tv Charlie Rose Bloomberg May 4, 2017 6:00pm-7:01pm EDT
>> from our studios in new york city, this is "charlie rose." this eveningegin with the fbi director james comey comey's testimony today before the senate judiciary committee. comey extended his decision to inform congress was revisiting the hillary clinton emailing you before last november's election. concealed information, he said, would be the death of the fbi. will he stood by his actions, comey said it made him mildly nauseous to think we would have had some impact on the election. he also notice questions about russia, wikileaks, and president trump's claim that the obama administration had wiretapped
trump tower. guest is a national security and federal law correspondent for "the new york times." tell me what's the headline coming out of the fbi director's testimony today. >> what comey said was if he could do it again, he would do it the same way he had, that he thinks he had no choice but to tell congress and if he didn't do that, he would've been concealing something from them. and that would have been disastrous for him and the fbi's reputation. what his would say was that well, it really wasn't a question of concealment or disclosure. why didn't you just take time to look at the emails, figure out what they were, and then inform congress? beside that a bit of a different jim comey today. comey usually the cool cats, even keel. animated,as much more
his voice was louder, he used his hands, use more expression, and he seemed a frustrated and he said at one point he's almost nauseous to think he had some impact in the election. charlie: was the defensive? >> he was the most defensive we've ever seen him great jim comey really came to the or almost 13ashington years ago when he testified about an incident where he stood up to the bush administration to not authorize a wiretapping veryam to be told a interesting story about how there was a hospital room scene with john ashcroft and the white house chief of staff and he said, we are not going to authorize this. he became a hero that would stand up and blow the whistle. someone once told me, whenever you are explaining, you're losing, and he was doing a lot of extra raining today. charlie: what would you add to this idea that he thought to have concealed would have been
catastrophic for the fbi? >> not everybody on the panel got it. he phrased it basically as he had two choices, and concealing would have been the worst option, or seeing something would have been a less that option. it was still a bad option. most of the democrats and panels did think there was a door number three, which was as mike said, take some time and look at those emails and don't talk about this if there's nothing there so shortly before an election. and even comey was acknowledging up hee knew by speaking would have some likely effect in the election that he was trying to arsenal that often his brain and not pay attention to it. a prettythat, he had significant effect, at least on the political discourse surrounding the election. so, you don't necessarily have democrats on that panel saying they didn't believe comey, they certainly believe that he believes he did the right thing, and that doesn't really matter given this did not happen in a
vacuum. he may try to make decisions in a vacuum based on perceived her, based on the rules that he conducts himself by in his own head but he still existed in the world of late october, and that was a different world in which clearly this at least rocked a lot of the emotions surrounding the election although we will never really know, trace what he said to individual votes that happened in november. charlie: she thought she had the momentum going in and this upset her momentum in the final weeks of the campaign. the interesting thing to me is the idea that anthony weiner was receiving classified information or emails that contain ossified information right how was that true? how did that work? >> we got more information about that today. apparently it was ms. clinton's close confidence and eight, was forwarding these emails to her husband, anthony weiner, who was printing them out. comey was saying even though that's wrong, it did not seem like their probe of that
whatity that they realized they were doing was actually wrong and potentially criminal, so they decided since -- the fbi decided since they didn't seem to have a cognizance that that was not a thing they were not supposed to be doing, they would not prosecute them for that. that brought low backs on the republicans on the panel. does it really matter if we are dealing with classified information without the clearance? there not buying that's link to the printer was a valid excuse. it's kind of just adding the colors of the story, though we knew there was certainly a connection between anthony weiner and clinton, and it seems logical that it was through his wife, the reasons that comey gave, which was to facilitate the emails turning up on paper that could then be showed to clinton, did make a lot of people throw up their hands and say, oh, this is what this is,
and this is an excuse for revealing classified information that is posted be regulated and only visible to people who have the clearance to be doing it. it was adjusted that secretary clinton was treated differently than donald trump. mike, did that have a residence there? ise: the issue on trump basically in july, right after the f guy closes the email opensigation, comey another investigation into the trump association into the russians democrats say, why did comey not disclose that before the election? he did disclose it in march. now, let the guy with say is at that point early on in the investigation, they really didn't know a lot and it was unclear where it was going and they try and avoid any action
