rose: welcome to the program. we begin with the cbs news evening news with scott pelley's story with the latest on the shooting at the fort lauderdale airport. >> a gunman opened fire early this afternoon at a baggage claim area at fort lauderdale international airport. 13 people were hit, at least five have died. >> rose: we continue with adam schiff, democratic congressman from california, ranking democrat on the house intelligence committee. >> what the president was trying to convey is that, after his conversation, the russians didn't escalate further in the sense that they didn't make use of their efforts to hack into state voter registration systems to monkey around on election date. i don't think it necessarily means that they've stopped their cyber operations or that they're somehow deterred, and i think

the president was right to take steps within the last couple of weeks to bring about sanctions and to expel diplomats. but, again, i think we need to do much more. >> rose: we continue with the ongoing story of russian hacking and american political elections with michael sheer of the "new york times" and david ignatius of "the washington post." >> the arguments that james clapper of national intelligence and others are making is the russians conducted political covert action intended to intervene in and destabilize american politics in this presidential election. whether they succeeded in that or not, i think to most observers and analysts, secondary to the fact that they tried to do it and the danger that poses, that doesn't really seem to connect with trump, at least in terms of the initial comments he's making. it's really more about him, this doesn't diminish my success, my victory. >> rose: and we conclude with

jeffrey goldberg, editor and chief of the atlantic. >> we have a new president coming in who does not conform to any known school of foreign policy or national security thought. there's no think tank in washington that one would say, oh, that's where his ideas come from. i mean, his ideas come from his immediate experience of reading and assimilating the news and putting out on twitter his reaction to that news. >> rose: cbs report on the shooting deaths in fort lauderdale plus adam schiff, michael sheer, david ignatius and jeffrey goldberg. join us. >> rose: funding for "charlie rose" has been provided by the following:

>> and by bloomberg, a provider of multimedia news and information services worldwide. captioning sponsored by rose communications from our studios in new york city, this is charlie rose. this cell phone video captures the moments after shots rang out at terminal number two in the fort lauderdale international airport, baggage claim area. a lone gunman opened fire on passengers leaving five dead and eight injured. >> paramedics, lower level inside, we have a subject with gunshots to the head. >> some of the wounded found shelter outside while they waited for help. hundreds more ran for safety on the tarmac and airport rows, taking shelter against cars and buildings. >> everybody took off.

they said a shooter. is eyewitness was ten feet away from the gunman. >> he walked into the door and just started shooting. we thought at first it was fire crackers then realized it was oneshots and by that time people were yelling and screaming and trying to hide under chairs or luggage to get out of the line of fire. >> i heard a lady yell for help and then i heard the shots and ran. >> the shooter is 25-year-old esteban santiago from alaska, authorities say he was carrying a military i.d. he laid the gun down and laid down to be arrested. the gunman was a passenger on an incoming flight. retrieved his baggage, walked into an airport restroom, loaded the gun and returned and opened fire. >> we have the shooter in custody. he's unharmed, no law

enforcement fired any shots. the subject is being interviewed by a team of f.b.i. agents and broward sheriff's office homicide detectives. >> rose: we begin this evening with the ongoing conflict between president-elect donald trump and american intelligence agencies about russian hacking in the united states. its motivation and consequences. president-elect trump was briefed this afternoon in new york by the director of national intelligence, the director of the c.i.a., the director of the f.b.i. and the head of the n.s.a. the subject was russian hacking and other issues. upon that meeting, u.s. intelligence agencies in washington released a report that concluded that president putin of russia ordered an influence campaign in 2016 aimed at the presidential election. after the meeting in new york, president trump released a statement acknowledging the possibility that russia had hacked american targets including the democratic national committee. joining me from washington is

representative adam schiff, the democrat from california and ranking democrat on the house intelligence committee. he is a member of the gang of 8 consisting of democratic and republican leaders and intelligence committee members briefed privately by the same group that saw president-elect trump earlier today here in new york. pleased to have congressman schiff back on this program we should begin by talking about who exactly is the gang of eight. >> the gang of eight are the top leadership in the house and the senate, nancy pelosi, senator schumer, the share and ranking in house intelligence and senate intelligence committees. >> rose: you are there because you are the minority member to have the intelligence committee. >> exactly. >> rose: what is your assessment about where we are between the question of how much hacking there was and for what purpose? >> well, i think this report is about the best documented finding on a major conclusion that i've seen if the ten years

