each individual, like when we all have probably the same t you would actually be ae not, character in the movie.

>> rose: yeah, exactly. >> that would actually be the way you would experience that. and i think we are certainly going to see it. and the only question is when, is it three years s st five years, is itself enyears, is it ten years. tbd. >> rose: to be determined. >> yeah. artificial intelligence. which i'm enormously interested in. >> yup. >> rose: give us the lay of the land. give us a sense of why everybody, whether it's facebook or whether it's google or whether it's anybody. >> yup. >> rose: wants to do it, ibm. >> yup. >> rose: they're all sitting there and making it. and people like bridgewater and people like all big investment companies are saying, you know, they're building funds to invest in virtual reality. >> or artificial intelligence. >> rose: i misspoke. i meant ard figure intelligence with. >> maybe virtual reality ones but-- . >> rose: and it is already here. >> it's here. rrs give me the. >> so most of the techniques

being used for these amazing results whether it's becoming the world champion of go which was alpha go done by deep mind from google. whether it's these great result ntion radiology and being able to read cancer charts, better than the vast majority of the doctors. whether it's the ability to do self-driving cars. all of these things, the techniques are-- they have evolved some but there actually hasn't been a game-changing new algorithm. what has in fact been is the cloud. and a lot of cpus and a lot of data. and then you can use techniques that have been developed over the last few decades and you can use them on a much bigger scale. that is essentially what has created the new current ai revolution. and what it allows, the way to think about it is decisions that human beings can do in a second, can now be through large data sets trained through these massive server farms in the cloud, can now be done by commuter-- computers. so it can be class if i kaition of images, parsing of language,

driving, cuz you know when are you driving you decide to go left or right, stop, brake, those are all decisions under a second. all of that class if i kaition comes to this essentially these deep learning networks. which allow the program through integration of multiple human life sometimes of data because that is part of how the computer does is in just so much data it actually can mow make decisions in that under second thing like humans and that std revolution that we are seeing. it is going to go everything from self-driving to medical, to parsing language, to i mean literally, i mean, the sky is the limit. >> rose: and watson or ibm says they have simply compiled all the literature there, all the books, they have put that in the brain of watson. >> yes. and actually the modern technique. >> but man put the material in the brain of watson and then in combination man, woman, watson performed theetion remarkable

feats of providing essential information to understand disease. >> yes. the watson work on the disease stuff, radiology, the early one is all great. and actually in fact, you can take all these libraries, all the books are electronicment you can ingest all of them. but the p is how important the revolution. is not only are there going to be large companies like google, microsoft, ibm building ai programs. part of what is happening in the cloud, rights, amazon web services, microsoft, google cloud s they are all going to be offering these ai techniques. to their customers to say come bring your data, bring your applications and we will provide ai services to make that a lot better. that is how broad these set of artificial intelligence techniques apply. so some app developer can actually use its services on

like, for example, microsoft azu re or google cloud. and that's going to be, it's unlocking human creativity across almost every demand. >> to, and what it can do is simply figure out, because of all gorility ims that it has in the development of the app, it can figure out how to analyze all this information. >> yes. >> rose: this' been checked by these different companies for different reasons. >> yes. >> and there is this basically what happens is they are class fiers. it is this an a or a b. or should i go left or should i go right. it's kind of making these class if i kaitions decisions. and there is what is known as supervised learning and unsupervised learning. for teaching these class fies. superviezers are is a human goes in and says here are the cases when you should decide, this is an a. and this is when you decide is if not an a. unsuperviezed gives it this very product kind of like, a simple example is like a robot, i want

to you move from this side of the warehouse to that side of the warehouse. and i'm not going to teach you how to move. i'm not going to teach you how to walk, how to roll, how to hop. i'm simply going to give you a score with a gps locater, moving towards the right thing. so as you move. and then the robot will learn to sometimes, most of them learn to walk. some of them learn to roll. some of them learn to hop. and you keep doing that. that is unsuperviezed learning where you are not actually teaching it the actual specifics other than giving it a very high scorl. >> rose: it teaches it self. >> yes. >> rose: it teaches itself by doing what? >> by trial and error, gi. >> so what happens is these ai algorithms are smart enough that they build essentially subgoaling class fiers. they realize that oh, actually in fact, when i moved my leg this way, my score of getting closer to my end goal went better. so that's good. so now i'm teaching myself how to walk. how do i learn to do that better so that now i can walk? right. that's the kind of thing that is

the magic of what we are seeing with these algorithms and modern artificial intelligence. >> that is part of what deep mind does and other people as well. >> yup. microsoft, facebook, those are some of the giants in artificial intelligence. >> this is unsuperviezed. >> yes. >> development of what they call general intelligence. >> yes. well, no one has built general intelligence yet, to be very clear. that is a goal for some of these. they all have kind of different-- facebook tends to focus a lot on class if i kaition of images, languages, et cetera, microsoft tends to focus on productivity, on how do you make humans more productsive and google tends to apply this tow moon shot, sci-fi, all ga go and these others. if is all by the nature of the character of the company. >> rose: for more about this program and earlier episodes visit us online at pbs.org and charl yea rose.com.

#r 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.

>> announc: t "nightly with tyler ma and sue herera. dramatic selloff. stocks slid sharply on concerns about the health of a major bank. but it's not a u.s. bank. this one is german. deadly commuter crash. it happened during the morning rush at a major new york area transit hub. now the focus is on a high tech safety system that trains are not yet required to have. slowing down. homebuyers retreated in august. high prices and few choices may be to blame. those stories and more tonight on "nightly busine f. good evening, everyone, and welcome. drama in the markets today. a quiet morning didn't stay that way. a couple of hours into