tv Charlie Rose Bloomberg June 9, 2016 10:00pm-11:01pm EDT
. >> from our studios in new york city, this is charlie rose. >> good evening. i'm charles hunt. we begin tonight with politics. donald trump and hillary clinton are in some unforeseeable act will face off in the general election. clinton sewed up the nomination and last night won a big victory in california. he be the first woman of a major political party. >> it may be hard to see tonight but we are all standing under a
glass sealing right now. [cheers and applause] thanks to you, we've reached a milestone. the first time -- the first time in our nation's history that a woman will be a major party nominee. [cheers and applause] >> bernie sanders, however, has now bowed down yet. he will meet with president o bottoma tomorrow. donald trump who sealed his nomination a month ago, won all five republican primaries last night. >> we're only getting started and it's going to be beautiful. remember that. tonight, we close one chapter in history and we begin another. you've given me the honor to lead the republican party to victory this fall. >> trump also got in hot water this week over his denunciation of a federal judge overseing a fraud case against trump university. trump said the judge was biased
because of his mexican heritage. the judge was born and raised in indiana. how speaker paul ryan called trump's remarks racist. we are joined by two of the smartest political strategists parsons but not a part of the campaign. anita was in barack obama campaign and then in the white house. she's been a leading strategist in democratic campaigns dating back to bill bradley. bill weber a former congressman in arizona was co-chair of the mitt romney presidential campaigns. this year he was a top advisor to jeb bush. welcome to you both. let me start off. this is the beginning of the general election, the d.c. primary next week. but we really -- it's in the full circle now. what are the odds going in, anita? anita: well, think demographicly hillary clinton has always had
an edge in this race in the general election, the last two elections showed us that the republican party needs to broaden its coalition. they picked the worst possible candidate for doing what they need to do. but it's going to be a close race because this is a very closely divided country. i don't think the clinton campaign was under any illusion that it was going to be easy. it's going to be very tough. and they're running against a candidate who doesn't play by conventional rules. >> ben? ben: i would agree with anita. that's what gives the democrats an edge. the republican argument which is not the same as the trump argument are that they're disinclined to have a candidate three times in a row. although the president's approval rating has been rising which helps it a little bit there's a predisposition to switch horses or switch parties.
so you weigh those two things and i think at the end of the day anita's argument holds because the republicans have nominated a candidate who cannot begin to erode that democratic advantage with asians and hispanics. >> one more question. did you take any solace from his speech last night where he read from a teleprompter and he didn't sell anybody, at least he didn't sell any republicans. vin: no for this reason. if he can be compelling and read it from a teleprompter, there's a new model. he was not compelling. it was to use a trumpian phrase, low energy. he gets that better than anybody. he's going to quickly return to the high energy thing that has worked for him and that's when the risks return. >> put on a republican hat. we'll let you take it off. what would you advise him right
now? anita: people don't change. donald trump's not going to change hefment just won this nomination by ignoring all the political experts, right? and by doing it his way writings and rules and not backing down when he goes out there. so something totally outrageous. it's been a pattern of his. he doesn't back down. after four or five days he might go to another topic. but he's not backing down. i've worked for a lot of insurgents in my life. it is really hard when you actually win to sit around and say ok, well, we were smarter than all you guys. we just won. we just beat you and now we're supposed to listen to your advice and let you basically run our campaign. that's a very difficult thing. but if i were advising donald trump what i would say is a general election is a totally different proposition from a primary. and you ran a great primary campaign in the sense that you won. because general election is very different. you've got to ask yourself, do
you want to win? and that would be the beginning of the conversation. >> he says he can change the electoral map. he even mentioned california which i don't think anyone beliefs but he said places like pennsylvania and wisconsin, and michigan. he's going put those in play because of his unique appeal. does that worry you? anita: as i recall both of the republican nominees from 2012 said something similar at the beginning of their general elections. pennsylvania is the great republican -- you know, it's kind of that white whale,. it's just not going to happen. you know, but i do think that trump's challenge and it's a huge challenge is to basically get voters who normally don't participate to turnout, ok, because the sort of universe -- >> working class voters. anita: people who support donald trump.
