>> from our studios in new york city, this is "charlie rose." >> turmoil around the globe continues with no sign of abating. a cease-fire remains elusive.

ukrainian jets were shot out of the air earlier today, and this week was the bloodiest to date in the syrian civil war. from washington state is robert gates, secretary of defense under president bush and obama. i am pleased to have him back on this program. welcome. it is great to have you back. i am glad to see without a neck brace. >> absolutely. me. too. >> does that mean you are healing well? >> yes, thank you. >> i'm sure you had too many people say how could that possibly have happened? what did you say to get it up like that -- beat up like that? learned when i was secretary i ended up being a

bigger danger to my threat than any foreign threat. >> peter baker had a story in "new york times today," testing obama, what kind of test for president obama and what are his choices and how does he meet the challenge? >> i think the problem the facesent faces is that he multiple crises all taking place simultaneously. periods when there have been multiple events of historic consequence converging before. certainly 1989 in eastern europe and the then soviet union in the late 1970's. in this country as well as internationally, including the invasion of afghanistan by the soviets. i think it is hard to find a time in recent decades when more consequential events are taking

place simultaneously. where american ability to shape outcomes is mor e doubtful. >> so we are finding limitations to american power? >> i think they have always been there. i think, at least in recent times. certainly overestimated our ability to shape events in the middle east. after all, you have multiple crises going on there. it is not just israel and palestine. it is not just the syrian civil war. you have a conflict between the shia and the sunnis. between authoritarians and reformers, secularist and islamists. then you have the struggles in see whether this states that are comprised of

adversarial ethnic and religious groups can survive as integrated states without significant oppression. all of these things are going on simultaneously. >> when you say there is a limit to how we can affect the events, thehat way can we affect events and what kind of presidential decision-making does that bring to president obama? >> i think first of all that it's difficult for us to try and manage these different kinds of crises unilaterally. it's just, we do not have the tools at our disposal. there are no good military options in any of these crises i described. certainly a strong u.s. military presence has a deterrent effect, but in terms of affecting the situation on the ground, for example, in syria, is has limited options. so i think it's in diplomacy

certainly, but it is in trying other the europeans and middle eastern states that are not directly engaged in these conflicts to be cooperative. in other words, if you have turkey and qatar that are opposed to putting serious restrictions on hamas. such ashave others, saudi arabia, supporting the egyptian peace initiative. is there some way we can try to bring all of those countries together? we have good relationships with qatar. our relationship with turkey, we still have a pretty good relationship there. so the question is, how do we try and mobilize forces that see the potential danger in allowing these conflicts to continue and to potentially spread, to help us try and figure out a way to stop some of

the violence, whether it is in then see ifa, but we cannot figure out a longer-range approach to trying to deal with these problems. my worry, whether it is ukraine or the middle east, is that our focus is so much on a short-term solution that we are not thinking about what are the long-term, what is the long-term potential in terms of trying to prevent a recurrence of these kinds of events as we look ahead. eventsany of these happening because there was, as some republican critics would like to suggest, a perception of weakness on the part of the president? >> i personally do not believe that. i think that there is a perception around the world, the u.s. disengaging. i know the administration makes the case of its diplomatic involvement and how busy it is.

look, the reality is withdrawn from or disengaging from two and, both of which without a clear-cut victory is a tricky business to avoid giving the impression you are disengaging from the rest of the world. when you combine that with defensethe budgets for and the state department and the agency for international development, the instruments of american influence, and you have rhetoric about coming home again, about nationbuilding at home. it does give the sense overall of the u.s. pulling back. i think we can reverse that, but i think there is that impression out there. but i do not believe it caused any of these particular situations. >> if the impression is there a pulling back, how do we reverse that? all, it is,first of iu know, there is nothing --

know it sounds like i am arguing parochial lee for more money for defense, but i incthink a reasserts -- if diplomacy and soft power are important, then we need to increase the assets that we are applying to those things and our own budget and in terms of the resources we have to apply, whether it is in egypt or elsewhere. there's no that question in my mind that stopping, cutting the defense budget and certainly taking action to prevent sequestration from coming back into play in 2016 would send an important message that the united states is not going to further weaken its tools when it comes to protecting our national security and exercising our influence. >> let me take them one by one. let's go to ukraine first.

