tv Charlie Rose Bloomberg July 28, 2017 6:00pm-7:00pm EDT
>> from our studios in new york city, this is "charlie rose." and johnmark halprin heidel men are here, the co-creators of "the circus" that may. its second season in co-authors ofhe "game change" and "double down." they're at work on the third episode in the series, recounting donald trump's surprise victory over hillary clinton. pren is analyst for nbc
news. to have them back at the table. what's going on? [laughter] what's happening in america? >> i have been traveling a little bit lately outside of washington and it's clear that the velocity and pure insanity of events taking place in are captivating elites around the country. there's no doubt we've never anything like it. charlie: underline elites. elites, because as i've traveled around the country, whether trump supporters or trump points, they're not paying nearly as much attention to this clearas we are so it's this is an extraordinary period themerican history and that president is doing things we've lifetime orour maybe the history of the planet and there's the trump reality show and then there's reality america, is still going on.
economy is still going along. kids are still going to school. happening but the trump reality show now is dominating the thinking of popular culture, everything else. charlie: john? john: i think because it's dominating the popular culture, people are paying some attention to what's going on and it is the see on an almost daily basis are extraordinary and unprecedented. this not as long as you have covered events of america but we have been doing politics and politics in general for 25 years almost every day something happens that i've never seen anything like it. 24-houry, in a given cycle, there are four or five events in a given day that would have occupied five months if they occurred in another administration and i to it,f you get down there are two things that are happening. thing that's happening is the trump good evening agenda which governing agenda.
there's the investigations, picking up speed at an extraordinary rate and the is clearly reacting to them and behaving in ways that bygests he feels threatened what's happening. he's behaving like a man who is bothered by that thing that is consuming now. charlie: what does it mean to you? john: i don't know what he the possible worst case is. he knows the facts what have he has done and what his people have done in a way that none of us do but on the prima fascia basis, the things he's doing, talking about juevol sessions, he's behaving like a man who is panicking. charlie: that there is something that will be discovered by bob muller that will be more than embarrassing. john: let's say at a minimum that the investigation could presidency at the
minimum, consume it and allow get anything done and at the negative extreme could be it.hreat to end mark: he may fear much more than this but without knowing any than either ofth you, he fears that the independent counsel will investigate things beyond russia. he fears -- charlie: meaning the building of his financial empire? mark: right. he fears his children will be dragged into this in a way that will be bad for their lives and he fears that people will start cooperating with the independent all sorts ofting potential problems. charlie: to save their own skin. and: to save their own skin obviously he fears that this he could donything to be considered a great president. charlie: and ruin re-election? mark: oh, sure. he may fear substantially more least at aut at minimum, those things. john: don jr. is now dragged
into the middle of this, jared is dragged into the middle of this, dragging at least by marriage his daughter into this so they're already in middle of this now. and it's also the case that depending on how you define things outside the scope of russia and again there's some question about the things that trump says, well, if he starts finances, that's outside of -- i think he defines the russia thing is what calendar year16, 2016. it's clear right now. charlie: between my election russia's.nd john: when he says is nothing council, --pendent muller,ial counsel, bob obviously thinks trump has a intertwinement with russia and he thinks that ofrelevant as to the issue collusion. someone rescued him and gave him funds. mark: no one in america wants a counsel appointed to
investigate this. similarly butelt this special counsel has things about him that are distinctive. one, he's extremely competent. number two, he is beyond ofroach in the view republicans and democrats alike, and number three, he has hired is moving fast. sometimes moving fast is a good thing for someone because they don't want a long investigation this guy moving fast i don't think is in the president's interests because he's in the presidency ands the whole thing, right now, to some extent has overtaken quickly else and could bring it down. john: and before he is a man and everyonef now who knows him says he does not fear donald trump at all. he has nothing left to prove in his career and he has no fear of threats or intimidation of muller will not waver or quaver trump making noises about the potential of firing him and trump has not meant many are fearless in
confronting him. charlie: i watch you guys and others on television and some characterizing him as mentally imbalanced. do you buy that kind of thing? this someone fearful of where an investigation is and where it might lead? mark: he's been so many things things -- done so many things ownght airs to his interests in the last couple of haves, at a minimum, you to say he's irrational. charlie: you're saying he's irrational? mark: i'm not saying he's irrational every minute of the clearly done things irrational. the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result. it is the case that the president has always had this side, well before he was in he's always had a side of vindictive, emotional acting sometimes in a way that if you about it, you wouldn't
do. there are those who think it's gotten worse. isre are those who say this what it's like but the stakes and the scrutiny are different. charlie: witness exhibit a, the sessions.s defies why you would want to do that. purest andt's the most recent clear distillation of someone doing something not in his interests and in some sense, as some people around sessions have been trying to tell the white house if not the president directly, if what you fire bob muller, which would be a bad idea, provoking a constitutional which would cause republicans to split from him entirely. charlie: back to bob mueller who has respect across the lines. john: but if you want to, the to get rid of is not jeff whoions but rob rosen stein brought mueller on but instead he's tormenting sessions i think because, again, and he's
expressing this -- i'm not mind -- he's angry at sessions because he regards sessions as the person who byught this horror upon him recusing himself. his analysis of the reculve, is, if he told me he was going to recuse himself, i wouldn't have appointed him, make any sense in the chronology of events because sessions didn't know he would untilo recuse himself after he was already in the senate confirmations hearings and he had gotten in trouble on that front on top of which he actually did make statements in his confirmation hearings that essentially if trump had been paying attention, he would have said he might be heading for recusal on the basis of what happens in the confirmation hearing. withdrawn sessions then so the combination of his history and republicans rising up as one and you can't get rid of that man. there's bipartisan from the far liberalsive end to standing up for jeff sessions.
