Transcripts For KQED Charlie Rose 20161215

Rex tillerson to be secretary of state. I think one of the challenges facing the next president is how do you thread the needle of stopping the downward spiral in u. S. Russian relations that is potentially quite dangerous, and at the same time push back against putins aggressiveness, bullying and general thuggery. And having somebody who understands where putin is coming from, who knows him and knows how he negotiates, how he deals with problems i think is a big asset as you try to make strategies. And we conclude with Michael Morell talking about russian hacking and what should be the response of the United States. What is new here in the last few days is not an official statement by the government but a series of leaks. And it looks from those leaks as if the Central Intelligence agency, the group of people that i used to run not only believe that the russians were interfering in the election but they were doing so with the intent to undermine secretary clinton and to help donald trump, doesnt sound to me as if the rest of the the Intelligence Community is there yet with that judgement. But it is not unusual, charlie for the cia to leave the rest of the instrument and the rest of the community to eventuallyk catch up. Funding for carlie 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 begin this evening looking at the rise in the Federal Reserve interest rates, it took place on wednesday, it is the first time in a year t is only the second rate hike in the last decade. The fed also signaled that rates could continue to rise next year more quickly than officials had expected. Todays move was seen as a gesture that the fed is confident in the strengthening of the u. S. Economy and also potential signs of rising inflation. Fed chair janet yellen addressed the path ahead taking too account that uncertainty about the economy will dictate future policy decisions. I do not judge that we are behind the curve. My judgement is that we are in a good path to reaching our objectives. But of course the outlook is uncertain. We recognize that there are many sources of uncertainty affecting the outlook and we will have to adjust our thinking as things evolve. Joining me now is kathleen hays, she is a global economist and policy editor for bloomberg television, welcome. Great to be here. Rose what is the significants of this sth. The significance of this is that the fed is acknowledging the economy is doing better. The job market is getting stronger. Unemployment is down to 4. 6 percent. Thats a nine year low. Inflation is starting to rise a bit. Its Something Else the fed rants to see. It will encourage businesses to invest. Maybe people have to give more raises. And the fed is taking a step in the direction, they call normalization. What caught them off guard is every three months the fed looks at its forecast for growth and inflation and how many rate hikes lie ahead. Everyone expected a quarter point hike on this very special meeting, last one of the year but they didnt expect the fed to move from two weeks for 2017 to three. And that is what unseated stocks, that is what boosted bond yields, boosted the dollars and it is hitting emerging markets. Why now, they have been talking about, this and they held back, perhaps looking at the economy, you now see it more positive. In fact, remember in september they didnt move, they held up, they were uncertainty about the economy. It was too close to the electionment they wanted to get past the election uncertainty. Well not only did they get past the uncertainty, they created a whole new kind of uncertainty, didnt they. Donald trump is now heading for the white house. There is going to be some kind of fiscal move and in fact janet yellin was asked about that. The fed is taking a step they have known they were going to take. They still dont know what donald trump is going to do they cant make policy based on that. But some members look at the possibility of more stimulus, more spending, more tax cuts, and that may have inclined them a little more to say maybe we have to see stronger growth and more rate hikes next year. On wall street and in the Financial Community will this be looked on with enthusiasm or will there be some people who will say no, this is not the right time to do it. You know, it helps banks. It helps interest margins, it makes it easier for them to make money. The bond market was turning around, the yields are rise. The Mortgage Market will hit some consumers. A lot of businesses and a lot of investors would like to see normalization. They want to see rates move higher it is a haley sign for the economy. And where might they how might they move in 2017 . 2017 by the end of the year, the key rate could go to 1. 4 . Right now it is. 5, that is only a small difference because it boo have been the big year on the previous forecast at 1. 1 . The bigger question is where do bond yields go. The ten year note is above 2. 