i have been on the intelligence committee, and if this doesn't persuade donald trump, then i don't think anything will. so the conclusions of the committee reached are well sourced. i think they are well thought out and the report is very carefully written. but what this demonstrates and the public disclosures today people need to understand are incredibly unprecedented in very specifically tying this to a decision of vladimir putin, not only that there is an intent to sow discord in an election but to tear down secretary clinton in an aspiration of help donald trump. those are the conclusions. in the report, there's a broader effort not only to influence things in the united states through the media trolls and media platforms, through other covert measures, but in europe as well, and that congress on a bipartisan basis needs to be able to work with this new

president to develop a comprehensive approach to push back against these operations both here and in europe. >> rose: that's part of senator mccain's hearings as well at the armed services committee, is it not? >> it is, and i think senator mccain, many democrats like myself want to work together on building a sanctions package, but that's only one piece of it. that's an important part of the deterrence, an important part of the response to what russia has already done. but there is really an attack on liberal democracy around the world. there's an effort by putin to tear them down, to, by contrast, show that the western democracies aren't any better than the autocratic form of government in russia, to extend russian influence in very malignant ways and that calls for a very broad, comprehensive pushback by the u.s. and our allies. >> rose: why do you think donald trump is not totally

accepting the reports of these intelligence agencies? >> well, you know, it's very hard to say. it could be a variety of reasons. it could be as simple as the fact that he feels this undermines either the magnitude of his victory or the legitimacy of his victory. what he needs to understand is the election is over, we all accept that, but, nonetheless, this is what happened and we can't ignore it and unless we are willing to accept what took place, it's hard to fashion a response not only to deter the russians but to make sure it doesn't happen again. i thinketh very difficult for him to even accept the premise. to me it's not unlike his invention of millions of illegal immigrants voting because he couldn't accept the fact of losing the popular vote. i think these are not unrelated phenomenon. >> rose: in a statement released after the briefing with the intelligence chiefs, here is what he said in a statement release. "there was absolutely no effect on the outcome of the election

including the fact there was no tampering whatsoever with the voting machines." are you in agreement of that? >> i am in strong disagreement. this is not the subject of the briefing or supported by the report. it is true there was no tampering with the voting machines tore the counting of the votes. it is not the same thing as saying there was no effect on the outcome of th the election. the daily dumping of harmful information about secretary clinton had an effect and made possible by the russian cyber operation. it clearly hand influence. whether it was determinative or not, we'll never know, and that is not something the intelligence agencies should speculate about. but we can't ignore the fact it was influential, and that was the russian design. >> rose: is it accurate to say most people believe that it was not sufficient to overturn the election? >> you know, i think the reality

is, in an election this close where 80,000 or 100,000 votes divided between three states could spell the difference between one candidate or another, there are many things that may have had a consequential impact, certainly this is one of them. director comey's decisions were another. the decision to campaign where the candidates did was another. the way the candidates handled certain issues was another. any one of these factors in a close election can have a determinative impact. >> rose: can you tell us anything about an intelligence report that said russian officials celebrated trump's victory? >> you know, i can't go into anything that goes beyond the four corners of the public report, but, look, i think there were certainly images on television of celebrations in the duma. so i don't think there is any question this was the outcome the russians wanted, it was the outcome ultimately the russians got and they would be crazy not to be thrilled with it. >> rose: does the intelligence

suggest there was a direct link to vladimir putin or is it more in the manner the president expressed in his press conference that little happens in russia without vladimir putin's approval? >> you know, unfortunately, i can't go into the specifics in terms of evidence, but i don't think the intelligence community says as it did in this report with high confidence that this was directed by vladimir putin by a matter of mere inference, though i have to say the inference is very strong here. as the president said, putin runs this country -- and by "this country" i mean russia -- he does wit a firm hand, there is not a lot of freelancing, of something this significance, it's unimaginable this would not come at his direction. >> rose: can you tell us anything about the fact that trump demanded via twitter that a congressional investigation of leaks to "the washington post" and nbc yesterday of an intel report that says russian

officials celebrated -- i'm sorry, the point i wanted to ask was asking that the chairs of the senate and house committees investigate top secret intelligence shared with nbc prior to trump seeing it. >> well, what leapt out at me about this is, after learning about the most consequential cyber operation in history, this is what he wants investigated? he wants the pre-release of information to nbc investigated? i think there are a lot of things that warrant our top attention and right now i think that ought to be placed on getting to the full bottom of what russia did and developing an appropriate response. >> rose: where does it go from here? >> the intelligence committees. we are charged with the responsibility of building on the report, flushing out the details of what took place, coming up with a comprehensive response and how to avoid this

