tv Charlie Rose Bloomberg March 21, 2017 10:00pm-11:01pm EDT
♪ announcer: from our studios in new york city, this is "charlie rose." charlie: we begin this evening with this fact. i missed you. so it is very good to be back. we have been together, many of us, for more than 25 years. we have talked about everything from the unfolding discovery of the brain's mysteries to the mind of russian president vladimir putin. and in between, we have seen five presidents. bush, clinton, bush, obama, and trump. we have met oscar winners and in nobel laureates, mvp's and pulitzer prize recipients, and met heroes who simply did their duty. i'm deeply grateful for the opportunity. undergoing surgery, no matter
how serious, make you aware of the fragility of life and its purpose. you can only hope that it makes you humble, if you, like me, are one of the lucky ones who get to do what they love to do. i come back today rested, ready, and thankful to all who labored while i was gone, from a great staff to unbelievable substitutes. i have come back during a week that suggests how interesting our times are, from the fbi director testifying about a president, to a supreme court justice confirmation, to a vote on the republican health care plan. oh, to live in interesting times. i have come back thanks to medical science, and because of that i am in the best shape i have been in for a long time. i thank you for your support and thank you for staying close. i have come back thanks to when we come back, we begin with the testimony of fbi director james comey and nsa director mike rogers. we talk to representatives adam schiff and peter king of the house intelligence committee. ♪
charlie: we begin this evening with the house intelligence committee first public hearing on russian interference in the presidential election. fbi director james comey confirmed there is an ongoing investigation into russia's meddling, including possible collusion between president trump's campaign and russian officials. director comey also testified is no evidence support the president's claims that former president obama wiretapped him. lawmakers also heard from nsa director mike rogers. he rejected white house secretary sean spicer's allegations that the british intelligence agency conducted surveillance of president trump. >> i have been authorized by the department of justice to confirm that the fbi, as part of our counterintelligence mission, is investigating the russian government's efforts to interfere in the 2016 presidential election. that includes investigating the nature of any links between individuals associated with the
trump campaign and the russian government, and whether there was any coordination between the campaign and russia's efforts. with respect to the president's tweets about alleged wiretapping directed at him by the prior administration, i have no information that supports those tweets. >> did you ever request that your counterparts in gchq should wiretap mr. trump on behalf of president obama? >> no, sir. nor would i. that would be expressly against the construct of the agreement that has been in place for decades. charlie: joining me now from washington, representatives adam and schiff and peter king on the house intelligence committee. i him pleased to have both of them on this program. i begin with you, congressman schiff. what is the takeaway? what is the impact? what is the significance of what was said today? rep. schiff: there are a few significant things.
the american people got a good sense of why this is important and really deserves thorough investigation. the breadth of the russian attack on our democracy, the fact that the fbi has an ongoing investigation to determine whether there was coordination between the campaign and the russians, as well as the directors' willingness to establish there is no evidence to support the president's claim that he was wiretapped by his predecessor. anyone of those things on a normal day would be quite a revelation, but there was a lot tacked in today. ultimately the most important thing is it gave a good glimpse and why this is so serious, and why we ought to do everything possible to do a thorough investigation and conduct it in a nonpartisan way. charlie: why is this so serious? rep. schiff: the intelligence community has said this is not a one-off. the russians will do this again. we can expect them to interfere in elections again. in order to inoculate ourselves and inform the american public,
so they can have value eight russians metal again, -- meddle again, we have to know exactly what they did. it's important not only for the health of our democracy and the ability to respond to further attacks, but right now europe is facing the same kind of russian meddling. we want to do anything in our power to help protect european allies as well. charlie: congressman king, what did you take away? rep. king: somewhat the same takeaway, even i have a different emphasis. i think it's essentially fully -- essential to fully investigate the extent of the russian involvement in the campaign. it is disgraceful. they will come back and do it again whether it is donald trump or hillary clinton. no matter who the candidate is, they will try to get involved. we have to be more alert to it earlier on. i would say as far as the investigation being conducted by director comey, we heard about this some time ago. we were officially told a few weeks ago. i recall being at some briefing also hearing this. we knew the investigation was ongoing. i'm just glad it is out there. it gives us a little more