5 . Youll see another move up in mortgage rates. In fact, there is a minority of economists who think that at is why the fed said theye are going to go slowly, and meeting to to meeting to decide what to do. Thank you for coming. Nice to see you. Up next robert gates, former secretary of defense and National Security advisor to a number of president s talks about Rex Tillerson and other appointments or nominees by president elect trump. We continue with the questions of done all trumps the president elects transition and the people he has selecting for important offices in his term. We begin this evening to talk about the exxon mobile c. E. O. Rex tillerson. He could potentially face a tough confirmation battle for secretary of state, senators including republicans have raised some concerns over his ties to russia and the countrys leadership. Tillersons nomination comes as lawmakers prepare to investigate a russian cybercampaign aimed at disrupting the u. S. President ial election. The cia is reportedly concluded that russia intended to tip the election in trumps favor. Joining me now from seattle is a man who recommended tillerson for the poks. Bob gaitsz served eight president s other five decades including as secretary of defense and director of Central Intelligence. Let me just begin withs. This tillerson. So after all that you had sate, because of your reputation for sound judgement, i assume it was that am you are invited to come meet the president elect. Is that basically what happened . Well, hi met the previous day with his National Security advisor general flin to talk about processes for Decision Making and how the National Security Council Works and so on. And after that meeting, i received a call that that they would like for me to see the president elect the next day. So you stayed overnight in new york and he went to see him. Tell us about the conversation as much as you can. Well, as you can imagine, given some of the things that i had said t was a little awkward at first. And but i will say he was very gracious. And we moved beyond that and then had a very serious, wideranging conversation both about policies and about people. Rose i can assure you you are not the only person who said harsh things during the campaign. The president elect has talked to. All you have to do is call up mitt romney. Thats for sure. As i told him, i said he is going to be the president and his success in National Security matters especially is vitally important to all of us. And so my view has been anybody who can help him in this process ought to be willing to do so. Rose and how did tillerson come up . Well, he asked me to, for my personal thoughts on several of the people that have been mentioned as candidates for secretary of state. And i offered those, several of them had reached out to me and i had urged each of them to serve if asked. And then he said, you know, if you had a completely blank slate, who would you suggest . And i raised rex siller tillersons name. I got to know rex years ago through our mutual involvement in and leadership of the boy scouts. And we spent a lot of hours after scouting events sitting around with a drink after dinner and talking about International Affairs and u. S. Politics ands whats gone on around the globe. I just came away with a feeling that rex had a lot to offer that because he was not sort of one of the traditional kinds of candidates, might have been overlooked. Rose i want to stay with that. I just want to make note of the fact also, your firm that you are a partner in with rice and im not sure who else, also has a consulting relationship occasionally with exxon mobile. Yeah, they are one of our many clients am but as ive said, my relationship with rex really goes back well before that. And is tied to boy scouts. Rose so help us understand why you believe he would make a good secretary of state. Other than you know the fact that he has lead a great, huge, Multinational Corporation with business interests around the globe. He knows a lot of world leaders. Well, for one thing, i think his deep knowledge about a variety of parts of the world from indoneeshia to latin america to the middle east to russia and other places as well, he is negotiated with the leaders of countries in all of these places. He has gotten to know how these countries operate, how their leaders operate. He has insights into how they think. Because he has negotiated with them. The truth is, i think its been pretty rare for a prospective secretary of state to have such a lengthy record of negotiating with Foreign Governments and foreign leaders and i think thats an important asset but its his knowledge of these countries. Hes not going to need a briefing book to tell him who is in charge in what country or where that country is. He knows all of this to start with. There is another piece of this that i think is important. And thats the represental role of the secretary of state. And i think that you know, people dont think of this when it comes to rex. But i have seen him stand up and impromptu in front of a thousand or 1500 volunteers in the scouting movement and talk with great passion about america, about our values, about patriotism, about what we stand for as a country. And i think rex will be an excellent representative of the United States as well as a su pesh negotiator for the United States. When you became secretary of defense you brought to that job broad experience in government. National security advisor, cia director. You had developed a theory of how the world works. Does Rex Tillerson have a theory of how the world works in the geo political sense . I think he absolutely does. I dont think that you is survive much less succeed with a Huge International Company Unless you have some understanding of how the world works. I think he brings a realism to it, frankly, that people who may have come out of the academic environment or a law firm or Something Else, would not have. Hes been out there in the real world. And i think that that is an experience that will serve the country well. Rose when president bush suggested that he had met Vladimir Putin and you know where im going, when he suggested that he had met Vladimir Putin, and he saw a man, he looked into his eyes and he saw a man that had a soul or something to that effect, you were quick to say that you had looked into Vladimir Putins eyes and saw a cold, stoned killer. Well, thats an accurate thats an accurate reflection. Rose so how does Rex Tillerson, when he looks into Vladimir Putins eyes, what does he see . Well, he dont i havent asked rex that