there's no -- he gets nothing on anyt of this possible -- wants toept that he fire mueller. if he replaces sessions and gets someone else in the attorney general spot, he could fire mueller. getsie: suppose he somebody else in. suppose it's during the the the recess appointment ronthen that person fires rosenstein. mark: they wouldn't need to. takettorney general would over the investigation. firingin, it's like comey but worse. if the goal of firing comey was to make the investigation go it had the opposite effect and only escalated it not just appointment of mueller as special counsel but because the scrutiny is so high. we also have two congressional investigations. since the mid 90's where both parties are
strategizing about getting the truth. loom out there, too. i don't think he will limit the investigation. i don't believe mueller can be fired. i believe, as a matter of regulation he can be fired but i don't believe politically the pol politics would tolerate that. i think there would be serious talk of impeaching the president mueller andto fire it would be difficult to find anyone who would pull the that.r on john: the senate has made it clear that if he were to fire sessions, there's no one whom they would confirm to take that post because they would regard it as a challenge to the constitutional order. so there would be that. also also almost certainly if mueller was somehow fired, if goal and his ultimate gets rid of mueller, they would just pass -- they're saying this annly, they would pass independent counsel law through
congress and reappointment mueller in that job. would alien 8 everyone along the way, republicans would break with him in a formal way. would still have mueller and you would have a genuine speciale style committee has mueller running it as the new independent counsel this. of charlie: the point is the f.b.i. agents will continue to investigate. lawyers.t so the president is in a corner. ands backed into a corner he's been backed into a corner estate career, political career. person as ais institutionally. and both parties, if the blue thing, the red team's for another. that's not the case. everyone in washington with the exception of the president and a few people around him believe
this investigation not just should continue but must truth must behe known. he's trying to get out of the corner by doing things that are only making it worse. charlie: do most people believe, even though they've not seen hard evidence, that there was with the russians? mark: lots of responsible people thatth parties believe there is and you've seen in the last two weeks or so a real turn on capitol hill last week talking to republicans. some have specific theories but say i can reach no other conclusion but that there's something here because the president's behaving. charlie: that's not evidence. somethings like happened. john: it's not just that. the key turning point on this front i think in terms of democrats and some republicans to start being either open to the notion that was collusion or just to believe it is was the donald jr. meeting in trump tower in june and the fact that they lied about it for so long and the story's changed. not just the president's
behavior. it's that the people around him lied for months about having met russians, that their stories about the meeting that took june 2016 changed over days, changing every day as more facts were known. were was one person, there two people, now there's eight people in the room and every day stories has made people think you don't lie about these things for months and then series ofe over a days in the middle of a crisis when the focus is on you, you lie about things if you have nothing to hide so that's provoked a lot of people to say instinctively, we don't have all the evidence here but there's something here that's beyond just hearsay and smoke. there's fire here in a lot of people's minds, that's when it changed. mark: and some republicans said, by don jr.'s account of what thereed, the only reason wasn't quote/unquote collusion is because the russians didn't goods and they can say all they want, anyone would meeting, as the president said.