freedom to talk. not pressure, i should not say that. usually when something is announced publicly, it is more inclined to move along at a faster pace. i don't want the director to speed it up. i think it's important we try to resolve it. i don't think there's any evidence there so far. we can find different people, the former acting director of the cia who says not only is there no fire, there's no spark. director clapper, there's a disagreement over what he meant by it. he said he's not aware there's any evidence of collusion between the trump campaign and russian intelligence or government. the investigation will go where it goes. whatever it is, i will accept it. but i think it's important to show as far as we know, there's no evidence yet of any collusion. charlie: why do you think clapper said what he said? rep. schiff: i have to say that peter is a wonderful colleague and a great member of the
committee. i don't chare his conviction that there's no evidence here. if there was no evidence, there wouldn't be a basis for director comey to have opened the investigation, and certainly on the basis of what i have been briefed, there is more than enough to warrant the investigation. i think director clapper clarified that what he meant today was that there was not conclusive evidence. i would agree. but let's remember, we are at the beginning of this investigation, not the end. at the end of the day it is my hope that both peter and i will come to the same conclusion, that we were either able to corroborate this, demonstrate this, refer this to justice, or we weren't. i don't think either one of us should necessarily jump to the conclusion we expect to find. i think we owe it to the american people to see what we can find out. rep. king: if it turns out there is conclusive evidence, i will accept it. i'm not trying to deny it. i'm just saying a lot of stories
repeated in the media have been -- the assistant director of the fbi says it was bs. that was his exact term. i think we should be careful before too many allegations are made. charlie: the fbi director also spoke to the idea of how this and how thisaks should be pursued, if in fact out of the fbig investigation. rep. king: i would say not just looked into, he said he's very alarmed by it. he said he's not seen such a volume of leaks in such a brief time. some of these are clearly top secret and confidential materials coming up, which the director says involves felonies. this is very serious. i'm not talking about palace intrigue. i'm talking about actual evidence that could have been gained by fisa wiretaps. i have no problem with the investigation.
the misuse of the information is very serious, and director comey seemed as concerned as anyone by it. to me, it is very significant. charlie: why do you think the president continues to insist, in the face of all of this, denial of everyone having seen any evidence, whether it is conclusive or not, of collusion? rep. schiff: i can say there are only a couple possibilities. either the president simply cannot back down from a baseless accusation, because it would be admitting error. that would be the most benign explanation. the most threatening in terms of the country's security would be the president cannot tell the difference between fact and fiction. he has convinced himself it must be true. this is a real problem. we know at some point there will be a crisis. not one created in the white
house, but rather provoked by north korea or iran or some other nation. we will need to believe our president. to the degree he continues to cling to conspiracy theories, he will make it very hard not only for the american people, but for our allies. the british already have to have profound questions about this president considering he and his spokesman suggests they were illegally wiretapping him. this accusation has gone way out of control and is doing a lot of damage to our relationships around the world and it has to stop. i hope some of the grown-ups in the white house like general mattis will sit the president down and say that enough is enough. rep. king: i think there are legitimate questions over whether evidence was used, and being used against him, by the
justice department, the intelligence department, but that's a long way from saying the president of the united states ordered wiretap. out of anger or whatever he made these statements. i wish we could back away from it. adam and i agree. i want this investigation of russian collusion. i want it investigated fully , i wanted resolved. i don't think it will lead to anything, but if it does, it does. on the leaks, they have to be investigated. the longer we spent talking about whether president obama ordered wiretap when there's no evidence, it undercuts what we are trying to get done. charlie: what do we mean by collusion? i want to come back to the accusation that president obama ordered wiretapping. what do we mean about collusion with respect to the campaign? rep. king: whether or not people from the trump campaign were involved with russian intelligence or the russian government in trying to fix the election, or cooperate in any way. was there any level of cooperation or collusion or
coordination between people in the trump campaign and anyone involved with the russian government or russian intelligence? adam would agree, that is the general use of the term. there could be modifications. so far, i see no evidence, but we have to see. charlie: congressman schiff, have you seen evidence? rep. schiff: the way i would describe it is there is circumstantial evidence of coordination. there is direct evidence in my opinion of deception on behalf of many of the people around the president. and of course, where people are being dishonest about conversations they had with the russian ambassador or even met with the russians, it does provoke questions about why. is this a policy you are proud of? then why be deceptive about it? these are things that merit investigation. i completely concur with peter. from the very beginning, peter has said we ought to look into this and look into it in an
