tv Charlie Rose Bloomberg June 9, 2016 7:00pm-8:01pm EDT
♪ from our studios in new york city, this is "charlie rose." al: good evening. i'm al hunt filling in for charlie rose who is on assignment. we begin with politics. donald trump and hillary clinton barring some unforeseeable act will face off in the general election. clinton won a big victory in california. she will be the first woman presidential candidate of a major political party. ms. clinton: it may be hard to see tonight, but we are all standing under a glass ceiling
right now. thanks to you, we've reached a milestone. -- the first time in our nation's history that a woman will be a major party nominee. s]hair santa clau -- [cheers and applause] al: bernie sanders has not bowed out. donald trump won all five primaries last night. close one tonight, we chapter in history and begin another. you've given me the honor to lead the republican party to victory this fall. al: trump got in hot water this week over his denunciation of a federal judge overseeing a fraud case against trump university. trump said the judge was biased
the of his mexican heritage. house speaker paul ryan called trump's remarks racist. we are joined by two of the smartest political strategists in america. anita dunn was- a top official on barack obama's campaign. she has been a leading strategist dating back to bill bradley. a former republican congressman from minnesota was cochair of the john mccain and mitt romney presidential campaigns. this year he was a top adviser to jeb bush. let me just start off, the beginning of the general election, d.c. primary next week, but really it is in full circle now. what are the odds going in, anita? nita: demographically, hillary
clinton has always had an edge in this race. the republican party needs to broaden its coalition. they nominated probably the worst possible candidate for doing what they need to do. be a closeoing to race. this is a divided country. i don't think the clinton campaign was ever under any illusion that this is going to be easy. they are running against a candidate that doesn't play by conventional rules. point,uld add another the other side of the argument. her point about the demographics is right on target. , whichublican argument is not the same as the argument, is that people are disinclined to have the same party three terms in a row. this is really not an exception to that. although the president's approval rating has been rising, there is a predisposition to
want to switch parties after a couple terms. i think at the end of the day, holds becausent the republicans have nominated a candidate who can't begin to erode that demographic advantage democrats have with asians and hispanics. al: do you take any solace from his speech last night where he read ramy teleprompter and didn't insult really anybody, at least republicans? vin: i didn't. for this reason. if donald trump can give a speech from a teleprompter and be compelling, there's a new model. he was not compelling last night. phrase,o use a trumpian low energy. he gets that better than anybody and he's going to return to the high-energy thing that has worked for him. al: put on a republican hat for a minute. what would you advise him right now? anita: it is fascinating.
people don't change. donald trump is not going to change. he won this domination by ignoring all the political experts, by doing it his own way and not backing down when he goes out there and says something outrageous. he doesn't back down. after four or five days, he might go on to another topic, but he's not backing down. i've worked for a lot of insurgents in my life. it is really hard when you actually win to sit around and say, we were smarter than all you guys, we just won, and now we are supposed to listen to your advice and let you run our campaign? that is a very difficult thing. if i were advising donald trump, what i would say is a general election is a totally different proposition from a primary. you ran a great primary campaign in the sense that you one but a general election is very
different. do you want to win? that would be the beginning of the conversation. al: he says he can change the electoral map. he even said california. he said places like pennsylvania, wisconsin, michigan, he's going to put those in play. does that worry you? anita: as i recall, both of the republican nominees from 2008 and 2012 said something similar. pennsylvania is kind of that white whale. it is just not going to happen for them. think that trumps challenge, and it is a huge challenge, is to basically get voters who don't normally participate to turn out. the sort of universal -- al: working-class voters. anita: people support donald trump.
the register of likely voters is a pretty set universe and she leads him. trying to change the electoral map means trying to get people to participate who haven't participated in the past. al: he didn't do it in the primaries. contrary to the story they put out, the increased turnout in republican primaries was not primarily new voters flocking to the republican party. they were largely general election voters will usually didn't vote in primaries. this time they did get motivated enough to turn out in the primaries. but they are not new voters that wouldn't have showed up on general election day anyway. the weren't voters republicans are struggling to improve with. al: some republican strategist have said he's got to get the reagan democrats. there's a problem with that. they have become republicans. anita: thank you, ronald reagan.