kind of successful russian operation in the future, that's where we'll go, and i think we'll continue to make information public as we can without revealing sources and methods, i hope we'll make public what our response will be, because what we've done need to be viewed just as the first steps. >> rose: clapper said u.s. spy agencies stand actually more resolutely behind conclusions they reached last year on russia's determination to undermine the u.s. election. is that our i don't know personal opinion, too? you see more conclusive evidence than you had seen last year in october, i think it was. >> absolutely. you know, senator feinstein and i were confident enough that we acted even before the intelligence community to disclose russians were hacking and attempting to influence our elections. but week by week, month by month, the evidence has only grown, and i think that has really cemented the conviction that the russians did exactly

what the report lays out. >> rose: will you have hearings coming soon as mccain is having hearings at the armed services committee? >> we will and we will have hearings very soon in closed session. it is my hope and expectation we'll also have hearings in open session. gether as a joint inquiry justg like after 9/11. the magnitude of what happened here warrants us working together and avoids the duplication of effort by having different committees in house will allow us to have a same unified response and conclusion and report, so i hope that's what we do, but if we need to do it separately, that's what we will do. >> rose: the president said in a public statement that after he saw vladimir putin personally in a g20 meeting in china -- i think, and you can correct me on that -- putin stopped -- there

have been fewer or no efforts that they have seen of russian hacking. >> well, i think what the president was trying to convey is that, after his conversation, the russians didn't escalate further in the sense that they didn't make use of their efforts to hack into state voter registration systems to monkey around on election date. i don't think it necessarily means that they stopped their cyber operations or that they are somehow deterred, and i think the president was right to take steps within the last couple of weeks to bring about sanctions and to expel diplomats. but aghin, i think we need to do much more. >> rose: in fact, i was going to point that out. you said i think the steps the president took recently are important but should only be viewed as a first step. what are additional steps that could be taken other than sanctions? >> i think that what we have to look at is how did the russians do what they did in our elections, how have they

influenced european elections, and they've done this through a variety of means, some involving social media, others involving the bribery of officials, the support of extremest parties in europe, sometimes the propagation of fake news, and we need to develop a response to each and every aspect of this russian covert influence operation. we need to do it certainly for our own security, but we also need to do it for the security of our allies, so we ought to be working in concert with our allies, we ought to be working in a bipartisan fashion here with our new president to develop this approach, and this is how it needs to go way beyond mere sanctions. >> rose: what is it that you think president-elect trump wants to achieve in a relationship with the russians and is this tied to the controversy and his response to

the hacking? >> i think there's an aspect of the president-elect that if you're with him, say nice things about him, he's not going to bite the hand that feeds him, and the hand that fed him during the campaign was the russian hand, so i think he's very reluctant to cross them, i think for the same reason he's been complimentary of julian assange, the wikileaks platform was helpful to him, so he goes on to criticize our intelligence agencies. this is part of the problem. beyond that, he clearly wants to work with the russians in counterterrorism operations. >> rose: senator lindsey graham says i criticize the obama administration for its response to the russian attack, say the white house lobbied mere pebbles in retaliation for the interference. he said, when it comes to interfering with our elections, we better be ready to throw rocks. you would agree with that? >> i would certainly agree that what we've done so far is just a

step, that we're going to have to be much stronger in pushing back against the russians. you know, the whole history with putin is that the only thing he really respects is a strong response. anything else, he views as an open door, and i think he did view an open door in terms of hacking in the u.s. and not paying much of a price. i think, frankly, and i said this at the time, we needed to have a stronger response when north carolina hacked in and attacked one of our companies, and i think people pay attention to the kind of responses we have, and unless we do push back hard, they invite further intervention. so we do need to be tougher, and i think this is why we need a president-elect to work with us. >> rose: congressman schiff, thank you so much for joining us. >> thanks, charlie. >> rose: adam schiff, ranking democrat on the house intelligence committee. we also invited senator mccain uth carolina, anotherraham from

republican. they couldn't come this time. we hope they'll come back soon. back in a moment. stay with us. leased a declassified report that says russian president vapt ordered an influence campaign aimed at the u.s. presidential election and in what may be a shift president-elect trump seem to have acknowledged the possibility in a statement soon after he received a classified version of the same report. mr. trump continues to say if there was hacking it did not affect the elections outcome. joining me is michael sheer to have the "new york times" and david ignatius of "the washington post." michael, you met some "times" people, i think by telephone, talked to trump. what was his demeanor, attitude, sense of talking about this meeting that was going to take place today and the ongoing controversy between him, his advisors, and the intelligence community in washington?