the likely voters are a pretty set universe. and she leads him. trying to change the electoral map is trying to get people to participate who haven't participated in the past. that's a difficult thing to do. the he didn't do it in primary, contrary to the story they put out. it's not new voters flocking to the republican party. they were largely general election voters who usually didn't vote in primaries but this time give trump credit. they did get motivated enough to turn out in the primaries but they're not new voters that wouldn't have showed up on general election day anyway. they weren't young people, minorities or voters that they were struggling to improve with. they are typical republican voters. al: some said he's got to get the reagan democrats. the reagan democrats have become republicans.
anita: thank you, ronald reagan. al: how about his running mate? or would you say donald trump is such a unique figure, he doesn't listen to people. it's not going to matter. >> i don't think it carry you. i think that it does bear on the judgment of the candidate. i think people who are trying to assess donald trump will factor that in. if you pick something that you respect you say he made it an important decision. al: who would you say would deliver that for donald trump? >> he talked about bob corker. he's highly regarded. he's a strong foreign policy leader as senate of the foreign relations committee. he would probably do that well. john kasich would be an ideal
candidate. i don't know that jo kasich is going to endorse donald trump. some of the people won't likely serve him. al: i know what you want. you want a trump-gingrich. >> i have all the respect in the gingrich. to the extent there are voters throughout who are saying i don't want to give the democrats another turn because this country likes to change after eight years. i'm not that wild about hillary and clinton but i'm super nervous about donald trump. i would like to see who he surrounds with him. it was the same thing with w. let's see if he puts good people. that person know what is he's talking about. i think this decision for trump is a huge one. it's much more important for him and for hillary clinton. nobody questions her knowledge, her experience or her readyness
to be president. al: let's turn to hillary and the libertarian candidates. one more question on trump. do you expect to see other prominent politicians follow mark kirk, lindsay gloom said he's not going to vote for him and lindsay collins, would we see more of that? vin: i would guess you will. i think that trump has gotten a sort of an article boost by ending the republican nominating process earlier than we expected. the party uniting behind him in many cases without great enthusiasm but it gave him a little bit of a boost. he's reroaded that through the last couple of weeks. and hillary has won the nomination quite convincingly after strong performances on her own part including her acceptance speech last night. so my guess is the gap between trump and hillary widens a little bit. and as that starts to happen a
lot more republicans are going to start feeling nervous the way mark kirk clearly felt nervous. so i think that's a real -- if i were -- if this were a conventional candidate and he had a conventional approach, his manager would be saying, we've got to start reashuring all those republicans to keep them from jumping ship. i don't think they'll do that. i don't think that's trump's approach. but i think that's a thet to him. >> anita he makes a good point with hillary's speech. he hasn't been a great candidate. she's ban lousy candidate up until the last week or two. she also has real problems not so much with the bernie people but the young people that we talked about earlier. her poll numbers are 20 points above obamas. what did she do? what are her challenges now? and what would you advise her? >> it's interesting. she's had the lower poll numbers when they've had a choice. where there's been a democratic primary contest. but that contest, you know, is
basically over now. berpie may nod concede until the convention. gary hart and jesse jackson didn't concede until the convention. this race is over. they start looking at this race differently because it's no longer between bernie and hillary clinton. it's now donald trump and hillary clinton of it's going to take some time. vin: bernie sanders can be important for hillary clinton. if they ask him to do the right thing. the right thing in my view is not to beg him and say wonderful things about hillary which will only convince a lot of centrists republicans that maybe she is more liberal than i thought. but boy he can attack donald trump particularly with the young voters. we kind of count on the vice president to be that negative surrogate. bernie sanders not being the vice presidential choice can be a negative surrogate against donald trump. al: let me ask you about, does this really hurt the down ballot
candidates? there have been times, clinton and reagan won re-election and didn't carry anyone with them, the old talk, you know before you were born about the eisenhower jacket and he wins and no one had any coattails. other times there have been landslide election. should democrats say boy, we're in great shape for the senate -- vin: the democrats campaign as they have a great opportunity and the republicans run scared. first of all, we do have donald trump who is more removed from the republican party than any nominee certainly in my lifetime. second of all the seats that are up in the senate particularly that are competitive, we have really good candidates. normally where you see a warnout of incumbents you have people in were elected and were weak from the get-go. that's not true of senator ayotte. these are really high equal
