tv Charlie Rose PBS February 22, 2016 12:00pm-1:01pm PST
>> rose: welcome to the program. we begin this evening with the battle between apple and the federal government over encrypted data in their iphones. we talked to cyrus vance, jr., the district attorney from new york, and john miller, the deputy commissioner for intelligence and counterterrorism at the nypd. >> i understand, as we all do, i think, with the need for privacy. i mean, i want privacy. at the same time, if you put privacy so far over public safety, what you're going to get is a world with lots of privacy but also a lot of crime because criminals understand these devices are warrant-proof. >> rose: with the caucuses in nevada and the primary in south carolina, we talked to mike allen of politico and jonathan karl of abc about the winners and losers. >> the polls have been all over
the place but there is some evidence of some left with kasich. i think that he had -- you know, he had the best debate in many ways in that raucous all-out brawl we saw in south carolina because he was the one to say, hey, wait a minute, this is ridiculous, why are we being so negative? kasich is a tough candidate for this republican party to win a primary, obviously. so the prohibitive underdog. but i think kasich lives to fight beyond south carolina. >> rose: finally, we introduce you to marley dias, a remarkable young woman, age is 1. 1 -- age 11. >> i told my mom and she said what are you going to do about it so we started a book drive in which black girls are the main character and we gave them to her school and my elementary school where the problem started and a school in newark and philadelphia. >> rose: the encryption fight,
the primary and the remarkable marley dias when we continue. funding for charlie 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. >> rose: privacy, technology and national security all collided this week when a federal judge in california ordered apple to create software that would disable the security features on an iphone used by the san bernardino shooters. that would allow the f.b.i. to access the phone's encrypted data which they believe might include helpful information in the fight against terrorism. if f.b.i. says there is no other way it can get the information
from the phone. apple says it doesn't have a way to do that and that creating one would pose a security risk to every iphone it sold. apple's c.e.o. tim cook talked about this issue in an interview last fall for "60 minutes" and this show. >> here's the situation. on your smartphone today, your iphone, there is likely health information, there is financial information, there are intimate conversations with your family or your co-workers. there is probably business secrets from the work that you're doing. there is also tracks of what you searched on, lots of information about what you're looking at and writing. maybe you're a journalist and maybe even your sources, right? >> rose: sure. all this stuff is incredibly personal and we believe incredibly private and you should have the ability to protect it. and the only way we know how to do that is to encrypt it.
why is that? it's because, if there is a way to get in, then somebody will find a way in. there have been people that suggest that we should have a backdoor. but the reality is, if you put a backdoor in, that backdoor is for everybody, good guys and bad guys. so we don't know of a way, nor have i heard of anybody else bhof come up with a way to safeguard your information unless we encrypt it. >> rose: okay. but does the government have a point in which they say if we have good reason to believe in that information is evidence of criminal conduct or national security behavior? >> if the government lays a proper warrant on us today, and it's been through the courts and so forth, a judge has ruled, then we will give the specific information that is requested, because we have to by law. in the case of encrypted
communication, we don't have it to give. so like your imessages are encrypted, we don't have access to those, your facetime is encrypted. >> rose: how do you get to the government's dilemma? >> the problem with that is saying -- i don't believe that the tradeoff here is privacy versus national security. i think that's an overly simplistic view. we're america. we should have both. we shouldn't give up national security for privacy and we shouldn't give up our privacy for national security, and i believe strongly we can have both. >> rose: president obama has spoken about the necessity of a balance between the need for national security information and the desire for privacy. >> the way i view it, my job is both to protect the american people and to protect the american way of life which includes our privacy. and, so, every program that we
engage in, what i've said is let's examine and make sure that we're making the right tradeoffs. now, with respect to the n.s.a., a government agency that has been in the intelligence-gathering business for a very long time. >> rose: bigger and better than everybody else, i assume. >> bigger and better than everybody else, and we should take pride in that, they're extraordinary professionals and dedicated to keeping the american people safe. what i can that if you are a u.s. person, the n.s.a. cannot listen to your telephone calls, and the n.s.a. cannot target your e-mails. >> rose: and have not. and have not. they cannot and have not, by law and by rule, and unless they -- and usually wouldn't be they, it
would be the f.b.i., go to a court and obtain a warrant and seek probably cause, the same way it's always been. >> rose: but in the wake of the controversy of the phone to have the san bernardino shooters, the president's press secretary said the f.b.i. can count on the full support of the white house. we now turn to two men who have been tangling with apple's encryption issues in other criminal says. cyrus vance, district attorney for the county of new york. john miller is the nypd deputy commissioner for intelligence and counterterrorism. i am pleased to have them on this program. it is a continuing interest of this program to talk about it. cy vance, how important of an issue is this? >> it's, charlie, a very important issue for law enforcement at the state and local level as well as at the national level. since apple changed it's operating system in the fall of 2014 to reengineer it so that the phones could not be accessed
even with a valid warrant, there have been 175 cases in our office using the new operating system that we are not able to get in to look at phones which need to be analyzed to build criminal cases and, indeed, to make sure that we're prosecuting the right person. those cases range from homicide to sex abuse, sex trafficking to cyber crime. so at the state and local level where 95% of the cases in the country are handled, our inability to access data on cell phones which are being used by criminals to communicate and to store data, is a real problem. >> rose: so you are saying this is important for you more than just a case of the san bernardino's phone. >> the san bernardino case presents one example of a case involving terrorism where the federal government believes that critical evidence may be on that phone. there are tens of thousands of other cases around the country and investigations relating to
homicide, to sex abuse where data is going to be on smartphones that prosecutors and police officers need to access with a court order in order to do the right thing and get the right result in each of those cases. >> rose: so if, in fact, somehow the government can get apple, the company to give them a way into the phone used by the san bernardino shooters, you will want the same kind of right to get access to phones that are involved in cases under your jurisdiction? >> we have asked apple to do something very straightforward, charlie. up until end of september 2014, apple maintained its own key, not a key that i held, not a key that the other government agencies held, and they could unlock a phone when we presented them with a court order, submit it to a neutral judge saying there is evidence on this phone and it relates to this person, we ought to be able to look at that data.