>> well, i had a brief conversation with him. it was on the phone. it was about 10 minutes. i initially talked to him about some comments that had been made on his behalf about building the ball on the border with mexico, but i quickly asked him about whether or not he was eying around looked forward to the meeting with the intelligence officials that was happening later in the day, and, really, like, once i asked that first question, it just sort of all spilled out. he was very eager to talk about it, very eager to say repeatedly how much he felt like the motivation behind all of this discussion and focus on russian hacking was really what he called several times during the conversation a political witch hunt. you know, he said he respects intelligence people but really kept coming back to this idea of motivation, that was what he really wanted to talk about. >> rose: david, you know the intelligence committee, they

have now had their meeting with donald trump. he said it was constructive but didn't seem to indicate he changed his mind. do you know more than that? >> i don't, charlie. all we have at this hour is the initial readout of the meeting. the tone was slightly milder than in his comments to michael earlier in the day, but it's clear that he is still fundamentally rejecting the breadth of the argument that's being made by the intelligence chiefs, and he doesn't seem to understand that the argument they're making isn't about the outcome of the election. he was quick in his comments after the meeting to say that there was no evidence that the outcome was affected, in other words that his victory was diminished. the arguments that james clapper, the director of national intelligence, and other

cheefers are making is the russians conducted a covert action intended to intervene and destabilize american politics in this presidential election. whether they succeeded in that or not, you think to most observers and analysts, secondary to the fact they tried to do it and the danger that poses, that doesn't really seem to connect with trump, at least in terms of the initial comments he's making. it's really more about him. this doesn't diminish my success, my victory. >> rose: but we don't know why. why is he refusing to accept it when he is assured no one is questioning his election? >> i think, charlie, that's one of the fundamental mysteries of this. after his election victory, donald trump had an opportunity to really pave the way toward inauguration, toward being the

kind of president who could lead the country, initially seemed by his statements and cabinet choices to want to do that. then he got in this increasingly sharp dispute with the intelligence agencies that will serve him when he's president. there really is no part of our government that works more closely with the white house than the intelligence community. he belittled them, he called their findings ridiculous, he was dismissive in all sorts of ways. why he's done that is hard to understand. i just would make one final point -- each time he's been pushed on this, he doubles down. he draws the circle even tighter, as in his remarks to michael sheer this morning about the political witch hunt nature, as he sees this. >> rose: go ahead, michael. can i just add, i think what david said is right. i think one of the things that struck me in talking to him today is my initial question to

him about the upcoming meeting was really focused on the meeting with these four or more individuals, these intelligence initials and what he -- officials and what he expected and was he looking forward to it and h he broadened it to much more than the intelligence community, but really this whole national and global conversation that we're having about his election and the validity of it and kind of the attacks that russia made against it, and i think it reflects a sense, from his perspective, that, you know, we may be interpret hg this as an attack just on the intense community, and clearly there were things said specifically directed against them, but for him i think there is a broader sense of feeling he has to push back against the entire conversation that he really feels delegitimizes his election in some to kellyanne conway and

others who are around him, two questions -- one, what would it take for him to be convinced that the russians did in fact attempt or hacked and for whatever purpose they hacked and, secondly, what is his relationship with russia? does he have any interest, any reason to believe, because of a future effort to use russia as a leverage against somebody else, whatever it is, something that he sees down the road, that he does not want to get into some accusatory mode with the russians. i get no satisfactory answers to those two questions. david? >> i think you're posing the right questions. through the campaign, one of the striking features of trump's

presentation was this desire to improve relations with putin. putin, you know, says nice things about me, i'm going to say nice things about him, this at a type of deepening confrontation between the united states and russia, at a time when the obama administration, not known for being all that hawkish, was getting increasingly strident in its comments, when russian warplanes were buzzing u.s. ships in the baltic and in the black sea, and all this time trump is talking about how he wants a friendly relationship with russia. so there's a russiaphylic theme that's been going on for months and i think that's the issue thathat has concerned people. this kind of covert action, if you believe what our intelligence agencies are arguing, is a pretty aggressive move. it's what states do to destabilize each other, and trump as the president-elect