happened basednk on what you know and what you have read and what should be beyond sanctions the response of the west? again, i think we need to take a step back and look at this froma strategic and long-term standpoint. what putin is trying to do is create a band of pro-russian states on the periphery of russia. this has been russian foreign policy for several centuries. periphery that looked to russia economically, politically, and in terms of security. inaine is the linchpin trying to put together that kind of band of states. putin will is that not rest until he can at least prevent ukraine from moving to the west, either with the eu or

nato. and i think he will continue to create problems in ukraine as part of his effort to keep it from moving into the orbit of the west. i think there are also other areas on the periphery in russia to be concerned about. but this is his strategy. we need a long-term strategy. i think we will get this, we will have the investigation. my guess is the investigation , that this was a mistake on the part of the pro-russian rebels, that they did not know they were shooting down a civilian airliner, but the russians enabled them to do it. whether a russian was pulling the trigger remains to be seen. but i think it does illustrate the lengths to which putin is

prepared to go to keep ukraine from sliding to the west. we have to figure out how do we the ukrainians economic, political, and even military support in terms of helping them improve the quality of their own military to help them counter that? >> can we simply accept ukraine as a buffer between east and west, neither pro-russian nor per west -- pro-west? ought toot think we accept that at all. the practical effect of what putin has been doing the last several months, and going back to the russian invasion of georgia in 2008 is first of all that bordersnotion to not get changed in europe except through mutual consent negotiation, that you don't try and fulfill your territorial or revisionist claims through the

use of military force. and that countries have the wish to choose how they align themselves politically, economically, and in security terms. he is upending all of that. this is much broader in my view than turmoil in eastern europe -- in eastern ukraine. it is about the whole post-cold war order and how putin is seeking to reverse what has been pretty much established policy and pursuit of foreign policy in europe since the end of the cold war. >> do you have a view of what president obama's strategy is long-term? >> i do not have a clear sense of strategy on the part of the west at all. i think i certainly applaud the administration's application of sanctions, but what i was just describing in terms of the need for a broader, longer-term

putin doeso counter require the involvement and the full cooperation of the europeans and frankly, i have not seen their willingness to step up to the plate to the extent, for example, that president obama has. the willingness of france to continue to go forward with the sale of these two warships to russia in light of what has been going on in recent weeks and months, to me is outrageous. and it clearly suggests to the russians that they have a lot of running room in europe. >> has it changed because of the shooting down of that plane? has the west and whether it is germany or the netherlands or other countries, france included, realize that they have to change and they have to be more willing to embrace

sanctions that lead -- leave them unhappy because it erodes an economic relationship they have? >> there were additional sanctions considered and i guess approved by the eu yesterday. primarily on people around putin. sanctionsms of larger after the shooting down of this aircraft, the europeans were unable to come to agreement. and what is more, the french reasserted their intention to sell these warships. so if the idea is some kind of a united western response what putin is doing and what he has enabled, that messages a week one. --0 weak >> that is the only message we have now? >> that is one set of options we

have. state is intary of the middle east. he has been in cairo to cry to negotiate a -- to try negotiate a cease-fire. what are our options there? >> i think as long as hamas except any kind of conditions in terms of its behavior and actions toward israel, i think getting the israelis to back off is pretty unrealistic. no sovereign out, state can allow people just willy-nilly to launch hundreds of rockets and missiles into their civil space. hamas is willing to back away from that in some way that is enforceable and is reliable

as far as the israelis are concerned, then it seems to me that the israelis feel they have to continue this to uproot it. is that, although not to this extent, we have seen this movie before. and what happens once the israelis are done and they withdraw from gaza? whohen have another period, knows how long, while hamas rearms and we will go through the same thing in the same thing in a year or two or three years or whenever. is there a longer-term way out of this? the administration would argue there is. that is an agreement between the palestinians and the israelis. the problem is which palestinians is israel negotiating with, abbas or hamas in gaza? and as long as particularly when hamas joined the government in the west bank it made the

situation even more difficult for israel as far as i'm concerned. >> who could stop them, the radiance -- the iranians, the turks? >> they've been rearmed by the iranians and by others. but i do think if the turks and inthe qataris weighed strongly that you might have some success. i know that there is a lot of speculation out there about seeing if we can get iran's help, how can we work together with iran and iraq/ ? i frankly believe that is a fools errand. 's agenda is different from our own. although in some respects our in terms may coincide