whatsoever around an election. nevertheless, it really raises the question of the double standard here, and why is that? even late today, senator richard blumenthal of connecticut was saying, why is it that comey and continue to oversee the trump investigation? if he doesn't find charges, are we going to believe him? it's a decision he made on the clinton case. there seems to be political -- blowback by the end of today on comey, and questions going forward. i don't think there will be a special prosecutor. i find it hard to believe that comey would be taken away from the trump investigation. it seems at the end of the day comey cannot assuage the concerns of democrats. comey may never do that. democrats may hold comey accountable for this for the rest of his life and say he's the reason that hillary clinton did not get elected. >> she said if the election had
been held on october 27, the day before comey sent a letter, she would have been elected. she said she had some responsibility for losing, but that and the russian wikileaks really played a factor in that. charlie: what did we discover about leaks that people believe may have come from the fbi? >> there was some discussion that he was asked specifically about statements that giuliani made during the campaign that he had some advance notice from former members of the f ei, at least, there was going to be -- about the clinton investigation, he said he didn't know specifically but they were looking into it, and if they found any leaks that were made from the fbi, either journalists or individuals like giuliani, there would be consequences for that. specificallycify that she didn't substantiate any of those allegations to a specific person we've heard about, but he did pretty much corroborated that they are
looking into those weeks that were bragged about to an extent by trump's surrogates, like giuliani. charlie: how long can he stay? is it a 10 year term? >> i believe he's been in for 5 of those, if i'm not mistaken. right now there's not really people calling for his head, so it would be an extraordinary move to actually remove him. like mike said, the jury is still out on what the ultimate verdict is on comey will be, at least among the democrats, because we haven't seen yet what the trump investigation will yield traded lately they have been rather pleased with the moves that comey is making to stay on the record -- say on the record that he's investigating trump, although they would prefer yet spoken up about that eight months before he did. certainly the second time, high-level justice department officials were telling him not to do it. do not speak out, knowing what
he had and what he intended to do. his rationale again was that he thought it would be catastrophic if he didn't do it. correct? >> right. the question is really, the reality in which everyone is operating. assessment was that in terms of maintaining his own integrity, in terms of maintaining the integrity of his agency, he could not take the particulars of what was happening in that electoral space into consideration. he boiled it down to what he considers his rules, which is that you talk about an investigation that is closed. he told congress the current investigation was closed. he then gets this information -- this winter information that would implement clinton -- that investigation, so he felt he had to talk about the investigation he had said was closed and of the trump investigation was ongoing, and he doesn't talk
about ongoing investigation so it is very cut and dry in his head. charlie: what can we expect from russia in future elections and other countries where there are elections coming up? >> what comey said is that russia -- he wouldn't disclose anything about the russian investigation but what he did say was that russia was still trying to influence american politics. he didn't explain what he meant by that, and it was curious. does that mean russia is trying to influence the trump administration in some way, is there still a hacking campaign that is going on. we know the hacking campaign that the dnc was caught up in had been going on for two years straight comey did say russia was one of the biggest threats to the united states because they had the willingness and the capability to try to come back, and what do you say in response to graham was if the united states didn't do anything, that the russians would be back by the next election. this raises the question, the fbi is doing a criminal
investigation here, trying to get to the bottom of whether any laws were broken. larger lookally a going on inside the government about how to prevent something like this in the future, how to deal with this information and hacking campaign. the senate, you tell communities investigating, both of those are seen as partisan. with some folks on capitol hill, it needs to be an independent commission like there was after nine/11, to look into the russians were doing before the election and come up with this practices. that's not really something the fbi does. the f ei tells you whether you broke the law or not. charlie: with that, i have to close straight thank you very much. we'll be right bckack. ♪
clinton lost to donald trump stunned the nation. in the more than five months since, there's an much speculation about the factors responsible for her did feet to a new book, "shattered," asserts that clinton herself was the core problem. the author joins me now. amy is the senior white house correspondent for "the hill." i'm pleased to have them both at the table. first of all, tell me when the idea of doing this came about, and how the two of you got
together to do it. >> we wrote our previous book, hrc, secretary clinton's time at the state department, and we asked questions. we wanted to know if she had learned the lessons. we saw her kind of talk to a lot of a post campaign and try to figure out what happened. we wanted to answer those questions in this book. they are very different books. one is very focused on policy and what she was doing in governance and this one is a political book. charlie: you have a history of writing together, so this was already done. wereou assume, as you writing this book and doing all those inside interviews during the campaign, that she was going to be president? >> i think we both believed on election night that she was going to win that, as much as she did, as much as most of the country did. one of the keys for us is in the reporting and writing of this,