people, john mccain. i think republicans have to run squared. but i think we have a chance to hold on to the senate even given what i think is likely to be a substantial drag from the top of the ticket. al: ait ina. >> i think that's a place where we're going disagree. vin: why did i guess that? anita: the place of split ckets in 1984 and 1988 where al gore could win an open seat and those days are behind us right now. the congress in the senate tends to followle the presidential performance much more than it used to. particularly the states where those republican incumbents are cutting across the midwest are very prom matic even though
they're stronger. al: so you think the republicans are going to keep the house. you think the democrats will have a shot at the house? >> no i i think we'll gain ground in the house. it's early to say we have a shot. but we will certainly gain ground. al: is this one of those seminole elections that will change american politics or is this one of those quirks that happens and we get over it? >> i think there's a lot of o things that tell us this is a unique election. i think the discrediting of the two parties which preceeds the campaign almost is it's a very big deal and that brings in to question the whole two-party system. within the republican party quite beyond the offensiveness of donald trump, the shift on immigration and maybe more importantly trade indicates you've got a different kind of republican electorate than you had before. bernie's not going to win the nomination. but he's changed the
constituency on the democratic party which changes the democratic party. i think those things plus the fact that trump has shown that you don't need to run a conventional campaign if you know how to communicate in this environment says that politics could change. >> i couldn't agree with that more. i don't see this as a fluke or an anomaly. it is certainly the last presidential campaign where both of the candidates might be baby boomers. so it might be the last baby boomer presidential campaign. but i also think that the -- both of the political parties will emerge within their political parties very different than the ones that entered the cycle. al: one of my colleagues said this election might be fun to cover but the post election is really going to be great. anita dunn and vin weber, thank you so much for joining us. and we'll be right back.
al: 114th congress doesn't have many legislative days left in this session. they leave in a couple of weeks for the party convention and august recess. then they come back for a short september. they also have few accomplishments. major issue loss the pacific trade packet, criminal justice reform. the nomination of merrick garland and a major cancer initiative in honor of vice president's biden late son will be unresolved when lawmakers
ayour honor this fall. norman is a scholar at the american enterprise institute. he co-authored a book with tom mann on congress titled "it's even worse than it looks." they updated to "it's even worse than it was." norman, it's good have you here. >> always a pleasure. al: you write about a dysfunctional congress. but the country is deeply divided as we see in polls. doesn't congressman fest that? >> to a degree but it's more than that because there are issues where you don't have a lot of those deep divisions. you mentioned some of them. criminal justice has broad support. dealing with the zika virus, the opioid, the puerto rican debt crisis which is under american egus to go through great trauma and congress still can't act. it's one thing where you haveish
-- have issues where you are a partisan divide and you have congress not able to move and with fewer days in session than i can ever remember, although they may come back after the election and still no excuse. some of these are urgent. i don't know how you can use a term other than dysfunctional unless you want to make it worse. al: will this year's elections make it better or worse? >> i think we're headed for continuing rocky times and that's true even if we somehow see a sweeping victory for one party that gives them complete control would happen far more likely with democrats but it's not likely. we're likely to have divided government for a significant period of time to come. and the parties each have their struggles. but the divisions across those lines are deep. and let me, you know, just suggest one thing else, just imagine if we get the most likely outcome even if there are
no sure things, hillary clinton wins. there's a narrow democrat majority. republicans keep the house. you're going to have a republican party going through a deep existential crisis. within a few months and i think maybe the window of doing anything will be shorter than it usually is. less than 100 days. within a few months republicans will say how do we recapture our mojos? we have a tried and true formula. we used it in 2010. we used it with great success in 2014. we delegitimized the president, government and the process, we block everything as much as we can from happening and we make victories look ugly and we go out to country and say anything would be better than this. that's not good. al: that brings us what i guess we should call a spirited disagreement with senator mitch mcconnell. he told charlie recently that the quoted attributed to him that his goal was a one-term obama presidency.