objective way. charlie: what happens if the fbi finds there is some collusion? what happens after that? rep. king: if it rises to the criminal level, the president would be prosecuted. to me, if you are colluding with a foreign government, at the least you are guilty of lobbying for a foreign government. that is the least charge. i would leave it to the justice department and fbi. if you show actual cooperation between an american presidential campaign and any foreign government, certainly a foreign government who is an adversary -- ours, there are definitely statues on the book. i want to make it clear, i have not received evidence, but if that's what it turns out to be, i'm convinced there will be prosecutions. charlie: you have seen circumstantial evidence, congressman schiff? rep. schiff: yes. i think there is circumstantial evidence. again, as the director made clear during the hearing today,
he can't chase down every allegation that is presented to the fbi. but when something rises to the level of being credible evidence of either a crime or that someone has become an agent of a foreign power or is coordinating with a foreign, power to undermine our election, that needs to be investigated. he made that decision. i think on the basis of what i've seen, that was a sound decision. i do think we shouldn't get too far ahead of ourselves and think too much about the consequences. i think we have a long way to go in the investigation and we ought to let the facts dictate where they take us. charlie: who else do you want to see come before the committee? rep. schiff: i think if we are doing this in a methodical way, we should go through the raw intelligence of the documents, and allow those to identify the witnesses. i think many of the people whose names you heard today are people of interest, and i would not be surprised if we bring them
before the committee. i don't want to get too far ahead in the process. we may not get more than one shot. you want to be prepared, obviously, before they come before the committee. rep. king: also, it is most likely that would be coordinated with the fbi. you don't want to disrupt a criminal investigation. if you bring someone forward, there's a whole question of what they would be saying, and involved with other witnesses. it is a fine line. but whatever has to be done. devin nuñez and adam will do whatever has to be done. charlie: director comey said today it is highly unusual for them to talk about an ongoing investigation, but you have to do it when you believe the national interest demands it. as i remember his statement. rep. king: i think there is so much discussion over this, so many stories. some true, some untrue. i think maybe the president brought it to a higher level when he spoke about the
wiretapping. director comey came forward. i'm glad he did. when i'm on his show, several times i'm talking about an fbi investigation and realized i could not disclose the fact there was an investigation. it is important that is out there, it makes it easier, and may move the process along. charlie: congressman schiff, when you look at the possibilities of the president going to the lengths he has to continue and to double down on the issue of wiretapping on trump tower, and all the denial that had taken place, my question is at what point does he have the capacity to say, if he believes he's wrong, "i was wrong?" rep. schiff: i would have hoped he would have said that a long time ago.
the best course would have been after he sent out early in the morning tweets, to say, i should not have send those out, i should not have accused my predecessor of gross illegality. but that's not who he is. i think at some point we do have to recognize, he is who he is and he will keep doing this. that is going to be a real problem. i hope someone can talk sense into him when it comes to making these outlandish accusations, because he is undermining his own prospects for success as a president, and also undermining our ability to work with allies. i hope this stops. i have to say i'm losing confidence is going to stop. this just may be who he is, and this is what you get when you roll the dice, as we have with someone who has not been in elected office before, who we
don't really have a track record to evaluate. this may be the way he conducts business. maybe this is the way he did real estate deals with half-truths and complete untruths and a lot of bluster, but that's no way to run a country. i'm very concerned going forward. charlie: they also say every president needs someone that can say no to him or her. rep. schiff: that's true. charlie: thank you both. back in a moment. stay with us. ♪ we continue discussion of the house intelligence hearing with karoun demirjian and matt rosenberg. they join us now from washington. when will we look back at this and maybe see it as a historic turning point in the investigation? karoun: it is a very remarkable thing when an fbi director says yes, there is an active investigation going on involving the white house. that is historic.
certainly, there were two major markers that came out today. the president's accusations of the obama administration was wiretapping had no evidence. there are still a lot of unanswered questions. many of them not answered during the hearing. where this will continue, certainly it will be under a cloud of politics the whole time. it is certainly a notable day in the progress. charlie: was this a hard decision for the fbi director to make? karoun: the fbi director said he had gotten permission from the department of justice. there are rare circumstances were in the public interest it makes sense to break the normal ruled that he doesn't comment on ongoing investigations. this has been many months in coming. he's getting a lot of pressure to say what he said, especially with the press reports.
