>> charlie: welcome to the program. tonight hillary clinton talks about her new book called "what happened." she tells us what happened in 2016 in the loss to donald trump. join us. >> you felt their anger and that's a very big difference. >> charlie: but their anger game from pain. >> no. >> charlie: you don't think so? >> look, the average voter for trump in the primary was making $72,000. people were making a lot less suffering more actually ended up largely voting for me if you take both whites and non-white voters. in exit polls people asked who they voted for if they cared about the economy they voted for me but if you cared about immigration and terrorism you

voted for trump. it wasn't resentment but grievance and anger. i am not somebody who wants to foment anger. he relishes it. what he said in alabama a few days ago about black athletes it just got hoots and hollers and standing ovation. >> charlie: part one of our conversation with hillary clinton next. >> rose: funding for "charlie rose" has been provided by the following: bank of america. life better connected. >> 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. >> charlie: hillary clinton is here. she was, as you know, the democrat party's nominee for president in the 2016 election and served as first lady, center from new york and secretary of state and received more votes than any other candidate in history except to donald trump and she reflects on the 2016 campaign in her new book. it is called "what happened," appropriately titled. i'm please to have her back. welcome. >> it's good to be here. >> charlie: first of all, it's a runaway best-seller. the fastest selling non-fiction book. one reviewer said it's a funny account in the aftermath and a

post mortem where she's coroner and corpse and a feminist manifester and a rant against james comey and vladamir putin and james b. comey and thumping of trump and if you add up the time in golf, twitter and others what's left. i know you've been reviewing this a lot of on the book tour. 9:00 p.m., election night. you thought you were going to win. >> i did. the first returns that came in were not what we thought from florida and north carolina but we knew that those would be challenging states. we still felt good about everything we knew about the states to come to get to the

electoral college majority and it went down hill from there. it was a shocking, devastating evening. i write in great detail about it. because i wasn't prepared for that. >> charlie: you had a victory speech but not a concession speech and i had to reach out to those who my opponent really stirred up against me because i thought it was important to be the president for everybody and that's what i was looking forward to do. >> charlie: you found out it wasn't going well. you chose not to go speak that night and come back the next morning. >> right. >> charlie: and you tried to speak to the idea that your heart was smashed. your soul was smashed. you must have felt -- how would you characterize it? >> well, i was still in shock but i was devastated.

once it became clear the electoral college was going the other way. i had to do several things which i did and described. i had to call donald trump, which was something that i can barely remember. i had to reconstruct it. it was surreal and he was unprepared. i had to call president obama and tell him how sorry i was because i knew there would be a great effort under a new administration, the other party to undo much of what he had accomplished and then i had to work on a speech. i wasn't prepared to go out until i'd gotten all that done and by then it was 1:30, 2:00 in the morning. we had to find a place to

deliver a concession speech which my stalwart band of people did and i showed up and delivered it the next morning. >> charlie: richard cohen reminded me of this, the fox knows many things and the hedgehog knows one big thing. is that sort of what happened here? >> i think if you look at it, we -- certainly i, thought i was running a campaign about many things but it turned out in part because of coverage based on my mistake with the e-mails and because of intervention of other forces, it turned out to be one thing about my short comings and the attacks on me and in my view, phony attacks on me. i thought i was speaking about and i have in the book analyses

which proves i was talking about jobs more than anybody else and if you cared about the economy you voted for me. all of that. but if you do a word cloud that was done, it was all about e-mails for me. i thought i was done in that in july and came back 12 days before the election. >> charlie: so you go back to chappaqua and walk in the woods. >> i did. >> charlie: cried a lot? >> not cried so much. i really worked through over a weeks not days the disappointment i felt of letting people down. and trump would turn out to be a better president than his campaign suggested, in may view has not. and i did various things. i spent time with family, friends, walked in the woods the other day in the book signings and i met a lady i met there in

the woods on a jaunt. it was a lot of time reflecting and it was only through that process that i thought everybody's asking these questions and has their own theories about what happened. i want to know what happened. i want to the best of my ability really explore that, the role i played, my shortcomings and all these outside forces and i started writing the book which was very painful. i would literally write something and go lie down. >> charlie: what was painful? what they said about you or rejected you before you or understanding what people believed about you? >> well, all the above. but what was painful was sitting down and trying to sort through it. there was no point in trying to avoid what the facts were but