i'm asking apple to return to september '14 at a time when apple made no complaints that the operating system it was using, iowa 7, was insecure. i would like to read to you from apple's own statements about ios7, the software immediately preceding ios8. apple described its software as a technology that i.o.s. devices can be used with confidence in any personal or corporate environment and went on to say about i.o.s.7 provides solid protection against viruses, malware and other exploits that compromise the security to have the platform. so my question for apple is has the i.o.s.8 engineering to prevent government from accessing the phones with a warrant -- >> rose: them from accessing. -- but is it an issue of privacy or marketing?
because i don't believe apple made the specific case giving us examples -- >> rose: are you questioning the motives of the c.e.o. tim cook? >> i'm not calling anyone's motives into question. i'm making a point in september 2014 under ios7, apple was able to respond to search warrants and never a complaint that 7 was insecure or my data on my phone was at risk of being stolen. i don't know what changed between september 30 and october 1 when they introduced io8. >> rose: what do you think changed? they probably had a better operating system. >> i think they made a decision obviously consciously to engineer out of the phones their ability to open them, and i think apple is a great company, phenomenal company, as is google, but no company is above the law, and we have relied upon our fourth amendment principles where reasonable searches were
permitted if judges concluded based upon a presentation of the evidence that there is probable cause, there is evidence of a crime. >> rose: i assume the reason they did that is they didn't want that responsibility of having a door in the back end, and that they basically wanted to say the best way for us to protect the data that is within a phone that we sell is simply not even to give us to encrypt it so well that we don't have access to it. >> charlie, that may be the best way to protect the data that they are seeking to belong off, but it is not an answer for government to be able to access that data in order to protect private citizens and to find a path toward justice for victims whether a case of terrorism or a case of state crimes like rape, homicide and assault. >> rose: john? how do you see this? >> i think it raises a series of interesting questions. one, this is something that technically everybody believes apple can do and that they've
elected not to do it because they've chosen to make a stand here. why they'd make a stand here raises a couple of questions. number one, their core principle here, charlie, is they have to protect the privacy of their customers. in the case of this phone -- >> rose: or the information of their customers. >> those two customers are dead. they were terrorists killed by police in san bernardino. so why are they protecting people who under the law have no right to privacy. the privacy rights go away with your death or who are confirmed terrorists. so one question is why are they making a moral stand on the case where they're not on the side of the angels, bad for apple, probably good for the f.b.i., but the other question is, as district attorney vance pointed out, when you talk about this in a way i find offensive, which is the government wants a back door. charlie, the government goes to a judge and makes a showing of
probable cause to show that a crime has been committed, and they get a search warrant signed by a judge, and they go to a company and they hand that paper over, that's not a back door. that's a front door. that's how we work in a democracy. that's how we protect people from other crimes. >> rose: so having said that, you're suggesting apple can access this particular phone if they want to? >> i believe that apple's capabilities are remarkable when it is their desire. i will tell you a story, and district attorney vance was there for all of this. a couple of years ago the manhattan d.a., the san francisco d.a., the police commissioner of new york city bill bratton began to go after apple because the rise of violent crimes connected to people having their phones stolen, people were being beaten and attacked and the phones stolen, we approached apple and said is there a way you can zap that phone remotely as a
customer and make it useless? if people can't resell that phone, they won't steal it anymore, and apple spent a long time telling us all all the technical reasons that was impossible until the publicity got too hot. until they felt one day from a marketing standpoint they looked bad and then they fixed it in five minutes. so when you're hearing a story, again, from the technical geniuses of the computer software world that suddenly they can't do something -- what are the feds asking? they're asking them to go into the information portion of the phone and disable the key that says after ten failed password guesses it will erase the data. >> rose: they can do that with software. >> right and the f.b.i. is asking them to give them an automated process to try combinations of passwords since we're pretty confident they won't get it in nine guesses and