al: how about his running mate? will that be important? or do you say donald trump is such a unique figure, it is not going to matter? vin: i don't think the running mate carries you a state anymore over a demographic group. i think it does bear on the judgment of the kennedy. people who are trying to assess donald trump will factor that in. if you pick somebody you respect, you think, he made an important decision. al: who would you say would deliver that for donald trump? vin: he's talked about bob corker, who i have great respect for. he's highly regarded. he's a strong foreign policy leader. he would compensate for what is viewed as a real weakness on trump's part. there's a number of other people. john kasich would be an ideal candidate.
i don't know that kasich is even going to endorse donald trump. that is part of his problem. al: i know what anita wants. you want a trump-gingrich ticket, don't you? anita: i have all the respect in the world for newt gingrich. sure, that wouldn't be bad. the decision for trump is incredibly important. to the extent voters that there are saying, i don't want to give the democrats another term -- we just really like to change after eight years, or i'm not that wild about hillary clinton but i'm really nervous about donald trump, i would like to see who he surrounds himself with. people said, let's see if he puts good people around him. that person knows what he's talking about. i think this decision for trump is a huge one. nobody questions hillary clinton's qualifications,
knowledge, experience, or readiness to the president. al: let's turn to hillary and the libertarian candidates. one more question on trump. do you expect to see other politicians follow mark kirk, , who said he's not going to vote for him? vin: i would guess you will. i think it depends on what happens in the polls. i think trump has gotten an artificial boost by ending the nominating process earlier than we expected. the party sort of uniting behind him in many cases without great enthusiasm, but it gave him a boost. i think easy road and that through his behavior in the last couple weeks. hillary has won the nomination convincingly after a series of very strong performances on her own part. my guess is the gap between trump and hillary widens a little bit and a lot more
republicans are going to start feeling nervous the way mark kirk clearly felt nervous. if this were a conventional candidate and he had a conventional approach, his manager would be saying, we've got to start reassuring all those republicans to keep them from jumping ship. vin makes a point about hillary clinton's strong speech. she hadn't been a great candidate. she had been a pretty lousy candidate up until the last week or two. she has real problems not so much with the bernie people but the young people. her poll numbers on young people are about 20 points below obama's. what should she do? anita: it is interesting. she's had the lower poll numbers when they've had a choice. where there's been a democratic primary contest.
the contest is basically over now. bernie may not concede until the convention, but this is over. so they started looking at this race differently now. it is no longer between burning and hillary clinton. it is now donald trump and hillary clinton. bernie sanders' role in the fall campaign can be really important for hillary clinton. the right thing in my view is not to make him say wonderful things about hillary, which will only convince centrists and republicans that she is more liberal, but he can attack donald trump with great effectiveness. we kind of count on the vice president to be that negative surrogate. bernie sanders not being the vice presidential choice can be a really effective negative surrogate against donald trump. al: does this really hurt the down ballot candidates?
there have been times, both clinton and ragan won reelection and didn't carry anyone with them. on the other hand, there have been landslide elections. should democrats say, we are in , and shape for the senate republicans worry about the house? vin: the republicans should run scared. i'm not sure it is going to be as bad as some people fear. we do have donald trump, is more removed from the republican party than any nominee in my lifetime. the seats that are up in the senate, we have really good candidates. normally where you see a washout of incumbents, you have people that were weak from the get-go. that is not true of senator ayotte, pat toomey, rob portman. these are high quality people.