having him get to this point was something that almost had to happen. i think a lot of people were expecting. it is still notable he got there. it shows the curious sense of the investigation that they made a public declaration. charlie: do you know what they are saying the russians did? karoun: they are saying the russians were involved in meddling with the election, and they found there was intervention and hacking since january, done with the intention of trying to advance trump's chances of winning the white house. however, they have not gone into full detail about the extent of which the allegations may have been more direct allusion. -- collusion. you heard some people telling you that there is no evidence. it's true there is a link, but they are looking into it. there are all these swirling allegations that comey is looking into.
specifics of what they are looking at, they have not found. charlie: are there informed opinions that suggest it might have made a difference? that whatever the russians did might have made a difference in the election, or is it simply the act of trying to tamper with democracy? karoun: i think it is the letter that is concerning people. some democrats have said, it may have had an effect, but you will never be able to tell. this is not a case where russians hacked voting machines and you can draw a direct line between the turnout and numbers. it is more subtle than that when you talk about information, hacking, the public news cycle. i don't think anyone is planning on saying, yes, the russian interference determined the election. they are concerned about the president this sets. and he even said expected to happen in 2020 and other
elections, even in europe. charlie: thank you for joining us. i know you have another commitment, we will let you go. matthew, having listened to what we have said so far, tell me what you would add to that in terms of the hearings, how long they may last, and whether this is the beginning. are we witnessing the unraveling of a presidency? matt: i think i was as amazed as karoun to see the fbi director get up in front of congress and say yes, there is an espionage investigation. that alone is stunning. the other remarkable thing is there was another four and a half hours of the hearing, a lot of it talking about leaks, why people were talking in government, whether they should be prosecuting. this will be an issue that keeps coming up. does this unravel the presidency?
i don't know. will there be a smoking gun? these are huge questions. i think that gets back to your question about where we are in this. we are still very much at the beginning. both the senate and house investigators have been pretty clear they are still going through the initial evidence underpinning the january 6 assessment about russian meddling. they are looking into the initial assessments and intelligence on connections between trump associates and russia. i think the fbi as well, the counterintelligence investigations can go on for years and often don't yield a result. they don't yield the prosecution. i think we'll have a lot more of this and it will be a political cloud that will hang over the white house for a long time. charlie: a couple things from what adam schiff said, and he clearly knows a lot about this as chief minority member of the house intelligence committee, is circumstantial evidence he's primarily talking about, meaning you can't explain. on the other hand when you talk
about whether president obama in some way, if he could, had ordered something like this, you have no one that has said they have seen any evidence that took place. that there is any surveillance. matt: none. that's the other amazing thing. both the fbi director and nasa director said, no, mr. president, there's no evidence. but the white house is not backing down. it is beyond the point now. anyone who would know says it did not happen. where do we go from here? i don't think any of us knows. i assume other people are eager to know what other witnesses would come forth?
matt: we could see john brennan, the former director of the cia, james clapper, and perhaps sally yates, the attorney general. that is still being worked out. i'm sure there's more hearings to go. also, a lot of work in the intelligence community is behind closed doors. they will have witnesses we are not privy to and we won't know with a are talking about. charlie: that include some of who are implicated with the suggestion of collusion. -- matt: michael flynn, his name came up frequently today both by the democrats who sought his connections and contacts with the russian ambassador, and republicans concerned the information about the contacts has leaked to members of the media. there seems to be a lot of people who want to hear from michael flynn. charlie: the question of leaks,
what exactly did director comey say about the leaks? matt: he was pretty adamant that it is illegal and it is a real problem. i think the republicans really wanted to go further and pointing to specific stories he thought were false or wrong. based on leaks that were not fully informed. he wouldn't go there. he can't get in the business of saying what is right or wrong. it was one of the situations where the republicans -- not all, but a number of them wanted to make this the main issue, and neither the director or the nsa chief wanted to do that. charlie: what evidence has been presented? what do we know about whether vladimir putin, the president of russia, ordered this? matt: this is the problem.
