♪ announcer: from our studios in new york city, this is "charlie rose." al: loretta lynch is the 83rd attorney general of the united states, a native of north carolina, graduate of harvard college and graduate school, and a federal prosecutor that rose to be head of the eastern district. she was sworn in a year ago, this week. happy anniversary, welcome to the program. >> thank you.

al: let us start with the issue of crime. this is a national reentry week, where you are trying to help people who get out of prison to have a more productive life. let me just start though, why do we have the highest incarceration rate in the world? ms. lynch: you know, we certainly do have one of the highest rates in the world. it stems from a number of sources. i think we look back at the efforts that were made never truly seeking to reduce violence, to deal with the burgeoning drug problem, particularly in the 1980's and 1990's, and the violence that accompanied them. and what people thought was, a need to appear very, very tough on crime, without thinking through the results of a lot of those actions. we have lived with those results now for several generations seeing the effects of some of , the laws and regulations and statutes that we have. al: was the 1994 crime act bad? that had a lot of attention. in retrospect -- ms. lynch: it did not think

through all of the consequences of what it thought it would do. it was seeking to address the incredible problem of violence accompanying the drug trade, particularly as it grew in our large cities. you had individuals coming from overseas who were part of trafficking. i was a young prosecutor in the 1990's, i remember those days, i think the fault was, the solution crafted in washington could be passed and essentially affect every neighborhood the same way. it just did not. i think many of us who were practicing in that area saw those results soon after that. and realized that if we could in fact use the portions of the crime bill to focus on the kingpins, the large-scale traffickers, it would have a beneficial effect. as it hit the low level, nonviolent offenders -- it was not going to happen that

way. al: bill clinton still says that it actually made the black community safer and murder rates were down. so he said there may have been unintended consequences. but it did some good, too. is that a fair assessment? ms. lynch: it is a mixed bag certainly it was effective when you are targeting those large traffickers, but when you are targeting the people who literally had tons of cocaine in warehouses in the new york area, who were bringing in large amounts by speedboats. it was a very effective tool. when however you are looking at individuals on the street who are peddling the amounts dangerous, yes. definitely something that had to be dealt with. but were they the ones we were looking at and needed to inflict the long-term mandatory minimums. for example, as we look at those efforts can we are looking at ways to ameliorate them. not saying people should be held unaccountable, they absolutely have to be. we have to have individualized

prosecution, individualized looks at this, and really use our resources. al: you have a criminal justice bill sentencing reform that is winding its way through the house and senate, how confident are you, what are the odds, that a bill will pass congress and be sent to the president this year? ms. lynch: it is very positive that this has bipartisan support, that recognizes that many of our states have been great laboratories of criminal justice reform. they have given ideas into this bill also. i think it is an incredibly positive thing that members across the aisle are working together. absolutely, we support their efforts. we obviously are looking to support them as they continue this road. al: a different subject, the apple encryption, two cases so

far, the government has found workarounds. this is only going to increase. the companies are not going to provide backdoors. do you have strategies how this will be resolved? ms. lynch: it is part of a larger conversation, it has to be a national conversation. we have been engaged in discussions for some time, try ing to highlight the services we have. we have to have strong encryption, but about warrant-proof encryption, making sure we strike that right balance between protecting all of our information and intellectual property, and letting law enforcement protect our citizens. al: does it require legislation ultimately? we do not seem likely have made a great deal of progress in the last few months. ms. lynch: the beginning of the debate, people are talking about legislation, certainly looking at whatever is proposed. i think is still requires a national conversation. it still requires participation

of government, tech companies, who have very different positions. al: a really wide chasm, have we? ms. lynch: i don't think we can call it one single chasm. the issue comes up in so many different ways. from a law enforcement perspective, looking for evidence on a device, we are looking for cooperation and help from the tech community in accessing that, as we have been fortunate enough to have in the past. we are now hitting these issues of at what point do the companies feel that encryption -- that they cannot provide that support. we are working on those. and i think that that discussion have to continue. al: it may end up going to the supreme court before it is all over. that brings me to the question i , know you very much want judge garland confirmed, it might not happen after the election.