i think republicans have to run scared. i think we have a chance to hold on to the senate even given a substantial drag from the top of the ticket. anita: that is a place where we are going to disagree. vin: why did i guess that? anita: frankly, what we've seen is that the days of split tickets, 1984, 1988, where the democrats could lose the white house but pick up senate seat's, where al gore could win while al -- those days are behind us right now. what we've seen in the last several elections is that the congressional and senate performance tends to follow the presidential performance more than it used to. the states where those republican incumbents are cutting across the midwest are very problematic, even though those are stronger incumbents than the ones who had to defend
in 1986. al: then you think the republicans will keep the house and it is 50-50 in the senate, you think the democrats will win the senate and have a shot at the house? anita: we will certainly gain ground. al: final question, is this one of those seminal elections that will change the nature of american politics, or is this just one of those quirks that happens and you get over it? vin: this is a unique election. the discrediting of the two parties, which precedes the campaign almost, he's a very big deal. that brings into question the whole two-party system. within the republican party, beyond the offensiveness on donald trump, the shift on issues like immigration and trade indicates a different kind of republican electorate. bernie is not going to win the nomination but he's mobilized a substantial constituency which
changes the democratic party. plus thehose things, fact that trump has shown you don't need to run a conventional campaign, shows that politics is going to change a lot. anita: i couldn't agree more. i don't see this as a fluke. it is almost certainly the last presidential campaign where both candidates will be baby boomers. it might be the last baby boomer presidential campaign. i also think that both of the political parties will emerge to the extent that there are still political parties very different than the ones that entered this cycle. al: one of my colleagues told me that this election will be fun to cover up the post election will be really fun to govern. thanks for being with us. we will be right back. ♪
the 114th congress doesn't have many legislative days left in the session. they leave in a couple weeks for the party conventions and then come back for a shorteptember. they also have few accompaniments. major issues like the pacific trade pact, criminal justice reform, nomination to the supreme court, and a major cancer initiative, will likely me unresolved when lawmakers adjourn this fall. washington's leading
er is asional watch scholar at the american enterprise institute. he co-authored a book on congress called, "it's even worse than it looks." norman, it is good to have you here. let's start about congress. you write about a dysfunctional congress. the country is deeply divided. doesn't congress just manifest that? norman: to a degree, but it is more than that. there are issues where you don't have those deep divisions. criminal justice reform has broad bipartisan support. dealing with zika virus, the opioid crisis, the puerto rican debt problem, which is causing the island to go through enormous trauma, all of those things have broad support and congress still can't act. it is one thing if you've got issues where you have a deep
partisan divide. when you don't have those and you have congress not able to move and with fewer days in session left than i can ever remember, though they may come back after the election with still no excuse, i don't know how you can use a term other than dysfunctional unless you want to make it worse. al: will this year's elections make it at her or worse? norman: i think we're headed for continuing rocky times, even if we somehow see a sweeping the reefer one party that gives them victory for one party that gives them control. the parties each have their struggles, but the divisions across those lines are deep. let me just suggest one thing. imagine if we get what may be the most likely outcome. hillary clinton wins.
there is maybe a narrow democratic majority in the senate. republicans keep the house. you are going to have a republican party going through a deep existential crisis. months, less than 100 days, republicans are going to say, how do we recapture our mojo? we have to win those midterms. we have a tried-and-true formula. we used it in 2010 and 2014. we delegitimize the president, government, and the process. we block everything as much as we can from happening. we make victories look ugly. we go out to the country and say anything would be better than this. al: that brings up what we should call a spirited disagreement which you had with mitch mcconnell. he told charlie recently that observationoted attributed to him, he said
everybody got that wrong. he said that, but he went on to say, but we can still get things done. did mitch get a bum rap? norman: he did not. i looked up another quote from him after the 2010 midterms. , reflecting on obama's agenda, of course we weren't going to support it. then the accomplishments would look bipartisan. if people think they are bipartisan and like them, that is not going to be good. that will he said damage the republican brand. there was a conscious opposition to whatever obama was for. al: what mitch mcconnell says is that obama was so far to the left that unlike bill clinton and joe biden, he wouldn't move to the center in deal. norman: if you go back to the stimulus package, very early on, the economy struggling deeply,
wisconsin,ssman from called in his republican counterpart, jerry lewis of california, and said, we're going to do a stimulus. i have the charge of putting the package together. we want to work with you. tell us the things you would like to have in. tell us the nonstarters. go back to your rank and file in your leaders and we will work it out. he said, i've got orders from headquarters. we're not going to cooperate. then you go to the affordable care act. fromaucus, the democrat montana, chairman of the finance committee, joins with his dear friend and counterpart, chuck grassley, republican of iowa. they form a gain of six. they start with principles and claims that grassley put forward when lincoln was president.