he said that everybody got that wrong except bob woodward. he said that but then he went on to say we still can get things done. did mitch get a bum wrap? >> no, he did not get a bum wrap. i looked again just to be sure. another quote from him after the 2010 mid terms in which mcconnell said reflecting on obama's agenda, well, of course, we weren't going to support it because they then -- the accomplishments would have looked partisan and if people think they're partisan and they like them, that's not going to be good. in effect that will damage the republican brand so we oppose. we know there was basically conscious opposition to whatever o bottoma was for. al: what mitch mcconnell says that obama was so far to the left that unlike he says bill clinton and joe biden he wouldn't move to the center and deal. >> if you go back to the stimulus package. one thing we know, the economy
was struggling very deeply. dave obie a then-congressman of wisconsin called in his republican counterpart jerry lewis of california. he said jerry, we're going to do a stimulus. i've got the charge of trying to put the package together. the economy is flat on its back. we want to work with you. tell us the absolute nonstarters. go back to your rank in file and leaders and we'll go back and pull it out. i've got orders that we're not going to orppede, he said. you go to the healthcare negotiations. of the es, the chairman finance committee joins with his deer friend and counterpart chuck grassley. they create a gang of six. they start with the principles and the plans that grassley had put forward when bill clinton was president. all of those ideas came out of
republican quarters. so the idea that this was sharply to the left a plan that didn't have a public option, i think doesn't comport with reality. al: surely the democrats have some fall for this dysfunction. >> there are no angels here. i think we have to definitely say that. and we've got not just polarization, tribalism that's developed on both sides. but i think if you look at the behavior of congress and the behavior of the parties especially since barack obama became president, the blame is asymmetric. what we have a conscious effort by republicans starting on the day of obama inaugural that it was reported very deeply and confirmed by robert draper a very good reporter that they determined before obama actually took office that they were going to unite in opposition like a parliamentary minority party but
in our police political system that brings kay coss. al: over 0% of the sh -- 80% of the seats are noncompetitive. we know who's going to win those seats. is that because of gerrymandering where each party gets together and carves out save seat? what would you do to make it more competitive? >> i'm all for changing the system of districting. you know, the old line that voters should choose their representatives and not allow representatives to choose their voters is compelling to me. i'd love to have a system like the one in iowa or the one in arizona, the one in california where an independent commission draws those district lines but it's not a panacea. the biggest problem we have now, al, is first a cultural one where people view the other party not as a worthy adversary but the enemy. but also bill bishop the journalist who wrote "the big sort" was right. people have move into areas
where they're surrounded by like-minded individuals. neighborhood patterns and democrats concentrated in their cities means that if you drew perfect lines, very compact, you know, communities represented, you might make it worse rather than better. they would be more homogenius. we have to find ore ways to get around this problem. we may need to think more boldly. many a constitutional change a little bit like a german swrm 100 members of the house are chosen at large where there's more unity, the whole nation to break out of this pattern a little bit. but i wish that if we just did redistricting reform we would solve these problems. it's not going to do it. al: it was pogo who said we have met the enemy and he is us. >> if you're an obscure member of congress if and if you scream
out to the president that he's a liar, you get an enormous amount of air time on cable television. if you're an allen grayson a democrat who basically said republicans were murders because the way they were voting on the healthcare situation you get an enormous am of air time. if you are dealing with an mportant policy you're not any to get anything about air time on cable. the one who is do the work tend to leave that's what we've seen. we've had a hemorrhaging of the workhorses on both sides troubled by the money race. troubled by the fact that not much is getting done, but also unable to get any traction to move those issues along. al: if you could pick two or three members from each party who really younger members who could be potential leaders of
the future and maybe change of this dysfunction, who comes to mind? >> on the democratic side, i think chris van holen who is moving from the house to the senate is very much a future leader of the body. you've got a whole large crew of people in the -- in the senate and if i were looking at a republican, ben sass who took a strong and principled stand against donald trump who is very conservative but smart as a whip and willing to move across party line is somebody i would point to as well. al i would add corey gardener. >> i had a long conversation with david purdue of georgia who wants to get some solutions done on the budget front. there are thoughtful members. it's just so easy now no matter what to get caught up in the tribal trap.
