Skip to main content

tv   Charlie Rose  PBS  March 21, 2017 3:59pm-5:00pm PDT

3:59 pm
4:00 pm
. >> rose: welcome to the program. we begin this evening with two members of the house intelligence committee, dem krad-- kem krat adam schiffnd republican peter king. >> they got a sense of why this is is such an important matter and why it deserves investigation. the breathed of the russian attack on our democracy, the fact that the fbi has an ongoing investigation to determine whether there was coordination between the trump campaign and the russians. as well as the directors, both of their willingness to establish that there is no evidence to support the president's claim that he was wiretapped by his predecessor. any one of those things i think on a normal day would be quite a revelation but there was a lot packed in today. and i think ultimately the most important thing is it gave a good glimpse at why this is so serious. and why we ought to do everything possible to do a
4:01 pm
thorough investigation and conduct it in a nonpartisan way. >> we continue with matthew rosenberg of the new york times and karoun di mirnlgian of the washington most. >> i think i was amazed at just the astounding nature of an fbi director getting up in front of congress and saying yes, there is an espionage investigation involving a sitting president. that a lobe is just stunning. but the other remarkable thing was that there was another four and a half hours of this hearing a lot of which was spent talking about leaks, talking about, you know, why people are talking to the government, why they should be prosecuted. that will be an issue that keeps coming up and up. >> rose: we continue with david browne without wrote the obituary of chuck berry for "rolling stone" magazine. >> that mam us-- famous chuck berry lick everybody still duplicate, nobody was doing that before him that is a basic building block of modern rock 'n' roll. >> rose: and we conclude this morning with an appreciation of david rockefeller without died yesterday, age 101.
4:02 pm
>> one last question is, your legacy wa, do you want it to be. >> i feel very proud of the family's traditions and what is they have been able to achieve in the world. starting with my grandfather and really throughout. i have six wonderful children, all of whom share that kind of concern about a 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 ones that's a good and a happy one for our country. i don't think i could ask for much more than that. >> the house intelligence hearings, remembering chuck
4:03 pm
berry, and appreciating david rockefeller when we continue. >> funding for charlie rose is provided by the following: >> and by bloomberg, a provider of multimedia news and information services worldwide. captioning sponsored by rose communications from our studios in new york city, this is charlie rose. >> rose: we begin this evening with this fact, i missed you, and so it is very good to be back. we have been together, many of us, for more than 25 years. and we have talked about everything from the unfolding discovery of the brain's mysteries to the mind of russian
4:04 pm
president vladimir putin. and in between, we have seen five presidents, bush, clinton, bush, obama and trump. we have met oscar winners and nobel laureates, mvp's and pulitzer prize recipients and heros who simply did their duty. i'm deeply grateful for the opportunity, undergoing surgery, no matter how serious makes 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 one was get to do what they love to do. so i come back today rested, ready and thankful to all who labored while i was gone. from a great staff to unbelievable substitutes. i come back during a week that suggests how interesting our times are, from the fbi director testify being a president, to a supreme court justice confirmation, to a vote on the republican health-care plan. oh, to live an inn interesting times. i come back thanks to medical science and because of that, i am in the best shape have i been
4:05 pm
in for a long time. i thank you for your support, and i thank you for staying close. and when we come back, we begin with the testimony of the fbi director james comey and the direct of of the nsa mike rogers and we talk to representative adam schiff and peter king of the house intelligence committee. we begin this the house intelligence committee hearing on russian interference in the presidential lex. james comey confirmed there is an ongoing investigation into russia's meddling including possible collusi, o n of president trump's campaign. he toaf testified there is no evidence to support the president's claims that president obama wiretapped him. lawmakers heard from nsa director mike rogers. he directed white house press secretary sean pieser investigation into the british intelligence agency gcsq
4:06 pm
conducted surveillance of president trump. >> have i been authorized by the department of justice to confirm that the fbi as part of our counterintelligence mission is investigating the russian mpaign and russia's efforts.he with respect to the president's tweets about alleged wiretapping directed at him by the prior administration, have i 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. >> rose: joining me from washington adam schiff of california, the house intelligence committee's ranking democrat and representative
4:07 pm
peter king of new york who also serves on the committee. i'm pleased to have both of them on this program. i begin with you, congressman schiff, what is the take away? what is the impact? what is the significance of what was said today? >> well, i think there were a few significant things. one i think the american people got a good sense of why this is such an important matter and really deserves thorough investigation. the breathed of the russian attack on our democracy, the fact that the fbi has an ongoing investigation to determine whether there was coordination between the trump campaign and the russians, as well as the directors, both of their willingness to establish that there was no evidence to support the president's claim that he was wiretapped by his predecessor. any one of those things, i think on a normal day, would be quite a revelation. but there was a lot packed in today. and i think ultimately the most important thing is it gave a good glim paragraphs at why this is so serious and why we ought to do everything possible to do
4:08 pm