question. But let me be very clear. I think that you know, every c. E. O. Of an international of a company in the United States that does business internationally wants to have a friendly relationship with the governments and leaders of countries in which theyre doing business. And that doesnt matter t doesnt matter whether it is a Big Oil Company or boeing or hundreds of other companies. And i have would make the case that being friendly is different than being friends. I think that rex had an understanding of what his interests were. I think he dealt in a businesslike fashion with putin. I think what i think what let me put it in a different context, charlie. I think one of the challenges facing the next president is how do you threat the needle of stopping the downward spiral in u. S. Russian relations that is potentially quite dangerous and at the same time push back against putins aggressiveness, bullying and general thuggery. And having somebody who understands where putin is coming from, who knows him and knows how he negotiates, how he deals with problem, i think is a big asset, as you begin to try and develop strategies for accomplishing what i just described. I think its a mistake to think that because Rex Tillerson successfully did business in think its just a completelys false narrative. And if in fact he was against sanctions against russia, you would suggest that that is because simply he thought sanctions were a bad idea or he thought it was an exxons interest to o oppose sanctions. I think probably both. I havent had a long conversations with rex about that. But i suspect it was both. I mean he was looking out for exxons interests. And was informed by his view of what works and what doesnt work. But i think, i think that once Rex Tillerson lifts his hand to take the oath of office, his only objective is going to be to do what is in the best interest of the United States. Jim baker, the former secretary of state and chief of staff and secretary of the treasury said to me this morning that the essential thing, the most essential thing is what is the relationship of the secretary of state to the president. Does he have the president s confidence . Does he reflect the president s wealth, well, vision, can we determine whether Rex Tillerson has that. We assume so because he appointed him. Well, i will tell you this. And i dont think its violating any confidences. I told the president elect when it came to choosing the seng of state, the secretary of state, the rest of the world in addition to the congress and others had to know that the secretary of state had the complete trust and confidence of the president. That when the secretary of state speaks, he is speaking for the president and others can take that to the bank. So i believe that the president elect had that in mind when he began to think about Rex Tillerson for this job. The irony is the example i used was the relationship between jim baker and the first president bush. Because everybody around the world knew that when jim baker spoke as secretary of state, he was speaking for george hw bush. Rose what questions would you ask if you were in the senate as to confirm Rex Tillerson. Well, i think clearly theyre going to need to explore their concerns about the relationship with russia. I think, i think mr. Tillersons answers will be somewhere along the lines of what i have described. And a reassurance that as secretary of state, he will be acting only in the interest of the United States. I think that, i think it would be useful for everyone if that hearing included discussions about well, what kind of a strategy do you think we ought to follow toward russia. How do you think we ought to deal with this country that we have to have a Good Relationship with in some respects because we both have these gigantic nubbingly ars signals and yet at the arsenals and yet at the same time we have a lot of behavior on the part of the russians that is a serious problem for us. And how do you square that circle. I think the senators are going to want to have some confidence that that there is a solution there. But in the end, you and i both know that Foreign Policy is essentially run out of the white house, isnt it . Well, i think it depends on the president , in some cases it is. And in some cases it isnt. It was pretty much run out of the white house entirely under president nixon. On the other hand, jim baker and George Schultz played significant roles in shaping Foreign Policy for president , first president bush and for president reagan in the case of those two men. So i think it really does depend on the relationship between the president and the secretary of state. And the role of the National Security advisor. And frankly, it seems to me just based on what i read that the president elect is somebody who once he has kf densz in somebody, del gates a good bit to them. And so i would hope that that would be the case with his secretary of state. One of the things frankly, charlie, that has encouraged me is that, is that in both jim mattis, the nominee for secretary of defense, and in Rex Tillerson, the president elect has reached out to two very strong, independent minded individuals who i have confidence will tell the president exactly what they think and what they think he needs to hear. And i think his willingness to have those kinds of people around him and strong voices who are not going to be intimidated or not going to be rolled is a very important thing. What do you think about the National Lieutenant general flin, the National Security advisor nominee . Well, i will speak to my personal experience. I knew general flin when he was an Intelligence Officer, when he was the Intelligence Officer for the chairman of the joint chiefs and when he was general mcchrystals