of not wanting to see a spread of isis, this extremist islamic group, the notion that outcomes in iraq, that we have a similarity of interest is flat wrong. irking with the iranians would be skeptical of that. there are in other states in the region that have influence on hamas. and the question is whether that influence can bring to the point it that it gets hamas to make concessions. >> qatar has more influence than most? >> i think, my sense is that in particularar have some influence there. i have been out of the government for three years, so i do not have access to any intelligence. but taste on what i read those thoseed on what i read,

countries may have some influence. >> you know people. let me talk about two things that are relevant to this, three things. one is, do you essentially agree with the speech the president made at west point when he essentially laid out his foreign-policy strategy in what some call an obama doctrine? book that in my felt in recent decades american presidents had been too willing to reach for a gun to solve international problems. and pointed to the role that president eisenhower played in even more dangerous world in some respects that we face today. get through a lot of serious problems and resolve some interesting things, some important things without the use of u.s. combat forces. place where i

think i disagree with the president i smore in -- is more in terms of the tone and the approach that we take to the are of the world, that we forceful to be militarily, that we are not able to provide economic assistance. in other words, it was sort of that the tools that a -- our toolkit is bare. and the result is that we are going to avoid conflict situations around the world. formulathat that's a for a lot of problems in the future. if people think we are disinclined to get engaged, and you do not always have to do that by using military forces, but sometimes employing them has an important deterrent effect

. i guess i would be more willing to use our forces in that regard and to reassure our allies as well as to tour our adversaries. i think you can do that without resorting to bombing people or launching drones every time a problem occurs. >> but that is exactly what the critics are saying about the president. he allowed a perception to develop that you can cross a red line or that he is not prepared to engage in a way that will deter. i think the failure to enforce the red line in syria a year and a half ago was a serious mistake. i have always been of the view when it comes to u.s. presidents that if you pistol -- if you cock the pistol, you have to be

ready to fire it. the way it happened sent a strong message. those kinds of impressions are lasting. and when you are the sole superpower in the world, particularly in a military sense, and you say that if you do something you will pay the price. we will attack you militarily. and then you cannot do it, it echoes for a long time. >> so what is the president mindset? why do you think he is the way he is? >> [chuckles] i'm the last person to try to put the president on the couch and try and divine motives. >> let me -- >> my view is -- >> let me argue you are the best person because he trusted you. and he talked about these things with you. so you know his mind better than

most. paths began to diverge in the spring of 2011. we were very much on the same page through the first two years of his administration. but as you know, we disagreed on how to handle the uprising in egypt. we disagreed over libya. and i felt that we were, our paths were diverting at that point. i think people underestimate, first of all, i think people underestimate the magnitude of the challenges he is facing with all these simultaneous crises. second, there are too many people who i see get -- whose idea of solving a foreign-policy problem is to go blow something up. so i think that, first of all, the president is reacting in my view to the fact that the american people after a dozen

years of war are sick of war. bothess is sick of war, republicans and democrats. the president is trying to figure out how does the u.s. stay engaged in the world when he has a public and congress that is willing to give rhetorical support but certainly is not prepared to support military action in a lot of these places for that matter? my own view is that americans have never been very enthusiastic about military intervention. wars have been popular. world war ii, after we were attacked at pearl harbor, was popular until 1944 when the public began to tire of war. especially you look at korea and vietnam and so on. so the question is, how does a president rally a people who have been at war for a dozen years and convey a message to

the rest of the world that the united states is prepared to engage when it sees its interest ofeatened or the interests its allies. i think that is the challenge the president faces now, and i ain't his rhetoric has not been held old. biden is profiled in this week's "new yorker" magazine, and he talked, the vice president did, about you. and what you said in your book about him. gates andduel between biden. have you changed your opinion of what you said in the book, that he had been on the wrong side of every major foreign-policy decision? >> no, i haven't. appliesthat especially