what are the consequences of an eight-person supreme court? ms. lynch: it is certainly at its strongest with a full complement of jurists, like the ones we have now. certainly judge garland falls into that category, his reputation precedes him as a fair-minded jurist, experienced, outstanding writer, someone who can easily step into the great standards of the supreme court. al: what if he is not confirmed for a while? does it much matter? the lower court ruling that is found, what difference does it make? ms. lynch: we have to look at the institutional difference. we have a system whereby the president makes a nomination, be it other judges or position confirmed by the senate, and there is a process that goes underway. that gets undertaken. and that process is in fact what keeps a whole host of institutions running, not just the supreme court.

we have to be careful not to let those processes grind to a halt. al: do you worry that the court, apart from the garland issue that the court has become, in the public's mind, too politicized. i think the arguments on the immigration case, you are not going to comment on an individual case, but that seemed to be a partisan divide. is there fear the court will lose credibility if it is tossed into this partisan ring? ms. lynch: one of the issues in society, it has been how great institutions like the supreme court have been drawn into that. and i think that every justice on the court works in critically -- incredibly hard to focus on

the important issues before them. and despite who appointed them or what people might think of their affiliation, they work well together. they get along. and i think frankly it is a tragedy of the legal system that people have the view that they are decided along partisan lines. al: on that immigration case you worked for a president, in this election year critics say he has engaged in unprecedented overreach on executive action, immigration, environment, this is a reckless abuse of executive power. what is general lynch's answer to that? ms. lynch: in the immigration case, when the president has acted with executive power, he has done so after careful review of the law of precedent. we will see what the court says, obviously abiding by the supreme court, working within it. that is our system. we have the utmost respect for the court. but with respect to those actions, this administration and

the president look at legal precedent, congressional precedent, before they take that action. al: you are a proud native of north carolina. your state has been embroiled in several controversies lately. one of them recently, a federal judge upheld what i think would be called crackdowns on voting procedures in that state. a couple of questions. one, is the justice department going to appeal that decision? ms. lynch: well obviously, we thought the law set up in mpermissible voting blocks, reduced registration as well. al: will you appeal the decision? ms. lynch: we are looking at that decision carefully. we have not made a decision yet. what it really portends is the

larger issue of voting rights in this country. since the shelby county decision, which did strike down portions of the voting rights acts, we have seen a number of states change voting laws. we will still use every tool to look at every provision of the voting rights act to make sure that the path to the voting ballot box is clear and free and open for everyone. it does raise significant concerns for us. al: do you think the north carolina law is intended, aimed at african-americans to disenfranchise, make it harder to vote? ms. lynch: you have to look at a host of things there, not just the intent but the impact of the laws, as well. particularly, if there is not a need shown for the particularly harsh laws. any high level of voter fraud shown, you have to look at the impact there. not just on minorities, but

elderly individuals and students. al: doesn't it disproportionately affect minorities? ms. lynch: we have had that view certainly in the texas litigation. we did prevail on that view initially. and actually later in that case as well, where we see that in particular, that is an area of great concern for the justice department. these laws have the possibility of accessing a lot of groups which is not what this is about. al: among the controversies in north carolina, they passed a law that would prevent local governments from an acting anti -- enacting anti discrimination laws and they described what kind of bathrooms transgender people can use.

our justices looking at if they will possibly challenge that law? ms. lynch: we are certainly monitoring that. the state legislature is looking at the law, so we're looking to see what, if anything, they do to modify, change, or repeal it. we are monitoring the situation.ould let it play out in north carolina, before getting involved? ms. lynch: i think they are looking to modify or repeal that law, whatever steps they take a we are monitoring. al: are there constitutional issues? ms. lynch: in whatever state it will remain, whatever situation it implicates, and however it is crafted, we look very carefully to see that if it impacts the constitution or the federal statutes? al: general, you do not comment on specific cases. i know that. there is a very important investigation into hillary clinton's use of a private e-mail server when she was secretary of state, whether that violates any classification laws. she is almost certainly headed for the democratic nomination.