also to be clear i was looking for evidence. there was a lot of anecdotal evidence and about what caused and what could have been done differently. i wanted to sort it out and get to the bottom of it and see how i felt about it. >> charlie: that's why people call it raw and going to the bone. it was self-critical. >> i was. >> charlie: you were going to contain the fury but let the unless -- analysis in full flight. >> i tried. i say here's what i did wrong and i'm not going to be a candidate again so if you're you are learn from my mistakes. there's institutional obstacles that exist whether it's suppressing voters or sexism and here's one huge problem that is

a combination of a reality tv campaign, the role the russians played, things that had never happened before so we weren't prepared. now we have to be prepared. in fact, i think my losing helped prepare the dutch, the french and the germans to defend themselves against some of the same forces. >> charlie: the macron came out and another after that. and you're debating it all and letting it all hang out. you had done some of that before in terms of deciding whether you would run for president. you knew that was fatigue and that you'd been around before and so people maybe tired of you. you knew there was a pressed attitude perhaps and you knew you would have to face that but believe you could overcome it. >> and here's why. when i hold a job i get high

approval ratings and i come out of the state department with 69% in one of the polls. because people saw me representing our country and working for the president and thought i'd done a good job so i knew all the other factors would come to bear but i believed it was good to say, look, we're going to build on the progress we made. i'm not barack obama but i appreciate what he did to save the economy and health care and so much else. but i have ideas of my own i'm going to throw in the mix. we're going to run a vigorous campaign. we're going to be reaching out to peach -- people and look, i did get more votes as you said in the introduction and things happened especially at the end that now more analysts are paying attention to. they're saying, yeah, was it economic anxiety or cultural

well it was both and trump fomented a lot of culturaling left hand i believe his support were the dog whistles. the controversy he was a lead and the attack on immigrants and me mexicans the very first day of his campaign and a steady drumbeat. i have in the book an example. after the convention we go on a bus tour through ohio and we're highlighting jobs. i've done this before. i did it with my husband and when i ran for the senate. and we were getting very positive feedback from people talking to guys working on the floor of a factor and the like. but it was also at the same time trump was attacking the khan family, the family of the

gold-star muslim soldier. it blocked out. if you were reading the philadelphia inquirer, maybe you saw an interview of a guy who heard me speak and said i like what she's saying but if you were looking at any other outlet, it was attack the muslims, attack the family, insult them. that was the constant drumbeat. >> charlie: he sucked all the air and attention. >> but he did it by literally causing people to go oh, my gosh did you see what he said or what he did. he called it undoing political correctness. >> charlie: if somebody said it's about greed and guilt and more do you at all feel sorry for yourself? >> no, not a bit. i've had a great life. i was privileged to run for president. i was honored to be the nominee

of the democratic party. obviously i wished i figured out how to combat some of the factors at the end. >> charlie: do you feel you figured out if you had to do it again you con combat these circumstances? >> one thing for sure -- and i spend a whole chapter on russia is sound the alert. they singlucceeded in hurting md they're not going away. they're going to come back in every way they can to undermine our democracy, to subvert our election and at some point we need the whole country, regardless of partisanship to say, no, we're going to take a hard look at what's happening at these voting machines and at the state level. we can't let this go on. do i wish i'd understood more at

the time -- >> charlie: would have you called president obama and say you got to speak out on this. you didn't do that. >> i didn't know. i only knew what was in the public arena. >> charlie: this is washington post. they thought about how to respond to the trump campaign without making matters worse. after the surprise victory some of the obama aides looked back with regret and wished they'd had done more. certainly you do too. >> in the book i try to be very clear. i understood the predicament they faced and in part they faced it because mitch mcconnell forced them into that predicament. >> charlie: you're saying the president understand the challenge. >> that's right. he understand the challenge but also thought i was going to win