that's to access the phone. what's so important in the phone? we don't know. we know they destroyed their hard drives, computers and other phones and this surviving advice may contain information that matters to me as the head of counterterrorism and intelligence in new york city, i want to know from the f.b.i. did somebody order them to do that? are there communications or notes in that phone that they they were controlled by somebody from i.s.i.s. or al quaida? and if so, is that person identifiable? did they talk to someone in new york? is there another plot being planned? let's get down to it. tim cook's approach is he's doing this for the protection of apple customers. i get that on one level, but how that translates into ignoring an order from the court or apple's other customers, charlie, how many people who were killed in the bata clan theater in paris or san bernardino died with iphones in their pockets? they're apple customers, too. we have to care about them,
also. >> rose: and in interned o as you said -- and in san bernardino, as you said. what are you asking? what do you want apple to do? >> i think d.a. vance put it perfectly which is in a parallel universe just a year ago, they had a key they had that could open any phone pursuant to proper legal process. >> rose: you want them to go back to that? >> not a back door. a front door. >> rose: no, go back to that? yes, want them to go back to the way it was before, which is how we deal with banks, financial institutions, other holders of records. there isn't a safe or a safety deposit box or anything else that you can't show up with a warrant from a federal judge and open it. >> rose: my point is this isn't about much more than the one phone that belonged to one of the terrorists in san bernardino. you want to use this as a way to expand the access of law enforcement to the phones of
people you believe have committed or associated with criminal acts? >> so it is and it isn't, charlie. first, what the f.b.i. is saying is, in this case, let apple figure out their way into this phone, then hand it to the f.b.i. and take that key and throw it away. >> rose: right. it's a one-time thing. however, you do raise a point. let me put it this way -- if an executive at apple and a member of their -- had a member of their family kidnapped, all this high horse stuff would end very quickly. they would have their best engineers working on opening that phone and it would be done in a very short time, with or without a court order. if we stopped a guy at the ransom drop and took the phone and said the clue to where the kid is in this device, they would figure it out. >> rose: they're not figuring it out now? >> well, they're not figuring it out because they have chosen to make this stand on this case. >> rose: because they believe it will be a precedent. that's the point that tim cook continues to make that this will
be a precedent that will be used time and time again for access -- >> charlie, one last time, i want to quote apple. >> rose: okay. about difference between the operating systems? >> let me tell you what about it said about i os 7. apple offered strong encryption as in ios7 and told the public it would maintain ability for police to investigate robberies and other crimes, searching for children, helping a person with alzheimer's or helping to prevent a suicide. take their word for it. apple felt i.o.s.7 was secure, recognized they had a responsibility to help police and the public when a criminal matter had occurred and suddenly, overnight, they changed their tune. i happen to believe it really is a reflection of market forces that they need to address, but -- >> rose: what market forces? to say our phones are more
secure than anyone else's and hackers can't hack them because we have an encryption process? >> exactly. charlie, take the bad guys' word for it, not ours. ask district attorney vance about the tape his office has from the telephones at rikers island where a prisoner is describing to his colleagues on the street how important it is that it get ios8 to avoid scrutiny from law enforcement. >> rose: take a look. this is the bill bratton quote in which an inmate says that encryption is a gift from god. here it is. >> if our phones are running on the io8 software, they can't open my phone, the inmate said. that might be another gift from god. well, i would advocate apple and google should not be in the business of giving gifts from god. >> rose: i want to make sure i haven't left this idea. clearly, if there is access to this phone, you want access to all those phones that you think
are crucial in a criminal proceeding? >> absolutely right. and what we are asking for is what i think the fourth amendment permits us under the constitution to do. we can't conduct unreasonable searches and seizures. that's what the constitutional law says. when we go to a judge we ask to get evidence out of a phone we believe to have evidence and the judge issues the order. what's the definition of reasonableness? we are doing something necessary and reasonable in order for us to fulfill our mission to the public. >> rose: why is google and all these other companies come to support apple's decision? >> i think there is a couple of things going on here, but let's take a look at the big change in. the post edward snowden world, and a report came out just this week saying ed yard snowden's claims about government collection of americans' internet communications were wildly overstated, but that
perception is reality. in the post-snowden world, companies like apple and verizon and google all felt threatened that their customers may have thought they betrayed them because some of the overreaching reporting here. so i get that as the district attorney says, a bit of this is a marketing game. but at the end of the day, it's probably not going to be the f.b.i. against apple where the court, as the arbiter, that solves the bigger question that you inskeep raising here which is it's not just about this one phone. ben franklin is the person who said a long time ago he who trades liberty for security is a fool who deserves neither. we don't -- >> rose: are you asking them to trade liberty for security? >> no, not at all. we don't trade privacy for security, liberty for security as a government. the way that works in a democracy is the people decide