a thorough investigation and conduct it in a nonpartisan way. >> rose: why is it so serious? >> well, because the intelligence committee has said this is not a one off. the russians will do this again. we can expect them to interfere in our elections again. and in order to inoculate ourselves and inform the american public so they he can val yait when the russians meddle again, we have to know exactly what they did here it is important not only the health of our democracy and ability to respond to further attacks, but right now europe is facial the same kind of russian meddling and obviously we want to do everything in our power to help our european allies as well. >> rose: congressman king, you sat there as well. what did you take away? >> some what the same takeaway as adam even though i have a different emphasis. i think it is essential that we fully investigate the extent of russian involvement in the campaign stvment disgraceful and as adam said and director comey said. they are going to come back and do it again, whether it is donald trump, hillary clinton, no matter who the candidate is, they will try to get involved in
4:09 pm
the election. and we have to be more alert to it earlier on. i would just say as far as the investigation being conducted by director comey, we have heard about this some time ago. i know we officially told a few weeks ago, i recall being at some briefing about a month ago, also hearing, so we knew at the investigation was ongoing. i am just as glad that it is out there. it gives us a little more freedom to talk and it's also may put, not pressure, i shouldn't say that. but usually when something is announced publicly, it's more inclined to move at a faster pace. i don't want the direct tore speed it up. i think it is important that we try to resolve it. i don't think there is any evidence bad so far, we can find different people like the former acting director of the cia, he said not only is there a fire, there is not even a spark or camp fire. and director clapper, we have a disagreement of what he meant, but he said as of january 20th there was no evidence of koluse of the trump campaign and russian intelligence or government of the investigation
4:10 pm
goes where it goes. whatever it is, i will accept it but i think it is important to show that as far as we know there is no evidence of any collusion between them. >> rose: why do you think clapper said what he said. >> i have to say that peter is a wonderful colleague and a great member of the committee. i don't share his conviction that there is 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 in, i think there is more than enough to warrant that investigation as well as our own. now i think director clapper clarified that what he meant today was that there wasn't con cluesive evidence. i would certainly agree with that but let's remember, we're at the beginning of this investigation, not at the end. and at the end of the day it's my hope that both peter and i will come to the same conclusion that we were either able to corroborate this, to demonstrate this, to refer this to justice if that's necessary, or we weren't. and i don't think either one of us should necessarily jump to
4:11 pm
the conclusion we expect to find at the end of the day. but we ought to, i think we owe it to the american people to do our best to find out. >> i would just add to that there is always some evidence. i would say there is not yet any persuasive or con cluesive evidence. but if there turns out there is, i will accept it i'm not trying to deny it i think a lot of the stories repeated in the media have been as assistant director of the fbi mckaib said, they were bs, that what his exact term. i think we have to be careful before too many allegations are made here. >> rose: as others have noted, the fbi director also spoke to the idea of leaks and how that should be looked into. and should be pursued if, in fact, there were leaks that were coming out of the fbi investigation. >> i would say not just looked into. he said he was very alarmed by it he said he has not seen such a volume of leaks in such a brief period of time going back over the last six to eight
4:12 pm
weeks. and some of these are clearly top secret, confidential, classified materials coming out which is the director's said do involve felonies, this is very serious. i'm not talking about intrigue or which faction of the white house is fighting with the other. i'm talking about actual evidence which could be gained by wiretaps which could have been gained by just in the course of an investigation. have i no problem with the investigation. any investigation is going to have surveillance. could well have wiretapping. but the misuse of that investigation is very serious and director comey seemed as concerned as anyone by it. i think that, i don't, you know, put that aside, to me it's very significant. >> why do you think the president continues to insist in the face of all of this denial of anybody having seen any evidence of whether it is con cluesive or not, of colution. >> well, can i say i think there are only a couple possibilities. either the president simply cannot back down from a baseless
4:13 pm
accusation because it would be admitting error. that would be the most benign explanation. the most threatening i think in terms of our country's security explanation would be the president can't tell the difference between fact and fiction. he has now convinced himself that it must be true. and this is a real problem in terms of the future because we know at some point that there will be a crisis, not one created within the white house but rather a crisis provoked by north korea or iran or some other nation. and we're going to need to believe our president. and to the degree he continues to cling to these conspiracy theories with no basis, he's going to make it very hard not only for the american people to believe him, but for our allies. the british already have to have profound questions about this president, considering he and his spokesman are suggesting that they were illegally wiretapping him. so this accusation now has gone way out of control. and is doing a lot of damage to our relationships around the
4:14 pm
