tv Charlie Rose PBS September 7, 2017 4:00pm-5:01pm PDT
>> glor: welcome to the program, charlie rose is on assignment, i'm jeff glor of cbs news. tonight we begin with a look at the escalating conflict in north korea with richard mcgregor, author of asians reckoning. >> there's very little on japan and china. and this is a highly consequently relationship with the world's second and biggest economy, asia's two superpowers, and with a really difficult emotional, scared history. you know where one considered-- china considered itself to be japan's big brother. was brutally invaded by japan and really only in the last 10, 20 years out of the last 150 years china is getting back on top again. and the funny thing about these two countries, they've always demanded the west quite rightly
treat them as equals. the west had very racist policies towards asia 50, 100 years ago. but japan and china really struggled to treat each other's, each other as equals. you know, lends itself to an extremely antagonistic relationship. >> glor: we continuing with michael schmidt who broke the story of the boston red socks use ang apple watch to steal opponent's hand signals. >> the yank yees knew that something was going on so they were trying to take every measure that they could to stop it, to stop them from doing that. and that's part of the thing. is the catcher telling its pitcher, look, this is the second sign, it will be the fifth sign i put down, the catcher is putting down stealing signs.
but what you can't have is people with electronics in the dugout. and that's what seemed to help the red sox here. >> glor: north korea, a new method of stealting home and an update on robert mueller's investigation, next. >> rose: funding for charlie rose is provided by the following: bank of america, life better connected. >> 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. >> glor: good
evening, charlie rose is on assignment today, i'm jeff glor of cbs news. the escalating conflict with north korea has cast a spotlight on the shifting power dynamics in asia. china and japan remain an ever present competition even as china has passed japan as the region's dominant power. china's growing power also calls fa question the u.s.' future influence in asia. richard mcgregor's new book considers the complex relationship between these three countries t is called asia's reckoning. richard mcgregor joins me now from washington. we are pleased to have him back on this program. good to see you. >> thanks for having me, jeff, terrific to be here. >> glor: you talk a lot, richard, about the concept of past american blanca how do you define that today and is it over? >> not over yet. i guess let me define it first, it is really america as both the dominant power in east asia since the second world war and also the sort of policy-making
power in asia since the second world war. i mean let may give you an example. it's quite remarkable that 70 years after the war the u.s. still has troops in south korea, it still has troops in japan. it has troops in australia, it has all sorts of facilities in thailand, singapore, the philippines and the like. that's past americana, this interwoven sort of set of security guarantees that the u.s. provides for asia, east asia and has provided for 70 years. i guess linked up with the economic system that the u.s. has built since the second world war or lead since the second world war and built along with europe, which is basically built around open markets and rules. rules of the road. for trade, for security, for the high seas and the like. >> glor: we're 100 years now removed from world war 1, all of this still comes back to world war ii though doesn't it.
>> it does. this is the legacy of world war ii t is the legacy of the u.s. victory over japan in world war ii. a fight, by the way, the u.s. was allied with china in. and it all flows from there. and when the u.s. to go back to the '50s returned sovereignty to japan in the 19 '50s, it did so while disarming it, and basically taking over japanese foreign policy for many decades. and it also did so by forming alliances with all sorts of other countries, the philippines, australia and the like which feared japan. and all those alliances basically you know, survive today. >> glor: i'm not sure there is a more interesting inner country relationship in-- other than maybe the u.s. and russia, than japan and china. talk a little bit about the history between these two countries and how it got to where it is today. >> i mean for me this is fascinating, jeff. and it's really why i wrote the book. i lived for a long time in both
countries and i was always interested in their relationship. for example, i was in a book shop last night and it occurred to me if you go into most book shops in the states for example there is a cottage industry of books on the u.s. and china, the u.s. and middle east. you go to the u.k. there is a similar cottage industry of books on the u.k. and france, and franls and germany 6789 but there's very little on japan and china. and this is a highly quengs relationship with the world's second and third biggest economies. asia's two superpowers. and with a really difficult emotional scared history. you know, where one considered the-- china considered itself to be japan's big brother. it fell behind japan, was brutally invaded by japan, and really only, you know, in the last 10, 20 years out of the last 150 years china is getting back on top again. the funny thing about these two countries, they have always
demanded the west quite rightly treat them as equals. the west had very racist policies towards asia, 50, 100 years ago. but japan and china really struggled to treat each other as equals. and you know t lends it self to an extremely antagonistic relationship. >> glor: for most of that history china has been or was the big brother. >> they were the big brother, you know, the so called sino sent rick order in asia but if you talk to the japanese they will say well, we were never really the little brother and were never going to be the little brother, we're japan, we're not anybody's vassal state. and they claim that, you know, many people in japan think that china's mindset is to return to this form of the sino sent rick order in asia in which china is the central, the middle kick dom, so called, and everybody else is a form of tri beu tear state which china allowed to get on with their lives as long as they are nice to china and pay