the election is less than six months away, a little over six months away. does the fbi over to the voters -- owe it to the voters to reach a decision quickly? ms. lynch: you started that question with my answer. but you raise an important issue about how we actually conduct investigations of all types of cases. i think it is important that the american people know that this matter is being handled like any other matter, handled by the independent lawyers and agents who look at the facts and evidence, coming to a recommendation on it. and we handle it that way because it have to be treated -- because it has to be treated

that way. people have to have confidence that we treat every case the same, no matter whose last name is involved, no matter how much publicity is involved. al: a person who might or might not be president of the united states, isn't time of the essence? and don't you owe it to the american people to come up with a decision soon? ms. lynch: we have to be full thorough, and fair. we do not make predations of -- predictions on the time because that will essentially cut off the independence of that. we do not predict the timing of any of our matters. al: have you talked about it with the fbi director? i am not going to get an answer, i have tried. let me talk about the generic issue of classification. the violation is intent, as it was in the david petreus case? or is it gross negligence?

what is the standard, what is the test? ms. lynch: we received an inquiry into the handling of classified information particularly people no longer in government, as the weather in -- as to whether it was properly or improperly handled. that is a security review. we get a number of situations, that was the genesis of this matter. so, beyond that i will not comment on the specifics. but to say that we do look at the issues presented. but as i said before, we look at them thoroughly and fairly and independently. al: i understand. leaving aside this case, and you have had other cases, not while you were general but john deutch, david petreus, what is the standard? is it intent, gross negligence? or is it something else? ms. lynch: every case, it just depends on how it comes up. every case is different. it really depends on the facts of every particular case. al: there was a lot of damage

caused by the economic cataclysm of 2006, 2007, 2008. in the eastern district of new york, you certainly saw that. does it bother you that no one from wall street has gone to there was 1000 people that went to jail. this is far worse. ms. lynch: it was a far ranging effect. you are right. this was systemic, long-term damage. that is why the department has taken a systemic, long-term approach to that. i get this question a lot why , has no one gone to jail? i remind people of the over 4000 people in the financial industry who have in fact been indicted and prosecuted, and in fact most of them gone to jail over matters arising of the failure. not just in terms of what we saw in 2008, but the failures that were uncovered and revealed of the malfeasance, the way people were mishandling investor money

misleading clients. so there in fact has been -- al: you know what i am saying you hear this from everybody from bernie sanders to donald trump, that main street got -- mainstream got clobbered. the big guys paid some fines but they can afford it. it is kind of back to business as usual. that is an exaggeration, i am sure. but that is public perception. and the statute of limitations is running out. ms. lynch: it is the perception. i will say again that it does not take into account the work that has been done in this area, this field. certainly when i was a prosecutor in brooklyn, when i came back to the department in 2010, involving people who defrauded people literally out of their life savings, who went after groups of individuals based upon one person, making inroads into the community or into the law enforcement communities, taking the life savings, there were cases all over the country.

they did not get the attention that the whole crash data. -- crash got. that is somewhat unfortunate because those are very real cases and victims who truly suffered in this. and in everything one of those -- and in every one of those cases the aim was to bring , justice to the victims. al: another subject is terrorism. what are you seeing in terms of americans trying to travel to or return from the syria and iraq battlefield? ms. lynch: we saw an uptick over the last two years, a number of americans that were increasingly younger. and they also included young women, who were seeking to travel overseas to syria to join isil or some connected organizations. they wanted to join the fight in general. those numbers have gone down a bit in terms of what we are seeing. we have done over 80 cases involving these individuals. we do prosecute them when we have the evidence. we do take this extremely

seriously. while the number of individuals trying to leave the u.s. is down, it is increasing certainly from other countries. the concern that we have however is, as the terrorist threat has morphed, the danger from the homegrown extremists, those who become radicalized usually online, usually from information that has been there for years, and that isil is still feeding to propagate their views. those individuals, for whatever reason, are susceptible, for whatever reason are drawn to the extremist view, the extremist ideology, are isolated or vulnerable or cut off from family connections, at the behest of these online urgings that is a concern of ours.

that is what we are seeing in the u.s., certainly in some of the cases that have recently come to light -- san bernardino for example. and others that have been prosecuted. and so, that is where we see a concern that we have. because obviously those individuals leaving syria fight -- find it much easier to get into europe and propagate those larger, well-planned attacks there. al: let me ask you a final question. there was partisan rancor over your appointment. as there is over most things these days. how are you getting along with republicans? ms. lynch: the mutuality of thought on those issues has been refreshing to see and it has been very good to work with. we look forward to more like that. al: attorney general loretta lynch, thank you so much for joining us. ♪