that the investigation faces and the entire story faces. a lot of this evidence is ascribed to us but we don't get to see it because it is classified. we are told there are intercepts. we are told there is a number of bits of information. there's a lot of human intelligence that indicates this came from vladimir putin, this was ordered by him. you and i are never going to see the transcripts of those calls or get readouts. that will present a challenge, because it does raise doubts. how can you say this happened definitively, these guys were involved. we have to take somebody's word, because we can't see it. charlie: how long do they expect the house intelligence committee hearings to last? matt: nobody is putting a timeline on this. on the senate side, they told me it will go as long as it takes them, and the house side seems to be taking a similar approach. this could go on for a long
time. they depend on the fbi and intelligence community. the fbi is still collecting information. as long as they do that, it will not be wrapped up. how long the intelligence will go on their investigation is -- they say it could take years. charlie: any evidence president trump has begun to believe this is getting in the way of the onward movement of his own agenda and his goals for what he might do in the first 100 days? matt: i imagine there is some recognition in the white house, but they don't seem to be acting on that information in any way that would keep it from being an issue. just this morning, the president is tweeting this is fake news. the whole russian meddling story is fake news. during the testimony itself, comey said the -- there's no indication russian hackers interfered with tallies.
then there was a tweet saying comey said there was no russian influence in the election whatsoever. that's not what they said. in the hearing when they read those, they went on to say, "no, we didn't say that." we are not assessing what a -- whether that had affected the results. the white house seems to find a way to keep this going. there's all kinds of theories. is this a distraction? are they just fumbling around? i don't know that, but they don't seem to recognize how much damage this is doing and how they perpetuate this. charlie: thank you so much. back in a moment. stay with us. ♪
charlie: chuck berry died on saturday at his home near missouri. he was 90. his unique views of blues and define rock and roll and influence everyone from the beatles to the beast boys. his hit songs including "rollover beethoven." the rolling stones called him a true pioneer of rock 'n roll. he was not only a brilliant guitarist, he was a master craftsman as a songwriter.
his songs will live forever. joining me now, david brown, contributing editor for rolling stone. welcome. guest: glad to be here. charlie: what do we say about chuck berry? guest: there is so much you can take for granted. rock 'n roll has been around for 60 years and you can forget after all that time what he did to revolutionize music and he really did on so many levels, music and lyrical levels. charlie: did he revolutionize music by bringing on rock 'n roll? david: he brought together one of the very first to kind of bring together blues, country, boogie-woogie, all these styles into rock 'n roll, and more importantly, you know, you look back on people like little richard and jerry lee lewis, they were sexual and threatening and chuck berry really was not that, but he did something much more important. he wrote songs in the voice of the average teenager, which
nobody was doing at that point. charlie: genius as an artist or songwriter? david: both. the slippery little lick lives on in the music. he invented that and he played guitar on different down beats and things so he kind of revolutionized it. the famous chuck berry lick, nobody was doing that. >> ♪ oh, maybellene, why can't you be true? ♪ david: that is a real basic building block for modern rock 'n roll. charlie: you see bruce springsteen and keith richards
. david: absolutely. the guitar sound lives on and the lyrical content. again, he wrote songs unabashedly filled with references to cars and drive in s and school cafeterias. he knew to zero in on the market, but he articulated something about this generation of teenagers. he related to them even though he was not a teenager at all when he wrote the songs, but he knew how to craft language in their voice and speak for them. charlie: it was 1958 that "johnny b. goode" made it to the top 10. david: a long time ago. almost 60 years. and "maybellene" was three years before that. he was on an incredible roll for five to seven years, just singing, recording, over and
over, one after another. and those songs, you know, johnny b. goode, maybellene, roll over beethoven, that is the basic repertoire of early rock 'n roll. ♪ ♪ roll over beethoven ♪ charlie: was he appreciated all along? david: i think he was. you know, he had a difficult period where he went to prison for 20 months in the early 60's thanks to the man act and he disappeared from the scene. you know, he emerged from that seemingly much more embittered, and the music he played in the 1950s --
even though he disappears from the scene, he was certainly appreciated when he came out. charlie: was there a lot of electric guitar before you came -- he came along? david: absolutely, but it did not sound like that. you had the les paul smooth style. you didn't have the way that chuck played it, somewhat aggressive but very playful kind of way. >> ♪ go, though johnny, go, go, go johnny, though, go, johnny b. goode ♪ charlie: he toured until three years ago. 2014. david: he was amazing. just a few months ago, they announced he was putting out a
new album at 90 years old. he had not put out a new album since 1979, when jimmy carter was president. he is not only still playing shows, but writing new songs and t 90, which is groundbreaking in rock 'n roll. we had not seen that before. luckily, that album is still coming out, so we get to hear. charlie: did his music evolve? david: not really. it got a little modernized, but he kind of stuck to the basic style and also expanded into blues. his music spread out a little bit more in exploring the different origins. he dug more to the origins of where he came from. more blues oriented songs later. charlie: influence on elvis? david: boy, they came out right around the same time and it is
hard to say, you know. they were both on parallel courses in a way. i think, again, elvis was so volcanic and sexual and threatening to some people and chuck berry, he was more like this ambassador to rock 'n roll. he kind of made it, he put a playful face on it and made it americana in a way. charlie: the songs have been covered by rolling stones, beach boys, the doors, the grateful dead, james taylor, a wide variety. david: it is an amazing list. everything from country to punk bands. if you are in a garage band, you probably still have to learn how to play the licks when you grow up. that is quite a legacy for him
wow, watchathon has netflix? hey, drop a beat... [ beatboxing throughout ] show me orange is the new black. wait, no bloodline. how about bojack? luke cage. oh, dj tanner. maybe show me lilyhammer. mmm, show me last chance u. on second thought, maybe pompidou. narcos, fearless, cooked, the crown. marco polo, lost & found. grace and frankie, hemlock grove.