ought to be taking that seriously in his preparation to be commande commander-in-chief. this is what commanders-in-chief have to worry about. if that's the biggest puzzle for the intense community, why is he so ready to defend russia, ready to side with russia's friends and allies, even saying seemingly nice things about julian assange, the head of wikileaks, who was dismissive of the idea these hacks were russian orchestrated. it's just all, to observers, seemed peculiar, and the question is, obviously, what kind of policies toward russia will he adopt as president. >> rose: where will he shift, from where to where? >> i think it's possible over the next couple of weeks we'll find now that he has the briefing he becomes more accepting of the notion. at least as david said he's not going to accept the election results were changed by any of

this, but there were at least a few signs today if that statement that maybe he's a little bit more willing to accept at least the conclusion that russia was involved in the hacking. >> rose: director clapper said, david -- you did a piece about him -- but director clapper said there's a difference between skepticism and disparagement, i think he said. >> he said that yesterday in his congressional testimony. for your viewers, jim clapper is an interesting figure. he's been an intelligence officer for more than 50 years. he's a kind of gruff, sometimes grumpy old guy. he tells everybody he talks to that he's sick of doing his job. he keeps a clock in his office that tells him just how many seconds he has left till he gets out of there, so this is not somebody whose going to be intimidated by donald trump, owes him anything, wants anything from him. i would have loved to have been a fly on the wall of that room,

as clapper looked into trump's eyes and just basically said -- >> rose: the russians did it. well, here's the facts, this is what we know. according to "the washington post" story this morning, one of the things we know, we had intercepts of senior russian officials june yently calculating each other on their suction with trump's election. did they brief him on sensitive details? did they tell him other things we don't know about? obviously, none of that is clear, but it must have been a remarkable meeting. if trump begins to change his line as michael suggested he may be doing, that certainly would be sensible in terms of his political position because he's got a growing number of republicans, starting with senator mccain and senator lindsey graham, who are really upset about the kinds of things eh's been saying -- he's been

saying. so to preserve his republican base, he needed to make some changes. >> rose: in other words, they believe he's soft on russia? >> i think people have been a little mystified. you know, this is a generation that's grown up thinking of russia, the russian intelligence service as an adversary of the united states and here's evidence that's so, and here's the president-elect seeming to minimize their activities to say that, you know, good was achieved by publicizing the d.n.c. e-mails, et cetera. so if trump is now trying to speak to those concerns, that's probably politically a sensible move. >> rose: my sense is he must have been getting information. he'd been getting briefs from the -- not trump himself, but flynn has been getting -- his national security advisor -- has

been getting briefed for the last two weeks or however long since his appointment and i'm sure information must have been conveyed, and what you have now is the report now prepared for the president is now prepared for the president-elect. >> right. i think there is certainly more information than you and i or your viewers have been privy to. i think this report was much more comprehensive and detailed about the actual methods and things, as david noted the "post" story about the intercepts, these details may not have been provided to the president till yesterday and the president-elect till today. keep in mind there is one other pressurepoint coming up, next week the hearings for mr. trump's appointments start in earnest on capitol hill, five years ago in one day next week including rex tillerson the secretary of state nominee, so there is an incentive for the president-elect and his team to try and move past some of these

questions to the extent they can. obviously they're going to come up, senator mccain and graham will bring these questions up, but to the extent donald trump can say, hey, i dealt with this, met with these guys, i've sort of moved on, that's going to be helpful in terms of the hearing process. to the extent he can't move on or the controversy is still swirling, it's just going to inflame those hearings more. >> rose: exactly what is the conclusion, david, that the russians did? what do have we know from either private sources or public testimony yesterday with respect to there is no dissent from the idea or is there at all from any intelligence agency that there was hacking of the d.n.c. and podesta and whatever else they may know they have not disclosed, correct? >> i believe all of the agencies including the f.b.i. are now in agreement that there was a russian attempt to intervene in