we had been reporting it back since the end of 2014 even before she got in. the key for us was that we try to report it and write it as though we didn't have any prediction of what was going to go on. as a result of that, we didn't have to go back and care anything up. we didn't have to go back and rework chapters that were built for her to win. ,e just had done the reporting and we stay true to that throughout the time. in october, right before the usction, our editor called and said, i don't understand what's going on here. you guys have this book that details all these problems, all of the clashes on substance and style within her campaign, the inability to come up with a message that really resonated with the voters. and she's about to win. he said, this is a problem for your book. i said, this is what we've got. charlie: you had people working with her saying, she struggles
to understand or articulate her motivation for running. >> right. that's chapter one. right from the start, the roosevelt island speech in new york, she brought in advisers to help craft the speech. and there wasn't a core message. people were struggling. she brought in president obama passed chief speechwriter. even he at the end of the process was exasperated i threw up his hands and said he was used in working strictly with the president and maybe one advisor. to the: go in and talk president, the president would say this is what i want to talk about. he would go back into the first draft and the two of them would go after that. >> there were too many cooks in the kitchen and he was frustrated i that. he wasn't the only one. a lot of people were frustrated. >> you have to have a bigger idea, like it's the economy, stupid. >> absolutely.
anyone in either party whose interest in politics, the people who are practitioners of a ton of this book has lessons. clinton was for a lot of different things at it was difficult for a lot of voters to figure out what were the priorities she was going to take into the presidency, what would she do with that awesome power. donald trump, despite saying things that were untrue, it was clear what he wanted to do with that power. bernie sanders on the other side , he similarly wanted to redistribute the wealth and power in this country in everything he did fit into that basket. for clinton, she built from the ground up with all these different policy ideas. it was hard to fit them under an umbrella of an easy to understand vision for voters. charlie: there was also this conflict between data and the argument that someone made yesterday is important, that you've got to have something else. >> you have to have the feel,
which president clinton had on the ground. there was something amiss, he thought. he was sounding the alarm to brooklyn. saying, their problems on the ground. i'm getting a different feel than what you are reporting back to me. at the same time -- charlie: saying that to the chairman? >> right. he's basically telegraphing this to podesta and other people. there were other problems on the ground, when you talk to state directors, they were saying, they are sending us into battle without armor. we are not prepared. there was a lack of lawn signs on the ground. there was something missing. she had to bill choose between her husband, one of the most successful politicians of his time, and a campaign run by people she hardly knew before, and she
chose them rather than her husband. >> she did. we think this because we talk to largely results from her experience in 2008 when she ran against barack obama. he ran circles around her on some things, technology. people told her she was running an old-style political machine. bill clinton had set them -- that some things he got trouble floor and he took a lot of blame for the law straight she was looking at 2016, thinking how do i do more like obama did, and the data guys were part of that. they have a ton of credit. maybe just too much. barack obama being a different product. charlie: you document so many conversations. if in fact she had won, i'm starting to be writing a book about what genius people she had behind her. >> i'm not sure. somebody would be writing that book.
this is why we wouldn't have written that book. we have this discussion before the election as we are talking to our editor about the fact that we had identified a lot of problems, even though it looked she was going to win. there were serious fundamental management problems that we would have looked at as going forward into, what is the struggles in his administration going to be? extrapolate to what the administration would look like. will she be able to go out to the people and get them behind her policies, watching donald trump struggle with that right now? he's not able to move the legislature because he's not moving the people beyond the base he has. if you look at some of the infighting, some of the backstabbing that went on, and the lack of a central clear leadership, these are problems that would have followed her into the white house. charlie: what was the difference in 2016 and 2008? >> a big problem was the leaks
in the press. this time -- i think they kind of overlearned their lesson and try to gloss over everything, and tried to make the campaign seem as if it were more joyful, a better run campaign. i mean, in some ways it was and we talk about that in the book. i think there were flaws along the way, and there were promotions and emotions and people -- we talk about this in the book, there was a creation protractor, super six, never was reported during the campaign. it was jake sullivan, gentle mary --jen palm year he. charlie: that was a kind of strategic or the ran the campaign. >> exactly. jake sullivan was her chief strategist, her policy guide. the kind of became elevated.