season one of... show me house of cards. xfinity watchathon week starts april 3. get unlimited access to all of netflix and more, free with xfinity on demand. the dinosaurs' extinction... got you outnumbered. don't listen to them. not appropriate. now i'm mashing these potatoes with my stick of butter... why don't you sit over here. something for everyone is awesome. find your awesome with the xfinity stream app. more to stream to every screen. charlie: david rockefeller died monday morning. he was 101 years old. the banker who became a public figure was the youngest grandson of john d rockefeller. he led chase manhattan bank for
more than a decade and expanded the operation globally and cultivated close relationships with foreign leaders. he was also a renowned art collector and philanthropist. michael bloomberg said "no individual has contributed more over a longer period of time than david rockefeller." if his father knew he was a friend of david rockefeller's nothing would have made him more proud. i could say the same thing. you are looking at a photograph taken at the busch home in maine. i had been invited for lunch, and i knew david was in maine, so i called president bush and asked if i might invite david. he said "of course, i would love to see him." he came by helicopter. i came up by delta and we had a wonderful afternoon. he was a wonderful man, a wonderful friend, and he lived an extraordinary life. in his later years, he made it a point of showing his grandchildren and
great-grandchildren around the world. i have the great joy of his friendship and celebrated his 100th birthday with him and many of his close friends. he appeared on this program many times. here is a look at some of those conversations. do you represent in some way the end of an era when you think of the family and you think of dispersion in the central role you have played in the evolution of this family through the tradition i just talked about? >> it certainly is the end of one important period for the family. i like to think though that there is lots of oncoming members of the family who will make a place for themselves, both in the next generation, my children, nieces, nephews, and coming on the fifth and sixth generations. i do not believe it will be the
same, but i think there are real possibilities they will make a place for themselves. charlie: how do you explain, one, the family has been so prominent. there are other great american families that none have remained and such prominence in american life and have carried such a commitment of payback. david: it is largely that we, my siblings and myself, have very good parents. mother and father were, they complemented one another in a way that was to our benefit and we were brought up to feel responsibility for the fact that we did have more than most people and father always said, and i think rightly, that for every opportunity, there is an obligation, and i think without preaching that, we have all felt that responsibility and also
have had great opportunities. charlie: he imposed a sense of frugality from what i've read. david: yes. he married a wonderful person, my mother, who brought perhaps a little more humanity and humor and sense of fun then an perhaps father was brought up with and the combination of the two, i think, has worked well. republican senator from rhode island, in the senate 32 years. charlie: do you remember your grandfather? david: my grandfather rockefeller? yes. he died when i was 21 and i saw a great deal of him. unfortunately, my other three grandparents all died within a year of the time i was born, so it is only my grandfather rockefeller that i knew. charlie: and your dad, who was
called junior, carried on the tradition? david: he did indeed, with great dedication and very effectively. he was deeply religious. i think that that had a great impact on his life and what he did, but he also had great imagination and i think he was primarily known as a philanthropist, a very creative one. a lot of the most creative things he did he did because he saw an opportunity, like a trip sometimes with his children. example being colonial williamsburg, he visited with his three younger children in 1926, and met with dr. goodwin and visited williamsburg, which had been the capital in the pre-united states days and then
the capital moved to richmond. dr. goodwin persuaded him to take an interest in restoring one building and from that, he was restoring the whole of williamsburg. the same year, we also went to jackson hole and as a result of seeing the area below the grand teton mountains, which were being cluttered with signboards and honky-tonks and whatnot. he bought up that land and give it to the united states government as part of the grand teton national park. he was a creative philanthropist in a very wonderful way. charlie: 55 years. david: 35 i was employed by him. and for the last 17, i'm chairman of the international
advisory committee and i still go on. the last trip to china was for the bank, so i went with bank people, so i still do things with them and for them, but i have no responsibility for anything that goes on in the bank. charlie: when you look back on your tenure there, how do you assess it? david: from my perspective, it really was made to order because i am interested in all the things i did and it gave me an excuse to do a lot more, so a lot of the people i saw were perhaps initially for the bank. that being a good example, because in this interview i mentioned, he asked if i would open a branch, and last year had nationalized all the banks, but