the u.s. presidential election, and there's now also agreement that the intent of that intervention was to hurt hillary clinton's campaign, the russians, vladimir putin in particular, think that hillary clinton has been a strident adversary of theirs, to hurt her, and by implication to benefit trump. one thing that came out in yesterday's hearing which had not been said as clearly was that, in addition to the hacking that's been so widely reported -- the hacking of john podesta, the campaign chairman's e-mails, the hacking of the democratic national committee -- there were other activities. there was the generation of fake news, there was other disinformation, deception activity, they have not specified that in public. maybe that will come out next week. so yesterday's hearings told us this was a broader campaign even than we had known from the

previous statements that have been made by the intelligence committee. >> rose: michael, what do we know from what other intelligence agencies believe, whether from europe or anywhere else, about what the russians were doing? >> well, look, i don't cover intelligence. david would know the specifics a lot better than i. i do know that there has been a kind of global concern over the past several years that russia has expressed interest and shown a willingness to do these kinds of activities, not only in the united states, but in other places, too, right, in other places where they have interests throughout europe and eastern europe and other examples in which, you know, intelligence agencies have traced the kind of meddling directly back to russia and russian government or intelligence sources, and, so, that is -- when you think about, for example, the kerns senator

graham and senator mccain hav, it extends more broadly to a concern about russia's ambitions globally, not just here in the united states, and that for us is the most critical. >> if i could add briefly to what michael said, i think, again, that's something that trump hasn't seemed in his previous statements to have recognized. the activities that took place in the u.s. last year are part of a broad russian political action effort that has been conducted in particular in europe. in a column this morning, i quoted the head of the german intelligence service and the head of the french information security agency as talking about russian hacking and other efforts to destabilize politics in germany and france as they approach elections there with

the same intent, it seems, to disorient and undermine those western democracies, key allies of the united states. so in the view of all of these intelligence chiefs, not just clapper and the americans, but their counterparts in europe, something is going on in which the russians aggressively are going after western democracies. >> rose: david ignatius, thank you. michael, thank you. >> sure, happy to do it. >> rose: we'll be right back. stay with us. >> rose: jeffrey goldberg is here. in october, he became the atlantic's 14th top effort since its -- editor since its founding. just a few weeks ago donald trump was elected president, or as goldberg said, the world's biggest story just dropped in our lap. this month the magazine featured a piece by ta-nehisi coats about

the obama legacy. jeffrey goldberg joins me from washington. welcome. >> thank you, charlie. >> rose: you've talked a lot about president obama's legacy. tell me about the moment you think we are in as we shift from an obama presidency to a trump presidency. >> it is a copout to say we're in a wholly original moment, not only on foreign policy, obviously, but i feel -- i mean, you know, i don't want to reduce this to cliches right away. i want to wait five minutes, but, you know, it's the uncharted territory sort of thing i have been feeling lately, especially with the news of this week. you know, the notion that the intelligence community, to a person, seems to be behind the idea that russia actively tried to sway our elections here.

and we're in a zone of unreality. to put that aside, we're also in a zone of unreality, or at least novel experience, because we have a new president, a president coming in, who does not conform to any known school of foreign policy or national security thought. i mean, there's no think tank in washington that one would say, oh, that's where his ideas come from. i mean, his ideas come from his meet experience -- immediate experience of reading, assimilating the news and putting out on twitter his reaction to that news. that seems to be where it's coming from. people always joke with me, when are you going to write the trump doctrine, and i say it wouldn't be a long piece right now because i'm not sure donald trump has an understanding of the world that you can call a

doctrine. i mean, the one thing you could add to that is he does seem to have putin being the most obvious example, he does seem to have a feeling on behalf -- a feeling for strong leaders, and define "strong leader" however you like. there doesn't seem to be a great amount of sympathy for traditional ideas about democracy promotion or the spread of freedom or the idea of america being a shining city on a hill. >> rose: what would you say if someone asked you what are the principal influences on his international thinking? >> well, i would go back to this idea he is fundamentally jacksonian in his responses to the world, the jacksonian-american response was, i think, developed by walter russell mead, the political scientist. the jacksonian response has sort of two main components, named after andrew jackson, obviously,

pugnacious president of a bigone era. the first component is an anti-imperialist notion, not really interested in engagement in the world, in a lot of ways you could call it veering toward isolation i'm a little bit. the second component is the part where it says, if you mess with the united states, we will come and kill you. so it's not ice lanessist in the sense that it doesn't believe in military force, it actually believes in kind of crushing military force, and that's when, you know, you see two pieces of this. one is when donald trump says we're not going to rebuild the middle east, we're not going to do this or that, you can see it where we're going to build a wall, a wall is a physical manifestation of let's keep the world at bay, but you see the second half of the jacksonian idea, you see it when he talks about crushing or annihilating i.s.i.s. right away, right?