some form of obedience to them. and the japanese say well, we are never like that and we're never going to be like that. and they're determined to stand their ground. >> glor: you can talk por about the scars that remain, you know, maybe even deepened at times with discussions over what apologies should be made over world war ii. >> yeah, this is a really complex, fractured area which you don't pick up the sensibilities from the day to day headlines of japan demands, china apologize-- sorry china demands japan apologize for the war. and japan says well, we've apologized, this, that and the other and the like there is to doubt that chinese propaganda about japan against japan works because it is based on true facts, facts. in other words, japan did brutally invade china. they killed many people there was a massacre. et cetera, et cetera. but immediately after the war,
for the decades after the war china never asked japan for an official apology. they never wanted to talk much about the massacre. it simply wasn't a priority for them. but once they started to become more powerful, once they thought that they wanted the respect that they thought should be accorded to them, that is when they started talking about history more. and japan was very unprepared for that, japan thought they sort of settled all those issues. and japan struggles to have any form of introa speks about history. so i haven't so much written about the history wars. i've written the history of the history wars. and once you look at it from that perspective you will see that it's really a matter of internal politics in both countries. and that is how i have approached it. >> glor: so much of this goes back to 1937. what happened in nanjing. >> well there was a retreat by chinese nationalist forces. the japanese were advancing and
invading and they committed an orgy of killings both of civilians and retreating soldiers. there is a great dispute about how many people exactly were killed. in some respects, i don't think that matters too much one way or another. the chinese say 300,000 which they get from a war crimes tribunal after the war. there is a respectable japanese, or debate amongst historians that says it was far fewer than that, but there is also unfortunately e faction in japan which denied it happened at all. and i think that thoroughly discredited it, but sadly it lives on in japanese politics. >> so post world war ii one country does a better job at modernizing and appreciating technology. >> absolutely. you might remember that when you were growing up, you know, the number one threat to the u.s. in the late '80s, early '90s was japan, or considered to be such.
when japan was buying up all sorts of landmarks like the rockefeller center in manhattan and the pebble beach golf course and the like. this was considered to be a form of tech no-nationalism. and u.s.-japan trade wars which really went on from the '50s, about three, four decades, really culminatedded in action by the u.s. against japan on semiconductors. and its-- once japan sort of faded as an economic threat, we kind of forgot about what an intense period that was. but in fact it is precisely what is happening with china now, but with one very important difference. the u.s. was always a security ally of the u.s.-- sorry, japan was always a security ally of the u.s., hence that sort of helped mediate the trade differences. china is a deadly geo political rival of the u.s. and that is going to make the trade issues much harder to handle, i think. >> glor: you forget about the threats, i think a lot of people
forget about the threat that a lot of people felt from the japanese economy, in particular. that economy in the '80s, that economy remains as big as it is, remains stagnant to a large extent today. how does that factor into the japanese chinese relationship? >> you know, to be fair, the japanese have done better than people think. they've got a bigger problem than just sort of, you know, increasing economic productivity. they do do that but they've now got a diminishing population. they are losing 250,000 people a year. they're going to go from about 120 million now to 90 million in 20 years. so not only do they feel that they have lost their advantage against china as an economy, you know, there's a big sort of psychic turn around, it was only 20, 30 years ago that japan was on top. and in the space of a couple of decades that's really flipped. the chinese economy has grown 10% a year for 30 years. the last 20, 25 years as you
mentioned the japanese economy has grown at about 1 percent. so they feel a bit very, sort of aggrieved by the turning of the tables. and it doesn't make for a sort of psychologically healthy relationship. >> they both have aging populations, right? >> they do, actually am one of the funny things about the so called pacific century, really at the dawn of it right now, is that every country in east asia has terrible demographics. japan may be the worst, or they are just first into it. china does as well because of the one child policy. south korea does, tie want does. so the problems that japan has now with demographics, china is going to have in spades in ten or 20 years. and that without going, switching the conversation, actually will help the u.s. >> glor: so but trade continues to thrive between japan and china. this is more of a political discussion we're having. >> it is. i mean it's one reason, i guess,
the japanese chinese bilateral phase is one of the biggest two way relationships in the world, first, second or third. not only that it's investment. japanese car companies, like.. is car companies have enormous sales in china and china represents the future for them. it's the same for japanese technology companies. it's japanese companies which provide all the sort of factory goods when they build new factories in china. so that is really the anchor of the relationship. and it's really one reason why for all their tension, for all the fact that their navy's face off around the east china sea almost every day or month, the relationship has never gone off the rails. because they're both deeply pragmatic countries. and i done think they want to have a fight because it's far too damaging. >> glor: do you believe that war between these two countries is a possibility in the future? >> st a possibility.