where to set those tolerances, and they do it based on the current conditions -- how much is the need for privacy, what are the threats in the security world -- and they go to their lawmakers and tell them what they expect and, at the end of the day, the ultimate fix here is probably going to be based on legislation driven by the people. >> we have seen, throughout our history, the phenomenon where businesses have a product which becomes ubiquitous, which everyone uses, that they have a corporate responsibility to address how to deal with protecting victims of crime from the very product that the business is selling and is being used to commit a crime. let's take banks. i'm sure banks weren't enthusiastic to have to file currency transaction reports which is a document when more than 10,000 in cash is moved. but we all understood criminals were moving money through banks and banks had to recognize they had a responsibility, not that they wanted to do it but they
had to do it and did it. and there are money laundering rules that now apply to banks. preservation of documents and the likes. it's expensive for the banks but they have a responsibility to do it. even in cayia in 1994 where the government said the telephone companies had to provide an access point for wiretaps to maintain a link to the line because we all understood criminals were using telephones and the phone companies had a responsibility to protect their customers and the community. apple and google in this case have simply said -- >> rose: most of silicon valley are supporting apple. >> those people who are supporting apple, i believe, have let apple and google on their own draw the line where security and privacy should be balanced. they've done it independently and drawn it all the way over here which happens to coincide with the self interests. >> rose: what would you like the legislation to say? >> i would like the legislation
to reflect the calia law which is communications and law enforcement act which says if you have a giant platform people communicate on that there needs to be a way with lawful orders -- >> rose: and procedures that provide new course. >> and consider privacy and constitution and everything else, the way we do it in a democracy, to be able to get into those things and provide for stopping criminal acts, bringing cases, saving lives and, as the d.a. said, you can't just unilaterally decide you are going to put yourself above the law. i think that's what the legislation is. what happened with calia is it was about telephone communications and these things are way more complicated than telephones because they do so much more and that because calia doesn't apply and we lost our way there. the bad guys figured this out,
the terrorists have figured this out. we've seen that now in real life in san bernardino and other places. it's just that the business hasn't figured out that this is about more than just them and their customers. >> rose: i'm perplexed that the issue which came after snowden, this debate between freedom and privacy, freedom and security, and even the president in an interview talked with me about it, finding the balance, that we haven't found the balance. >> i believe it is unfortunate our legislators in the public weren't aware enough of this issue so that we could have addressed it at an important time. apple and google made an independent decision. they own the companies, changed the phones and reset the rules. frankly, law enforcement was unaware that this was going to happen, at least to my knowledge, and shame on us. but we woke up one morning and
that next morning we realized the murder case that i wanted to investigate by getting access to the phone of the victim was no longer capable of being accessed and that actual evidence that affects real people in real cases all around the country are being affected. i understand, as we all do, i think, with the need for privacy. i mean, i want privacy. at the same time, if you put privacy so far over public safety, what you're going to get is a world with lots of privacy but also a lot of crime because criminals understand that these devices are warrant-proof, they can use them to communicate with each other without fear of ever leaving evidence, and i don't think that's the world that america wants to live in. america wants to live in a world that balances privacy and public safety. we've gone far beyond that at this point and i think apple and google, i hope, will come to
this voluntarily. >> rose: you used to work at the f.b.i. >> sure. >> rose: the director of the f.b.i. has been having talks with the people in silicon valley. whawhy have they failed? what is the essential breakdown point? these are patriotic americans who run these companies. >> many patriotic americans through the annals of history have been swayed by making lots and lots of money. >> rose: are you really saying you think these executives are simply doing this kind of encryption policy because they want to make a lot of money? >> well, there are smart people at samsung who aren't doing the same thing, and when you have a competitive marketplace, the thing that separates your product from another is the advantage you can give that the other guy doesn't. >> rose: in terms of privacy. ight. so apple has identified this, i guess, as that advantage.