he was kept to his analytics and strengths and that turned out to be a weakness in the end. >> when they decided they were having trouble internally because they ran things very differently, and people couldn't get -- people below them couldn't figure out who they were supposed to respond to. the answer wasn't to streamline and put one person in charge, it was to put six in charge. bettersaid it operated after that. it is an unusual structure to be sure in a campaign. charlie: did she ask for the emails of her staff to try to determine who was what? >> some of the revelations in this book is after 2008, she was doing an autopsy on the campaign and wanted to find out what had gone wrong. she believed some of the leaking and backstabbing which are probably symptomatic of other problems rather than the cause of the defeat of the candidacy, i think she believed those things had really cost her and so she asked one of her aides to download the messages of her
senior staff so she could look through what had gone on in campaign headquarters. charlie: to medication between them so she could figure out, if she could, what went wrong. >> right. >> she had a pretty good roadmap. that's what was so fascinating about it, she had done her homework and she figured everything out. and people actually talked about that. she had it all laid out and figured out, and she knew what went wrong. after speaking to a lot of people as well. charlie: why was she -- i think she asked herself this question, others who like to very much asked this question. very popular as secretary of state, correct? but not popular as a candidate. her -- isomething with think she has shown herself to be competent at governance first of all, but second of all when she's in government, she's a list political figure naturally, particularly as secretary of state, the nation's top diplomat. she was warned in 2011 by a good friend of hers, who is an
undersecretary of state and former congresswoman, when hillary clinton's numbers rose to about 2/3 approval with the public, she was really happy about that. she said to her, the second you get back into the political realm, your numbers are going to go from 64 to 34. it was something that i think was understood by people around her, that she was a polarizing figure. office,ed her in public as first lady, the candidate's wife and venue straight she has been polarizing over that time. it's not a value judgment, it is an analysis on the political campaign trail. charlie: how has she taken defeat? >> in the beginning she didn't take it very well, and that's when we saw her taking a lot of walks in the woods. she was talking to friends, trying to figure out what went wrong. charlie: the woods behind her house? >> exactly.
she was taking a lot of walks, with her husband as well. i think she was trying to come to terms with it. she never expected to have that happen that night and she never thought she would be saying, congratulations, donald. she thought it would be a much different outcome. it took for a few months to wrap her mind -- [inaudible] the president called her. it's a very dramatic moment we reported in the book where her aide comes in holding a cell phone and she says, it's the president. she gets up out of her chair and she winces. she doesn't want to take the call. you can tell what a weighted moment that was for her. she steps into a private room. she's in a hotel suite at the peninsula hotel. she steps into her private room and her aides can hear her saying, i'm sorry, mr. president.
and then they carried on a conversation. it was a tough moment for all of them in that room. charlie: the she believe now that she got all the support she needed from him? >> one thing that she was unhappy about was after the election, more and more came out about these questions of potential russian collusion with people on the trump campaign, and she was upset that president obama didn't do more to make that public. there were things -- charlie: would you say it was an outrage? >> right. she made that case herself during one of the debates, calling trump a russian puppet and talking about the 17 u.s. intelligence agencies that had found other russians were trying to interfere with the election. she believed there was more information the president and administration had that should have been out there for the public. charlie: what she upset about
james comey? >> absolutely. i think significant contributor at the very least. she expressed this to one friend. she basically said she felt like she lost cousin of the kgb, fbi, and kkk. the last being a reference to the people who are supporters of trump who she referred to as deplorables, that now infamous moment in september 2016. charlie: she could never really apologize in a way that got through. >> no, and that haunted her from even before she announced she was running, she had this press conference at the u.n. she had to talk about it even back then and fast forward to the summer, she's frustrated because her message isn't getting through, and she's basically making the known. she's asking her aides, and in one moment her husband is just as frustrated and he's making that known, why isn't our message getting through.