most people in politics would not have taken that meeting. some say they would. even anthony scaramucci, when asked over the weekend, would have taken that meeting said, i don't know, not yes. changet and i would talk to counsel. up tothe meeting was set ludicrously, incriminating as a piece of bait to say we would like to bring information that's connected to russia's campaign to support your father and defeat hillary to bring you like this information, the you like to take that meeting. there's no subterfuge around it, it was set up in a way -- the russiane government wants your father to win. test case to the openness of collusion at a ludicrous rate. not just the email but to say paper trail, --
charlie: he owned it if for no reason vladimir putin hated hillary clinton. want and the elites didn't another administration that would keep it expanding. john: that's the assessment of the intelligence committee. charlie: in terms of what he and how he behaves, has he changed the presidency? revert back to the values and standards it had once he leaves? chance it not only reverts back but reverts back even further in response to some the things we've seen with social media and the partisanship and the kind of like everything's got to be a battle. john: i agree with that on some level. just's another level, i don't know. part of the level of unprecedentedness is that we don't have precedent. so it's sort of like, if you put a president in who has no respect for the norms that every other president has respected
and particularly a president who things, whatuntrue long-term effect does that have on the political culture and what the political culture will tolerate and what voters think of the presidency? i think it's too early to know especially if trust is in office for a full term or, who knows, eight years, if he continued along this path in a documented way as the "new york times" does, laying out the places where he speaks untruths, in a promisckious way no president thatone before, what does do to the credibility of the office and how voters think about the presidency and to the presidency interplays with the media. i don't know what the answer is to that whether there's lasting damage. i just don't know.
charlie: two intriguing questions for me are if things continue as they are and get worse with more disclosures, you see his base deserting him, in part, and two, that areou see people considered strong in the administration saying, i can no this? tolerate mark: i don't think the base desert him on these types of things. onhink it will desert him his failure to deliver on promises. i think the question about, he tookbout before
office -- what will the quote/unquote adults in the cabinet do. it's impossible to know but my ifse is that by january, things are not different, you will see -- it could be sooner but i think by january, by the state of the union. john: interestingly, the place where you're starting to see the movement is in the foreign policy place where people who solace inly wanted trump's presidency have looked at those particular grown-ups, matus and tillerson and master and have said, the worst things we have to fear with temperament in crisis and all three right now, tillerson said i'm going to take got to get away from this a little bit. he's been in office six months. all three of those have high flight risk at this point. i'm not predicting any of them you're hearing emanations from people around them that their frustration level is mounting. in as patriots to try
in ways to constrain the guy theyre working for and as see he's unconstrainable, you sense in varying degrees at that all three are starting to do soul searching about how long to stay and if one goes, that will be an earthquake. than one goes, it will be a san francisco earthquake. it's matus, for example, people will have to ask themselves, if he's leaving, how can i stay? mark: the only caveat is if the president could find an excellent person to quickly replace him. that's the only cav caveat. made the house just first major personnel change they've made and if what was a ailing the white house was too draman-fighting, too much over the people's agenda, was not theamucci answer. he has produced again today, chaos, drama. do today?hat did he
mark: last night he did an interview which was published today. charlie: in "the new yorker." mark: yes, in which he, on the record, there are questions emerging about whether he meant to be on the record but it has been printed as a profanity laced attack -- he called up a reporter to say i want to know who your source was on a tweet you did yesterday about the a private dinner with some people associated with fox news and in the course of the relatively short conversation, profanity laced manner, he attacked both the staff ande chief of the white house chief strategist, reince priebus and steve bannon, and the reverberations of this will be powerful. charlie: impacting in crude ways. mark: again, the people who there him brought in saw needed to be more order, less chaos, more productive communication out of the white house and people look at what's happened since anthony took this mostnd it's exacerbating
of the things that ailed the white house. john: at the heart of the story althoughe profanity, it's incredible. it's notable. at the heart of the story, though, is the thing that he last night and that in he stated asw that plainly as you can state it which is that he believes that ofnce priebus, the chief staff, is the chief leaker and night heanted -- last said this in a tweet which he deleted -- he wanted the f.b.i. houseestigate the white chief of staff and he says it in the interview. that for arom second. the new incoming white house communications director who's officially in the job yet, is publicly calling for an f.b.i. investigation of the white house chief of staff on twitter. now, that is a very trumpy kind of thing to do but to mark's the kind of thing that in any other administration would have been not just someceivable but kind of
fantastical concept. about the disruption it brings. mark: people talk about how the had a lot ofhouse infighting. can you imagine the communications director accusing the chief of staff of committing crime? john: and saying i want the investigate. charlie: what good can you say after thepresident first six months? there's an article in the "wall today, to gauge impact, go beyond the laws he's through the vast he wields, to those who apply the wall. portrayed as a do-nothing president. it may be true if the benchmark anlegislation but that is incomplete benchmark. to gauge a president's impact, law hee to go beyond the