if you accept the commercial motive. now, the director has been by far the most reasonable voice in this discussion. i like his framing which is, look, these are good people at apple. they're not bad guys, but they have a business model that they're concerned with, and we're good people at the f.b.i. and we have protecting the american public we're concerned with, and we have to inskeep talking about this where we find a way to serve both of these. i think that that conversation took a little bit of a turn when apple was handed a court order with something that seemed to be within their capabilities in a case that was very serious involving a number of people killed in a terrorist incident and said this is where we're making our stand, we're saying no, not because we don't think this can be done, but because we don't feel like it. i think that's changed the pitch and tone of this conversation. >> rose: do you believe that apple wanted to make a case here, that this is where they chose to defend their definition of privacy? >> you know, there is a case in
brooklyn involving a drug dealer where they said we could do it but we won't. >> rose: right. and that case is tangled up there now. this is a much more high-profile case. i don't think anybody cares what happens to that drug dealer in brooklyn, but when 14 people killed and others wounded in a terrible attack broadcast across the world on live television. >> rose: an act of terrorism. i think that's the kind of case where if you want your stand to be in the spotlight, it's going to be there, and here we are. >> and i would say, cheacialtion particularly in cases of -- charlie, particularly in cases of crism, what you want in your government and law enforcement is to find a way to prevent the attacks. we all want to prevent the commission of serious violent crime. apple's software makes that much more difficult, and i'm hoping, frankly, that congress takes up this, studies it and comes out
with a sensible law. if not that, i hope that we can convene a group of experts on a short time frame to go into a room and, like a labor negotiation, come out with a compromise that moves us closer to the balance that we have before. >> rose: i don't understand why that hasn't happened. >> perhaps there hasn't been a galvanizing individual or incident. this is an opportunity for the american public to be educated, and when the american public understands that prosecutors and police officers are only accessing phones through warrants that are signed by judges, that should give people a level of confidence that it's not -- this is not an irrational or unregulated step that we're taking. >> reporter: not a. >> rose: not a whim. hardly. also, i think if people understand the phones they
themselves rely on, i may be inaccessible and they may be victims themselves, that may push it forward. >> rose: thank you. thank you for bringing the discussion here. >> rose: we'll be right back. stay with us. >> rose: if there is one lesson to be learned from the 2016 campaign, it's to expect the unexpected. the sudden death this week of justice antonin scalia has given the election a new urgency, and donald trump, the current republican frontrunner, ran into a wall of criticism from no less a person than pope francis. all of this comes on the eve of the nevada caucuses and south carolina's republican primary. with me now is the editor of playbook, politico's chief correspondent mike allen and jonathan karl chief white house correspondent for abc news. mike, welcome. jonathan, thank you for coming and being part of this. south carolina. what might happen? is this at long-last the
winnowing? >> it is, and this is the three-man race that we have been thinking for a while, not so sure. the biggest consequence is jeb bush out, running on fumes now, such a humiliating week for jeb bush, this amazing family. supposed to be his week of triumph. had his brother and laura bush in. these are the last weapons that didn't give him the excitement he needed. charlie, you saw the video. so many people thought he was diminished by the comparison to his brother. we saw why george w. bush, so good on the stump, almost as if he was schooling jeb bush at the very end of his campaign, reporting on politico today his fundraisers, calling around trying to get some last dollars and they're not getting it. people are saying that after south carolina, they're going to need an intervention to tell them, you're not going to nevada
and supertuesday. >> rose: and failed to get ten dormant of nikki haley as well. >> talk about a rookie mistake by someone who shouldn't be a rookie, the day after he said the most important endorsement i could get in south carolina, nikki haily, that's really going to make a difference, next day she comes out for marco rubio. >> rose: jonathan, what do you say about south carolina. >> you only say something like that when you know you'll get the endorsement. when the news broke nikki haley decided to endorse marco rubio, you can see how it almost physically hurt jeb bush, just deflated -- it's really quite a story, when you go back and look at how much has been spent on the jeb bush for president effort through the super pac, through his campaign, you see how much they swamped everybody in terms of advertising spending, just advertising spending in new hampshire to get what happened there. you know, when i looked at those numbers, charlie, donald trump spent one-tenth of what jeb bush spent in new hampshire, and now
you get to south carolina, it just hasn't taken off. i think the visit of his brother, the visit of former president bush actually, if anything, may have done more harm than good. mike mentioned the problem of looking diminished, but also, you know, it's another reminder of the dynasty. it's like, you be remember, charlie -- you remember, charlie, back in 2000 when former george h.w. bush went in a moment of desperation for w.'s campaign in new hampshire and they actually took a beating in the polls, went down in follows. people didn't like to be reminded of him. >> rose: do you assume he will propdrop out? >> i assume he will drop out. i'm hearing the same thing mike is in terms of fundraising troubles. when you ask senior people on the bush campaign, is he going to nevada, no matter what, is he going to supertuesday no matter what, you no longer get a definitive answer.