i mean i haven't written a book saying the coming war between japan and china 689 we've had a mult teud of books with the title the coming war between so and so and so and so. and i haven't written that because i didn't want to exaggerate the possibilities of military conflict. but having said that the chances of some sort of conflict let alone a war are now higher than they used to be. and i guess the trigger point is their disputed territories in the east china sea, this sort of few small islands which has become symbolic of their geo political competition. and in 2012 when japan for various reasons changed the status of those islands, it's my understanding and i talk about this in the book, that the chinese actually did consider at the time whether they should take military action to make their point or regain the islands. and one reason they didn't is very interesting, two reasons,
obviously. you know, the chinese are still building their military up. japan has a formidable naval, natchal force and air force but most important, china has to be sure of viblght ree. because if japan lost a bat toll china then the japanese government would fall and there would be a national shame, et cetera, et cetera. but if china lost a battle against japan again, with the communist party's press teej online, that is kind of regime change. so china has to be sure of winning in and in some respects that's one reason why they won't fight. >> who is more, in your estimation who is more responsible for stoaking fears for stoaking problems over these disputed islands. >> well, you are putting me on the spot there. and the vossive russ nationalists from both sides watching this will no doubt pour in to attack me but i mean i don't want to sit on the fence. i will say first of all there is obviously fault on both sides.
japan handles history problems terribly, at the top of the government in japan including the prime, they have been revisionists on history and have resisted making amends for what happened a long time ago. that is definitely a problem. but i think the problem is bigger in china in this respect. you know, china is a single party authoritarian country. they do not have free speech in the way that we understand free speech. it's very difficult in china with that sensibility against japan for politicians or anybody really to stand up and call for a much more open debate about japan not being an enemy of japan. and not only that but in the early '90s when the chinese started this sort of patriotic, intense patriotic education, the system of education in their primary schools and high schools and the like, japan was the number one target. so for all of japan's faults and there are many, i think it's the
chinese propaganda system which drives really veement anti-japanese sentiments in china and once they start winding that up, it's very difficult to wind it back. and i think that's at the core of the problem we have these days. >> glor: are the grudges carried mostly by the older generation or does this cross demographics? >> well, that's a very good question, you know. and it often seems in china it is like the balance cans. all these young people have great memories of wars that they never experienced. there is no dowlt that many elderly chinese people have living memories, less and less so now of japanese atrocities and japanese creelty. i think that was very important in the '80s and '90s when the policy started to change. but these days it strangely seems to be younger people who feel most intensely about japan.
and i think that's, for a number of reasons, the education system which i talked about before, and i think also the fact that the japan is one area that they can speak out on and express their patriotism, they can take to the streets about, you know, there's not many things you are allowed to hold a street protest on in china. but protesting against japan is one of them. and i think a lot of sort of disgrunlt eled people-- disgruntled people channel their antigovernment or anti-establishment sent nment china, they channel into anti-japanese protests and it kind of builts from there. >> glor: brent scoa croft once called japan probably-- he said i don't think we understand the japanese people, i don't think they understand us. has anything changed? >> that was during my research for the book and i came across that. it is quite remarkable. the u.s. and japan have a very close relationship, particularly a very close security
relationship. the pentagon and the japanese military. but i think we have forgotten, and this is-- of the trade wars we talked about before, how ditch a relationship this has been for a long time, an many different u.s. officials did not like dealing with japanese. henry kissinger is a prime example, james baker, brent scoacroft, brent skocroft is the consummate u.s. security professional, a hardened realist, somebody without dealt with all sorts of dictators and democrats around the world. and for him to say that the hardest people to deal with were the japanese, i found quite startling but it was also very telling about the problems that this alliance has often experienced. >> glor: so if you are the united states today, and first of all you appreciate the extraordinarily complicated relationship between china and japan, than how do you approach the pacific theat sner. >> well, that's the 64 million
dollar question. the u.s. it is a very difficult balancing act. if the u.s. muscles up in asia as some would like it to do, it runs the risk of precipitating conflict. and in fact getting ahead of its asian allies which want the u.s. to be there to keep the peace, to be a con sill yaiter, a balancer but not necessarily fight wars. but if the u.s. withdraws and leaves a vacuum, that is potentially even more damaging for asian countries because if the u.s. does leave any kind of vacuum, then china will fill it. china has already sort of got this sort of sal ami slicing policy in east asia in the south china sea, the east china sea, have gradually accumulating influence in such a way that st hard for the u.s. to pushback. so i think the u.s., at the core of what the u.s. has to do, that is, as long as the u.s. is