and had his own sources of information in philadelphia and gave me a hug and said you got this. i'm so proud of you. he thought i was going to win like i thought i was going to win and part of what weighed on him is mcconnell's threat after congress was briefed by what the russians were doing and saying if you raise that, we're going to say it's partisan. he didn't want to inject partisanship into a national security issue. >> charlie: and he thought i was going to win. >> and in retrospect we now see, a lot of the people in the white house at the time now it had a big effect and i would point to what happened up france. because the french were put on notice by our election there was an open discussion. we're not going to let the russians win. >> charlie: they had to meet it head on and voters knew it. the paper is a good example of the more things change the more

they stay the same. health care bill fails. white house expands travel ban expanding to eight countries. it's still with us. >> it's like a pinball machine. it comes at you from all direction. what you just read is just over one weekend of tweets and actions and reactions. i'm very concerned about the way the president is stoking these attacks against black athletes. while at the same time puerto rico and the virgin islands are in a catastrophic people.

>> charlie: you called for the navy to help support the haitians. >> there's a ship down there. >> charlie: back to the campaign. did you feel you did have a campaign and understood meme people out there that lost faith in government but you didn't communicate what you believed. >> i did not do a good enough job in capturing the emotion and recognizing the anger. i knew it was there. honestly, everybody talked about it. i believed people didn't want to just hear slogans but say this is what we're doing to do. >> charlie: what did his campaign do that you didn't? >> i think he understood reality

tv. >> charlie: reality tv? >> and paying and doing things that broke the fourth wall. things people couldn't turn away from. he understood with his past experience with the burser nonsense there was a core constituency for that and stirred things up and i go in the book the calculations that he must have gone through, how many people have to vote in the republican primary and how many do i need to get there and they need to respond. >> charlie: he knew immigration was a crucial issue. >> he knew -- it was more anti-immigration and zeroing in on people starting with the mexicans, obviously, going from there. so he was very adept. and then we got on the stage with those 16 republican nominee candidates. he was so insulting to them.

the attacked them personally. they were amazed and unsure about what to do and when they tried to respond they could never out bully the biggest bully on the stage. so they were not successful and then when he won he got reinforcement from other republicans who had other things they wanted to accomplish. >> charlie: then in his conviction we heard "lock her up." >> yeah, and "only i can fix it" and other authoritarian rhetoric. it was aimed at inciting the most visceral emotions. it made a lot of people feel like he understood them. he provided them scape goats. he felt their anger and that's a big difference.

>> charlie: but their anger came from pain. >> no. you know the average -- >> charlie: you don't think so? >> the average voter for trump in the primary was making $72,000. people making a lot loss who were suffering a lot more actually ended up largely voting for me if you take both whites and non-white voters. in exit polls if people were asked if you care about the economy who did you vote for? the majority said they voted for me. if you cared about immigration and terrorism you voted for trump. it wasn't resentment. it was grievance. it was anger. and i am not somebody who wants to foment anger. i think it's a dangerous thing to do. he relishes it. what he said in alabama a few days ago about black athletes. it just got hoots and hollers and standing ovation.

>> charlie: it appeals to his constituency. >> he gets who he's trying to reach. >> charlie: would you use the word deplorable. >> i said in the book a lot of whatever he said is deplorable. >> charlie: it's not smart politics to condemn the people who vote for the candidate. >> i regretted giving him that gift but i don't think that's why i lost. and i don't think it's why i ended up in the challenge i was in at the end of the campaign. >> charlie: did you feel you lost primarily because of sexism? >> no. >> charlie: you didn't say that? >> no. i think it hurt me and i think it's proved sexism and misogyny are endemic in our society and i

write a whole chapter on being a woman in politics and there's evidence that's come to light about how people -- when i say people i mean it's predominantly republicans, more men than women reluctant to even imagine a woman president. i think it has a role and it wasn't just me. >> charlie: but the country is ready to elect a woman as president. >> i hope so. >> charlie: do you believe in your heart having seen and done what you have done in your public life and seeing the progress we have made on so many fronts this this country is ready to elect a woman as president? >> well, think the evidence -- >> charlie: it's hard for you to say yes. >> look at what they're trying to do to camela harris and kirstin ferrebrand. they lift their heads up -- >> charlie: you feel except for a letter from james comey you'd