they kind of want them to get out in front of it, and they are reluctant to do so initially. both of them, because they feel they've done nothing wrong. they thought it was above level. they didn't think it would be as big a story. they were telling their surrogates as much at the time, this will blow over. charlie: you suggested, if she zed in a way that served, made it clear she was sorry, that would have gone a of eliminate or reduce the impact of the trust issue. >> i think the trust issue really took hold of her campaign for months and months. you think about it, it's not just that it took her a long time to apologize. it's every day, there was no apology, and people think she did something wrong. some people think she did something illegal.
james comey decided she did not do anything criminally prosecutable. but he did have to investigate once it was clear testified information with outside the classified system. most people thought she at least it's something politically foolhardy and setting up the system. and there was nothing forthcoming for months and months and months. charlie: do you guys believe that comey had never said anything, that she would have won? >> i think it's hard to replace that. -- replay that. it was such a close election. you could point to any factor. charlie: there was momentum. end of thethe campaign because he said something early in the campaign. >> correct. it's difficult to account for what james comey did. a very good "the new york time" it's good for a pulitzer. she left her fate in the hands of the justice department and
fbi. that is not the kind of behavior you would expect from a public servant, to sort of leave those things to fate. charlie: much has been made of not going into michigan. they go into michigan? mystery.ig you have people like debbie tingle saying come in, for months. for whatever reason, they didn't take it seriously. there's this great moment of frustration where she's getting ready for a debate and it's the night after the michigan primary. it's one of the day lots of the campaign where she's letting her aides -- blowups of the campaign where she's letting her aides have it. it's a moment of frustration, i think. and it came back to haunt her. they never quite fixed that problem in the general election. that was one of the stakes that ultimately led to her defeat. clinton thought the campaign, and especially some of the campaign management,
did a terrible job. >> i think he believed they were misguided. charlie: misguided would be a better way to put it. >> i don't want to put words in president clinton's mouth. i think he believed they were so focused on data and science to the exclusion of what bill clinton was so good at, which is the art of persuasion, and couldn't understand why they wouldn't let him go out and talk to people who were not already on board with hillary clinton. they wanted him to talk to people and get them to turn him out. charlie: what's the relationship between former president obama and former president clinton? up and clinton stepped gave the best speech at that convention for barack obama to validate her on the economy, tore apart the mitt romney-paul ryan view of the economy. it brought them together. i do not think they were going to be close pals. barack obama has done enough for bill clinton and his family now, and bill clinton has done enough
or barack obama and his family that i think they can along, even though they have vastly different personal and political stuff. charlie: what happened to hillary clinton? >> it was a combination of mismanagement -- there were so many factors here. we don't want to downgrade russia and comey, because those were obviously factors. reportingd i were this book, we started noticing these flaws in the campaign. i think all of them kind of contributed to it, she became the inevitable candidate again and that was a problem for her. there was a great sense of frustration among bernie sanders reporters. some of them voted for her and kind of held their breath and voted for her, and even now they don't quite understand why they did it. they did it because she wasn't trump, but she didn't have that energy behind her. i think all of these factors kind of late into that. charlie: did she get the young vote? >> not all of it. charlie: not as much as bernie
sanders got in the primary. >> exactly great when you compare it to president obama and what he was able to do in 2008. charlie: what's happening to her now? what is her future? >> from what i understand, she is not going to be a part of her family foundation. she is stepping away from it. she wants to do something different. she's still trying to figure that out, from what i'm hearing. she could do anything great she will always be the smartest woman in the room, i think. charlie: what access did you have to her? >> we don't talk about our sources, charlie. sorry. charlie: she's the candidate. did you publicly interview her? >> we did not publicly interview her. charlie: if you had an interview with her that you could publish -- >> correct. charlie: it is the first book out there really talks about
library and opera house and 40 acre landscape park. after five years of construction and a cost of more than $842 million, the center opened last june. he was officially handed over to the greek state earlier this year. our architectural historian's new book, "cass and culture," tells the story of the -- "chaos and culture," tells the story. welcome. to this, and what story did you want to tell? >> what drew me to it was my last before this, which was about new concert halls and opera houses. and doing the research for that, and writing that book, i realized how incredibly complex it is to build a cultural venue. ie acoustics in auditoriums, think the whole problem of building for music, and
especially classical music, is much more complex than museums. thatso, it occurred to me when institutions make the decision to bill, they often do that without really knowing what they are getting into. i wrote this book primarily to raise awareness of what is involved when you take on this kind of project. charlie: you came to the project in 2008. how did that happen? >> it was a conversation. found immediately very close, my affinity. then it was a competition. they went through a selection. i'm a sailor. that's my job. place -- actually old.