committed to its position in asia is to strengthen alliances, that is the most important thing. the second thing that is going to happen if people are to push back against china, there is not necessarily involve the u.s. it involves other asian countries joining together. so instead of the old what the americans used to call the hubs and spokes arrangement where you had the hub, the u.s., with sort of distinct relationships with asian countries t is now a kind of network relationship so you have japan and india. japan and the philippines, vietnam and india, japan and australia, so all sorts of u.s. allies or allied countries, joining together in new sorts of security partnerships to bolster the only u.s. alliance system which is, you know, not as strong, not as dominant as it was. >> glor: china wants the u.s. there just on their terms. >> yes, china, the great, the fascinating thing about china is
that china has been a huge winner from pacs americana. let's not ever forget that. the u.s. is the security gawrn tor in asia has provided the platform for the chinese economic miracle that is not to say the chinese didn't do this themselves through their good policy, hard work and the like. but without a peaceful international and regional environment, which the u.s. provided, that was the sort of platform, the runway on which china took off. that's the first thing. of course the wto. china didn't do anything in building that system, they simply plugged into it in the year 2,000. the u.s. helped build that as well. once again china just took off. but china, you know, and i think quite naturally unsurprisingly wants eventually to be the dominant power itself in asia. they don't want now that they are a big power, a big economy, maybe in ten years the biggest economy in the world, they don't
want to rely on the u.s. any more for their security. they are building their own blue water navy. they have their own aircraft carriers and the like. so they want the u.s. to push, you know, reduce their influence, you know, but i think it's slowerly. -- slowly. they don't want anything to happen precipitously. >> is president trump going to get the cooperation he wants from china on north korea. >> i would say in a word no. china has a number of calculations on north korea but the prime one is the one that held sway for some time right now. and that is, what does china prefer? would they want a sort of north korea which collapses into south korea? in other words, china then would have a u.s. ally on their border with u.s. troops. do they want to have a north korea that collapses and sends refugees spilling across into their territory, not always clr
outside of asia. that china and north korea do not get on. they do not trust each other. and that applies in spades to current reason leadership in both countries. xi jinping has never met kim jung-un, quite remarkable. so the china, you know, china's leverage is limited. they haven't got it. -- they have got it, they could use it but it is the kind of leverage that could come-- have enormous blowback for them if north korea did fall apart. >> glor: people forget that, they think china and north korea get along, and they just don't. >> they don't. that is the old propaganda line about lips and teeth. i'm afraid it is not like that, if it ever was. north korea always in the cold war days used to play china off against the soviet union. they have got their own way of doing things. you know, the kim family
business and dynasty, that is what drives them. it's not being nice to china or anybody else. >> glor: and do you believe people underestimate the kim dynasty? >> well, clearly they have, you know, we've had collapsist theories for years. it didn't happen. we had this guy come in and take over the country at age 30. we don't know too much about china-- north korean internal politics but we certainly know he didn't know how to run a country. he has done an absolutely ruthlessly. he's killed lots of potential rivals or locked them up. and he accelerated the nuclear bomb-building program and ballistic missile building program. in other words, the core power in internal politics in north korea are the scientists. all the people with a qualifications to, technical qualifications to do what they are doing. and kim has clearly given them
their head while eliminating all other rivals. so it is so far been, you know, maybe it will all crumble in front of us one day but so far it's been, to talk about it in a very cold fashion, a remarkable performance. >> glor: and what is interesting here is that when we talk about north korea, people talk about the u.s., people talk about china, russia. japan doesn't get discussed a lot. should it be in. >> well, yes and no. japan struggle struggles to play a con sill tore role on the korean peninsula because of its colonial record there. japan and south korea are important u.s. allies but they have a very fractious relationship themselves. with the election of a new government in south korea which is a bit more antagonistic towards japan, that is even more so. so they're not going to be the honest broker on the korean peninsula, and of course, and this is pretty much an open secret, i don't think japan supports korean union if i
kaition either because they don't want an even stronger korea, just across the waters. but japan is important in this respect. the chinese military buildup and now the accelerant provided by north korea is transforming japanese security politics. so most people have this idea that japan is sort of stuck with this pass fist constitution, et cetera, et cetera. that is changing rapidly and gradually. japan changed it's constitution to allow it to fight more easily alongside the u.s. they are now getting offensive weapons for, you know n a real sense for the first time since 1945. the big change, of course, would be if japan went nuclear itself. i don't think that's about to happen but that's all down the track if north korea continues to destabilize the region and china, japan continues to feel
threatened by china. >> it's amazing how this one lone small rogue nation is driving its world discussion right now. >> yeah, and nobody knows what to do about it. and nobody can talk to him directly either. >> glor: richard mcgregor, the book is called asia's reckoning, really appreciate your time. >> thank you very much, jeff. z. >> glor: charlie rose is on assignment today, i'm jeff glor of cbs news. it was revealed yesterday that investigators for major league baseball have uncovered what is perhaps the most sophisticated scheme in the long history of spying on posing teams in professional sports. in a stunning revelation mlb disclosed that the boston red sox utilized technology using the apple watch to illegally steal hand signals from opponents' catchers in games against the new york yank yee-- yankees an other teams. joining me now from washington is michael schmidt of "the new york times." he lead the reporting that broke this story yesterday. he is also an msnbc contributor.