you get hedging, waffling. i think he drops out probably by sunday. >> rose: what about kasich? mike said three-man race, but i would not rule kasich out. kasich may surprise in south carolina. the polls have been all over the place, but there is some evidence of some left with kasich. i think he had -- you know, he had the best debate in many ways in that raucous all-out brawl that we saw in south carolina because he was the one that was able to say, hey, wait a minute, this is ridiculous, why are we being so negative? and kasich is a tough candidate for this republican party to win a primary, obviously. so the prohibitive underdog. but i think kasich lives to fight beyond south carolina. >> no question. so the ohio governor clearly will go on to ohio march 15 and says that he is going to surprise us a little in between -- he's going to play in mississippi, he's going to play in michigan. they say they're going to spend
nine days in michigan. so hard to imagine him getting up to trump or cruz or even rubio-like numbers, but he's in there, and we saw in the cbs debate the other day the role he will continue to play, he's going to try to look like the adult, try and look like someone who will bring in the middle in a general election campaign. john in this race looking like an adult new york city too hard. >> when jeb gets out, those supporting the money behind the bush campaign isn't necessarily going to jump to rubio, the candidate they have been trying to kill. i think there is a real opportunity for kasich to get some of that, i guess what we too often call the establishment support, to go to kasich, certainly on the money front. >> john weaver who all your viewers know from rvp presidential campaigns all over the years, he says when jeb gets out, the spigots will open for kasich.
>> rose: take me to nevada, bernie sanders 50/50 even up. somebody said the other day they thought sanders, it was above 50/50 for him now. >> that was adam brooklyn yesterday and real trepidation in the clinton campaign. they're hoping they're going to get the coin flip going their way by a point or two. there hasn't been a ton of polling in nevada as john pointed out over a long period of time, but sanders snuck up on the clinton campaign and we'll see more evidence here that not only is the excitement on his side but he has more organizing than they expected. >> rose: a lot more money. yes, and that's a sign of the excitement. they still think they have the math on their side. what the clinton campaign will tell you now, is by the end of march, it will be virtually -- they will have a virtually insurmountable lead, sanders
would have to win 80% in the future. but she won't mathematically clinch until late april, may. that's a long time for people to tell you how weak your campaign is, how you got surprised by bernie and need a message of your own. >> every one of the primaries on the democratic side is proportional so he's going to be racking up del cats. in the national polls, we're starting to see hillary clinton under 50%. bernie sanders with less than single digits behind hillary clinton nationally. i think hillary is in a tough spot and it's hard to imagine her not winning the nomination but a long, hard slog. >> rose: she's been damaged by the campaign? >> yeah, the spin they offer is this is good for her, she gets to go in there and fight it out and hone her strengths as a candidate. first of all, she shouldn't be honing her strengths as a candidate. there are the expectations and
the excitement generated by bernie sanders. the longer this goes on, it's harder to imagine those that have been attracted, especially the younger first-time voters are suddenly going to pivot and turn and support hillary clinton with anywhere near the enthusiasm. i don't think it's good for her. >> somebody who doesn't believe that besides jon karl is president clinton described as beyond frustrated by the campaign and the big part is the miscalculation on sanders. for too long the clinton campaign treated him as uncle bernie and benignly. he came after her. they were surprised. they still don't have a real message against him. you hear her saying again and again that what he is doing isn't realistic. we saw david plouffe, the mastermind of the obama campaign, saying people don't like to be told what they can't
have and bernie sanders is acting like santa claus. but implicit in that is bernie sanders is as good as hers. she needs a message to say, no, what i will do is bigger and better. people like santa. when you portray him as santa, that may not be a good thing. >> they like the pope, too. >> rose: speaking of the pope, does that damage donald trump? >> he did a donald trump-type thing and went all in. in south carolina where there is evangelical voters, not a big catholic place, a good place to test it. we're seeing with trump this all-in approach. my favorite quote from the whole week was three words from donald trump when he so cleverly stole the spotlight from jeb bush, was supposed to be his big moment when his brother was in and by talking about iraq and wmd, donald trump just changed that conversation. somebody said to him after he went on the attack in the cbs debate, the south carolina
debate, somebody said to him, george w. bush is popular in south carolina, what are you doing? and trump's response was, so am i. >> just incredible to take a step back and see who donald trump picked fights with. fox news, the koch brothers. >> rose: john mccain. and now the pope. about the only one he hasn't picked a fight with is ronald reagan. everyone you think you cannot cross in a republican primary he has with impunity. >> rose: before third party candidate possibilities, ted cruz has the constituency and the money and a smart campaign to go the distance, yes or no? >> all the above, yes. and a smooth campaign and he did it pretty well under the radar, and a fascinating development i think we'll see in the weeks ahead, donald trump was saying people are calling me, republicans are calling me that
would surprise you. charlie, that's one thing donald trump is saying is true. >> rose: the idea ted cruz is donald trump's best -- the fact he's in the race and so many out him, it gives a reason for them to justify supporting donald trump? >> yes. charlie, i predict a couple of republican u.s. senators are going to endorse donald trump and it ain't their love of trump, its how they feel about ted cruz. >> rose: michael bloomberg had a book party in new york for peggy newnan and said more than he had before his own sense of where the public is and the absence of a campaign of ideas and substance. >> i also thought it was interesting that howard wallston one of his main political advisors wanted to make sure everyone saw the write up on that and sent it around and tweeted about it.