♪ charlie: phil knight is here. in 1962, he was a stanford graduate. and he had a crazy idea. he wanted to import low-cost running shoes from japan. 50 years later, that crazy idea is now known as nike the largest sporting goods company in the world, topping $30 billion. it it has become one of the most recognizable brands in popular culture, and sponsors some of the most elite athletes. he will step down in june.

lls us stories of his early days in a memoir called "shoedog." phil: it is great to be here. i was last year -- here in 1994. if i come back 100 years later -- charlie: deal. it has been a remarkable life. phil: it certainly has. charlie: how do they convince you to write a book? phil: i finally decided myself. i had been asked several times over the years, and i never had any interest. i finally got to the point and i said, someone is going to write the narrative of my life. it should be myself. better to do it now. absolutely, going through the process, not sure it is the right conclusion. it is what i concluded. charlie: why did you call it,

"shoedog?" phil: "shoedog" is certainly a person dedicated his life to shoes. charlie: you have always had the same uniform. phil: it is a newer jacket. and a nike fuel band that keeps me active. charlie: what does it do? you look at your arm. phil: it tells me how many steps i take during the course of the day, let me know if i hit my goals. charlie: nike is more than a shoe company. phil: it is. it is a company that provides inspiration, innovation for every athlete in the world. that is our goal. charlie: those advertisements we just saw, are they inspired by you personally? phil: no, i would definitely say not. although, sort of the culture of the company remains today, and it kind of grew out of the

relationship between me and bill, we have fingerprints on that. he is my coach and co-finder. charlie: tell me about it. phil: wonderful man. very hard to describe. kenny moore wrote the best book on him, 420 pages, but he still did not capture the man. he had so many different parts of him. i like to say that describing bill bowerman is like trying to describe an elephant. it was really what day you caught him on, that is how you describe him. charlie: what did he mean to you? phil: everything, basically a second father, and inspiration to me. a strong disciplinarian on me, until the day he died. charlie: here is what is interesting. michael jordan, all of the things he did not do, the many times he was not interested with -- was entrusted with the ball and missed. not many -- not how many he

scored or wins, what is the point there? phil: the point is try, try again. in the advertisement you ran the inspiration on two of them charles barkley and michael jordan, came from them. it was their idea. that is one of the things we have tried to do, get to know the athletes. win their hearts, and their feet. sure, that is where comes from. charlie: understanding their heart is understanding their performance. like tiger. whatever the question was, you did not know, but you knew tiger. phil: he is listening to his father, listening, not answering. charlie: speaking of tiger, you have been so good to him. he has been good to you. there is talk he may come back to the u.s. open. what do you think? phil: i do not know for sure. but if i was betting, i would bet he does.

i know he wants to play. he has been starting to hit the ball. and i would be surprised if he did not enter tournaments sometime in the middle of may. charlie: before july, or whatever it is. what is your best analysis of what happened to his game? phil: oh, my goodness. do you play? charlie: i do. phil: it is a terrible game. charlie: phil mickelson said, at his best, no one was as good as he was. phil: the best. golf gets away from you. nobody owns it, you just lease it. he was working to get pressure off of his body. it took a while with the swing changes to get in the groove and his body began to break down. and that is

in 25 words or less -- charlie: do you think his body -- phil: i will say this, he worked as hard as anybody. if anybody can do it, he can do it. i certainly hope he does. it is really interesting, that for the masters tournament, i was just down there, the ratings for the tournament were off about 29%. which shocked me, you had the big four going against each other. i thought that would create interest. rory mcilroy, rickie fowler, the big four. without tiger, they were way down. charlie: he shows up, the ratings go up. what is that? it is simply the charisma of performance that he once had? is it simply that he is one of the huge celebrities in the world today? phil: i think all of that. it was not just that he won, but the way he won. he was never out of it.

he could come back seven back, he could it was just that he had the sense of drama and spectacular is him in his game. charlie: there was a sense that if he was leading on sunday, he would win on sunday. phil: that is correct. his father once said, if you watch tiger woods, he said this right after we signed him, he would hit one shot during four rounds that you cannot believe. i thought his father was exaggerating a little bit. but if he was, it was just a little bit. charlie: he had a huge impact. who has had a big impact on you, other than bill? phil: obviously, my own father. which i talk about in the book and bill bowerman had a big impact. charlie: and your sons? phil: that is in there. the band of brothers, the five of us together, you could say that had an impact. charlie: how so?