world. and it's got to stop. i hope some of the grownups in the white house like general mattis will sit the president down and say enough is enough. this has got to stop. >> i think the president overshot the mark. i think legitimate questions you can raise about whether or not evidence was misused and is being used against him by whoever it is in the justice department or the intelligence community or the national security apparatus. but that's a long way from saying the president of the united states ordered a wiretap. i think the president saw what was being leaked against him, whether out of anger or whatever he made these statements. i wish we could back away from it because adam and i agree. i want this investigation of russian colution, i want it investigated fully, i want it resolved. i don't believe it will lead to any. if it does it does. whoever is guilty should be prosecuted. on the leaks they have to be fully investigated and the longer we spend talking about whether or not president obama ordered a wiretap of the president if there is no evidence for it, it just really undercuts all, what all of us
4:15 pm
are trying to get done. >> what do we mean by colution, i want to come back to the accusation that president obama had ordered wiretapping. what do we mean about colution with respect to the campaign? >> the colution would be mean whether or not people from the trump campaign were involved with russian intelligence or the russian government in trying to fix the election or actually cooperate in anyway. was there any level of cooperation or colution depending what term we want to use or coordination between people in the trump campaign and anyone involved with the russian government or russian intelligence. and that's i think adam would agree, that is the general use the term. there could be modifications, that is basically what we are talking about. so far i see no evidence of that but again we'll have to see. >> rose: so congressman schiff, if you seen evidence of that? >> you know, the way i would describe t charlie, is there is sir cum station 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
4:16 pm
being dishonest about conversations they have with the russian ambassador or whether they even met with the russian, it does provoke questions about why. if there is a policy are you're proud of or willing to let the country know about and stand behind then why be deceptive about it. so these are things that merit investigation. and you know, i completely concur with peter and i think from the very beginning peter has said he thought we ought to look into this and look into it as he always does in an objective way. >> what happens if the fbi finds there is some colution, what happens after that. >> if it rises to a criminal level and the person would be prosecuted. and to me, if you are collu ding with a foreign government, at the very least you would be guilty of lobbying for a foreign government-- that is the least charge against you. i would leave it to the justice department and fbi. but if you show actual cooperation between an american presidential campaign and any foreign government, certainly a foreign government who is an
4:17 pm
adversary of ours, there are definitely statutes on the book that would apply and i guess it depends how imaginative the justice department wanted to be. i want to make it clear. i haven't seen evidence of that, but if that is what is turns out to be, i am convinced there will be prosecutions. >> rose: you have seen sir cum station evidence? >> yeah, no, listen, i think there is circumstantial evidence, as the director made clear during the hearing today, he can't trace down every allegation that has presented to the fbi. but when something rises to the definitely 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 t needs to be investigated. he made that decision and i think on the basis of what i have seen, that was a sound decision. but i do think that we shouldn't get too far ahead of ourselves, and think too much about the consequences if that's proven. i think we have a long way to go
4:18 pm
in the investigation and we ought to let the facts dictate where they take us. >> rose: who else do you want to see come before the committee. >> you know, i think if we are doing this in a met odd kal way we are ought to be going through the intelligence, the documents, allowing those to identify, the witnesses we want to bring before the committee. certainly i think many of the people whose names you heard today are people of interest to the committee. and i wouldn't be a bit surprised if we bring them before the committee but i don't want to get too far ahead in that process. we may or may not get more than one shot with any witness so you want to be prepared before they come to the committee. >> also it's most likely that that would be coordinated with the fbi. you don't want to disrupt a criminal investigation stvment always one of those issues. if you bring someone forward, there is a whole question of immunity, of what they would be saying. so it is again a fine line but again, whatever has to be donement i believe that adam is the ranking member and defon none easy as the chairman of the full committee will do whatever
4:19 pm
has to be done to get to the truth. >> rose: fbi director comey said today that it is highly unusual for them to talk about an ongoing investigation. but you have to do it in, when you believe that the national interests demands it as i remember his statement. >> i think there was so much, there is no so much discussion over this, so many stories, some true, some untrue. and maybe the president brought it to a higher level when he spoke about the wiretapping or what he thought was wiretapping. and director comey felt he had to come forward and say something. i'm glad he did because maybe adam disagrees but when several times i found myself saying, talking about an fbi investigation and realized i couldn't even disclose the fact there was an investigation. i think it's important that it is out there. it makes it easier and may move the process along. >> rose: congressman schiff, when you look at the possibilities here of the president going to the length that he has to continue and to double down on the issue of
4:20 pm
there being a wire stap tapping at trump tower, and all of the denials that have taken place, why, i ask you why does he do that. and my question now is that at what point does he have the capacity to say if he believes he's wrong, i was wrong. >> well look, i would have hoped that he would have said that a long time ago. the best course would have been after he sent out those, what may have been early in the morning tweets to say okay, somebody needs to take this away from me. i shouldn't have sent those out. i shouldn't have accused my predecessor of gross illegality, but that is not who he is. i think at some point we have to recognize he is who he is and he will keep doing this. and, and that's going to be a real problem, again, i hope that someone can talk someence into him when it comes to making these outlandish accusations because he is undermining his