the idea that this was sharply to the left, a plan that in the end didn't have a public option, doesn't comport with reality. al: sure the democrats have some fault for this dysfunction. norman: there are no angels here. polarization,just tribalism, that has developed on both sides. but if you look at the behavior of congress, of the parties especially since barack obama became president, the blame is asymmetric. one we had was a conscious effort by republicans starting on the day of obama's inaugural, that was reported very deeply and confirmed by the participants by rob draper, a very good reporter, that they determined before obama took office that they were going to unite in opposition to him. in our political system, that brings chaos, not clarity.
al: switching to the house, over 80% of the seats are noncompetitive. we know five months before the election is going to win those seats. is that because of gerrymandering, where each party carves out safe seats? norman: i'm all for changing the system of districting. the old line that voters should choose their representatives and not allow representatives to choose their voters is compelling to me. i would love to have a system like the one in iowa, arizona, california, where an independent commission draws those lines, but it is not a panacea. the biggest problem is a cultural one, that people view the other party as the enemy. bishop, the journalist, was right. people have moved into areas where they are surrounded by
like-minded individuals. democrats concentrated in inner cities means that if you drew , youct lines, very compact might make it worse rather than better. so we've got to find other ways to get around this problem. i actually think we may need to think more boldly. maybe a constitutional change. this is not going to happen in our lifetimes. maybe like a german system, where 100 members of the house are chosen at large. wish that if we just did redistricting reform we would solve these problems. it is not going to do it. togo who said, we have seen the enemy and he is us. if you are -- norman: if you are an obscure member of congress and you go on
the floor of the house and scream to the president that he is a liar, you get enormous airtime on television. if you are alan grayson, a democrat who basically said republicans were murderers because of the way they were voting on health care, you get an enormous amount of airtime. if you have your nose to the grindstone, dealing with policy, you are not going to get much time on cable news. cable news is all about eyeballs and ratings. that means you focus on people screaming. the ones who do the work tend to leave. in the last several years, we've had a hemorrhaging in congress of the workhorses on both sides. troubled by the money race, troubled by the fact that not much is getting done, but also unable to get any traction to move those issues along. al: if you could pick two or three members from each party who could be potential leaders in the future and maybe change
this dysfunction, who comes to mind? norman: on the democratic side, i think chris van hollen, who is moving from the house to the senate, is a future leader of the body. you've got a large crew of if i'min the senate and looking at a republican, then sass, who took a strong stand against donald trump, who is very conservative but smart as a whip and willing to move across party lines is someone i would point to as well. al: cory gardner of colorado. norman: absolutely. i had a long conversation with david perdue of georgia, who really wants to get some solutions done on the budget front. there are thoughtful members. it is just so easy now to get caught up in the tribal trap and
controversial figures of the modern era. he first became known as a star football player. hishe nfl, he transcended career to become a beloved figure in popular culture. in 1994, he was charged with the murders of his ex-wife and ronald goldman. his trial transfixed the nation. america"de in chronicles his rise and fall. "the los angeles times" calls the work a masterwork of scholarship, journalism, and cinematic art. here's the trailer for "o.j.: made in america." >> i told him, o.j., you are breaking the laws of god. one day, everybody is going to know everything that you've done. if you are a black man in america, you are fighting our
war. ♪ >> ♪ sinner man, where you going to run to ♪ >> the reality of black america and white america, two totally separate worlds. us, o.j. was -- ♪ >> none of the people that we associated with looked at him as a black man. >> a civil rights leader in los angeles has said if you're going in a big city, los angeles is the best place to be. man, where you going to run dto ♪ >> really, o.j. simpson as civil
rights victim? it was disgusting, appalling. >> murderer! he goinger man, where to run to where he going to run to ♪ tragedy. charlie: part one of the documentary series premieres on abc saturday, june 11. the remaining parts will air on espn beginning june 14. joining me is the director, ezra edelman, former prosecutor marcia clark, and civil rights
attorney carl douglas, who served on simpson's defense team. i am pleased to have all of them here at this table. welcome and welcome and welcome. why does this man and this case resonate? is it because it is a story of, what? ezra: it is a story of everything, race, masculinity, class, gender, celebrity, the criminal justice system. it is a story about america. charlie: how did you decide to do this? ezra: it is a little bit unsatisfying. i was approached by espn. they had this idea of doing something bigger and more ambitious. it started as a film and it grew over the course of doing it. charlie: now that you have completed it, what do you want us to take away? ezra: that everything is not so