modernera. he was first a football place for the university of southern california and then the nfl. he transcended to become a beloved culture. in 1994 he was charged with the murdered of his ex-wife nicole simpson and ronald l. goldman. the trial transfixed the nation. "o.j. made in america" chronicles his rise and fall. the "los angeles times" calls the work a masterpiece of scholarship, journalism and cinematic art. here's the trailer for "o.j. made in america." >> i told them, o.j., you're breaking the laws of god. one day everybody's going to know everything that you've done, man. >> you're a black man in america. you're fighting our war.
>> the reality of black america and white america, two totally separate words. -- worlds. was cowardless. none of the people that we associated with looked at him as a black man. >> if you are going to be a negro in a big city, than los angeles is the best place to be. >> how could somebody say i could kill this woman? >> really? >> o.j. simpson a civil rights
victim? it was disgusting. t was appalling. -- murderer! ♪ >> it's easy to celebrate. it's easy to be friends when somebody's winning. you know, you have a tragedy in your life. al: part one of the part three documentary series begins on abc on june 11th. the remaining four parts will air on espn beginning june 14th. joining me is the director of the documentary ezra edelman author of "without a doubt."
i'm pleased to have all of them here at this table. >> welcome and welcome. and welcome. why does this and this man and this case resonate? is it because it is a story of what? >> it's a story of everything. it's a story of race. it's a story of masculinity. it's a story of class, gender, the criminal justice system. i mean, it's a story about america. >> and how did you decide to do this? >> it's a little bit unsatisfying. i was approached by espn by conor shell who runs espn films. and he had this idea of doing something bigger and more ambitious. it started out as a five-hour film. and it just grew over the course of a couple of years of doing it. charlie: now that you have completed it, what do you want us to take away? >> that everything is not so
simple. charlie: and that you will learn new things. >> you will definitely learn new things and you will learn about a history that you may have never known or you may have forgotten. >> what do you think they will learn? >> you're going to learn why the verdict was the verdict. the story is the history of los angeles and the troubling relationship between the african-american and the lapd onlyly through understanding that story can anyone seek to going appreciate how and why this verdict was ever rendered this way. >> it's amazing because that's what introduces you to think about it. you go from people coming to los angeles because they think it's a great place for black people. and then there are whites in los angeles. >> correct. >> and they're burning down everything in sight. >> and many of the injustices with the society that people
were leaving from the jim crow south regretably they encountered the same kinds of abject racism when it came to l.a. >> this case it made you almost a household word. you lived it. and now you see this whole larger picture. tell me how you -- watching this film felt? what did you think? how did it resonate within you? what did you learn you didn't know? >> what i learned that i didn't know is a different story than the way it resonated. >> let's do the rezz nat for. >> i thought people will finally see the reality that we knew working downtown in the criminal courts building for many, many years. i've been trying cases downtown for 10 years. and whenever there was an african-american defendant, race was going to be an issue. and the question of the mistrust of law enforcement and the
mistrust of the criminal justice system was always an issue. so to me it was a wonderful thing to show everybody the realities of -- as carl said life in los angeles and the real relationship was between minorities and lapd and the real sense of mistrust and bad feelings between them that had existed for so many years and our office was fighting those cases. and we were prosecuting those cops. we prosecuted the rodney king cops. but you know, did not succeed. but we were well aware that carl was certainly too, all of us trying cases were well aware of it. but i didn't realize how little others were aware of it outside of that microcosm, i guess you'd call it. >> and what did you learn? >> i learned what a great actor simpson really was. i never appreciated just how charismatic, how affable,