primary Intelligence Officer. And he was a very, very good Intelligence Officer. He wrote an article at the end of 200 9d on 2009 on the defish sees of our intelligence collection in afghanistan that i thought was right on the money. Have i had no con tajt with him since i left no contact with him since i left in june of 2011 until i met with him in new york and our conversation in new york was very thoughtful, very serious. He was taking a lot of notes in terms of how the nsc ought to operate. And i think i can only speak to those experiences that i have had with him personally. Rose but also you read a lot and you know there is some controversy about one, spirsee theories and his belief that the cia has become polit sized. Well, you know, one of the things thats been my experience over the years, charlie, is that peoples attitudes and views toward things change quite a bit when they actually have responsibilities sitting on their shoulders. There are a lot of people who say things during campaigns and when theyre not in government that they have a different approach once they have the real responsibility. Rose do you think thats true for the president elect . I think that based on the signs that i have seen so far, that certainly is my hope. For example, i was very encouraged when he came out of his meeting with general mattis and you know, he talked about torture and water boarding and so forth and he comes out and he says that after talking to general mattis, and general mattis, hearing general mattis view on that, he changed his mind. So i think, i took heart from that. Rose what about the cia designate, do you know congressman pompeo. No, we have talked on the telephone. He reached out to me which i thought was a nice gesture on his part. He comes from my hometown of wichita, kansas. And i would say that he has he has a challenge in front of him of figuring out how best cia can support the president in a way that is useful to the president. Cia, the cia works for reports to the president , not vice versa. And cia has to adjust the way it interacts with every president to meet the sneeds needs of that president , for example president eisenhower was not much of a reader. He preferred to get his information in briefings. So mr. Pompeo and the rest of the agency are being to have to figure out how do we make this enormous asset that is american intelligence and cia available and useful to the president and how do we get to him the information he needs to know in a way that is easy for him to take it in. And i think they have to be very flexible in the way they approach that. So that brings me to what you think the cia and other intelligence agencies are saying about russians trying to medel by hacking our Computer Systems and med el in american elections. Thats the first question. Second question, do you believe that the russians hacked in order to promote the candidacy of one person over the other. Well, first of all, charlie, i dont have any access to classified information so all i know is what i have read in a variety of newspapers and heard outside of government. But heres what i believe. I believe that the evidence seems to be overwhelming that the russians, that hackers under the auspices of the russian government, did hack into sites in the United States, and i believe they did so at a minimum to try and discredit our elections, to deligity miez the election, and basically to send the message around the world that american elections are corrupt and rigged just like everybody elses, including ours in russia. So i think first of all it was to discredit america, the legitimacy of the american election. And my sense is there is broad agreement on that in the Intelligence Community. Taking the next step of motivation, whether they were trying to advance the candidacy of one candidate, or alternatively, if they believed that mrs. Clinton was going to win the election like so many here in this country believed, were they simply trying to discredit her or weaken her when she became president. I dont know the answers to those questions. I know that questions of motive are very difficult in the Intelligence Community, and in intelligence analysis. And frankly, thats why i support the initiative in the congress to have a Bipartisan Committee look at this and see if they can reach any conclusions along those lines. Establishing for a fact that the russians did try to interfere in our election broadly speaking, is important. And i think has implications for our relationship going forward. Rose but the president elect seems to disregard that saying i dont know that it was the russians or the chinese or somebody in new jersey. When there is overwhelming evidence, seeming to call into question the competent tense of american intelligence agencies. Well, i think that you know, first of all, i think in some ways the way, the conclusions were characterized, i cant speak for him. I have never discussed this with him, obviously. But i would wonder whether he didnt worry that, or think that perhaps there was an effort to try and show cast doubt on the legitimacy of his election, and he was reacting to that. I think one of the benefits of this Bipartisan Committee is to get at the facts and have them all laid out and maybe he will come to a different conclusion. Rose but the president has asked for an investigation before he leaves office to be completed. Thats true also. Rose did donald trump ask you to come work for him . No. I made it pretty clear that i was not interested in doing anything. And i think the phrase i used was that i was done building my resume. Rose i thought the response might have been mrs. Gates would have your head. Yeah, yeah, she wouldnt divorce me but she might kill me. Rose but you will, are you there for