i got to know him on a personal basis and so there was always a mixture of my specific bank responsibility with a variety of other interests, cultural and otherwise. charlie: you were primarily, because of your interest in international ideas, events, personalities, trends, led the bank in its push to internationalism, correct? david: correct. citibank had done it a good deal, but we did a lot of catch-up and i think if there is a single thing i did contribute to chase it was to expand. i visited 107 countries for the chase in the 35 years i was there and we opened branches or representative offices and we
had over 75 by the time i left. guy: the idea of corporate responsibility, your strong feelings that if you have leadership in the corporate world and the resources of corporation, you ought to do what with them? david: in the first place, i think the business community and the private sector in general correctly felt that government, even in democracies, had gotten too bureaucratic and too big, and it was good to cut back on government, which we have done to a considerable degree. that is something ronald reagan deserves a lot of credit for, but if government is going to get out of a lot of things, somebody has to take their place, and it seems to me that business and the private sector, which pushed for this, have to assume some responsibility.
if so, then it seems to me that the leaders of business and of not-for-profit corporations should recognize that they have responsibility outside of their own businesses to do something for society at large, and therefore i feel concerned at what is happening in this country in the present time, where it seems to me that the stock market analysts who seem to have a great influence on a lot of things these days, are putting all their focus on quarterly results, and not on long-term achievements, which i think is dangerous and that in itself, but because they are putting so much emphasis on that, it means that they are watching the microscope, the
activities of ceo's at these corporations, and if they spend too much time doing other things, they are very likely to say, well, you should be paying more attention to the immediate earnings of your corporation and should not be giving time. i think that is wrong. i think a well-managed corporation can give time for its chief executives to do other things as well. i think that is an indication of good leadership, that a good manager can delegate, and therefore, can't afford to spend time doing things that are important even if they are not directly related to the corporation. charlie: i cannot let this time
go without talking about the museum of modern art. it is your former home. david: that is true in a fiscal physical sense. i was born in a house which now is a sculpture garden of the museum. charlie: your mother -- david: one of the three ladies who founded it. that was very exciting. she -- it was a passion of hers and -- charlie: 1929 at the time. we were facing economic catastrophe in this country. the great depression was right around the corner. david: that's right and she persuaded father a little bit after that when i graduated from harvard and moved away and my brothers and sisters all moved away, they did not need a nine story house, so they moved to an apartment -- [laughter] david: and there was also the
house on the same block that belonged to my grandfather that had never been torn down, so father generously, because he did not really like modern art very much, but he listened to mother and gave all that land to the museum, which was a great thing. charlie: and you went through a long process to select a new architect to enlarge the museum of modern art. were you chair the museum that led back? david: this is very exciting because i believe the museum of modern art in the 20th century plays a very important role in identifying the best of what is being done in the 20th century, and has a collection which is certainly the best in the world of 20th-century art. charlie: your legacy, what do
you want it to be? david: well, i feel very proud of the family's traditions and what they have been able to achieve in the world, starting with grandfather and really throughout. i have six wonderful children, all of whom share that kind of concern about sense of obligation to do something constructive. i would love to feel that when i go that i have been a part of that tradition which seems to me to be a good and a happy one for our country. i do not think you could ask much more than that. charlie: david rockefeller, dead at 101. ♪
billions of dollars back into the system. and the promise to shareholders will come under scrutiny as flagship companies report. myid: i was looking at terminal. when you look at japan, you have talked about $200 billion wiped out. following wall street, lower. the explanation of why it happened it is because of concerns over the growth all of these from the trump administration not passing through congress. be i am hearing this may not the case. take a look at the bloomberg right now. i will walk you are this chart. reflation has not been