you can see it when he says -- when he suspects china of getting the better of us on trade and basically threatening all-out trade war with china, right from the get-go, in order to assert that. so it's a kind of leave us alone, quasi isolationism, and also a kind of chip on the shoulder don't mess with us or we'll come and hurt you, and then we're not going to occupy your country and make it better, we're just going to hurt you and come home and we hope that you learn that lesson. i mean, these are the outlines of it, at least, as far as i can tell. >> rose: i agree with you, i mean, from where i sit. today, in the financial times, there's a piece by martin wolf who writes primarily about economics, but he says can a divided west hold on to global power? i mean, the question is are there now divisions within the west that are significant, and

the question i assume many have argued is obviously one of vladimir putin's objectives is to expand russian influence and to do that by dividing the west. >> well, what does putin need in order to do that? he needs an america that is not emotionally gripped by the tails of plucky eastern europeans who are trying to escape the russian bear. you know, he needs an america that's disengaged from the drama of ukraine, of the threat to moldova, of believing that the independence of the baltic states is a core national moral interest of the united states. the things he wants to put back together require the united states to be neutralized in terms of its interest in that. part of that will be difficult because we have n.a.t.o. treaty obligations to a large number of these states, but you can be an

enthusiastic pro-n.a.t.o. president or a president who acknowledgeds n.a.t.o. exists but not be that into it, shall we say. >> rose: what's also interesting, too, is vladimir putin says russia's relationship with the united states is at an all-time low. is that the view of the obama administration you have chronicled? >> i don't think so. i think that would be an overstatement, obviously, on putin's part. i think -- you know, the vertigo-inducing quality of these last months has been the following. remember, in 2012, people around president obama, obama partisans, were mocking mitt romney for calling russia the most serious threat to the united states. i mean, you know, mitt romney can go take a victory lap on that one, by the way. now you have a situation in which president obama, the president woo said we're -- who

said we're shedding these cold war paradigms about the way the world is organized, he is the counter puncher now against russian maligning attempts to influence our election and maligne attempts to reorganize europe, and the incoming republican president is what you might call in the soft on russia camp, at least so far, which has split the republicans in a very interesting way, right, because one associates the republican party with that kind of let's doubt the kremlin mode of thinking. so everything's upside down. >> rose: left over from the cold war. >> left over from the cold war. and also it's not just the left over. i mean, the republicans were more exercised about what putin did. they dismembered ukraine. he dismembered a member state of the united nations, remember, and the obama administration was -- they made the right

noises concerning that but they didn't take as much of an effort to stop that as a lot of republicans wanted them do. >> rose: the president has his farewell address coming up. part of it will be taking note of the things i think he will describe in personal terms his journey and how his journey has come and he identified it with an american journey and how that journey put him eight years in the white house and what he dreamed of and what he believes he accomplished. it also probably will include some admonishment of what he worries about for the future of the country, not for a political party. what might that be? >> on the domestic front? >> rose: i don't know, you know him better than i do. >> well, i don't know him well. i would say one of the interesting questions to me is how much -- how far will he go down a road in admitting that the vision he laid out for

america, not a red or blue america, but one united america, how much of that is gone with the wind. >> rose: and how much does he take responsibility for? >> well, right. it's one thing to acknowledge that this phenomenon did not happen. it's another thing to say i should have done more. i don't think in that second half, i don't think he's going to come out and say, yeah, if i had only tried harder to unit americans together, it would have worked a lot better. i think he probably says to himself something close to the opposite which is i came into office thinking i could actually work with these guys, but when someone like mitch mcconnell, for instance, says the goal is to thwart the president at every turn, he eventually -- you will have to wait for the book, obviously, for these chapters

that you call "the education of barack obama," but there were various tipping points along the way where he said, you know what, it's a nice campaign vision, but it's not going to happen. but, you know, there obviously are a lot of people including democrats who blame him for not trying harder, certainly in congress, not trying to play the politics of washington and try to befriend republicans and all that sort of thing. >> rose: doris kerns was here last night and we had a discussion about presidential leadership and whether the shaping influences of his life made it less likely that he would be good at creating, you know, in terms of the leadership trait, less good, in terms of the leadership traits of being able to get people to do something that they did not necessarily want to do. i mean, that's one definition of leadership. >> right. >> rose: and not that he didn't want to, and not that he didn't try, but he failed in