simple. charlie: and that you will learn new things. ezra: you will definitely learn new things. you will learn about a history you may have never known or you have forgotten. charlie: what do you think? carl: you can learn a lot about the reason the verdict was the verdict. this is a fascinating exploration of the history of los angeles, the city that i love, and the troubling relationship between the african-american community and the lapd. only through understanding that story can anyone begin to appreciate how and why this verdict was rendered this way. charlie: that introduces you to think about it. you go from people coming to los angeles because they think it is a great place for black people, in losn there is a riots angeles and they are burning down everything in sight. ezra: and many of the injustices
that people were leaving from the jim crow south, regrettably they encountered the same kind of abject racism when it came to a lay charlie: now you see this whole larger picture. tell me how you felt. what do you think? how did it resonate within you? what did you learn that you didn't know? marcia: what i learned that i didn't know is a different story than the way it resonate in. i thought, people will finally ,ee the reality that we knew working downtown in the criminal courts building, for many years. i'd been trying cases downtown for 10 years. whenever there was an african-american defendant, race was going to begin issue. the question of mistrust of law
enforcement and the criminal justice system was always an issue. to me, it was a wonderful thing to show everybody the reality of, as carl said, life in los angeles and what the real relationship was between minorities and lapd, the real sense of mistrust and bad feeling between them that had existed for so many years. our office was prosecuting those cops. we prosecuted the rodney king cops. but did not succeed. we were well aware, all of us trying cases are aware of it, but i didn't realize how little others were aware of it. charlie: what did you learn? marcia: i learned what a great actor simpson really was. i never appreciated just how charismatic, how affable,
self-effacing, generous, he could appear on the air. i had never seen him on camera. i had only seen him -- i remembered "naked gun," the hertz commercial, snapshots. to see what he was able to pull off in more lengthy interviews was very impressive. he always knew where the camera was. he knew when it was on him. he played to win every time. i learned from this documentary some of the reasons while j was the man he was. i didn't know as much about his background, growing up at galileo high school in the hunter's ford section of san francisco, i didn't know as much about his interactions with his colleagues and old friends,
which helped to shape the man that i came to learn and came to meet and came to know. that was fascinating. charlie: how about the notion that he was an actor? carl: i understand why she would say that, because she's an advocate for her position. i did not see the same side of him that she may have thought she saw. client, very engaged very much in tune to how things played and how he wanted his representatives to conduct themselves in a courtroom. he had made a career. he was the first athletic pitch man. he knew how things played. he was an engaged client every day, making sure that his particular vision of the trial would be reflected by the lawyers representing him. charlie: what was the challenge for you? ezra: getting people like carl
to sit down and talk about this openly and honestly? charlie: you didn't want to do it? marcia: no. charlie: you have a new life. marcia: that is true. it is also, i didn't know what they were going to do, whether it was going to be a tabloid thing. in a lengthy discussion with one of the producers, i learned they were going to make it a much larger picture and talk about race and the impact of race and celebrity on the justice system and the verdict. i thought, this is something that is very important. charlie: and part of a story that you knew as a prosecutor. so what else, getting them at the table is part of it. ezra: since the foundation of the film, we interviewed 72 people, 66 of whom are in the film, that was the most challenging and important. the second thing is coalescing
all this material into something that is engaging and coherent. charlie: you told vice, i knew about o.j. at usc and what he represented at the time and how he became the first black corporate pitchman as far as athletes go. fascinating how he went from being this great football player at usc to being the guy on television with endorsements before he even played in the nfl. say that sodoes much of human life is connected sports,ly, celebrity, politics. it is all interconnected. ezra: frankly it is very easy for me to start out knowing that i was going to do a story
primarily about race. that is the gigantic theme in this film. path,ou start down this what i did realize is exactly what you said, the interconnectedness. you can't simplify it. you can't separate o'jays celebrity. then you get all these other issues. that sort of dawned on me quickly. at the same time, you can't tell the story and understand what happened if you go back to 1991 and 1992. this is a history that, in a situation that people had been living with in los angeles for decades, and unless you emotionally respond to that as a viewer, you will fail to understand. charlie: it does make you want to understand every historical event and every event of great focus within a context. marcia: it is so important.