signs to the vast authority he wields. mark: that's true, particularly the area of regulatory reform, the president's achieved credit fore's given but in the areas of legislation, particularly in the areas he taxes andetting in, healthcare, two big areas that affect every american so i agree achieved some things but it sort of to counter conventional wisdom to suggest lot,accomplished a whole number one. and number two, part of the challenge of the presidency is getting things done but explaining to the country why they're a good idea and on most regulatory reforms, i've heard the president talk vaguely is goodss regulation but i don't believe he's convinced the country that a, it wille very much, b, affect their lives or c, it's the right thing for the country. john: if you wanted to say has had a positive impact. if you were a very, very, very conservative person on policy
matters and you looked at the e.p.a. and the justice the reasons this "wall street journal" article suggests, there's stuff happening in nose areas in if you're anere environmental conservative, want todenier, if you return to a law-and-order, pre-obama, bush, clinton, reagan, back to a nixon-style law-and-order approach, you would say things are happening in those areas so some constituency say the ball's moving forward. charlie: mark, you've said two things. you've said in this conversation a hugeis election was event in terms of the flow of american history looking at the second world war and other things that have had huge significance to most americans. you've also said at this table that donald trump is probably as politician as you have seen in american politics with the exception of bill clinton. still believe both of
those things? mark: in the context of being a the white he won house having never run for anything before and making lots somehow of mistakes and still won. he won for other things, including weakness from his think he was an impressive presidential candidate, based on the result. is one of the most consequential things that have be talked about by americans for as long as there is history of america. people all the time and this was true before he took office but after he was elected who say this is the worst thing that's ever happened to me. not to the country, but to me. causeduma this has amongst tens of millions of americans is profound. 9/11 was a dramatic event for the country and people dying is a bigger deal than anything else but this is a profound event for the people on the left, as a thing and also psychologically. there are people who wake up and is happeninge this
and on the other side there are we've who rejoice that elected a president who is not a politician and is changing washington fundamentally and i president willt most certainly restore most of what donald trump has changed in style.f policy and i don't think we're too close to it to say there are very few events in american history that a deal as this. john: here's something that's also true and it's one of the unusual things about trump's presidency and was not true of obama, was not true of bush, was not true of clinton, was not true of reagan. office anded in there are particularly for groups that are on the margins society, they are afraid. they are afraid. hispanic americans are afraid of people being deported. he sent outtorm yesterday proclaiming in a way that had nothing to do with settled policy or real plan.
it, charlie, the transgender thing. there are thousands of transgendered soldiers willing to die for the country who are out serving with honor who just the president come up yesterday and say they should be kicked out of the military. those people are living in fear to some extent and i think there are lots of arguments about policy and people get angry but there's more among especially disenfranchised groups in america, there's more fear of what might happen to them if donald trump stays ever seenthat i've from my time covering politics thingat's a non-trivial that's very real. charlie: within the white house, there's a lot of faction. that? the consequence of mark: one thing anthony scaramucci says in "the new thatr" piece online is reince priebus will soon be gone, he will be asked for his resignation. also said that he and reince priebus were like abel.nd
mark: i get the sense of some of reince priebus and people associated with him will be gone relatively soon, if evening.say, this charlie: this is a man who was republican the committee. mark: my guess is that the president will like what anthony scaramucci is doing. it's very much like what the president would do. believe steve bannon is entrenched at this point. of greatperiods crisis, people turn to those they trust. sean spicer was never a trump person. he looks around the white house consolidatingnow power are those favored by the dwindlingp and a group that he really trusts which is his family so right now still trusts jared kushner and his daughter, ivanka. are favored by them and
they're not washington functionaries, they're not the crowd, like anthony scaramucci, outsiders, new york people, many of them people of means, something trump really respects. reasons bannon is secure is because trump looks at guy who made tens of millions of dollars. mark: corey lewandowski and dave bossy from outside, they were traveling with the president this week and they're still very and there again, as john suggested, people who helped him win and a lot of like that when they face a crisis, they go back to people that helped him win. charlie: can he turn it around? mark: sure. there are a lot of second acts in american politics. the president's numbers have gotten substantially worse on of does donald trump care about people like you. one of the great numbers in american polling and it actually track with his approval number. he's not convincing people, tweeting and
attacking sessions and doing things that don't affect the real lives of people directly. have a comeback, he'll have to convince people he cares about them. interveninge of an event which could happen, you know, some kind of natural things on the foreign stage. outside of them. stage, there's not an event you could see plausibly down the road that turn this around. there may be one but at the moment, the trajectory, it's very unlikely it seems to me that there would be repeal and replacement of the affordable care act. it's very unlikely, it seems to debtw, we could have a ceiling crisis. people aren't paying attention to it. as other things fall away and as investigations and the scandal grows and i think that take up more and more bandwidth, not less, the ability done, get smaller and smaller, without getting anything done, it's hard to turn ratings asoval
people watch the clock turn and calendar turn and he's accomplishing nothing to make lives better especially on the economic front. it just doesn't -- again, i'm notion that it's possible but it's hard to foresee and sketch the scenario at 46 orhe suddenly is 47 or 50 -- let alone 50, by the year. the charlie: or do what you have to do in politics, get a second look. mark: he's in a bad place. charlie: thank you. back in a moment. stay with us.