the president elect if he needs your advice, to offer your advice as you are as anybody else who served if government and understands the demands of serving in government. Absolutely. And i think i would urge others who have experience if the new administration reaches out, to provide whatever help and assistance people can, as i said. Its critically important for the country that he be successful in National Security matters. And the more help people can offer him to be successful, the better off well be. Rose so what about the one china policy suggesting that i will take a call from tie want, did you approve of that . I mean talking about a grand strategy of understanding the future, you know, and the possible ways that china could spobdz to that . Was that a wise decision . Well, let me just say that as somebody who grew up in the National Security Council System under henry kissing her, breshivesky and brett scoa croft t was a little jarring. A little jarring, you say. Yes. I think this is an area to proceed with great caution. This is this is a very sensitive area with china. And one that has the potential to be dangerous. And so i think that you know, i i understand and actually agree that we do need to take another look at the way we interact with china, the way we deal with china, our economic relationship with china. I think all of those things are worth doing. But i think they need to be done in a thoughtful and considered way and bearing in mind that both sides have some positions that request not be compromised. And we need to bear that in mind. The chinese have described it as a core interest. Well, and i would say as i told the chinese, and we have some core interests as well, and we need to be mindful of each others core interests. Rose well, it raises an interesting question. Donald trump clearly as a campaigner believed in being disruptive. He thought being disruptive and unpredictable was a strong leadership quality and therefore it reflected well in terms of his electoral success. But when your president the question of unpredict ability, is that a good quality or not . I think it depends on the circumstances. I think that there are occasions when its useful for people not to be sure what the United States or the president may or may not do. By the same token, there are others where i think predict ability is critical. I think for example that the president s willingness to adhere to article five of the nato alliance, the nato charter where if one member of the alliance is attacked, others will come to their assistance, i think there should be no ambiguity about that. But in tactical situations in particular, i think that there is some merit in having some unpredict ability. I guess the way i would put it, charlie, when it comes to the big strategic issues, we probably should limit unpredict ability. But when it comes to the tactics of doing things, unpredict ability has its merits. And frankly, you know, i think, we took a lot of criticism at the beginning of the First Bush Administration when we reviewed our policies in a variety of places around the world, including with respect to the soviet union. Right. Rose. And this was after the end of the Reagan Administration. I think for a new administration, to take a hard look at the policies that we have, and whether there is a need for adjustment or change is a healthy thing. We shouldnt be so fixed on continue out that we may miss opportunities to advance our National Interest just for the sake of continue out. So i think that a willingness to take a hard look at the policies we have in place can be a very healthy thing. It just needs to be done as i say in a thoughtful and considered way. Rose if my memory serves me correct, mrs. Reagan, the ppy about that. N was none too well, there were a lot of people i think from the Reagan Administration who werent too happy about it but i think you know the other aspect of it was that it the president wanted to have wanted to make sure people understood this was his administration, his presidency, and not a reagan third term. Rose finally there is this. Henry kissinger has spoke tone t and other people that you have similar stature to have spoken to. This is one of the most troubling times in recent history. When you look around the world, you look at russia being more aggressive, you look at china and where he they are, when you look at sort of tribalism and what is happening in syria, what is happening in areas of the middle east, look at north korea this president elect inherits a world that is very, very dangerous. Charlie, i think the International Environment today is as complex as we have encountered, perhaps since the end of world war ii. Not so of the cataclysmic kind of dangers from the world war and the cold war against the soviet union but the pean different challenges that we face each of which is dangerous perhaps not in a cataclysmic way but in a real way where the odds of something happening are much greater than the odds of a thermal nuclear war with the sov yent sofer yet union. So it is a very tough environment. And frankly, one of the reasons that i believe that having experience, tough minded, thoughtful or well versed people like general mattis, and like Rex Tillerson in these two senior positions is really important for the country, and for the president elect. Rose its great to have you on this program. I thank you for taking time. Always good to talk to you, charlie. Rose thawr, former secretary of defense, former long time advisor on National Security issues, robert gates, el be right back. Stay with us. We continue now from washington with Michael Morell, the former acting director and Deputy Director of the cia. We want to talk about russian hacking and other issues. Thank you for