4:21 pm
own prospects for success as a president. and he's also undermining our ability to work with our allies. so i hope this stops. have i to say i'm losing confidence it is going to stop. i think this just may be who he is. and you know, this is what you get when you roll the dice as we have with someone who has not been elected office before, who we don't really have a track record to evaluate how they would be president of the united states. this may be the way he conducted business. maybe this is the way he did real estate deals with, you know, half truths and complete untruths and a lot of bluster. but that is no way to run a country. i'm very concerned about what this means going forward. >> it also says that every president needs somebody that can say no to him or to her. >> very true. >> true. >> thank you both. >> thank you, charmie. >> rose: congressman king, back in a moment. stay with us. we continue our discussion of the house intelligence hearing
4:22 pm
with karoun demirjian and matt rosenberg of "the new york times." karoun, tell me whether you think we'll look back at this and maybe see it as a historic turning point in this investigation. >> it is certainly a very remarkable thing when an fbi director says yes, there is an active investigation going on, basically a counterintelligence investigation that does involve the white house. i think that's certainly a historic thing. certainly this is also there were two major markers that came out today, that being one of them and the fbi director saying that the president's accusations that ot bama administration was wiring tapping the phone there is nothing there. that is not the final word on the investigation. there are still a lot of unanswered questions, many of them we heard comey not answering during that hearing. where this will continue is certainly going to be under a crowd of-- it certainly is a notable day in the progress of how that has been going. >> rose: was this a hard decision for the fbi direct tore make?
4:23 pm
>> yes, the fbi director said he had gotten pergs from-- permission from the department of justice there were rare circumstances in the public interest it actually makes sense to break the normal rule that he doesn't comment onion going investigations and they decided that he is one of them. so i think this has been many months in coming. he has been getting a lot of pressure for members of congress to actually say what he said today, since it has been in press reports that said that there is an active investigation. so having him get to this point was basically something that had to happen. a lot of people were expecting it is still notable he got there and it shows the seriousness of the investigation, how of the fbi decided it had to make this a public declaration at this point. >> couric: do you know what they are saying the russians did? >> well, that's the thing. they are saying that the russians were involved in meddling with the election. they have stood behind the intelligence committee since january that found that there was intervention, that there was hacking. and that was done with the intention of trying to advance trump's chances of winning the white house.
4:24 pm
however, beyond that, they haven't gone into full details about the extent to which these allegations if there have been more direct colution or as many members of congress have aid and as you heard some people telling you, that there is no evidence yet that proves that sort of a link but that is what they are looking into. certainly there are swirling allegations out there that comey said today that they are investigating. >> rose: are there. >> the specifics of exactly who they are looking at and what they found we don't know because he hasn't told us yet. >> rose: are there informed opinions that suggest that it might have made a difference, that whatever the russians did might have made a difference in the election or simply the act of trying to tamper with democracy. >> i think it is the latter that concern people more. as you heard democrats say maybe this will have an feak but you will never know which thing turned the election or which voter. this is not a case where russians hacked voting machines and you can actually draw a direct line between what was done and the actual turnout and outcome of the numbers it is a
4:25 pm
little bit more subtle because are you talking about information, spinning, hacking, what senterring the public news cycle at what point in the campaign. so i don't think anyone is being able to say yes, the russian interference is what determined the election. i think they are concerned about the press dense this set. comey said expect it to happen again in 2018, in 2020, in europe before that. and that is a real concern when you can consider how important open, transparent elections are to the progress of politics in this country. >> rose: thank you for joining us, i know you have another commitment so we will let you go. but thank you so much. >> thank you. >> rose: matthew, having listened to what we have said so far, tell me what you would add to that in terms of these hearings, how long they may last, whether we are just looking at the beginning, are we witnessing today the unraveling of a presidency. >> i think i was amazed, just the astounding natures of an
4:26 pm
fbish director get in front of congress and saying yes, there is an espionage investigation involving a sitting president. that alone is just astounding. but the other remarkable thing was that there was another four and a half hours of this hearing, a lot of which was spent talking about leaks, talking about you know, why people are talking the government, whether they should be prosecuted. that is an issue that will keep coming up and up, does this unravel the presidency, i don't know. is there, will there be a smoking gun? these are huge questions. and then it gets back to your question of where we are in this. we are still very much in the beginning. rough the initial evidenceing underpinning the january 6th assessment about russian meddling. still looking into the initial assessments and intelligence connections between trump associates and russia. and i think the fbi too, you know, these counterintelligence investigations, these things can go on for years and often don't yield a result. they don't yield a prosecution.