charlie: the singer-songwriter has been called the new bob dylan. he is best known as the front indie group, bright eyes. as latest album acts as companion piece to last year's ruminations. npr describes it as a collection of brave, dark songs containing of his best lyrics and imagery. performing "until saint kicks us out." studio.t in our ♪ rise and shine, get out of bed, get ready for the day, get a coffee from the deli, walk the river bank, be careful with your thephones on when you cross
f.d.r., you don't want to be a you make to the and had you shake your sit down in, just the back, all your friends got and knivesof you falling fast so you don't want sad so you're thinking it out some things we lost never if you're gonna talk like that, at least buy round, we can keep drinking till saint dempster out. us
i'm glad to stick around, we can keep drinking till saint dymphna out let's get enabled, great minds, they think alike, i never was a good job of when to it a night. oh, you don't want to say it but out loud,nking it some things go south and they around.rn a confidante, i'd keep let you down, we can dymphna still saint kicks us out. we can keep drinking still saint dymphna kicks us out.
think that's a good term because me folk music is easy music to play. i never went to school for it. everything i learned is very i feel like folk music at its core is just that, playing with whatever instruments they have. and of course back in the day, back on the front porch or whatever. growing up, my friends and stuff punk rock bands and blah, blah, blah but at the heart of it i've always felt like it was about the simple chord progression and the song,, the core of the and you can dress it up in different ways with production and bells and whistles but i theys hope my songs, when come down to their simplest worthwhile.ill charlie: what do you start with? conor: usually -- sometimes it will be one line or something. of people have thought that it comes, the lyrics come
i get the vocal melody down first so i'll sing into my whatever, little back in day it was a little dictaphone, now it's the phone. just sing gibberish until i get a melody that's crystallized and like to write the words to the melody because i feel the way phrasing and you lay the words within the aspe of the melody is just important as the poetry, you know what i mean, so they have be married in the right way but i always start with the melody. charlie: what do you think they're trying to express? is it your voice? they the songwriting, when say the new bob dylan? there's soously, many new dylans so stand in line but -- torlie: but they're trying say something. they hear something. conor: i thought that, music journalists, is shorthand for like, you have a lot of words in
your songs and sort of the poetry aspect of it is as important as the musical aspect. and i don't know. more ilike, to me, the can -- i don't know, find something universal. you're expressing yourself but finding something that, i don't know, just like guess, canience, i they relate to it as being a human being on this planet. charlie: are you saying what feel? conor: i don't know, i'm saying what i feel but the hope of it is -- all of art is communication. you're putting it on a balloon andthrowing it in the air you don't know anybody's going to receive it on the other side but that's the hope. control once i put it out there. charlie: what's the difference album, "ruminations,"
and this one, in terms of what you're trying to accomplish? conor: kind of the way it happened, the ruminations is me, just me on guitar, harmonica singing all by myself in our studio i have with omaha so it's bleak. charlie: dark? conor: i suppose so. songs so -- the second record was the one that i intended to make. it with jim kellner, drummer, plays with everybody. he co-produced with me. charlie: including neil young. conor: neil young, yeah, john d, everybody. he's an amazing person and was a big part of that record so that out to record i set make, the "salutations" but the label i'm on kind of fell in love with the demos i had made in omaha and so they convinced out this demo versions
first so that came out last and then the new record came out in spring. charlie: what are you backed up with here? conor: on the record it's jimmicalener on the drums and upstate newand from york called the fleece brothers who are an amazing band who play so the other instruments it's accordion, violin, piano, guitar, bass, drums. yeah, it's a good group. charlie: there's a time you went omaha. for what purpose? conor: you know, i always had in, one foot out. i had, like, with my friend, mike mogles, who played in my old band with me, we built a studio and our hades were conjoined so we a studio thing going on. i never fully left. but i live in new york for 13 years and a couple of years ago i finally had to -- they finally village. out of the they don't want folk singers