part for whatever reason. >> well, no, but, i mean, there's an interesting point in that which is that he believes that enlightened self-interest combined with reason will lead people to certain obvious conclusions about the way the government should be organized, about the way the world should be organized, and he doesn't have a great deal of patience for people he deems to be illogical or overly emotional, right? it's famous inside the white house, you know, where he talks about how his favorite countries are the scandinavian countries, they're leaders. they don't ask for much, they don't emote, they just kind of get the business done and if every country could be like a scannescandinavian country, thed would be a better place. and i think people have noticed he has an impatience for people who he judges are not as smart

as he is, and since he's very smart and since he knows and believes he's very, very smart, that doesn't actually work so well when you're talking to people in congress and trying to get them to bend in your direction. >> rose: well, the other interesting point to make is, in a sense, too, the president thinks about a lot of things. i think he thinks a lot about what he did or did not do and syria comes to the same conclusion each time, but he thinks a lot about it because he knows it's out there and knows people believe this might have been different if he had made different decisions and he has to live with that because to have the tragedy of syria. >> right. >> rose: and so he will sometimes say things like, you know, i wish i had the intelligence of -- you know, i had the skill of f.d.r. and the skill of winston churchill, i wish i had all those skills, maybe i could have done something different, but i didn't. >> yeah. >> rose: but no one else has

those skills either. >> yeah, you set up a straw president in a kind of way. >> rose: yeah. i believe him when he says that. i also believe that this is a president who came into office with a very, very definitive idea of what he was not going to do, and that was to invade an arab country and get into a full-blown shooting war inside an arab country. >> rose: you said this to john dickerson on "face the nation," the story is of the outs coming in and the ins going out. the story is trying to explain to the american people what's happened to their two main parties and the deeper story, i don't want to forget this, you say, the deeper story's globalization and technological disruption and anxiety born of rapid destabilizing change, the fragility of institutions, all of that, is there an undergirding of the larger more immediate story which is how donald trump became president of the united states and what does

it mean for not only the way america understands itself but the way the world understands america. >> it is a lot of words. >> rose: it is a lot of words, but that was on live television, so there you go. >> but the point is you're right. you're right. >> rose: so, therefore, the question is, what's the responsibility and how does journalism exercise that responsibility? >> well, that's the $64,000 question there. you know, one of the things, i think -- just my own opinion here, and i'm a novice editor -- but one of the things that we have to do is not -- not -- a, not doubt the importance of what we do and also not doubt the importance of a fact-based discourse. >> rose: right. you know, and not to sort of go into this kind of

post-modernist everything's fake, everything's just a narrative anyway, your facts don't align with my facts and that's okay, you know, i think there's empirical reality we have to describe and we have to keep describing it. i always say the cheap shots are useless, but hard shots, hard, justified shots are worth taking. so we have to do that. you know, we're in a different position. we are a magazine with a huge web site that is there to not y to explain it ande news but to contextualize it, and what you can do is you can go deeper and explain, you know, what is the anxiety or a desire for a wall between the u.s. and mexico is borne out of a fear of degloballization and a fear of destabilize ago workforce already destabilized by technical disruption, right? so we have to go deeper into that and help people understand

these deeper anxieties, anxieties sometimes people are only experiencing subconsciously. so i think it's a big responsibility and i think it's a big job, but things are changing so fast. you know, these questions about whether, you know, the role of social media and the role of instantaneous news, and this leveling of what was once a news delivery hierarchy, you know, how does that affect democracy? there are enormous questions that go well beyond just the daily question about what is trump tweeting today or what did the russians said or these sorts of things. there are huge shifts in the plates underneath this plat we're trying to get at. >> rose: you always have a seat at this table and i thank you for taking time on a friday afternoon. >> i appreciate you, charlie. thank you very much. >> rose: jeff goldberg from

"the atlantic." thank you for joining us. see you next time. for more about this program and earlier episodes, visit us online at pbs.org and charlierose.com.

this is "nightly business report." funded in part by hss. >> our guiding principles are patients first. >> the goal of creating and sustaining value is all about putting the patient at the center of the equation. >> the purpose of this organization is to help people get back to what they need and love to do. >> three for three. the dow, nasdaq and s&p 500 all hit new highsut