i had been sailing from there. i knew the place. i sketched quite immediately the idea. view., the beautiful the idea to go up, just 30 meter up. then we discover the sea. charlie: we will show a lot of photographs and slides. that's where it is, looking out. it has magnificent cues. how far is it from the acropolis? >> three miles. athens is a very low city. 100 feet up in the air, you see everything. charlie: was that the idea? >> the idea was to make a big park, and to make a big park if you have to build, and a library , you take the entire piece of
land. the idea was to lift up in the land, and to put the opera house and the library underneath that. and by doing this, you go up. and without really understanding, you are going up. you go up. and then when you find yourself up there, you realize you have been going up. you discover the city on one side, and you see the sea on the other side. charlie: you said the process of constructing the center was to be a model for government for implementing a microcosm of the country if and when the country changes. >> yes, that's correct. andreas is an idealist as renzo is himself. convinced if was he could build this cultural center with great transparency, informing the public every step of the way, honestly, with no
graphs, no corruption, and on and on and on, with all good intentions, to be able to do something like that in a country like greece where corruption is so rampant, and where it is so terribly difficult because of the heavy bureaucracy there, to accomplish anything in a practical manner, he was convinced if he could pull this off, it would be in fact a model for the country. i think renzo at his complete confidence, and believed also this could happen. charlie: renzo, you talked about the reductive power of beauty. beauty is a beautiful idea, it's a great idea that people believe is romantic. but it's not romantic. this word has been stolen by the gurus of publicity.
when you think of beauty, you think of cosmetics. but it's not true beauty. it's one of the most important emotions in life. the only one that can compete with much worse emotion, like power, money. you know, beauty, especially talking about greece, beauty is never just beautiful. it's beautiful and good. charlie: you have also said that people need unity and hope. >> of course. when you apply beauty to a place, it is this kind of beauty. it's more -- it's about knowledge, understanding about the beauty. and you start to believe one thing. it's one of those things that can save the world. charlie: you believe that? >> i believe that.
it is one person at a time that will do that. it's a kind of idea, that one. it must be considered with more attention. charlie: the foundation said he would pay for the building and all that. at some point, the government would take over the responsibility of maintaining it. between the time of that contract and whatever the arrangement was, was written, and the time the building was finished, you went through about 7 greek governments. victoria: seven governments. they felt athens should have a proper upper house. charlie: the greek government said technically we will take over later -- over, and later the government -- victoria: that haven't been fair very of this year. the deal, the contract stipulated that when that
happened, the government would have to pick up the cap for maintaining the cultural center and for running it. but obviously that's not possible. the government has no money whatsoever, their deeply in debt and constantly borrowing more. the foundation stepped in to bail them out for the next five years, and it remains to be seen, is there something ironic about the situation. venues in theal united states, for example, and europe also, have enormous trouble raising the money to build a building. usually they manage and europe to maintain a once it is built. this building was built with absolutely no problem in funding because this very wealthy foundation was behind it. it is in more or less same situation as so many other cultural venues that don't have the money to maintain it. charlie: it wouldn't happen
without andreas. victoria: no. he was the mover and shaker. charlie: his vision was that greece needed this. victoria: the government informed him they needed it. they wanted to do something revolutionary. the national library, which had , theynly for scholars wanted to make it into a public library, which is something almost unknown. there is no tradition of public library use. so i really felt that in many ways, not only is a model to be followed in honesty and transparency, but also to open the greek public to the use of a public library. and this library is incredible, what renzo has designed. charlie: this is slight number one, image number one. anything you can tell me about that? >> is is very simple.