down there anymore, so -- charlie: did that do something for you to go back to where your roots are? conor: my relationship as i'm sure with a lot of people's home is complicated. definitely it shaped me and there's a lot of people i love thingsnd a lot of great that i think are worthwhile but a very, you, it's know, politically, it's like abysmal. for my taste, they have their backwards like all and some aspects of it are hard to live with but i try to focus on the good things. i like the house and my friends and my dogs. mentioned politics. you're also well known because of the fact that you don't hide your politics? conor: sure, i'm the classic hearted liberal that everyone hates, you know. but no, i don't care. never felt like -- i don't
think as an artist you should obligated to put your politics into your music but if compelled to, i just think people get a lot of grief, like, oh, it's the hollywood elite telling us what to do or telling us,usician what does his opinion matter? but i always felt like if you're artist, that doesn't mean you surrender your rights as a citizen and if you have a yourself, doxpress it, if you're compelled to. you don't have to but for me been times i was compelled to. charlie: some say these are the people showing up at town meetings and expressing their sharply taylorry swift -- conor: yeah, we need -- we need everyone's opinions but more than anything right now the to me is the lack of agreement on reality. like there's no agreement. on facts.nd conor: yes, like empirical
longer important. it blows my mind, how can you scienceregard for and -- yeah, just facts. and now anything goes so we're in this mist of like i misunderstandings. charlie: what represents that album? this conor: song-wise, i don't know. i think it's layered through there. my songs, they'll kind of be like simultaneously have some, ialso don't know political or social them kind aspect to of interwoven. i've written a few songs that overtly political, more like this is a commercial for the way i feel. of writingrite kind incorporates both of those -- the personal and the world view together because i think that's more accurate to the of being a person. like you're going through your
inner world but you're also living -- you're living in the which is just multitudes of different ideas that you're getting bombarded with all the time. charlie: you are on your way to europe? europe next to week. leg of thep this u.s. tour and i'll be over there. charlie: are the audiences different? do they respond differently? these songs that come from deep inside of you and people can feel it because the they're there is that they identify with something in your song? conor: yes, there are differences with audiences as far as how much they listen versus party. i guess the biggest striking like the kindbe of stadium festival, like u.k. clapping the whole time and if you go to japan, golf claps and
really listen. amazed with myn people, because of their education systems, they learn english as children but always amazed when we'll be far away in some other country and people want to come because is so word centric, it's not like you can really dance to it that often. so i'm amazed when people connect, in a second language, lyrics.with the i think that's cool. atrlie: this was recorded shangrila studios in los angeles. conor: rick rubens owns it. charlie: you seem like you're to the outside world but at the same time you have a attitude.-it-comes conor: i've always felt sort of isky with my career which like i never really --
charlie: set out to do something? conor: i never really got that famous or got into a position where there was like -- and of are some pressures but basically i've always kind of -- we started off in omaha own record label and we did that for years and kind of stuff like -- every little milestone was celebrated great.is is it was the opposite of like an overnight success. that ilt like i'm lucky feel like because it's been so even if it plateaus into just, i can keep -- to me, more important than at this point for sure than like elsed sales or anything you're going to do. i hope to be still writing songs and playingecords for people. i'm 37. so i hope, i look up to guys like -- charlie: rolling stones. any ofbruce or neil or those guys. thisu can still be doing
stuff. charlie: in their 70's? conor: that would be the ultimate goal. famous wooden table. charlie: thank you for coming. you.: so great to talk to i really appreciate it so much. oberst, thank you for joining us. see you next time. ♪ ♪ it youcause you got an't have to flaunt it with men,ss stream of famous
♪ anchor: welcome to "the best of bloomberg markets: middle east." efforts to resolve qatar's isolation reached an impasse. the saudi led block when it even more concessions. we spoke to citigroup's chief economist and a local investor. of the year raise $2 billion. we took a look behind the numbers. oil headed for one