michael, welcome. >> thanks for having me. >> glor: so as fares as you have been able to gather, when did teams first notice that something might be amiss. >> so what happened here is that the yankees for some time have been deeply sceptical about the red sox, thinking that the red sox are stealing signs from them. but they couldn't figure out how they were doing that. so general manager brian cashman had the guys that work for him including some video analysts look at different things that the red sox were doing to try and figure this out. was it the bat boy, was it the third base coach, how were they doing this. in the course of that they were able to figure out last month during a series in boston where the red sox were playing the yankerrees, that one in the red sox dugout, the team trainer was using this iphone watch as a way of receiving information. and it is gensz baseball's rules to have any type of electronics in the dugout and to use them certainly to steal signs am you can steal signs in baseball, you just can't use electronics to do
it. >> glor: long history of stealing signs, obviously. so dot yankees believe this went back months or years. >> i only know that they think it goes back months. this is something that they had noticed earlier this year, certainly were keening in on earlier this year. and were trying to figure out. now the red sox when they had to talk to major league baseball when base ball confronted them last week, the red sox told baseball that this had been going on for at least a month that they had been using this system with the apple watch since at least july. so there were other teams the red sox played against that they had used this equipment with. >> glor: and who go the yankees and major league baseball believe was involved in this sth. >> well, it looks like it was the team trainer and it looks like it was several of the players. and it was the team's video, the video analyst, the video staff that looks at the footage that is coming in throughout the game. now dustin pedroia the red sox star second baseman was injured
but in uniform during the yankees red sox series but in the footage that the yankerrees provided to major league baseball, pedroia was seen talking with the trainer, and then taking information and passing it to other players. this was a key part of this, this di tailed complaint that was filed by the general manager brian cashman of the yankees. >> glor: and presumably a veteran like dustin pedroia, younger guys is one thing, 20 or 21 years old, presumably a veteran like dustin pedroia should know better? >> correct, well, certainly, yes. and certainly it's known in baseball that you can't have electronics in the dugout that say known rule, some folks have been dinged on it in the past. that is something they know about. but steals signs is part of the gamesmanship, part of the game, something that happens. that is why in baseball you see a lot of times the catcher running out to the mound to talk to the pitcher with, you know, his mit over his face, because is he trying to basically tell the pitcher how he's going to be
changing the sign so they can communicate with each other. this is actually part of noafer problem for baseball where the games are too long. if you watch in the playoffs, half of the second half of the game is the catcher running out to the pitcher and talking to him to stop signs from being stolen. >> glor: and part of this, looking back you can understand why some teams felt something was going on. because i think in some of these games over the summer, there were just an excessive number of visits to the mound, right. because there was concern on the part of the catchers or managers. >> correct, the yankees knew that something was going on so they were trying to take every measure that they could to stop it, to stop them from doing that. and thases' part of the thing is the catcher telling the pitcher look t is going to be the second sign, the fifth sign that i put down, the catcher is putting down different numbers with his-- with his fingers. and the other thing is that the catcher could just be telling the pitcher whatever i put down, throw this pitch or throw whatever it is part of-- but it is part of the game.
and that's when the commissioner who actually happened to be in boston yesterday just by coincidence, when he spoke to the press about this he said look, stealing signs is part of the game. like you can't stop people from stealing signs. but what you can have is people with electronics in the dugout and that's what seemed to help the red sox here. >> glor: because this was-- if the 21s century object here, the i watch, can-- i wamp but it is ultimately just guys one person relaying something to someone else and eventually it getting up to the batter. >> some folks were joking with me that they didn't know that people still had iwatches or that there was any real use for them. but what it is is that what it does is that the red sox would have theetion analysts look at the video footage and the thing is at fenway park is apparently a big distance between where the video footage is taken and where the dugout is. so to move that information more quickly they were sending it to the trainer who had the apple
watch on. now these trainers were interviewed by major league baseball who went up there as part of this investigation. and the trainers said look, we were just doing what the players told us to do. they gave us this watch, they were just following what they said. and the same thing came from the video guy, they said look there is the players that were doing this. this is a common theme that we've seen in sports in these types of scenarios, mini scandals, and deflategate and spy gate t was sort of this clubhouse personnel, these people with less power on the team, succumbing to the athletes who wanted them to do different things and going along with these schemes. >> there was an immediate counteraccusation from the red sox that the yankees are stealing signals from, using the television network, is there anything to that? well, as we know the yankees and the red sox are these long time rivals dating back to babe ruth it is a very long-standing thing. the interesting thing is the rivalry really hit a peak about ten years ago when the yankees