phil: we did it together. that is what the book is about. charlie: when they would talk about an entrepreneur, that was you. phil: on the first day of my entrepreneur class at stanford my professor talked about that versus the scientific side. when we had a conference, they break for lunch, and they go off for themselves. that is me. [laughter] charlie: what else defines you and your success? phil: oh, i think persistence and love for what i was doing. i was never going to give up. that was a big part. charlie: but also, there is a wonderful quote that you have. basically, i think, something to the effect, you will know instantly, all of the possibilities that we do not know everything.

someone who is an expert sees very few possibilities. that is true. when you are young, putting shoes out there in plymouth valley -- phil: the babe magnet. [laughter] charlie: you saw no argument that he would not build a great shoe company. phil: i thought we could succeed. and i thought that in that class, that seem a lot of companies start from the beginning to become great, i thought that is what we would do. charlie: you had a mortgage on your house, wife, three-year-old kid that might make you careful. but you are not careful. phil: i was not careful. i had a dream. i was going there. charlie: with all of this money, which you are giving away, really wonderful -- the largest donation to stanford, $400 million. and the university of oregon, do not tell.

michigan or elsewhere. but at the same time, do you still have dreams? with all the money, fame, the success? phil: yeah, you never want to give up on those. i hope i never give up on those. i still have great aspirations for the company itself. that is my real novel, my real painting. i will step down this year, but i am not going anywhere. i will keep my office. well, i think it is a lot better to step down as chairman or an officer of the company two years too early then late. i want to be ready, and i will be around. i will still have a lot of other projects. charlie: a global ambassador for nike? phil: i will still put my hand

in, where needed. charlie: whose decision was the swoosh? phil: we had to have something in a hurry. charlie: like a diamond? what was your thoughts for the company, what it should be? phil: we had two things we have to do. we made the transition from tiger to nike, we had to come up with a logo for the side of issue. we don't have time to research what is a good brand name, but we will make it do something. we had a hat that went out to the employees, my name was dimension six. i was not great enough to pick a good name. but i did not pick my name. [laughter] jeff johnson, and after everybody with her name in, we did not have a name. he said i have nike.

especially me, not a eureka moment. there are a lot of bad names in there, i guess this is best we could do. charlie: what has been the hardest part? phil: you know, we had a lot of difficult moments. i suppose there are several down moments in the history of the journey. but the one that comes to mind the most is when i got kicked out of the second bank, and they told me i no longer had a bank. they said we are so far over drafted we had to notify the fbi. they told me that at 5:00 on friday. what will happen on monday? charlie: what did happen? phil: the fbi never did anything. the bank was repaid instantly. we got bailed out by a japanese trading company, not a well-known company in the states, but it was the six-largest company in japan.

they were wonderful with us, really helping us through the early years. charlie: still an affinity with japan? phil: totally. the company started there, had financing, i like the food and the scenery. charlie: there is also been enormous advantages you have had, in terms of timing. you came in -- your timing was exquisite. phil: there is no planning that. charlie: you experienced it as a runner. phil: exactly right. right after we came into business selling running shoes the running boom happen. we know fitness activity physical activity will grow as far as that goes, we had no idea the running movement was around the corner. that was a big help. charlie: and a college player from north carolina. phil: that came shortly thereafter. in 1984, i will never forget it. charlie: tell me about it. phil: obviously we were selling

a lot of basketball shoes. we do not have a marquee name. we had good players, but no great players. he was the ncaa player of the year and had a really dynamic game. and so we focused in on signing him for endorsement agreements. so, he had never worn nike shoes. we were fairly new. we had to sell him on ourselves. we had michael and his parents come out, and spent three days romancing him as hard as we could, telling him we would build a special issue. we made the sale. that became air jordan, which took us to another level. and consumer identification, everything, we got helped a lot because the first air jordans, we wanted people to notice them. we made a real dramatic color, black and red and real flashy. we were not the official shoe of the nba. david stern banned our shoe.