my understanding on bloomberg is essentially if we're looking at a situation where it's sanders and trump that he gets in. the problem is he's going to have to make this decision in the beginning of march before it's clear who the nominees are going to be. but, you know, my clear sense based on those public remarks by the mayor himself and what else i'm seeing by those close to him is he's getting much, much closer to actually doing this. and you might disagree with me on this. i actually think this is such a crazy year that there may actually be an opportunity for a third-party candidate, even a billionaire from new york to even win this thing. i don't think it's completely crazy to think that's possible. >> rose: why do you think that's possible to win this thing? if the vote is split there probably won't be enough electoral votes for any county and will go into the house of representatives. are you suggesting mike bloomberg as an independent with an appeal to young people
because of strong support of things like climate change and gun control and other issues might have a real chance to win going out? >> there are so many ifs in the scenario. you have to get past the possibility it would be bernie sanders and donald trump and nobody gets to 270 and you get to the house of representatives, but once you're there, i don't know. i mean, he can get crossover appeal. he effectively in that three-person field looks to me anyway like the establishment candidate. >> rose: and the centrist. yeah, absolutely. >> rose: where is barack obama in all this? does he strongly want hillary to win because it's said you want a democratic of the same party to succeed you -- if you're a democrat you want a democrat to succeed you because of your own legacy? >> that's absolutely true. >> rose: might he get in to help her at some point if it looks like she's not doing as well as she wants to? >> he's kept his cards close on that. he's made it clear how he feels
and after he all but endorsed her, he had bernie sanders come over to the white house as sort of a consolation prize. but there is no question about how he feels, and you're right about the legacy, the fact that she is from his administration, and, so, just as she can't get away from some of his policies that she would like to, she also benefits from whatever successes and popularity he has. >> rose: thank you for joining us. pleasure to have you on the program. >> thank you. >> rose: thank you, mike, great to have you. >> thank you for having me, charlie. >> rose: back in a moment. stay with us. >> rose: after growing tired of reading books about white boys and their dogs, one young student decided to take action. 11-year-old marley dias from west orange west orang, new jerd the hashtag 1,000 black girl books to make a change. you realized all books were about white boys and their dogs.
>> yes. >> rose: and you wanted to see books about. >> black girls and them being the main characters and not the sidekick out of the trio. >> rose: what did you do? i told my mom. she said what are you going to do about it? we started a book drive in which black girls are the main characters. we gave them to the school she went to and we plan on giving them to my school in which the problem started and a school in newark and a school in philadelphia. >> rose: what do your classmates say about the fame you're getting? >> they're proud of me. i try to separate the difference between marley on tv and at home to not make anyone gem louse or anything. i want them to be my friends. >> rose: you're not getting big headed, walking around saying, hey, i'm marley. >> my baby sitter didn't know i was on tv because i didn't tell her. she said, why didn't you tell me? i said i want to be humble about what i do. >> rose: did you have any flaws? >> yeah. >> rose: what. i get anxious a lot and i'm
impatient. i hate waiting -- a lot. >> rose: tell me what your favorite subjects are in school. >> language arts. >> rose: language arts. i'm in honors language arts and in honors social studies but i plan on being in honors language arts next year if i pass the test, which i will. >> rose: do you have any sense of i think i would like to be a writer, for example? >> yes, i would like to be a magazine editor for my own magazine. that's one of my big goals because i love reading and writing and being the boss and maybe that plays into why i'm impatient. >> rose: what does oprah mean to you? >> i think she's cool because she's an nawrpd and started her own business out of nothing. but, yeah, that's really cool for me. >> rose: if i say the name gail king. >> yes, oprah's best friend. >> rose: she's my co-anchor, too. >> i know. and she's really cool as well. >> rose: our other co-anchor is norr nora o'donnell.