to the cold war. there was one thing that i said that i had seen in several places that his comments after the revolution n iran. factwashington post" checker could not find -- they substantiated all the other statements i made. they could not find that one. i have not used it since. joe in this article says that i was wrong on vietnam, the irony is that i opposed the war in .ietnam that i was wrong in the balkans. i was not in government then. have ath is, joe and i different view of the world. i said in the book he is a fine man. he and i agreed on several important things during the obama administration. and i think that, getting into this kind of a contest between

each other is kind of foolish and i certainly don't intend to continue it. there is no point to it. frankly, i do not need to because i have no further aspirations. >> i am not trying to stir the pot but i am interested in clarification. let me quote from biden. "gates gets upset because i question the military. i believe that washington and jefferson were right. war is too important to be left to generals. it is not their judgment to make. theirs is to execute. you have seen a president who is supportive of the military but realizes he is the commander-in-chief." i assume you agree with everything he just said. >> i totally agree with that, and i make the point in my book repeatedly along those lines. the truth of the matter is, president bush disagreed with the military. presentslly every war,

have disagreed with the military and more often than not, the president have been right. president who exercises his authority as commander-in-chief that concerned me. i supported the decisions he made, including when they did not go along with the recommendations of the generals. the thing i was critical of was my view, based on a lot of information that i had, that gice president biden was stokin mistrust of the military. it was not the president's mistrust of the military.a and questioning their motives. those were the things i had a quarrel with. not the fact that president must be commander in chief and that civilians run our military. all of those things i totally agreed with. and supported both president bush and president obama down, straight down the line when it came to differences of view with the military.

>> thank you. it is a pleasure as always. >> thanks, charlie.

>> preet bharara is here. thes the u.s. attorney for

southern district of new york. he has prosecuted some of the nations most complex terrorism cases. he has the nickname the sheriff of wall street. he recently suffered his first defeat in an insider trading case. ground in has broken fighting cyber crime, which he calls the most burgeoning problem we need to face. he has also taken on public corruption bringing cases against numerous new york politicians and spoke at this year's harvard law school commencement. here he is offering advice to the graduating last. >> no one who ever pitched a perfect game in baseball went to the mound that day expecting to do so. because not only is that unrealistic, it is the height of arrogance. yet i see people all the time make that very mistake. they want to be great before they learned how to be good. they want to be on the big matter before they have handled a small one. they want to try a case before

they have argued a motion. they want to be generals before they have been good soldiers. but first, i submit you have to learn a craft. learn how to practice law in whatever area you first pick. >> pretty good advice, which i agree with totally. >> i 'm glad. >> when you crafted that speech, what we thinking you had to do? tough to give advice to a lot of people who are very smart. because everyone tells them that they are going to be nothing but successful, future presidents, future senators, leaders in the practice of law and in business. so the advice that i wanted to give voice advice that was -- the advice that i have learned. school 20d from law years ago. in my experience i think sometimes the simplest advice is the best advice you can give, and that is among other things,

do your job, keep your head down, and good things will come to you if you do that. >> you quoted from a movie. >> from "the departed. "there is a great scene in the movie where mark wahlberg is getting yelled at by somebody who says "who the f are you?" he says, "i'm the guy who does his job. who are you?" a lot of smart people and conventional people -- and credentialed people think tha -- that the mostet important thing is a focus on the job at hand. when i promote my office, the person is often going to get the call is the person who has -- hasn't lobbied for it. instead, is a person who kept his or her debt down -- her head down. >> that was two things.

one, that was a job that was important to do.and a job that was important to you . >> correct. if people are looking too far down the road, you are not seeing what is right in front of you. i learned this after becoming a manager of several hundred respect theou people that are consistent every day, reliable everyday. when you're thinking about who to put in an important matter, you want to think about the kinds of people who handled a small matter well. we have a lot of headline grabbing cases in our office and throughout the justice department. the people you want to have on the important cases are or the more headline grabbing cases are the ones when no one was looking and there was no fanfare, did a terrific job. not only truet is about people who want to be lawyers or people who want to be journalist. isry good artist tells me it about the work. it is about every day asking

questions and making choices about color, about shape, about a whole range of things. >> i think that is true of the law, of architecture. all big things are built from small things. if you do not know that, then you have something amiss in your head. a lot of people make that mistake. people are looking for the big thing. people talk about derek jeter. what is impressive about derek jeter? an amazing record, but it is the every day, never missing a practice, never missing a game, and putting your head down and getting it done. the clip you played was after i talked about roy halladay who pitched a no-hitter, a perfect game and a no-hitter in the same season a few years ago. the advice that was given to him by the coach was, go out there and try to be good. if you go out there and try to be good, you have the chance to be great. i think that is phenomenal advice. >> let me talk about your job.