that is one of the most important themes in the series, the very message, that everything, you have to consider it in context. nothing happens in a vacuum. neither did the rodney king verdict. neither did the simpson verdict. all these things are part of the fabric, woven together. i think that this series brilliantly shows that. charlie: at the same time, within the context and within the imperative of getting the social context, it is also imperative to remember that murder is murder and losses loss. ezra: and i think the film does a great job reflecting the humanity of that as well. i've learned the more things change, charlie, the more they remain the same. one reason why this documentary and the whole o.j. simpson story is resonating now with
millennials is because the arees that were ripe then still issues in the forefront of the conversation today. the black lives matter movement. ferguson, trayvon martin, those kinds of issues. i have a son who was too young then to understand all the issues, but i've had that story, that all parents of young african-american males have in los angeles, how to act and respond with police officers, keep your hands where they can be visible -- that was part of the history and the context that this film really shows well. charlie: what did you think you had to do and the defense team have to do? what was the mandate? on thehe burden is not defense. the defendant doesn't have to prove anything. what we have to do is come up
believing in the constitution, holding the prosecution to their burden of proving the accused guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. that is just not some slick phrasal cliche. that is real. in this case, there was tremendous evidence. our challenge was ever strong. that is why some of the things that came out, the glove demonstration, the tape, really resonated with this jury. ultimately, we were trying to make the prosecution prove their burden of proving him guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. glove was probably the most dramatic day of my life inside a courtroom. learned the first day in law school to never ask a question that is --
charlie: that you don't know the answer. carl: that is 10 times, 50 times, if this is going to be shown on television. charlie: they took a chance? carl: the prosecution took a huge chance, perhaps not the wisest chance. charlie: what do you think happened with the glove? marcia: terrible idea. i never wanted to do it. it was suggested. i objected immediately. the latex would screw up the fit. they had been frozen and unfrozen. charlie: so you knew. marcia: terrible idea. it was the worst fight iran. he wanted it. he was in favor of it. he said if we don't do it, the defense will. i said, let them. carl: i love to hear the postmortem examinations of this
debacle, and how it came to be. i was unaware of the internal tensions that were going on on the prosecution team. now he's really illuminating to me, given what i know. charlie: for the moment, excuse me -- ezra: they are much more interesting than me. doubte: did you have any they could make this glove look like it didn't fit? there were weeks and weeks of dna testimony and evidence. there were weeks and weeks of domestic violence testimony. but this is the murder glove. the murder glove did not fit the accused murderer. we were confident after that event that the images would resonate. i didn't understand all the dna stuff.