be in the white house. >> i do. >> charlie: so the country was ready james comey didn't. >> with a lot of experience and ideas. i was ready to be president. >> charlie: and president obama said the most qualified person to ever run for president. >> let's not separate out what happened at the end. >> you had the capacity to transcend whatever sexism you felt by winning the popular vote. >> i came a really long way. i'm hoping we have a woman i can vote for soon. >> charlie: are you saying -- because i want to get this straight because it's really an important point. you feel it's at the center of our consciousness. >> i do. >> charlie: except for james comey you feel you would have won. do you have that proof that a woman can't be elected who's had everything said about her and

can rise above all the problems we've talked about, all the baggage we've talked about to be elected president of the united states. >> i wouldn't have ran if i didn't believe it or worked as hard as i did. >> charlie: do you believe it now? >> i do believe it now. i believe trump has unleashed a backlash of overt sexism that is really going to make the atmosphere even more charged. any woman who wants to run for president has to go in with her eyes open. that's why i wrote the chapter. the things he said to his only woman opponent and things he said in the republican primary. when you are subject to those kinds of constant attacks, leave

the floor, senator warren, nevertheless she persisted, don't ask tough questions. >> charlie: did you experience that yourself? you were a senator. >> i did not. >> charlie: so you were a woman in the senate and didn't experience it but you're saying it's post-trump? >> it's different from going to the senate the house and governorship to being president. there's something so charged about that position in our country. and what i saw happened is that people were saying things about women in general, about me specifically, that were really out of bounds. off limits. i couldn't believe some of the stuff being said. i remember very well when at one of his town halls center mccain was asked a pretty racist question about senator obama and

he shut that woman done. we had a candidate surrounded by people saying vial things about women, me in particular. we had a convention filled with such kinds of comments. he kind of threw up the odds i was okay to say and do these things. >> charlie: do you think he gave cover to white supremacists and neo-nazis. >> he goes after black athletes standing up for what they believe by their protest. >> charlie: that they should be fired -- >> calls them s.o.b.s. he doesn't do that to white supremacists, neo-nazis. he's very strategic about who he attacks and he is sending a message. it's a huge, loud, dog whistle to his supporters.

we're still on the same wave length. >> charlie: i did an interview with steve bannon and he said we don't want them. they're such a small part of us and we don't want them and want their support and denouncing them. >> he's so full of it. breitbart, if you go back to the headlines they were running when he was running it, they're outrageous. look, maybe he now wants to put on a good face because what he's trying to do is build up support outside of the white house for not only trump but their larger agenda. look what they're doing with health care. it's a fraud. it is so cool that they are trying to force republicans to vote because part of what broo t breitbart is doing for trump so be the enforcer. he wants to make sure trump has quote, loyal republicans to further his agenda.

>> charlie: he acknowledge but right now in an alabama senate race they're on opposite sides. >> except when trump went allegedly for strange and said but he'd be fine with moore. it was a half-hearted endorsement. they want those folks. >> charlie: tell me how you see the divide in america today. >> look, i think there's always been a dark under belly of american politics as lyndon johnson said we lost the south for a generation. it's obviously longer than that. there's always been a pushback to expanding the circle of rights and opportunities for african american, for women. >> charlie: we have had a steady

stream of successes. >> but they engendered the block back we're seeing now that trump artfully has played upon. a lot of the new media, the down side of all the decentralization of media are the things that can be said on the internet and out west only small groups of people would say to themselves. when trump started retweeting from white supremacist sites they went from a couple hundred vurd viewers to thousand. when somebody running for president is given the okay. david duke said he was essential to furthering our agenda. >> charlie: he was in charlottesville. >> i think it's a dance they're doing. they serve several masters.

they serve these unfortunate throw-back views. but they also serve financial masters who want to use the government to further their own ends whether it's a tax system that gives them everything they want or a health care system that ends medicaid. >> charlie: speaking of that, how much damage do you believe, didn't you write about this too, these questions bring out what i read in the book -- >> thank you. >> charlie: how much damage did bernie sanders do, a, because of incessant attacks on you in the primaries and yet at the same time when the general election came was not there in the way you wanted him there. and not the way you said you were there for obama. >> i think that's undeniable.