4:27 pm
so i think we will have a lot more of this and it will be a political cloud certainly that will hang over this white house for a long time. >> rose: a couple of things from what adam schiff said and he clearly knows a lot about this as a minority chief minority member of the house intelligence committee. it is sir cum stags evidence is he primarily talking about. meetings that you can't explain that you are talking about. but on the other hand, when you talk about whether president obama in some way, if he could, which they say he couldn't, have ordered something like this, you have no one who has said they have seen any evidence that that took place, that there was any surveillance. >> none. >> of trump tower. >> none, i mean that's the other basic takeaway today. is that the fbi director and the nsa chief baiflt said no, mr. president, there was no surveillance. and yet the white house won't back down on this one. and i think you know, you've got two different explaining, the question over the meddling and trump associates being in
4:28 pm
connection with russia. then over these wiretapping claims which is beyond the pointed point of being bizarre now. anybody who would know or should know has said no, it didn't happen. so where do we go from here? i don't think anybody any of us really know that. >> i assume and lots of people eager to know what other witnesses might be coming forth within i believe, and i'm not sure this has been totally con frmed yet, that you will see at least john brennan, former director of the cia, james clapper, former director of national intel gns and perhaps sally yaits who is the attorney general, though i think that is still being worked out. and i'm sure there will be many more hearings to go there is also you know a lot of the work of the intelligence committee gets done behind closed doors. we will have hearings of witnesses that we are not privy to and who we don't know are testifying or talking about. >> mike, that includes some of the people implicated with the possibility of sir cum stags evidence and suggestion of colu
4:29 pm
ddion. >> i wonder and michael flynn's name, the former national security advisor, his name came up frequently today. both by the democrats who saw his connections and contacts with the russian ambassador during the campaign and after the campaign during the transition, and by republicans who were very concerned that information about those contacts was leaked to members of the media, including the new york tiles and "washington post." there seems to be a lot of people who want to hear from michael flynn and may want to talk to him. >> rose: the question of leaks, what exactly did director comey say about the leaks. >> i mean he was pretty adamant that yes, this is illegal and st a real problem. in his estimation. i think the republicans really wanted him to go further and pressed him to, you know, point to specific stories that he thought were false. or he thought were wrong. based on leaks that were not fully informed. he wouldn't go there. he, there was a lot of back and forth about how look, i can't get into the business of saying what is right, what is wrong. so i say one-story is wrong, that the leaks in there are not
4:30 pm
direct. the one i don't say that about, then by implication are considered inaccurate but there was, i think it was just one of these situations where the republicans really, not all but a number of republicans wanted to make this the main issue. and neither the director nor the nsa chief wanted to do that. >> what evidence has been presented, what do we know about whether vladimir putin the director of russia ordered this? >> you know, this is the other problem, that this investigation is tbg to face and this entire story faces, is that a lot of this evidence is described to us but we don't get it to see it because it's classified. we're told there are intercepts. we're told there is, you know, a number of bits of information but mostly a lot of intercepts, a lot of communication intercepts and human intelligence that points or indicates that this came from vladimir putin. this was ordered by him. but you know, you and i will never see the transscripts of those calls or get redouts for them. i think that will present a challenge going forward because
4:31 pm
it does raise doubts. how do you say this happened definitively, these guys were involved, there was a trump person talking to russian x. we have to take somebody's word for that because we can't see it. >> rose: how long do they expect the house intelligence committee hearings to last? >> you know, nobody's putting a time line on this. i know 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. and this could go on a very long time. probably they depend on the fbi and intelligence committee which is still collecting intelligence. the fbi is still investigating. as long as they are doing that, these connections can't be wrapped up, how long they will keep going, on their investigations is something that nobody is saying and it really could take years. >> any evidence that president trump has begun to believe or see that this is getting in the way of the on ward movement of his own agenda and his goals for what he might do in the first
4:32 pm
100 days? >> i mean i imagine there has to be some recognition of that by the white house but they don't seem to be acting on that information in a way that coo keep it from being an issue. just this morning the president is tweeting again this is news, the whole russian meddles story is fake news. during the testimony itself, comey said you know, the russians said there is no indication that russian hackers interfered with vote tallying. then that later became in a tweet from the white house the official presidential account, a tweet saying comey and rogers say there is no influence, no russian influence on the election what soafer. which is not what they said. and during the hearing, when they were read those tweets back by one of the kongman, they want on and said no, we didn't say that. we were not assessing whether the meddling had an influence that effected the results. so the white house seems to find a way to keep this going. and you know there are all kinds of theories, is it a distraction, are they fumbling around. i don't know that.