and red sox were 3w09 very good, both winning world series, meeting in the play offs a lot, big personalities on both sides, just epic great baseball games but the rivalry has sort of, you know, cooled in the past few years and it's become less exciting and less intense and what we have seen here now is the red sox who said oh yeah, are you going to file this complaint against us. we're going to file a complaint against you that is what happened on monday and the red sox have raised the ante on it. it is not clear that the red sox claim as substantial as the one that the yankies filed because in the case of the yank yees the red sox admitted to it. they told baseball that yes, this is what was going on. >> they admitted to it but say john farrell and dave dom browsky were not involved at all. >> correct, that is the question here, that the manager in the front office said look, we didn't foa about this, the question for rob manford, baseball commission certificate how far do you want to push this investigation. do you really want to try and
figure out whether farrell and dumbbrowsky knew about. this how far do you want to push it in trying to figure it out and how much does that matter. if it were to come out that the manager in the front office knew about this, it sort of would give it an even bigger sort of con smirszee, and cast an even bigger shadow. the red sox have portrayed this as look, this is just a play, part of the game, the manager didn't know, it's not that big a deal. my guess is that that probably will fly with the commissioner's office and you know, but if manford wants to go further and really dig into this, then that could be an issue. the interesting thing here is that roger goodell the nfl commissioner a decade ago confronted similar allegations about the new england patriots and goodell moved very quickly to suspend, not suspend but to penalize the patriots. he fined them, took away draft picks and after that, a lot of stuff, new agencies about the pait rom-- pait roms came out. new questions were raised did they do this in the super bowl and how did it help them an
different things like that. and it really made it look like goodell had sort of covered up for the patriots and sorted of had moved the investigation h made a decision before he knew the findings to get it out of the way and try and move past it. this is something that is hawbted goodell until today when he suspended tom brady recently, for last season, for his role in deplate gate. people said look, you're going hard on brady to make up for going too easy on spy gate. manford has to be careful that he doesn't fall into that trap. >> do you have any indication about how far along that process is in determining any sort of punishment and when, if one is made, when it might be issued? >> well, the problem is, is that the yankees complaint is going to delay. my sense is that the commissioner's office will want announce and close this issue in one fell swoop. look f the red sox allegations, the yankee-- yankee allegations, here is the result. the investigation, the red sox was moving along fairly quickly and manford was preparing to
sort of issue some discipline but then on monday the yankees filed this thing. so that is going to delay that and drag this out. so we could see this go on at least for another few weeks. my guess is that they wouldn't want to make an announcement like this during the playoffs and you know, they also don't want to cast a shad's on the play offs either. so they have a month left in the season so my guess is you would see it before the end of the month. >> the red sox made this accusation on monday. >> correct. they filed this complaint on monday, against the yankees which was about a week and a half after the yankees had filed their complaint. >> okay. and the, it's not just the yankees though, the other teams believe they noticed this as well. >> we haven't heard accusations about other teams being made about the red sox but this is something that comes up every few years in baseball. in 2011 the phillies were accused of having someone in the bullpen use binoculars to try and steal signs there was an incident with the mets in the
09see where they said they had cameras being used on their field back home to steal signs. obviously the big thing in the 50s' with the giants who you had a very detailed system, to steal signs that allow them too come back and to overtake the dodgers and then bobby thompson hits the shot heard around the world that was something that only came out a few years ago by "the wall street journal" in a piece that they did. so this is something that has gone on for a long time. this is not a new thing in terms of the game. what is new here is the technology. the other thing is that man ford said yesterday and has acknowledged that baseball has never really sanctioned a team for this. so if they are to sanction the red sox it would be new. and dupbrowsky got at this issue yesterday. he said look, we've dealt w have i dealt with these issues before. we dealt with it from general manage tore general manager, sort of behind the scenes, gentlemenly sort of deal tw on the side but this is different. this is raising the ante and going directly to the
commissioner. >> glor: so yankee fans up in arms. sort of been in their glory after they saw some of this news come out. boston fans basically are saying indeed, look, this is just part of the game. i did hear some comments from the yankerrees manager yesterday i said look, technology is just part of the world we live in now. he was talking about whether there might be some technology to not encourage or help sign stealing but that could potentially stop it i wonder in the course of your research if you heard anyone talk about what might be done to prevent advanced sign stealing or cheating techniques from taking place. >> we would essentially need a new way of communicating in baseball. and part of baseball is the signs it is the third base coach, you know, touching his cap and nose and his ear to try and send messages to the hitter. and it std catcher putting numbers down. and it is visits to the mound and stuff like that.