how do you see your job? you said what drives you is the nature of the work itself. that resonates with me because i feel the same way about what i do. >> yeah, i think my job is to oversee a group of the most intelligent and dedicated lawyers and staff that exists in the country. people who come to my office could go anywhere. the people who come to my office often can make hundreds of thousands if not millions of dollars elsewhere, and they choose to come to the u.s. attorney's office in the southern district of new york because they think that every day they can make a little bit of difference in the world, make the world better and safer. and learn some craft along the way. and there is nothing better than working with a group of people like that. >> justice robert jackson said men are more often bribed by their loyalties and ambitions than by money. by their loyalties and ambitions than by money. w>> we've seen both. sometimes you see the intersection of ambition and money. for example in some of the

public corruption cases we brought in albany and elsewhere. different people have different motivations for committing crimes. they are not monolithic era terrorists are engaging in activities for a particular reason. cyber criminals are engaging in their activity sometimes for a completely opposite reason. it depends on the crime. we do a wide variety of things in our office. you cannot generalize. >> marketwatch compare your impressive record of 85 wins to joe dimaggio's winning streak. >> did a little better than dimaggio. >> how hard is it to win 85 straight cases? >> really hard. some people criticized us when we had 85 consecutive convictions. >> because they said you were only choosing the easy -- >> we are cherry picking cases. we do not do that. people who know the office in the history and tradition, know that we are as aggressive as they come. because that is what i think the public wants. that is what i think our job is. one acquittal,he

because that can happen in an american courtroom, the one acquittal puts in perspective how impressive the work of the fbi and the u.s. attorney's office accomplish. it is a big deal. >> did you see it coming? 12 jurors,, any time average americans, get together and agree unanimously on someone's guilt, which more often than not means that person will be separated from his liberty, that is a big deal. so there is no case that we have ever brought where we say it is a slam dunk. it can always go south. we bring the case because we think it is right and we have proof beyond a reasonable doubt. >> some are easier than others, there is more evidence. >> absolutely. but that case is not the most overwhelming case. nor was it the least overwhelming case of the 86. you never know what the rulings will be and what a jury will decide. that's in many ways the glory

of the american system. the firstht to be person to say prosecutorial discretion is a powerful thing. eerie what the government can do when it comes down on your head? >> i agree. is power of the prosecutor unrivaled and discretion is incredibly important which is why we take great care to make sure that we hire people who have not just a smart mind but good character. >> you can take away a person's freedom like that. >> not quite like that. there are a lot of safeguards. but it is true. people often say that a good prosecutor can do more for innocent people in a day than a very good defense lawyer can do over the course of a long period, because prosecutors should be measured not just by the cases they bring but by the cases they do not bring. and people do not know about

this case is because we make decisions every day. >> do you walk away not because you make a decision about guilt or innocence but because you make a decision about whether you have evidence to convict beyond a reasonable doubt? >> you have to believe that you have enough evidence. you have to believe two things. first you have to believe to your core that the person is guilty. then you have to believe you have enough evidence to convict the person beyond a reasonable doubt. you need both wings. the important thing for your compass is to make sure that when you're headed to the pillow at night you are convinced the person you have charged is absolutely guilty of the crime. weighing quantum of evidence is that we should not shy away from cases where we believe the person is guilty and we have a good bit of evidence and we think we can prevail, but it is a tough case. we should be bringing tough cases, as was shown in the 85-1 record. >> even if you believe there is some evidence and you believe that it is not a slamdunk, you ought to go ahead because that

is what justice is about. >> if prosecutors started shying away because they would be embarrassed about losing the case, that would not be good for them, or good for the public or for legitimacy of the system. erodes it in any way your sense of invincibility that you lost a case? >> that is easy because i never had a sense of invincibility. anyone who does does not belong in a particular kind of job. >> is it possible you were overconfident in the case you lost? >> i don't know. i don't think so. you should never be overconfident in any case. i lost cases when i was a prosecutor. so i know. in one of the cases i lost a trial, i had more evidence and i was more confident than i was in other cases, but in no case are prosecutors ever overconfident because the system is you have 12 ordinary americans who sit in the box. they may see things differently. go to permit the