>> yes. >> rose: would you like your own tv show? >> i would like an opportunity to have my own show? >> rose: west orange is not far from manhattan. >> about an hour. >> rose: so if i wanted you to co-host the show with me, you could do that? >> yes. >> rose: you could come in and we could ask questions. >> yes, 100%. >> rose: we'll do it. are your best friends boys or girls? >> i have one best friend that's a boy and two girls. the boy's name is ky. then brianna and amina and we are bam which is an association for young girls to start their own social action projects in the community. it started when we won the disney friends for change grant last year and that was a stepping stone to bam becoming this entire group. i have back fair last year and
book festival this year. it kind of continues. >> rose: do you know what the word precocious means? >> no it's about you. it's someone who is so surprisingly wise for their age. >> thank you. >> rose: you have this sort of wonderful presence. you're not embarrassed or afraid to walk right in here in a television situation and be just as natural as if you were talking to your mother. >> it's easier to be yourself than something you're not. >> rose: are you learning instruments? >> i don't play the guitar but i used to. >> rose: why did you give it up? >> i got sick and started coming to the lessons. i wasn't even sick, sick. i was just tired all the time from being flu-y, and i didn't want to get my teacher sick and i became tired of it. once i became better it was, like, i don't remember anything. >> rose: but it would be nice if you could learn to play the guitar or the piano or sing
maybe. >> i rap but i don't sing. >> rose: how are we doing in school, all as. >> yes. >> rose: that's good. i'm a very, very conscience students. >> rose: yes, you are. where might you want to go to college? >> well, berkeley, not music school. that's basically -- >> rose: berkeley, university of california? >> yes. >> rose: how did you come up with the idea? >> well, i don't like the cold. >> rose: but you could go to stanford, too. >> my mom wants me to go to o oxford, like the school in london. >> rose: you could be a road scholar, too, and you will get to go to -- >> what's a road scholar. >> rose: a prestigious scholarship they give to the best and brightest and they go to oxford for two years and get a degree, some of them, and often it's based on a variety of qualities that you have. it has to do, you know, with
intelligence as represented by grades and natural intelligence, it has to do with other things you've done like your project here to make books available for young girls, and it has to do with special skills you might have. i think your mother's already thought about this. she'll tell you about. this this will get you to oxford on a scholarship. >> she's pushing me every time we talk about it. >> rose: what influence has your mother had on you? >> she has a foundation for women and girls to help them grow up and be strong and healthy, grassroots foundation, so they have a cam ñ for girls f african event so i and some of my friends go as well. that's where we learned about leadership and how to start these projects. each super camp, because it's super camp, that's what we call it, it's super camp and we have boys there and ky goes as well. >> rose: your moth harris a huge influence. >> yes, she teach mess how to do that. i want to do it. it doesn't feel like a tour to
me anymore. first, it was boring because i didn't know how people were allowing me to show my best self in front of other people instead of me just being selfish. >> rose: is she your hero? yeah. >> rose: one of them? no, i like attributes of people. everybody messes up. so i think it's better to pick an attribute that some person has than a specific person. >> rose: what about your father? what attribute does he have that you like so much? >> creativity. >> rose: have they both influenced you to believe that everything is possible? >> yes. >> rose: that whatever marley wants, if she works hard, if she believes in herself, she can achieve? >> yes, 100%. >> rose: 100%. you said that you're able to express your emotions when you read. >> yes, because when you read a book with a person who has a lot of words and can express their feelings, you will learn how to say those things if you feel the same way they did. >> rose: and when you write -- yes. >> rose: you write well?
yes. i think i'm a very good writer. >> rose: you are. yes, i think i am. >> rose: how about acting? do you like acting? >> well, yes, i told my mom i want to become an actress. i still do but not like full, full, full time. >> rose: you will act on the side? >> yeah, act on the side. yeah. so i'm a side actress and model for the f.b.i. which is an acting agency. >> rose: you're a model and you've signed with the agency? >> yes. >> rose: sports? i swim and run, but i'm not now because i'm really busy. >> rose: with your life, the life you have. >> it blew up so now i can't swim or run, but in the spring i hope to continue running. >> rose: what's the best advice you've ever received? >> be yourself. >> rose: from your mom and dad both? >> yeah, basically from everyone, telling me to be myself because they like myself. >> rose: and you like yourself. >> yes, i like myself. >> rose: what do you like most about yourself?
>> that i look myself. (laughter) >> rose: what's your favorite bob marley song? >> my favorite is "i shot the sheriff." >> rose: ah... but my mom's favorite is war and my dad's favorite is three little birds because he likes to pretend that he's a bird by doing this in the kitchen when i'm eating breakfast and the song plays. >> rose: marley dias. thank you for joining us. see you next time. for more about this program and earlier episodes, visit us online at pbs.org and charlierose.com. captioning sponsored by rose communications captioned by media access group at wgbh access.wgbh.org
man: it's like holy mother of comfort food.ion. kastner: throw it down. it's noodle crack. patel: you have to be ready for the heart attack on a platter. crowell: okay, i'm the bacon guy. man: oh, i just did a jig every time i dipped into it. man #2: it just completely blew my mind. woman: it felt like i had a mouthful of raw vegetables and dry dough. sbrocco: oh, please. i want the dessert first! [ laughs ] i told him he had to wait.