>> charlie: did you confront him and say i need you. it's me or donald trump. it's time to stand up and get moving. >> a lot of people who supported him never came around. i worked really hard not just to endorse then-senator obama but convince my supporters. i was still arguing with my supporters in denver to make sure they got out and voted for then-senator obama. i know the difference between -- >> charlie: why didn't he do it? >> you'd have to ask him. his attacks on me which i finally said name one example of anything you're talking about. you just keep reiterating these attacks and of course he couldn't. democrats rejected him. i beat him by nearly 4 million votes. >> charlie: he's not a democrat. >> he's not a democrat and that's not a slam on him but democrats were more comfortable

with and supportive of what i was saying and coming from. but his attacks did feed into the whole line of attack that trump adopted against me. >> charlie: do you believe president trump has any redeeming quality? >> as a leader i haven't seen any. as a leader he says things he never fog through on and was never going to touch medicaid when john mccain stood up and voted against it and was going to vote for something better. i don't think he cares that much about policy. i don't think he studies it. he says things but has no intention to following up on. as a leader i see someone who's divisive. >> charlie: how about as a human being and person of value. >> well, every person has value. there's no doubt about that. >> charlie: so what is his value? >> as a said in one of his

debates. >> charlie: he's a good family person. >> well, he certainly supports his family. yes, that's true. >> charlie: do you believe he's a racist? >> i can't look in his heart but i think a lot of what he said and has done and the charlottesville experience was chilling. he certainly has given aid and comfort to those who are. >> charlie: do you think he's a misogynist? >> absolutely. the things he says about women and objectifies women and only interested in how they look and how they serve him and we saw on the tape confessions of sexual assault. >> charlie: do you believe he's sexist? >> i do. here's what i'm most worried about. i believe he has a very deep fascination for authoritarians and in particular putin. i think he not only likes putin.

i think he would like to be like putin. >> charlie: in what way? >> in the way he sees putin as this macho guy who basically gets to do whatever he wants to do in his country. and i don't think as trump himself has said understood the complexity of governing and trying to bring people together but i don't think he values democracy. >> charlie: he doesn't value democracy? >> no. >> charlie: he's not a democrat little d. >> he's a top-down guy. >> charlie: he's authoritarian? >> well -- >> charlie: so he's no different than putin. >> well, he hasn't ordered the killing of journalists and the like but what i'm concerned with is how he turned a blind eye to russia's attack on us. >> charlie: why do you think that is? >> i think he had financial en

tanglements with russia. >> charlie: do you think you would have won the election without the russian interference? >> i think the russian interference certainly influenced voters. we only now have information as you saw from the front page of the washington post. i can't know the role. >> charlie: they believed you were going to win and wanted to damage you and thought you were going to win. >> charlie, having a foreign adversary. they're not going away. >> charlie: why do you think he hasn't spoken to it? >> it helps him today. >> charlie: it's the eighth month into his presidency. >> i think he has connections

with them. >> charlie: what kind of connections. >> i think financial. >> charlie: this is you looking at every possible thing there is. >> i think he has entanglements with russia and the oligarchs. i think other allegations -- >> charlie: do you have reason to believe the dossier? >> certain things of it have been proven to be accurate. >> charlie: but you definitely believe putin has something on donald trump? >> either he has something on donald trump or trump things putin helped him so much he's not going turn on putin. either one is horrifying. >> charlie: i would not believe the latter so much. he's not just being nice to him because he think he helped him. the stakes are too high i would think. >> they know enough to know that putin helped him and why would they bite the hand that they think fed them by putting out false information, by

weaponizing information, by having pose as americans who were russians with fake demonstrations. you had russians acting like americans demonstrating against me. he had a full suite of supporting activities from trump. why would he turn his back on that? since he doesn't believe in democracy and doesn't understand how our system works, i think he believes it's like somebody else helping me. what difference does it make. i don't think he gets how serious this is. >> charlie: and to this day refuses to say what most people believe he should be saying about russia. >> absolutely. >> charlie: and what people around him obviously know. >> they do know. and i'm waiting like everybody else the mueller investigation particularly the senate