self-effacing generous he could appear on the air. because i had never seen him as a sportscaster or during his football career. i only remember "naked gun" and the hertz commercial. but to see what he was able to pull off on camera at more lengthy interviews was very impressive. i saw it in a smaller version in the courtroom. because he always knew where the camera was. he knew when it was on it and he played to it every time. it was not the same picture that i got when the camera was not on him. carl: i learned from this documentary some of the reasons why o.j. was the man he was. i didn't know as much about his background growing up at galileo high school and in the hunters port of san francisco. i didn't learn or know much about his interactions with his colleagues or old friends which helped to shape the man that i
came to learn -- that we came to know. and that was fass nighting for me to know. >> how about marcia's notion that he was an actor beyond her understanding? >> i understand why she would say that because she's an advocate for her position. i did not see that same side of him that she may have spot. >> you didn't? >> no, i did not. he was a very engaged client very much in tune with how things played and how he wanted his representatives to conduct themselves in a courtroom because he had made a career basically out of whole -- he was the first athletic man. he knew how things played and he was an engaged client every day making sure that his particular vision of the trial would be reflected by the lawyers representative him. >> ha was the -- what was the challenge for you? >> getting people like carl and
marcia to talk about this, openly and honestly. >> it was a difficult sell. >> ask marcia. >> you didn't want to do this? >> nope. >> you sanu life? >> that's true, charlie. but it was also that i didn't know what they were going to do whether it was going to be a tabloid thing and go for the minutia. but what happened was in a lengthy discussion with one of the producers, i learned that they were going to make it a much larger picture and talk about race and talk about the impact of race and celebrity on the system on the criminal justice system, on the verdict. i thought this is something that's very important and i really should do it. >> and part of the story that you knew as a prosecutor? >> yes, exactly. >> what else? getting them at the table? >> and by the way since the foundation of the film since there's -- we interviewed 72 people 66 of whom are in the film, that was the most challenging and most important to getting this film done. and then the second thing was coalescing all of this material
into something that's engaging and coherent. long, told the vice alex i knew about o.j. and how he became the first black corporate ditchman as far as athletes go. fascinated how he went from this great football player at u.s.c. to being the guy on national television with endorsement or even played in the nfl and wanted to tell a story that existed in the mid 1960's along with the tension in l.a. at the time that culminated with the watch riots and connected to the murder trial 30 years later. >> it does say that so much of life like this is connected. celebrity sports, politics. it's all interconnected. >> and that's -- i mean, frankly it's very easy for me to start out knowing that i was going to do a story primarily about race.
that's the gigantic threem in this film in o.j.'s story. having said that once you start down this path is exactly what can't lize and you simplify it. it was just about race. you can't separate o.j.'s celebrity. and then you go through all these issues. so that donned on me pretty quickly. at the same time you can't possibly tell this story and understand what happened in 1994 and 1995 if you back go back to 1991 and 1992. this is a history and a situation that people have been living with in los angeles for decades. unless you emotionally respond to that as a viewer, you will fail to understand why that trial -- >> it does make you want to understand every historical event and every event of great focus within a context. >> if it does, sure. >> then -- and it's so important.