4:33 pm
but i do know that they don't seem to recognize how much damage this is doing and they are at this point helping perpetuate it. >> rose: thank you so much, pleasure. >> thank you. >> rose: back in a moment, stay with us. chuck berry the legendsary singer, songwriter and rock originator died on saturday at his home in missouri. he was 90. his unique views of blues-- fuse of blues and country-- his hit songs include johnny b goosh, made leeb, roll over beethoven and around and around. the rolling stones called berry a true pioneer of rock 'n' roll. they went on to say chuck was not only a brilliant guitarist, singer and performer, but most importantly he was a master craftsman as' songwriter. his songs will live forever. joining me now david browne, contributing editor for rolling stone. i'm pleased to have him at this table for the first time. welcome. >> thanks, charlie, glad to be here. >> rose: what did we say about
4:34 pm
dhuk berry? >> you know, there is so much to say and so much you can take for granted. rock 'n' roll has been around now for 60 years. and you sort of can forget after all that time what he did to revolutionize the music. and he really did on so many levels, the music and lyrical levels. >> did he revolutionize it or revolutionize music by bringing on rock n roll. >> he rev leutionz-- revolutionized musk by bringing together one of the very first people to bring together blues, country, boogieing wouldy and all these styles into rock 'n' roll. and more porntdly, you know, you look back and people like little richard and jerry lee lewis were very kind of sexual and threatening. and chuck berry really wasn't that. but he did something much more important which is he wrote songs in the voice of the average teenager which really nobody was doing at that point. >> rose: so is his genius as a guitarist or songwriter. >> it's both. you know, that lick, the one finger, slippery little lick
4:35 pm
that we hear, you know, it lives on in the music, he invented that. and he played music, he played guitar on different down beats an things. so he kind of revolutionized the sound. that famous chuck berry lick we hear in every song, everybody still duplicates, nobody was doing that before him. oh maybe lean. ♪ why can't you be true. oh maybe lien. ♪ can can't you do be true. >> rose: so that is a real basic building block of modern rock 'n' roll. >> so he seasoning writers likeo bruce springsteen and guitarists like keith richards paying tribute to that. >> absolutely. the gi star sound lives on. and the lyrical content, again, you know, he wrote songs unabashedly filled with
4:36 pm
references to cars and drive-ins and high fives and school cafeterias. you know, he knew how to kind of zero in on the market, i guess you could say. but he knew, he articulated something about this whole new again raise of teenagers. related to them, even though he wasn't a teenager at all when he wrote these songs. but he really knew how to craft language in their voice and speak for them. >> rose: it was 1958 that johnny b good made it on billboard's top ten. >> right. >> rose: 58y. >> 1958, long time ago. almost 60 years. >> rose: yeah. >> and that wasn't even, maybelien was three years before that. so he was on an incredible roll for five, six, seven years just recording these songs over, one after another and those songs, those are the basic.
4:37 pm
that is the basic repertoire of early rock. ♪ yes, i want my to play. ♪ roll over beethoven. ♪. >> was he appreciated all along? >> well, i think he was. you know, he had a difficult period there where he went to prison for 20 months in the early '60s thanks to the man act. and he kind of disappears from the scene you know, he mrnlged from that seemingly much more embittered blue, and the music that he played in the '50s by the early 60st was, the music had moved on. you had bob dylan, beatles, rolling stones, but all those people worshipped him and grew up with him. so even though he disappears
4:38 pm
from the scene for awhile, he was sort of newly appreciated when he kind of came back. >> rose: was there a lot of electric gi dar-- guitar befor t chuck played it in a more kind of playful, you know, some what more-- some what a greses ef but very playful kind of way. >> go, go johnny go, go johnny go, go johnny go, go, go johnny go g, johnny be good. >> he toured until three years ago he was amazing. he was amazing one of the point yans things here is just a few months ago they announced that he was putting out a new album at 90 years old. which he hadn't put out a new album since 1979. jimmy carter was president when he put out his last album and so it was like oh my god, is he not only still playing shows, is he
4:39 pm
writing new songs at 90 which is ground breaking in rock 'n' roll. we hadn't seen that before like luckily that finally came out. >> did 4eus music evolve. >> not in a maining are way, he stuck to his basically style. some of his songs in the later 60st might rerchesz, you know, drug deerls, a little modernized, in. so takes on it but he kind of stuck to that basic style and he also expanded into blues. miss husbandic spread out exploring the origins. he dug more into the origins of where he came from. hearing more blues. >> what influence on elvis. >> they sort of came out right around the same time and it's mrd to say, they were both on parallel courses in a way.