trial than you expected them to go. i hope it is the case that none of my prosecutors go into trial overconfident. you should always have a little bit of self-doubt. lost you analyze when you much more than you analyze when you have won? >> i've never been accused of under analyzing anything. we have a phrase we use in my office. we talk about postmortems. we do postmortems when we win or lose. we will probably do a postmortem of this interview and people will tell me what i should have said and done better. gotten off the stuff that more quickly. it is often the case that prosecutors have overwhelming facts in support of their cases. a funny thing that people say about prosecutors is a lot of people think they are great lawyers, but they did not lawyer as well as the defense but what they had is the facts and the truth on their side. there are a lot of cases that people lose where they loitered it perfectly. it forlawyered

thickly. the reverse is also true. in the case you have referred to, the prosecutors did a terrific job. >> would not have done anything to philly? --anything differently? what is your postmortem on that case? >> you win some, you lose some. we have not finished the postmortem. >> you like the moniker sheriff of wall street? >> is a little bit silly. when i speak to business groups and business students and lawyers who are responsible for policing good behavior, what i would like to say is that aside from the occasional slur by a journalist he calls me a sheriff of wall street and other people have been called to that also, they are really the best sheriffs. it is the general counsel for the ceo of the company who sets the tone or the head compliance officer. not only those people but all the people in the middle regions of the firm and at the bottom of the firm who are coming up are the ones in the best place to

make sure bad conduct is fared it out early in that big problems are discovered early. a lot of pain could've been saved on the part of a lot of people, not on the part -- not by prosecutors -- but by people who were in a position to know that bad things were happening. when you are talking about bernard madoff or the galleon group. or you are talking about penn state. there were lots and lots of people at those places. >> terrorism. you believe and you would like to see, because this came up, shaikh mohammed and others, you terroriststo see prosecuted in district courts. >> is not my decision, but it will be shocking to people given that i'm the u.s. attorney in overseeing a group of civilian prosecutors who argue their cases in civilian court that i think that is a good form. as the attorney general has pointed out, the department and our office in particular has a great track record. year has're at the

gone by where people are awaiting some kind of accountability and families are awaiting closure in another forum in guantanamo bay, terrorist after terrorist has been convicted in the courthouse in my district and in other districts. important for justice to happen in some reasonable time. there is no guarantee in every case, it is not a rich system. -- a rigged system. the track record shows we can do them pretty well and do them in an open way and do them in a way that families appreciate and can get closure on. >> you think it makes a statement to the world, too? >> i think legitimacy is important, and when justice comes on a reasonable time table, that has an effect on how people view the proceedings. >> the fear is that they will use this as a platform and a pulpit to talk about their own ideology. >> no system is perfect in every system has inherent risks.

there are collateral risks. i have not talked a lot about this debate. ho prefer, we are the guys w do our jobs and the prosecutors in my office when people say what about this? they basically say through their work, we are the guys who do our jobs. you must be the other guys. in case after case, i convicted the son-in-law of was, bin laden, and then a few weeks later we convicted a trainer of terrorists out of the united kingdom. we have other cases coming up. there is never any guarantee of how they will turn out. but the track record is really impressive and speaks for itself and quietly they had been getting conviction after conviction. and these other concerns, collateral concerns you mentioned, don't seem to have come to pass. the critics themselves have become a little bit more muted. >> is cyber espionage and cyber crime a rising focus for you and for the justice system?

>> yes. i was saying to somebody recently that there was a conference of -- at another network where people were talking about issues that were important to business and wall street and others, and the secretary of the treasury of united states chose to devote a substantial portion of his address to the threat of cyber crime and cyber espionage. i think former general alexander once talked about the threat of cyber espionage and mostly hacking from china as a time when we are witnessing the greatest transfer of wealth in the history of the world. it is something we should be taking seriously. i think -- the good news is people are taking it more seriously than they ever have before. over the five years i have been in this job, the percentage of resources we have dedicated to it and the fbi and the secret service and all other parts of the government, has gone up not by two folder three fold but by tenfold or more. >> is this the kind of thing where, as fast as you develop security systems, hackers are