committee found there was an account paid in rubles. >> charlie: he had subpoena power. and he has people he's been following. >> that's all true based on the public record. that's right. but let me make this point. >> charlie: people in contact with the president. >> there's lots and lots of smoke and i want to be clear about this. whether or not anybody is indicted with the trump connection and the kremlin and everything. >> charlie: collusion. >> well, collusion's not a legal term. but there's coordination and the rest of that. whether some part of that or all of that was proven true let's not forget what's at stake. >> charlie: another foreign adversary that was successful. >> because they were after me in

the last election doesn't mean they'll go after a republican. >> charlie: do you believe it will all come out because of the mueller investigation? >> i think a lot of will come out. >> charlie: you began off the yale on the water gate committee. you saw how they can investigate and use the power of subpoena. >> remember remember, that was a bipartisan investigation. >> charlie: baker and sam houston. >> reporter: i worked on the jude >> i worked on the judiciary committee and people were open enough, honest enough, patriotic enough to view the evidence. >> charlie: bob mueller is the same. people say he's the same. >> he's terrific. but it took a special council because they're hardly enthusiastic. you heard about jarrod kushner's e-mail. i'm waiting for them to foam like they did on mine. >> charlie: on the campaign did

you handle it well? >> i didn't do anything wrong so i didn't handle it well enough to survive. >> charlie: people felt you didn't come forward and wouldn't acknowledg acknowledge being careless though comey used those words. >> independent third-party people make the case, look, it was a dumb mistake but it was a dumber scandal. we got through july and what was unprecedented and unfair to the state department not just to me. we got through that and then, in comes this letter. i did well at the convention. it was positive and -- >> charlie: what should comey

have done? >> if he thought this with us serious which i have doubts how serious he thought it was. >> charlie: if he wrote the letter without thinking it was serious he had motive. >> he had not looked at anything. >> charlie: motive was? >> that's the unanswered question. >> charlie: you believe he didn't know the consequences that it would have and not trying to derail your candidacy. >> he was under pressure from rudy giuliani and others. rudy giuliani announced two days before, something big is happening. >> charlie: and you think this was it? >> of course.

he said so. >> charlie: do you believe james comey, a man much admired as an fbi director and this is what came out during the first time when he said there was no reason to go ahead people said, well, he has a lot of support and then candidate trump was criticizing and a lot of people in the fbi stood up but you think he folded under pressure and made a decision he knew would derail your candidacy? >> ask yourself this. he did that to me where if he thought there was anything there to be investigated he could have asked me if i had any objection or asked others if i had an objection and announced it in a letter to congress. at the same time, he's not at all talking about the investigation that had been starte started into trump and russia. he would not join with the

department of homeland security and national defense. >> charlie: he didn't disclose -- >> no. >> charlie: why do you think that was true? >> he said it was too close to the election. it makes no sense at all. on october 7, which was a big day on the campaign, it started with secretary johnson from homeland security and jim clapper from national intelligence saying we're concerned about activities by the russians. and people thought it was primarily about the dnc hack. we now know they knew a lot more but we didn't know at the time. then the "hollywood access" tape comes out and then the russians dump the podesta headline and create a diversion which lasted the rest theft campaign. >> charlie: i remember before

this came there was a belief you were expanding your leave. correct? >> yes. >> charlie: it was said if the election was held the day before you would have won. >> that's my thinking too. >> charlie: so the conclusion is without that you'd be president? >> that's what i believe. >> charlie: more than any other thing? >> more than any other thing. i'll give you an example from the book. before the letter on the 28th, there was a poll which was a reliable poll showing they was ahead by 26 percentage points in the suburbs of philadelphia. now, that could not have happened without republican women, suburban voters and even independent. if you were a voter and on the

28th of october the director of the fbi says we're reopening the investigation and the trump campaign says, bingo, lock her up, you're going to say, i was thinking about voting for her but i can't vote for her. and that went on until the sunday before the election. >> charlie: the question also had to be asked during the conversation if we talk about what happened during the campaign. why didn't you go to pennsylvania, wisconsin, and michigan? >> i went to pennsylvania all the time and was in michigan a lot and there before the election. >> charlie: and minnesota? >> and minnesota. i did not go to wisconsin. the reason why -- >> charlie: some said you didn't appreciate how it was changing. they were wrong? you have no regrets about not campaignng here in the last two weeks of the campaign more than you did? >> no, because i was in pennsylvania constantly. i was in michigan. i was not in wisconsin because our data plus the data of russ

finegold's senate campaign showed he was ahead. i want to emphasize because it hits to the investigation. it blankets everything and stops the momentum. meanwhile the wikileaks are being dribbled every day. >> charlie: what's the constant of the wikileaks and trump campaign? >> because they were serving on these facebook posts, these fake news and even the -- >> charlie: they're getting the information from russians. >> but that's not the way it was presented. >> charlie: but it was true or not? the wikileaks allegations.