4:40 pm
again i think elvis was so volume cantic and sexual and threatening to some people. and chuck berry was more like this ambassador, this sort of to rock 'n' roll. he kind of made it, he put a sort of playful face on it. and made it, he made it americana in a way, that maybe someone like-- the songs had been covered by rolling stones, beach boy, the doors, grateful dead, james taylor and dwight yokum. it is a wide variety. >> it is an amazing list, green day, freferg country to punk bands, if you are in a garage band you probably still have to learn how to plays to licks when you grow up. and that's quite a legacy for him, 60 years later that those songs are still being covered. that doesn't happen with everybody in rock 'n' roll. >> thank you for coming. >> thank you. >> we'll be right back. stay with us.
4:41 pm
david rockefeller died monday morning. he was 101 years old. the bankerrer without became a public figure was the youngest grandson of john d rockefeller the founder of standard oil. david rockefeller led chase manhattan bank for more than a decade, he expanded the bank's operations globally and cult natured relationships with foreign leaders. he was also a renowned art collector and philanthropist. in a statement former mayor michael bloomberg said quote no individual has contributed more to the kergs and civic life of new york city over a longer period of time than david rockefeller. mike bloomberg once said to me that if his father knew he was a friend of david rockefellers, nothing would have made him more proud. i could say the same thing. you are looking now to photographs taken at the bush home in kennebunkport maine. hi been invited to the bushes for lunch and new david was in maine so i called and asked if i
4:42 pm
might invite david. and then he said of course. i would love to see him. david came by helicopter. i came up by delta and we all had a wonderful afternoon. he was a wonderful man, a wonderful friend and lived an extraordinary life in his later years he made it a point of showing his grand children and great grand children around the world. i had 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 within you represent in some way the end of an era when you think of the family and you think of dispergs and you think of the central role that you played in the evolution of family that i just talked about. >> it certainly is the end of one important period for the family. i like to think, though, that
4:43 pm
there are lots of oncoming members of the family who are going to make a place for themselves both in the next generation, my children and neices and nephews and coming on the fifth and sixth generation, they are really quite remarkable. i don't believe it will be the same, but i think that there are real possibilities that they will make a place for them is ofs. >> rose: how do you explain one, the family's been a prominent, b, its has survived. other great american families, but none have maintained such a prom thens in american life and have seemed to have carried such a commitment of pay backback. >> well, i think it's largely my siblings and myself had very good parents. i think mother and father were complemented one another in a way that was very much to our benefit and we were brought up to feel responsibility for the
4:44 pm
fact that we did have more than most people. and father always said, and i think rightly, that for every opportunity goes an obligation. and i think that without preparing that, in an offensive way, we all felt that responsibility. and also have had great opportunities. >> rose: he imposed a sense of frugality from what i read. >> yes, he didment but i think his were, he married a wonderful person. my mother who brought perhaps a little more humanity and humor and sense of fun than perhaps father was brought up with. and the combination of the two, i think has worked well. >> her father was a senator from rhode island. >> her father was a republican senator from rhode island, in the senate i think 32 years. >> do you remember your grandfather? >> pie grandfather, yes.