these are things that are just part of the game. so the question would be is there a way that the pitcher could communicate with the catcher without any body signals. we haven't even that. that sounds a little science fictiony to me. and it would sort of take away from part of the game which is, you know, at the end of the day baseball is entertainment. and it, you know, that is why, you know, i think some people find this story particularly interesting because st a rivalry, teams are trying to get the upper hand on each other, this is not an existential threat to baseball. this is not going to, i can't imagine it having a huge impact on the game unless things are sort of handled poorly from here. so you know, who knows you had technology would impact that or what that would mean, i'm not sure. >> part of it is series, part of it is funny t is an enjoyable side pursuit for people to discuss right now. you're right, it's hard to imagine pitchers having microphones, they would have to communicate tell pathically at this point. >> this is this interesting thing that we see in national security things and other things
down here in washington, which is that like, you know, if you-- let's say you had some type of super deuper technology, well then you know you open it up to hacking, and other things. we had a hacking issue in baseball just two years ago where one team broke into another team's computers to steal scouting information. so you know, people are going to try an get the advantage no matter what is going on, whether it is using signs or using computers or using technology so when you raise the and thre are other ways to sort of come, ways would the system be encrypted and how could, you know, one tell get the advantage on the other. so you know, it's part of the game, it doesn't seem ---- it doesn't-- several years ago i covered the steroid scandal in baseball and that really cut to the integrity of the game, the statistics and sort of what was going on behind the scenes, had there been a coverup and why were there so many players using these drugs and what did it mean it doesn't feel like that yet. i'm not saying that couldn't happen but at this point it
doesn't feel that serious reasons all right, michael, you've had a big year. you've not only broke news on this story but you've also broken news news on james comey and the investigation into potential russian collusion and the trump administration, the trump campaign. i want to talk to you about that now as well if i couldment are you in washington. what is the latest on the muller investigation? >> yeah, so my day job is trying to figure out what is going on with that. and that is a lot, perhaps more serious and a little bit harder. the muller investigation is moving forward. muller mueller has taken an aggressive stance so far. he executed the search warrant at the house of paul mana forth, it feels to us to be a very serious thing that's going on. we don't have a ton of insight into what he has or what he's learned. we reported last week that muller now has this letter that
trump wrote as part of, before he fired comey, sort of his unvarnished thoughts about why he wanted to get rid of the fbi director. we reported the white house council had stopped trump from sending thisser will. they sounded problematic and was able to get to the department of justice to draft sort of a different document to rationalize the firing. that is the kind of stuff that we're looking at here, we're trying to uncover as much as we can, to chip away and figure out what is there. every tiement somethings comes out we don't necessarily know exactly the significance of it and what it will mean in the larger picture. but it's stuff like that, trying to understand what really went into the comey firing. what was trump really thinking, why did he really want to get rid of comey and how much do has mueller, does he understand about what trump was trying to do. that sort of the stuff that we're focused on. >> the mana forth squeeze still seems to be a huge part of this,
what is the latest reporting you have on what is happening with paul man a forth. >> well, you know, man man a forth has taken this public pos feuring that he was cooperating and out of nowhere back in july mueller went in and they execute aid search warrant at his house and the thing that is unusual about that is that a lot of times lawyers try and work things out and the government will ask lawyers hey, can we have this document or can we spp this, whatever. but it would only be in a situation where the prosecutors thought that the wit, was destroying evidence or that they something may be lost or that, where they didn't truster the person that they were dealing with, that they would execute a search warrant. this is something done early in the morning, it's a knock on the bstantial move that we saw.s and it sort of gave us an idea.
now why would mueller do this? we don't really know. we do know that mueller would like to finish this investigation as much as he can. learn as much as he can because i think he thinks that there is a larger issue here for the country. this has put a cloud over the presid cause this is something thaty has cast a shadow on trump t is something that is a constant distraction here it is something that he is constantly asked about. and sort of is, you know, something that the white house is, has to answer questions about, and there are stories in the paper b my guess is we will see a lot of this going forward, mule certificate preparing to do interviews, he needs documents from the white house about these different things about the comey firing b what happened with flynn, and then will sit down and start talking to people at the white house. and then that will create more stories. we see this as something that will likely go on for many, many more months. have i been looking back on some of the special councils in previous president sees and the iran couldn't ra special council went on for six years.