joining us, michael. Good to be with you, charlie, always. Rose you said interesting things. First you described the russian hacking and the sper fencer in our election as the political equivalent of 9 11 and described hacking as an attack on our very democracy. I assume that there is no doubt in your mind and you accept the various intelligence agencies who have said that russia rura was hacking with an intent to create chaos or something, the other motive in our political election. Yeah, charlie, i think it is important to kind of break down what we know for sure here and what we dont know. And what we think. And you know, we know with certainty that the u. S. Intelligence community, the entire community all of the agencies said back in october that the russians were interfering in our election, this was a statement put out by the director of National Intelligence jim clapper that the russians were trying to interfere in our election through hacking. And that there was little doubt in the minds of the Intelligence Community that the knowledge of this if not the direction of it went to the highest levels of the russian government. So we know that back in october the Intelligence Community fought that for sure. What is new here in the last few days is not an official statement by the government but a series of leaks. And it looks from those leaks as if the Central Intelligence agencies, the group of people believe that the russians were interfering in the election but they were doing so with the intent to undermine secretary clinton and to help donald trump. Doesnt sound to me as if the rest of the Intelligence Community is there yet with that judgement. But it is not unusual, charlie, for the cia to lead the rest of the community and for the rest of the community to eventually catch up. Rose why do you say that . Its just its just what has been tradition. It is just what is tip dal 2eu7 kal. Cia is quick tore make judgements than other agencies. It tends to lead the community in the judgement that it makes. So it is just tends to what happened over time. One of the things charlie that really caught my attention in the leak that happened last friday, the piece that ran in the Washington Post was it said that not only does the cia believe that it was the intent of the russians to help trump, but that the cia believed this with high confidence and that really caught my attention. Because the cia does not attach a high confidence label to analytic judgement without an awful lot of confidence. That is the highest confidence level there is. High confidence. And it usually indicates that there is not just one source of information but many sources of information. It means that it is not a circumstances case but a direct case. So it sounds to me like the cia has got some pretty compelling information here that has lead it to this judgement. I assume that is part of the reason that the president has launched an investigation to find out exactly what we do know by calling on all agencies that might have some information to coordinate all that information so he can make a judgement of what happened and why. Yes, so i think hes really so he obviously knows what the Intelligence Community believes and what the cia believes because hes receiving that on a daily basis. I think what hes trying to do here by january 20th is to pull together the two different streams that are under way in the u. S. Government. One is what is going on in the Intelligence Community and what theyre collecting and what they think and what theyre learning. The other is a criminal probe by the fbi into the hacking. Which would not be as Crystal Clear to everybody else stvment is a criminal probe. It gets it gets closed off. And so what i think he wants to do is bring everything together that Everybody Knows so that we have a complete understanding of exactly what happened. Here is one of the things that have been reported that the fbi does not necessarily, has not come to the conclusion as you just suggested with one reason, has not come to a conclusion that it was with the intent of promoting the election of donald trump. It is sometimes cited that the reason for that is that the notion that they believe that both the democrat and the Republicans National committees were hacked but information damaging to Hillary Clinton was the only one that was released to wikileaks. Right, so what you see in these leaks is that is the thats the key reason, charlie, thats given for why the cia believes that it was the intent to help trump and hurt clinton was because why disn they release damaging stuff about trump and the republicans, right. I think that that is probably true. Thats probably part of the analysts thinking. But that is nfer recommendation, thats circumstantial. I think the analysts have more. I think theyve got sources of information that are telling them exactly what the intent was. That go beyond just an nrches, that go beyond just the forencics, right . Because the computer forencics can tell you that it was russia but the computer forencics cant take you to intent. So i think there is some pretty good information here that has lead the cia to believe this. And why do you think the president elect is rejecting this . I think largely i have two theorieser in ree number one, believing it raises questions about the legitimacy of his election. And obviously that is the last thing he wants to do. So his natural instinct is just to reject the premise. Right. I think he also believes charlie that this is based on some things he has said and based on some things that Kellyanne Conaway has said i think he believes that the Central Intelligence agency may be political. And it is very interesting to look at this from his perspective. So from his perspective, he sees