4:45 pm
he died when i was 21. and i saw a great deal of him. my grand-- 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. >> rose: and then your dad was called jury carried on the tradition. >> he did, indeed. with great dedication. and i think very effectively. he was deeply religious person. and 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. he was a very greetive-- creative one. and when he would, a lot of the most creative things that he did, did he because he saw an opportunity on a trip, sometimes with his children, an example
4:46 pm
being colonial williamsburg which he visitedded with his three younger children in 1926. and met with dr. goodwyn who visited with yil williamsburg which had been the capital in the preunited states days. and then was moved to richmond and dr. goodwyn persuaded him to take an interest in restoring one building and then he restored another one. but 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 sign boards and honky-tonks and whatnot, he bought up that land and gave it to it the united states government as part of that grand teton national park. in other words, i think that he
4:47 pm
was-- he was a creative philanthropist in a very wonderful way. >> rose: so much of your life, 55 years. >> well, 35 i was employed by-- . >> rose: you started a the 46. >> and then the last 17 i am still chairman of the international advisory committee and i still go on, this last trip to china was for the bank. and i went with bank people. though i still do things with them and for them, but i have no responsibility for anything that goes on in the bank. >> rose: when you look back on your tenure there, what, how do you assess it? >> i think from my perspective, it really was made to order. because i am interested in all the things that i did. and it gave me an excuse to do a lot more. and so a lot of the people i saw
4:48 pm
were perhaps initially for the bank. so that being a good example because he in this interview that i mentioned asked me if we would open a branch. nasir 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 responsibilities with a variety of other interests, cultural and otherwise. >> rose: my question had also to do with the notion that, i mean you were primarily because of your interest in international ideas, events, personalities, trends, lead the bank in its push to internationalism, correct? one of the early banks to do that. >> city bank had done it a good deal. but we did a lot of catchup. and i think if there is a single
4:49 pm
thing that i did contribute it was to expand our-- i think i visitedded 107 countries for the chase while i was tsh shall in the 35 years i was. there and we opened branches or representative offices. i think we had over 70-- in 75 by the time i left. >> rose: the idea of corporate responsibility, your strong feeling that if you have leadership in the corporate world and resources of a corporation, you ought to do what with them? >> well, in the first place, i think the business community in the private sector in general correctly felted that government even if democracies had gotten too bureaucratic and too big. and there was good to cut back on government. which we have done to a considerable degree. i think this is something ronald
4:50 pm
reagan deserves a lot of credit for. but if government is:get out of a lot of things, somebody has to take their place. and it seems to me that business and the private sectder which pushed for this has to listen from responsibility. if so, then it means it seems to me that the leaders of business and of not for profit corporations should recognize that they have a responsibility outside their own businesses to do something for society at large. and therefore, i feel concerned that what is happening in this country at the president time where it seems to me that the stock market analyst who seem to have a great influence on a lot of things these days, of putting all of their focus on quarterly
4:51 pm
results and not on long-term achievements, which i think is dangerous and bad in itself, but because they're putting so much emphasis on that, it means that they are watching with a microscope the activities of of these corporations, and if they spend too much time doing other things, they're very likely to say well, you should be paying more attention to the immediate-- of your corporation and shouldn't be giving time. i think that's wrong. i think that a well managed corporation can be, can give time for its chief of directives to do other things as well. in fact, i think that's an indication of good leadership that a good manager can del gate
4:52 pm
and therefore can afford to spend time doing things that are important even if they're not directly related to the corporation. >> rose: i can't let this time go without talking about the museum of modern art. >> good rrs the place of the museum of modern art is your former home. >> that's true, in a physical sense. i was born in a house which now is the sculpture garden of the museum. >> rose: your mother. >> was one of the three ladies who founded it. and that was very exciting. this was a great passion of hers. and i-- . >> rose: in 1929 at the time that we were at the place facing economic catastrophe in this cli. >> that's right. >> rose: the great depression was right around the corner. >> she persuaded father a little
4:53 pm
bit after that, when i graduated from harvard and moved away. my brothers and sisters all moved away. they didn't need a nine storey house. so they moved to an apartment and that was also the house on the same block that belonged to my grandfather, that had never been torn down. so father generously, because he didn't really like modern art very much but elise inned to mother and gave all of that land to the museum, which was a great thing. >> rose: and you just went through a long process to select a newark tect to enlarge the museum of modern art. were you chair of that group that lead that? >> no, but i was voferred in it. >> one of the five or six that. >> yeah, this is very excitingment because i believe that the museum of modern art in the 20th century, played a very important role in
4:54 pm
identifying the best of what is being done in the 209 century. and has made a collection which certainly is the best in the world, the 20th century art within one last question, your legacy, what do you want it to be? >> well, i feel very proud of the families 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 one that is a good and a happy one for our country.
4:55 pm
i don't think i could ask for much more than that. >> rose: david rockefeller, dead at 101. for more about in program and earlier episodes visit us online at and charl wree captioning sponsored by rose communications captioned by media access group at wgbh
4:56 pm
>> rose: funding for charlie rose is provided by the following: and by bloomberg, a provider of multimedia news and information services worldwide. >> you're wat
4:57 pm
4:58 pm
4:59 pm


info Stream Only

Uploaded by TV Archive on