it's almost a childish drawing, this one red showing that when 4% go up on that, it's only for you don't even notice you are going on. up, go up to go their -- the reading room, the library. then from there, you turn your head back and you see. you see it. again, largely enough to see. seed that hashe been lost a long time ago. charlie: number two, public protests during the construction of the center. explain this to me. victoria: there were constant -- production of the center because the government agreed to the most draconian austerity measures in
order to be eligible for the enormous loans. loanse had three enormous from a group of bankers in i think one thing that should be considered in addition to the beauty of the cultural center is the extraordinary opportunity to work there, over 2000 people worked on this project. and, now that is completed, there will be many thousands working there to run it. i mean, this has been looked upon as something, a godsend to athens. charlie: the next thing is an aerial view of this. take a look. victoria: the great thing about the picture is that you can see both the sea on one side, the harbor, and the acropolis in the background. and those are the views you have when you're at the cultural center. >> i want to make a note on that. you see that kind of flying carpets up there? 10,000 square meter of solar
panel. make 2.5 megawatts o f energy. is actually more sunny than the rest of europe. -- we need this special moment when the opera goes on that is very close to me. and this building was made platinum in the system. the system is measuring the sustainability of a building. being platinum for a public building is quite unusual. this is a view of the building from the 40 acre park created by landscape designer nevins. look at it. victoria: you see the canopy again from this year. one of the fascinating things howt that canopy is
advanced it is, and experimental and adventurous. it was made by men on their hands and knees, knitting together the wire mesh that holds it together, which i think is just a fascinating paradox. you are surprised. 200 people there doing that job. the other thing you see is that. if you know greece, the first thing you know is that you need the shadow in the summer. and, this the reason why we put that there. charlie: because you need shade in the summer. and wee in the summer, need the opportunity to catch the energy from the sun. charlie: for although solar panels. the next thing is a close-up of the view from the park. >> you see from below, from underneath, teh space -- the space.
>> yes, i love the idea of exploring. this will be there forever. rust. it is something that will be there forever. and finish underneath is the brilliance, so when people move around, they reflect themselves there. it's kind of funny. showing wherey the fresh breeze comes from. fibers, madecarbon of fibers. not really carbon. the fiber -- it is flexible. so when the wind blows from one direction, the little antennas are fit and they show where the breeze comes from. charlie: when you are up on that terrace, the breezes so divine. wonderful.
charlie: the next thing is a view of renzo at work. victoria: renzo at work was like a popstar going through a city. he was followed by everybody who was allowed on the site, with flashing cell phone cameras and -- >> in that case i wish i something around in the joint. -- i was showing something around in the joint. grew up on the site. this is my place. i go around and make a pain to everybody. victoria: not a pain. i think you are greatly respected for your attention to detail. charlie: obsessive-compulsive. victoria: yeah. charlie: next is the view from the terrace above the opera house. >> nobody can compete. the idea is to make the place in the shade, but you don't have a
glare, so you can see easily everything. charlie: take a look at the next slide, an aerial view. >> you see how close we are to the water, to the sea. we are divided from the sea by the motorway there. wasonly way to find again to move on those on the feet, and that's what we did great charlie: on the next scene, we will see a nice view of the opera house and library. the next's interior to the opera house. so now greece is a national opera house straight in the a rendering every national library -- house. next is a rendering of the national library. and finally, there is a library interior. >> it is good to know that the vibrio tech -- biblioteque comes from greece.
from greece. everything comes from greece. charlie: what do you want readers to take away from this book, and this project? victoria: i would like them to be aware of the political and economic conditions in greece over this period, between the time that the deal was made for the cultural center to be built, which was as early as 2006. and 10 years later, it's completion. an awful lot happened in that time. you mention seven governments. they had this crazy finance minister. you remember him? and the current prime minister who promised one thing one it to say that he would do away with the austerity conditions, nad then -- and then a couple of months later, maybe weeks later, he reversed himself and said sorry folks, we are not going to
do away with it. it was a very dramatic time, and it was heartbreaking in terms of what the greek people were going through. i really would like -- i tried to write the book, and position, the cultural center as a symbol of hope, a beacon of light in this adversity. i think it is. everybody i ever talk to when i'm visiting athens has been positive, and just think it's the most wonderful ring. thing. it shows how important people can still have faith in the great nation. charlie: thank you for coming. victoria: thank you. charlie: the book is called "chaos and culture." great to have you. >> thank you. charlie: thank you for joining us. see you next time. ♪
IN COLLECTIONSBloomberg TV Television Archive Television Archive News Search Service
Uploaded by TV Archive on