i don't know what is going on. it is like you and the witness having a private conversation. fittingmurder glove not was resonant. it was something we were confident the jury would take with them to the very last day of this trial. that was jerry allman's line. that was jerry allman on a saturday, after that glove demonstration. we were high-fiving after it came through. charlie: you knew you had a tough challenge after that. marcia: we did way before that. it was a moment that certainly the media enjoyed. obviously, carl enjoyed. what carl doesn't know is that i objected to it. it is on the record. i pulled chris aside and we stepped away from sidebar and argued and i called up the rest of the team and said, is there any reason you can think to do this?
everyone said no. and i couldn't stop it. that was his witness and his choice to make. the press had dubbed me lead prosecutor. code prosecutor. carl doesn't see it that way. that is fine. charlie: [indiscernible] marcia: i think he would. i think he would have to. i know what happened. the case was lost before we walked into court. that is the truth. charlie: before you walked into court? because? marcia: we were downtown. we were going to have a jury -- was -- the jury even n charlie: so you didn't have to work hard. it was already decided. saying it was a
huge obstacle. youlie: i can't believe thought you could not succeed. marcia: we thought honestly the best we could do was hang it. knowing that, we were going to have a significant african-american contingent on the jury, the best we could do was hang it. even that became impossible. to say that the glove demonstration was the turning point, we also addressed all those issues with a glove expert who explained everything i said to you. then we actually put the same hands and they fit beautifully, clothes that he didn't have to wear latex with, that hadn't been frozen, identical gloves, and they fit. ezra: there's a little anecdote in the film that might also discussion,o this which i will save for the film. charlie: in other words, you have to watch the film.
ezra: i think you have to watch the film for this. charlie: little tease. ezra: absolutely. i feel like i'm sitting here having to play tie-breaker, referee. i will say this. it is unfair since i've never met o.j., but o.j. reputational ly had a reputation of not being a good actor. after spending two years thinking about o.j., watching footage, putting this together, i think o.j. simpson is the greatest actor in american history. period. i agree with marcia on this one. charlie: why do you say that? ezra: the guy could be in any room with any person, young or old, black or white, speaking spanish, speaking english, and he could charm the pants off them. charlie: obviously he couldn't put it on screen. ezra: he's not the greatest film
after -- the actor. he's just the greatest actor. he presented himself so purely belied lovable man that so much that was inside of him. that i can't answer. charlie: what was inside of him that -- ezra: the way i look at this, a guy that grew up where he grew up, to be thrust into a world that was so diametrically opposed to where he came, and then end up, living where he lived, it is a long way from the projects of san francisco. charlie: what was he like after the trial? carl: i didn't get the benefit of knowing him much after the trial. i last saw o.j. at johnny cochran's funeral in march of 2005. charlie: how was he received? carl: and that setting, he was
received well. al sharpton was one of the people giving the eulogy. he asked all the lawyers who worked with johnny to stand up. he then asked anyone who johnny represented to stand up. o.j. and michael jackson were just a few chairs away and they stood up. after the trial, o.j. was always received well. he sort of buried the lead there. al sharpton gave one of the eulogies. we are in this huge church and o.j. using the audience and he looks down at o.j. and says, brother simpson, with all due respect, when the verdict came cheers,e all erupted in we weren't cheering for you. we were cheering for johnny. the entire church exploded. carl: that is what many don't understand. ezra: semi-true. charlie: there are a lot of
people that exploded and never knew. carl: but what they saw, african-american lawyer, they learned that competence comes in all colors. i remember attending a convention of african-american lawyers after this particular trial, and we were received like rock stars. lee bailey was there. acrossle, small towns the nation, because the trial was on cnn every day, people came to respect the intelligence of an african-american professional. that was one reason why folks were cheering, not for o.j. per se. charlie: this remarkable achievement in terms of putting this, how many hours, seven? ezra: almost eight. charlie: it is about america, all the things we talked about. thank you.
mark: i mark halperin. john: i'm john heilemann. with all due respect to the revolution -- which will not be televised -- the 2016 presidential election will be sub tweeted. her. he's with president obama made a much anticipated full throated endorsement of hillary clinton to be his successor as president of the united states. there was much fanfare at the white house. here is the outline of what took