number one, he sees mike hayden, a former director. He sees Michael Morell, a former Deputy Director and acting director as having criticized him extensively during the campaign. Thats kind of number one. He looks as that and he kind of makes him wonder about the whole organization when two former Senior Leaders have come out so aggressively against him. So thats one. Two is right after the convention he has his first intelligence briefing. And within 24 to 48 hours of that intelligence briefing, there are leaks about what happened at the briefing. And those leaks about what happened at the briefing are not positive about him, right . That he didnt ask any questions, that mike flynn was aggressive and Chris Christie had to counsel mike flynn to be quiet, all these stories came out. And if you are if youre the president lech you have to wonder where did these stories come from. They could have only come from one place, right, the Intelligence Community. So you wonder about the political nature of the tin gel against Intelligence Community. So i think he kind of puts all d he sees cia as a Political Organization with a political agenda. And that could not be further from the truth, charlie. It is directly the opposite. Central Intelligence Agency as you know is apolitical, its nonpartisan, its verietteos. The t is the strongest tenet in the place is call it like you see it no matter its impact on politics, no matter its impact on policy. But you also know the following. Michael flynn who is a nominee to be at the National Security advisor to the president of the United States has been considered a very good intelligence official within the military, working for the joint chiefs and also working for Stan Mcchrystal in afghanistan. He has written about the pollity glaitionz of the cia and is he the person who was in Donald Trumps ear as candidate and as president elect. Right. So hes probably, right f donald trump believes that the Central Intelligence agency is politisizeing this judgement, then it inn part it is because mike flynn is whispering that in his ear, absolutely right. Rose talk about briefings. Because this president elect has chosen not to receive briefings every day. What is the value of a president ial daily briefing, the pdb and are you astounding that this president elect has said you know, i dont need to do that every day. I can have other people listen and they can report to me. Yeah, so its a great question, charlie. So i think you have to start with the proposition that we are at a very unique time in the history of National Security issues in this country. I dont think we had a time when the national of National Security issues facing the United States of america is as great as it is today. There have been times in our history, charlie, that have been more dangerous, more of 1812, civil war, periods during the cold war, world war two, world war 1, obviously. But the sheer number of issues facing us today is staggering. Thats kind of point number one. Point number two is that the vast majority of those issues, charlie, are first and fore most intelligence issues. Meaning you cannot understand those issues. You cant make policy on them and you cant carry out that policy without first rate intelligence. And you put those two propositions together, Staggering Number of issues, all of them intelligence issues, and you come to a really important point that intelligence has never been more important than it is today. Let me give you an example. You cant understand the Iranian Nuclear program, the status of the Iranian Nuclear problem without first rate intel he against. You cant understand the north korean longrange Missile Program without first rate intelligence. You cant understand Chinese Military modernization without first rate intelligence. You need intelligence that really understand those issues. So intelligence is critically, critically important. And thats why the last two president s, president bush and president obama have been huge consumers of intelligence, because they understand its importance. I think the president said just the other day, right, you cant understand these issues without reading that pdb every day. And so i think that that the president elect is missing a huge opportunity here by not reading the pdb during the transition. Hes missing a huge opportunity to learn everything he can about these issues so that when he becomes president and he needs to start making decisions, there will be a substantive context in which he will be making those decisions. I just think he will be missing a huge opportunity. Lets assume all of these intelligence agencies back in october understood that the russians were behind the hacking of lets say poddesta anthony poddesta mr. Poddesta who was a chairman of the Clinton Campaign understood the Democratic National committee hacking by russia. It got to a point where he said we will respond proportionately, appropriately or i have forgotten the exact words. You would assume that the election is over now and that that message would have been sent but do we assume it has or not . So my view, my view, charlie, is that, and the reason, the reason i called this the political equivalent of 9 11, handful of reasons i did that. The most important reason was that i think in is a significant attack on the United States. That a Foreign Government interfering with our election for whatever intent, i dont think the intent here is as important as the fact that they were doing it, that they were interfering in our election. The fact that a Foreign Government was interfering in our election is a huge, huge issue. And im really surprised that it hasnt gotten as much attention as it has. It just literally the last few days. As i said, this is an attack on our democracy. This