he ran an advertisement, band in the nba. charlie: and they still sell. phil: more now, them when he was playing. charlie: how do you explain that? phil: it was so successful wheeled with a became a brand. you have kids now that have never seen him play, that do not know who michael jordan is. charlie: what do they expect from air jordans? phil: top-of-the-line. he was the best player in the world. and we want to have the best products and advertising carrying over into the brand. charlie: is it a tough negotiation with these guys? they are in the driver seat. he is, roger federer, he is. phil: those guys, in some cases, it was an intense negotiation. but after things get going well, renewal is much easier.

renewals are easy. the original negotiation can be difficult. ♪

charlie: how much do you pay college coaches? what is the most expensive deal you have? phil: i would not explain what it is.

but a good basketball coach will make -- charlie: $8 million or $10 million? phil: there is no one on the payroll paid a million dollars. it is less than that. charlie: what do they give you for that? phil: identification of them and the team. charlie: they all wear nike shoes? then they make the decision? phil: right, usually. sometimes it is the athletic department deal with the university. they do it for all the sports -- football, baseball, track. some cases basketball. charlie: do you worry that jordan spieth is not at nike? phil: we have never, ever had everybody. all the good ones in any sport. we are used to that. i would go on -- as i explained in the book, magic johnson will

never make it in the nba. how good is that? [laughter] charlie: a guy with a magnetic personality. phil: absolutely. we own converse now, but we did not when they signed magic johnson. he could have been michael jordan. charlie: in terms of endorsement. and he wasn't because? phil: the speaker endorsement never promoted him properly. can you remember a converse advertisement for magic johnson? charlie: no, but i will tell you what. magic is a great entrepreneur. and so was michael, in a different way. but magic has businesses all over the country. they could've made a real difference in his life. phil: yes, i will agree with you on that one. [laughter]

charlie: you have said that it is not that i have to win, but i hate to lose. phil: just a little emotion. i hate to lose. i take it personally, i take losses personally. charlie: how do they affect you? phil: not well. charlie: do you go into depression, skulk around? phil: i have lost enough, so i am better now. but as i explain in the book when they did not wear the shoes at the olympic games, i turn on the lights off in my den and did not come out. i knew it was over. [laughter] charlie: what did you do? what opportunities have you missed? phil: oh, we did not get into that too much, but we basically did not get the aerobics boom. we missed it.

charlie: how could you? phil: we were still a fairly young company. part of the thing was that it came in a hurry. and then reebok beat us to that. they came out with issue that befuddled us, for lack of a better word, the shoe tore apart early. they were so soft, but it was contrary to what our whole mission was. but we finally worked around with leather manufacturers and got something that was a soft leather. charlie: did you miss something opening with under armour? phil: i do not know. as you asked that question, i cannot think what comes to mind. we will always have a competitor. so, i cannot say what we missed. charlie: gave them an opportunity. phil: they are a good competitor. charlie: japan, you're also

fascinated with how they began to compete with germany, in terms of cameras, in terms of athletic shoes, in terms of cars. what was it about that culture that you learned? phil: there again, 25 words or less, it is a unique culture. the first am i went there, the only foreign country i have been there before was canada. it was an eye-opener. as i say, within a couple of days, i began to like it a lot. but it is a unique culture, that i know -- they had a manager in the portland office that got sick. he was in his 60's. he did not want the home office in tokyo to know about it because he thought he would get called home at his income of be reduced. he asked everybody in the office to hide the fact to his

superiors. we knew it, they know it, tokyo never knew it. we will band together. that is a big part of the culture, some of the reasons they have succeeded. but have also kind of failed because the economy is kind of failed, because maybe they have basically had some bad governments. charlie: anything in terms of the life you live that you have missed? with all of his success, i should've spent more time doing this? phil: yeah, sure. you wish you spend more time with your family and kids. i would bet you would say that. as i said, they never as the unsuccessful businessman that question. charlie: on the other hand, they say that nobody ever dies saying they would more time at the office. phil: but as far as my journey i would not change places. charlie: here is what surprises me.