developing means to get around them? >> i do not think it is quite -- of that. is an aspect which is why i think law enforcement and intelligence agencies are doing a very good job of stepping up to the plate and making sure we have every ability to stay one step ahead. there are simple things people can do. and they areative sophisticated actors who try to harm financial institutions and individuals and infrastructure. but it is also true that sometimes they are going to the easiest unlocked door. and the companies still are doing a better job than they have been a few years ago, but companies are still not doing enough to prepare against these kinds of attacks. >> it is always with us because of ambition and greed and money. what is your message about corruption? >> to the government, where there are corrupt officials the messages knock it off. it is a simple message. role forhat there is a

lots of folks to play, not just the government, not just prosecutors but the public and the press to make sure they are faring out bad conduct. else, youike anything cannot prosecute your way out of a corruption problem. corruption exists in a lot of places and existed for a long time. it seems to be more severe in the great state of new york than in other places. that is borne out by case after case after case that the prosecutors in my office along with their partners at the fbi and elsewhere have been bringing. so the messages we are going to keep bringing the cases so long as people are acting corruptly. >> is that the reason you criticize governor cuomo for pulling the plug on the moreland commission? >> there was a series of cases my office brought in recent times and after that, there was a big call, which i think was a good thing, a byproduct of cases brought by my office. then there was a call for something more to be done. the commission was set up. with great fanfare because of the cases my office brought a purely. -- apparently.

i testified and talked about the need for independence and the need to go after public corruption in the same way our office had been going after it. after nine months which appeared to be a shorter time than was expected, we understood the commission was being shut down and our interests above all other interests is to make sure the job is getting done because we're the people who do our jobs. we asked for and received, were voluntarily offered all the documents that had been collected by the commission so that the work could continue. because of other people were not going to do it, then we would do it. >> so you're doing it because you have the documents to further the investigations. >> we have the documents and the resources and the wherewithal and the kind of fearlessness and independence that is required to do difficult public corruption cases. >> what do we not understand about the case involving a woman from india, the diplomat, who was sent home? >> i do not know what other people understand or not understand.

that was the case, as people may know, where the state department decided to open an investigation and to open the case because this person had lied about the pay for her domestic worker. according to the allegations -- on an application at the american embassy in india. and claimed that she would obey all of the laws of the united states. had a duplicate contract where those sections were crossed off. instead of paying the prevailing wage which was a requirement of hour, paid less than a buck an hour. the state department got in touch with, because there was a complaint made by the domestic worker, believe the domestic worker. they investigated it, they opened the case and brought it to us and asked us to approve criminal charges. they made the arrests. they made assertions about community. and it was, not the case of the century, again, but an important case.

not every case can be the case of the century. >> there were real protest in india about this, as you know. >> there were. >> that is the reason i said perhaps because of a misunderstanding. that is why as to whether there was some is misunderstanding. >> apart from the merits of the case, the thing i have talked about in recent times was a lot of attention paid to the motivations of the persecutors, and particularly me, because i happen to be indian-american. both the defendant in the case was from india and also the alleged victim in the case was from india. a lot of people got a little bit bent out of shape i suggesting some kind ofe self-loathing person to have authorized that case. i think what people do not understand, not just in this case, but emblematic of a lot of things, they do not understand our office is an independent career prosecutors who work with career agents and whether you're talking about a diplomatic case or the moreland theission or talking about

russian spy case are talking about insider trading cases, no matter what the ethnic origin or background or national origin of the defendants are, we just do our job, based on the facts and the evidence. there is no targeting of anyone based on their ethnicity or racial origin. it does not make any sense. over time, when you have done this for five years, i have been resized for being anti-russian, anti-chinese, anti-latino, anti-democrat, anti-republican, and the point is if every single constituency has had occasion to say your are anti, may be the best conclusion is that we are anti-crime. >> great to have you here. >> thanks a much -- thank so much. ♪

>> welcome to "taking stock. i'm carol massar in for pimm fox. today's theme is rise -- amazon stock is riding low in the after-hours trade after the company reported its biggest orderly loss since 2012. we will dive into the company's numbers. the real housewives tv franchise takes viewers on a wild ride. we will talk to one of its stars. i will sit down with the prsi