>> yeah. >> so you know, we're just four, five months into this one. who knows how much longer it will go. >> it's interesting you say that, i was think being that, about previous investigations, previous special councils, these things don't, they don't necessarily always end quickly. or cleanly. >> no, because the problem for mule certificate what mueller doesn't want to do is close up shop and then a day later there is a story in the paper about something that he missed. so they want to turn over every rock and make sure that there is nothing there. because if he were to say okay, we're done, then something comes out then it raises questions about the investigation. so they're going to painstaking here but also try and move as fast as possible because they realize that this is something that is a distraction here. and that if there is a problem then let's deal with the problem. if there is not then let's move forward. so that is sort of the way we sort of read what's going on. >> what leverage does the president have to try and get them to end this or finish this
sooner rather than later? >> well, the president could try and fire mueller. cotry and get rid of clean out the justice department, put new people in there and try and fire mueller. that would, i think, send congress through the roof and congress would probably go back to the special prosecutors stuff like we saw from the clinton administration and basically appoint, congress would basically a appoint someone to deal with this on behalf of the justice department. look, a few people thought trump could survive firing comey. i think even fewer people think he could survive firing mueller. that would be a very, very aggressive move and i'm not sure what he would really accomplish there. besides that, there is not really other ways that he can sort of move mueller along. his lawyers have gone and met with mueller and provided him with documents that lay out an argument for why trump couldn't be charged with obstruction of justice because you know, he could, you know, he could pardon
anyone at any time and because of that this is, you know, he can't obstruct an investigation, sort of lay out this argument for them. they can do that. but pie guess is mueller will work on mueller's time and wl not listen anyone else. >> we have not heard much lately from john, jr. or jared kushner for that matter two relatives who have been mentioned a decent amount around this investigation. what do you get the sense their team is thinking right now and how do they figure into the future? >> well, don junior is going in, will be interviewed in front of the senate in private tomorrow. we won't really have access to what that looks like t will be behind closed doors so we won't really know but of course don junior is at the center of this meeting that happened in the summer of 2016 where russians had reached out to the campaign, said look, we have this nfertionz on hillary clinton. and you know don junior, kushner and man a forth met with them
and they discussed the information they had. it is not clear the meeting ever really went anywhere. there were a lot of folks there but the administration has told different stories about. this first they said it was about adoption. and then they acknowledged more that it was por about derogatory information the russians had on clinton but that was only after they were really forced to answer those questions, that they changed their story. so that is the sort of don junior part of it. sort of the involvement in this meeting. we know this is something mule certificate looking at. mueller is trying to understand who were these russians they were meeting with. why were they doing this. was information passed, was there more to this story than what the white house had said which the white house said look, we met with them, the stuff they had, wasn't of interest. it wasn't significant. and we sort of moved forward on it. that is sort of where the don junior stuff sits. and you know, it will be interesting to see what he actually tells the senate tomorrow. >> and to the extent that mueller's investigation has gone beyond any potential russian collusion, there has been a lot
of talk about this red line and the president's comments on that are not about whether it would involve family financials. where else do you understand mueller's investigators have gone? >> when we went in and sat deun with the president in july, he said this red line thing where that if mueller was looking at the personal finances of him and you know, his family members, that that would be red line. he didn't explain what would happen if he crossed the red line. the assumption, he isn't say this directly, was that he would get rid of mueller. it's not really clear how much is he looking at trmp's finances, there has been scattered reports about mueller looking at different things and looking at was there russian money that had gone to trump, what are trump's business ties at is the thing about ther russia story is that it's a large story. there are many different aspects. there is man forth, flin, potential business issues, stuff that went on during the campaign, meetings between
campaign officials and russians, and there is all the stuff that has gone on in the white house. the comey firing, how that was handled, why they did that. and that is sort of the ball that we are juggling here are these different parts of the story. they are also mini beats in and of itself. >> there has been these accusations that mueller is hiring democrats and folks have do naturedded to-- donated to hillary clinton's campaign. has mueller, has the mueller team done anything that you have been able to see to mitigate some of that? >> no, i mean that's been, the white house has taken a look at the folks mueller has fired-- hired and tried to see where they may be able to poke holes or get people disqualified or get them off the investigation, throw a few hurdles in mueller away and sort of find a way to maybe get, what they would think would be more impartial folks working on. there the thing we know about mueller he team, he basically went out and hired the best of the best.
the best prosecutedders that the justice department had or folks that worked in the juses tis department r in private prarks know criminal law well. experts in financial stuff, folks that rex petters in counterintelligence. folks that know how to deal with a appellate appeal and filing the nitty gritiness of filings with the, you know, as part of trials. i mean when you look at the team, it's a team of about 15 prosecutors and it's largely the best of the best. one of the members of this team andrew weissman used to be the head of the en-- enron task force. some defense attorneys are not a hawj fan of, and is someone that is playing a big role in the mueller investigation. >> all right, michael, it is more fun talking about baseball. >> yeah, it was a nice die verlings is-- die version to go off and work on this story but we've got to get back, i have got to get back to figuring out the mueller stuff. >> glor: i imagine you do.
nice work though with regards to this latest story that came out. and always good to speak with you, michael schmidt from "the new york times" joining us from the times d.c. bureau, appreciate your time. >> thanks for having me. >> rose: for more about this program and earlier ep soids visit us online at pbs.org and charlie rose.com. captioning sponsored by rose communications captioned by media access group at wgbh access.wgbh.org
this is "nightly business with tyler mathisen and sue herera. >> media mess. disney dives, comcast caves and the entire sector sinks ut traditiona tv business model. >> high-tech fraud. keeping your money safe when you swipe so thieves don't swipe your cash. >> check point. security is big business, show you security measures never seen before in the first business repor fs >> welcome. it started as surprise profit warning from disney. the ceo told