one of the worst things was this ridiculous horrible story that based on a single line from john podesta that said he's going out for pizza, these total right-wing people made up the story he was running a child traffic operation a total lie and somebody came up to rescue the children but it was all over the children. >> charlie: it shows you the information and the power -- >> it's so powerful and all over dark post that are there and disappear. >> charlie: what president obama talked about one of the primary concerns he was worried about. >> and then there were terrible lies about the clinton foundation. we know affected people because

one reporter from the post -- >> charlie: they got favors with you as secretary state. >> this was much worse. that we took money from the foundation. the foundation paid for our daughter's wedding. totally made up horrible stuff but wayne kessler said i kept hearing anecdotally the people decided not to vote for her. >> charlie: he works for the washington post. >> people weren't going to vote for her because they read about all this. this was well coordinated and well coordinated because a lot of it -- >> charlie: coordinated by? >> that's the question. >> charlie: who do you believe coordinated? this book is about you not having anything to lose. >> somebody associate with the trump campaign was able to geographically and personally target people based on their facebook profiles and based on, i think, working the google

ranking of subjects and was able to deliver that. we saw -- >> charlie: who do you believe? >> whether it was the trump campaign or cambridge analytica or the rnc you believe they had fake news to impact the election. >> somebody who understood targeting in a presidential campaign and delivering the fake news messages did that. look, i'm done and not running again. >> charlie: this is why you can say what you think. >> i'm sounding the alarm. i'm very worried about what the russians got away with and the -- the precedent it sets. i'm afraid of facebook being the

biggest news platform in the world being unable to figure out what propaganda is use to influence the election. >> charlie: it seems like mark zuck zuckerberg has gotten the message. >> how she -- is he going to rein this in? >> charlie: have you called for an independent commission? >> with subpoena power. it also needs to be public. what the special council is doing so determine if there's a crime and an open hearing. >> charlie: appointed by? >> some members of congress and the white house and make sure it is sort of the 9-1-1 commission. that was a good model -- 9/11 model. >> charlie: do you think donald

trump will be re-elected? >> i hope not. >> charlie: do you think he'll serve four years? >> i don't know the answer to that either. i think part depends on what's uncovered and how the public react. not everything wrong has a legal remedy. some is just politics. there very well could be a conclusion that all this stuff that happened with russia, maybe we need better disclosure, maybe facebook needs better controls but it didn't fit any criminal statute we currently have unless it's the foreign funding? >> charlie: that's the only statute they could have violated? >> that's the conclusion. i'm not talking about obstruction of justice and whatever manafort was up to. >> charlie: and what mueller is looking into. >> but what we do to combat russia, that may not have criminal remedies.

it's going to require us worki as americans to prevent it in the future. >> charlie: and we're just beginning to understand the extent of it and the skill on the other side. >> the russians have had a lot of practice. as the a description of called active measures of what they do to insinuate propaganda and destroy reputations in now particularly to manipulate the online world to their advantage. this should be a big wake-up call for all of us. >> charlie: for more visit us online at pbs.org and charlierose.com. captioning sponsored by rose communications captioned by

media access group at wgbh access.wgbh.org

>> rose: funding for "charlie rose" has been provided by: >> and by bloomberg, a provider of multimedia news and information services worldwide. >> you're

[ bells play tune ] [ theme music plays ] -♪ i think i'm home ♪ i think i'm home ♪ how nice to look at you again ♪ ♪ along the road ♪ along the road ♪ anytime you want me ♪ you can find me living right between your eyes, yeah ♪ ♪ oh, i think i'm home ♪ oh, i think i'm home -today on "cook's country," bridget and julia share the secrets to competition-caliber barbecue chicken thighs. jack challenges bridget to a tasting of bagged popcorn.