is an attack on who we are as a people. So thats why i believe, thats why i said this is the political equivalent of 9 11. Its also really interesting to me, charlie, that we were in a sense just as surprised by this as we were about 9 11. If you think about what the 9 11 Commission Said about 9 11 right, it was a failure of imagination, that we couldnt imagine that the terror sis terrorists would take the particular approach they did. What is interesting in this case is i dont think the government imagined that the russian was ever do this. When people talked about cyberthreats, they talked about the chinese feeling industrial information. They talked about the threat to electrical grids. They talked about the threat to our tkses and to our finances. Nobody talked about a cyberinformation operations kind of threat to our elections. So there was a little bit of a missing imagination when it came to what happened to us here. So this is a huge issue. So i think that the United States government has a responsibility, charlie, to respond and respond proportionately. And because this attack is so significant, right, its leading people to question whether its leading people to question the very legitimacy and sank titd of this election. So its a huge deal. So i think there has to be two kind of parameters on how we respond. One is i think charlie it has to be overt. It has to be seen, okay. Because if it is not seen, then, because its not only the russians who are watching here how were going to respond. Its also the chinese. Its also the iranians, also the north koreans, its all sorts of people without will watching how is the United States going to respond. And if we respond covertly in a way that nobody else can see, then you lose that deterrent effect on everybody else. Thats number one. Number two is it has to be significant from the from Vladimir Putins perspective it has to be painful to him. It has to hurt. So when people talk about, when people talk about indicting a handful of russians who might have been behind this, russians who will never, ever want to travel to the United States or even ever leave russia, that is a slap on the wrist. When people talk about, when people talk about sanctions on russian intelligence organizes organizations or individual russians who work for those intelligence organizations who might have been behind this, thats a slap on the rest, wrist, right. This needs to be significant. And it doesnt need to be in the cyberrealm, right. This can be our response can be and perhaps should be outside of the cyberrealm. But we need to do something that is that is significant from putins perspective and it needs to be visible to the entire world and we need to respond to it and if we dont respond, it is simply going to embolden him. And quited frankly, charlie t is the Obamas Administration to respond because this happened on their watch. And im very concerned, charlie, that this is going to slip through the cracks of the transition. Very in a very similar way to the fact that the u. S. Didnt respond to the cole attack in october of 2 thousand that slipped through the cracks of the clinton bush transition. And the United States ended up not responding to a very significant very significant alqaeda attack on the United States in this particular case on the u. S. S. Cole in yemen. I think this is a big deal, charlie. I think people need to Pay Attention to it. Hearing you say that, what would be a proportionate response that would get his attention . I will give you two, charlie because i cant think of fine but i will give you two. One would be broad based deep economic sanctions. The kind of sanctions that we put on the iranians. The kind of sanctions that brought the iranians to the negotiating table. The kind of sanctions that said to dps companies and banks around the world that if you do business with the iranians, if you do business with the russians, you cannot did business with american corporations. Boy, that would get, that would get the attention of Vladimir Putin. And we might even be able, i mean when people raise this, they say jeez, we wont be able to get the europeans to go along with us. Well, theres already signs that russia is already trying to med el in the german election. So we may be able to get the europeans to come along with us here. But we should at least try. Thats one. Thats one, right. Two would be to provide offensive weapons to the ukrainians. We have been very reluctant to do that. Putin is dead set against it it would send a very powerful signal not only about the election but our support for the ukrainians and the defense of their nation. So thats two examples of what would capture his attention. Michael morell, thank you so much, have a happy holidays. Thank you, charlie. Thank you for joining us, well see you neck time. For more about this program and earlier episodes visit us online at pbs. Org and charlie rose. Com. Captioning sponsored by Rose Communications captioned by Media Access Group at wgbh access. Wgbh. Org funding for charlie rose is provided by the following and by bloomberg, a provider of multimedia news and Information Services worldwide. Good evening. My name is tj lubinsky, the executive producer of our my music presents series here on Public Television. Recently i had the occasion to witness an extraordinary film on the life and story of karen and richard carpenter. So compelling is this film that i felt the need to share it with you immediately on your Public Television station. Its the story of the carpenters their rise to success, their fame, and all we cherish and celebrate about this amazing duo. Music that has impacted and changed our lives forever, as tonight a special edition of my music presents brings you the carpenters close to you