one of the most important themes in the series, i think is that very message what you just said, charlie. that everything is in a -- you have to consider it in context. nothing happens in a vacuum. and neither did the rodney king verdict. and neither did the simpson verdict. you know, all of these things are part of the fabric and woveb together and there's a cause and effect that lynx them all that this series brilliantly shows that. >> at the same time within the context and within the imperative of getting the social context in, it's also imperative to remember that murder is murder and loss is loss. >> sure. and i think the film does a great job of reflecting the humanity of that as well. but as importantly i learned the more things changed, charlie, the more they remain the same. one reason why this documentary and the whole o.j. simpson story is resonating now with
millenials is because the issues that were right then, regretably are still issues that are in the forefront of the conversation today. the black lives matter movement, ferguson, trayvon martin. those issues. i have a 24-year-old son who was too young then to understand all the issues going on now. but i've had that story that all parents of young african-american males have in los angeles about how to act and how to respond with please offers and how to say yes, sir or no, sir. keep your hands where they can be very visible. that was part of the history and the context that this film really shows well. >> what did you think you had to do and the defense team had to do? what was the mandate? carl: it's important to remember that the burden is not on the defense. the defendant does not have to prove anything. and what we have to do is
believing in the constitution holding the prosecution to their burden, proving the accused guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. and that's just not some slick phrase or cliche. that is real. and in this case there was a tremendous mountain of evidence and so our challenge was ever strong. that's why some of the things that came out, the glove demonstration, the perman tape really resonated with this jury because ultimately, we were trying to make the prosecution prove their burden -- of proving him guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. >> how important was the glove? >> i think the glove was probably, charlie, the most dramatic day of my life inside of a courtroom. and i've been a lawyer for 36 years. we always learned the first day in law school to never ask a question -- >> you don't know the answer to. >> that is 10 fimesthraffs
demonstration, i would day 50 times if that demonstration is going to be shown before 95 million people -- the prosecution took a huge chance. >> yes, that's what i mean. >> a huge chance was taken perhaps not the wisest chance depending on the outcome particularly right now. >> so what do you think happened with the glove? >> oh, it was a terrible idea. i never wanted to do it. it was suggested first by judge ito. we were at side bar and he said bar. uld try on the they had been frozen and unfrozen. you couldn't duplicate the condition. terrible idea. it was the biggest fight that chris and i ever had and i actually -- >> chris wanted to allow it? >> he was in favor of it. he said if we don't do it, the defense will. he said if we don't do it, they will. >> you're smiling why? >> i love to hear the postmortem
of this debacle. i was unaware of the internal tensions that were going on on the prosecution team. so to hear then and to hear it now is really ill william nating to me given what i know about what hand. >> just for the moment -- >> they're much more interesting than me. >> just for a moment, did you have any doubt that he could make this glove look like it didn't fit? or that the glove didn't fit? >> thank you. i like the latter interpretation. >> there were weeks and weeks of d.n.a. testimony and e69. there were weeks and weeks of domestic violence testimony, charlie. but this is the murder glove. and the murder glove did not fit the accused murderer. and we were confident after that event that the images would resonate. i didn't understand all the d.n.a. stuff. barry would ask me -- i don't
know what's going on barry. it's like you and the witness having a private conversation. but the murder glove not fitting was rezz nat and we were confident the jury would take with them to the very last day of the trimet >> if it doesn't fit, you must acquit. >> that was jerry ohlman's line. line. s jerry ohlman's we all were high-fiving after it came through. >> you knew you had a tough challenge. >> we knew that. it was a visual moment. it was a moment that certainly the media enjoyed. obviously carl enjoyed. what carl doesn't know we wered a side bar. it's on the record. my objection was on the record and i pulled chris aside and we stepped away from side bar and argued and i called upstairs to the rest of the team. is there any reason that you guys can think to do it?
and they said no. >> i couldn't stop it. that was his witness and his choice to mavenlgt i know that the press has dubbed me as lead prosecutor. i was co-prosecutor. i was not chris's boss. and carl doesn't see it that way. that's fibe. i know what's inside. i know what happened behind the scenes. >> chris would say the same thing. >> i think he would have to. i know what happened. all i can say is look, the case was lost before we walked into court. that's the truth. and we -- we had a jury pool that -- >> the case was lost before you walked into the court? >> yes. >> because we were downtown. we were going to have a jury that was -- yes the jury veneer always had a significant -- >> it was already decided. >> apparently. i spent 16 months, 10 hours a day doing nothing. it was a walkover. >> i'm not saying that was we did have the pool that we had. it was a huge obstacle.