we talked ab you were not that immersed in advertising and marketing. i would have thought -- if someone said to me, what is phil's genius, i would have said he understood marketing, identity of brands, that kind of thing. i thought that was right down your sweet spot. and it is not. phil: particularly, advertising. i think that is fair. it is interesting, on the advertising part, when i met dan in 1988,-i hate advertising. he said this will be interesting. [laughter] charlie: why did you hate it? phil: when you see the advertiser, does mickey mantle really smoke lucky strike cigarettes? what many call fraudulent ads. that really helped the relationship, helping to get what real consider real ads,

that really reflected who the athlete or nike was. when we won an award at the advertising festival, i stood on stage and reminded him about how i hated advertising. dan said the same thing. we hate traditional advertising. charlie: criticisms. one, and you feel strongly about this and write about this, conditions in the factory were not as good as they could've been. you argue they were a lot better than when we got there. that is not the essential argument, but should you have paid more attention and done more? phil: in retrospect, yes. we made mistakes early on, particularly responding to the criticism, that the ceo -- charlie: how would you describe your attitude? was it petulant?

phil: a little bit in the sense that they were criticizing our factory. the princes and really more industry-wide, but we took the brunt of it. our shoe factories they were as good as any in the industry. the industry was kind of behind the times. we needed to take a leadership role, frankly i believe we have. but they were not at the time. and the response should have been that way. but it was not. it was little bit teenage-y. charlie: there is still a factor of life, where you are so simply different -- why can't you manufacture shoes in america? phil: that day will come. it is a very labor-intensive business. and shoe manufacturing and apparel manufacturing and toy manufacturing are all part of the needle trade.

what companies beginning industrialization need to do. the low labor companies have an advantage in that. and those industries are really not the stuff of a mighty industrial nation. it is more cars, airplanes computers, those types of things. but i do think the day is not far off when it will be much more automated, and a some of that manufacturing will come back. charlie: robotics, looking down the role of technology, almost every company will have to be a technology company. phil: that is very well put. charlie: what else do you see, in terms of the dynamics of change affecting your company? phil: well, i think the only constant obviously is change. it will always change. i say enough of a good thing more and more people being active. charlie: one of the things

people expect is that there will be a premium on leisure time. with more and more technology, automation, robotics, people are going to find themselves with more free time. and how is it going to be interesting for them? phil: well, yeah, i think for our business obviously, more and more people will become more active. basically, physical fitness is as important as eating and sleeping. you see that now. running in central park. you will see more of that. charlie: are you doing that? phil: i ran, i am such a slow runner, it is a walk. it keeps me fit. that is right. charlie: there is also this about you, this great story -- i can't remember -- you went to the theater to see that movie that morgan freeman and jack nicholson made about the bucket list. you walk out of the theater.

and you know that you're a changed man in terms of how you will think about the future. phil: yes, some of that in there. but it was compacted, that as i walk out in the lobby, there is bill gates and warren buffett at the same movement. charlie: clearly, you thought, they have done everything. phil: what got me thinking, what i wanted to do, and it led to a book. charlie: philanthropy. the largest donator -- and they have very wealthy people out there -- i'm sure somebody will come along the tech guys are making and make you proud. all for the same reason. a lot to oregon. are you going to give it all away? phil: not all of it, but way more than half. some of it will be in a foundation after my death.

charlie: that means that you are on the list that warren and bill are on? phil: i said i would do have. i am not signing it. charlie: what did they do to sell you on the idea? phil: i just want to do it my way. you know, i suppose that is part of my personality. charlie: it is not so much they want to hold onto it. you do not want to hold onto it. but you want to decide -- they will not force you how to give away. this just asking you to give away more than half of it. it is a pledge, the giving pledge. phil: i understand. charlie: i cannot change your mind here. phil: i will give it away. charlie: your independence? phil: i think that is probably true. you would be a good shrink. [laughter] charlie: i do it every night. phil: i guess you do, i guess

you are. charlie: most of it is medical and education? phil: medical and education. charlie: on your bucket list what remains? phil: i have high hopes for nike. my son is very active in an animated movie studio. charlie: the book is called "shoedog," about the greater of nike, phil knight. phil: my pleasure, hope to see you in 20 years. [laughter] ♪

let's begin of your first news. an attack on a hospital in afghanistan that left 42 people dead occurred because of the rules of engagement and the laws of armed conflict were not followed according to the head of the u.s. central command. >> however, the investigation did not conclude that this amounted to a war crime. war crimes is reserved for intentionally acts, targeting civilians or intentionally targeted protected objects or locations. mark: it comes days after another hospital run