>> i can't believe you thought you could not succeed. >> we thought -- honestly the best we could do was hang it. that's what we thought knowing that we were going to have a significant african-american contingent on the jury, the best we could do was hang it. and then even that became impossible. but that was right from the start. to say that the glove demonstration was the turning point or that made the difference -- we also addressed all those issues with the glove expert who explained everything that i said to you. and we put the same gloves on his hands and they fit beautifully. gloves that he didn't have to put latex with, we put press teen exact identical gloves and they fit. >> there's an anecdote that tributes to this discussion which i'll save. >> in other words, you have to watch the film? >> you have to watch the film for this. it adds to the discussion.
>> it's a tease? >> absolutely. by the way i do want to -- i feel like i'm having to play tiebreaker. i will say this in terms of -- and it's unfair since i never met o.j. but i came to and you know this, charlie, like o.j. reputationally had a reputation of not being a good actor when he came to hollywood. there's a reason why his career dried up. after spending two years thinking about o.j., watching footage, putting this whole thing together. i've come to the conclusion that o.j. is the greatest actor in american history, period. so i agree with marcia on this one. >> why do you say that? >> in terms of his entire being. because the guy could be in any room in any person, speaking spanish, black or white and he could charm the pants off of them. and he could get them to like them. >> obviously he couldn't put it on screen -- >> he's not the greatest film actor, he's just the greatest
actor. he lived his life every day going into the world that he went into and presented himself so purely as this lovable man that belied so much that was inside of him and who he was going back -- >> the demons inside of him -- >> well, that i can't answer. >> what was inside of him? >> the way i look at it however fair or unfair -- -- is that a guy where he grew up to dive into a world that he was so diametricly opposed and ending up in the world that he lived a long way from the projects of san francisco -- >> so what was he like after the trial? >> i didn't get the benefit of knowing him much after the trial. i last saw o.j. at johnny cochran's funeral in march of 2005. >> how was he received there? >> at that setting he was received well. i remember al sharpton was one
of the people giving a eulogy. and he first asked all of the lawyers to stand up and he then asked anyone who johnny cochran represented the standup. o.j. and michael jackson were just a few chairs away. and they both stood up. and my community after the trial o.j. was always received well. >> really? >> yes. >> yes, please. >> well, there's the thing. he buried the lead there. because al sharpton gave one of the eulogies. they were in this huge church. he looks down at o.j. he said brother simpson, when that verdict came in in 1995 and we all erupted in cheers. we weren't cheering for you. we were cheering for johnnie. and the entire surge explode -- church sbloded. >> that's what many don't understand.
>> there were a lot of people who exploded and never knew who johnny cochran was. >> what they knew were african-american lawyers and they learned that competence comes in all colors, charlie. i remember attending a convention of african-american lawyers at the national bar association after this particular trial. and we were received there like rock stars. i remember barry shek was there, lee bailey was there. and in a little small towns across the nation because the trial was on cnn every day, people became to represent the intelligence of an african-american professional. and that i think as much as anything was why folks qur cheering not for o.j. per se. >> this remarkable achievement in terms of putting this how many hours? seven? >> almost eight. >> it is about america. it is about all the things we talked about. so i thank you. >> thank you. >> thank you, charlie. >> thank you for chinaing us.
>> president obama endorsed hillary clinton. making the announcement on a video that appeared on her twitter account. president obama: i am with her. i am fired up. i cannot wait to get out and campaign for hillary. mark: they will campaign together next week in green bay, wisconsin. this endorsement followed the presidents meeting with bernie sanders. donald trump responded to the endorsement saying -- obama just endorsed crooked hillary.