>> rose: welcome to the program. we begin this evening with former secretary of defense robert gates on ukraine, russia and putin. >> i think that there is a perception around the world of the u.s. disengaging. i know that the administration makes the case of its diplomatic involvement and how busy it is, how involved it is around the world. but look, the reality is withdrawing from or disengaging from two wars, both of which end without a clear cut victory is a tricky business to avoid giving the impression you're disengaging from the rest of the world. >> rose: we conclude this evening with preet bharara u.s. attorney for the southern district of new york. >> the no case i like to think are prosecutors ever overcompetent. the system is you have 12

americans sitting in the box and they may see things very differently from how you see them. and things may go differently at the trial than you expected them to go. and so i hope it's the case that none of my prosecutors going to trial are overconfident. >> rose: gates and bharara when we continue. >> 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: turmoil around the globe continues with though signs of abating. filing continues in gaza and cease-fire seems elusive and today was the bloodiest day of the civil war. the "new york times" reads crises, cascade testing obama. joining is robert gates he was secretary of defense from 2006-2011 under president bush and obama. i am pleased to have him back on this program. mr. secretary welcome, it's great to have you back. >> thanks, charlie. >> rose: i'm glad to see you without a neck brace. >> absolutely. me too. >> rose: does that mean you're healing well. >> yes, thank you. >> rose: good. i'm sure you had too many people say how could that possibly have happened and what did you say to get beat up like that.

>> well as i learned when i was secretary i ended up being a bigger danger to myself than any foreign threat. >> rose: speaking of foreign threats let's talk about the world today. peter baker had a story in the "new york times" today nurse the headline, crises, cascade and converge testing obama. is this, what kind of test for president obama and what are his choices and how does he meet the challenge? >> i think the problem the president faces is that he faces multiple crises all taking place simultaneously. we have seen periods when there have been multiple events of historic consequence converging before certainly 1989 and eastern europe and the then soviet union and the late 1970s in this country as well as

internationally including the invasion of afghanistan by the soviets. but i think it's hard to find a time in recent decades when more consequential events are taking place simultaneously and frankly events where more than ability to shape outcomes is more doubtful. >> rose: so we're finding limitations to american power. >> i think they've always been there. i frankly thinking we've always or 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's not just israel and the palestinians, it's not just the syrian civil war. you have a conflict between the shi'a led by iran and the sunnis led by saudi arabia yeah.

when solitairians, reformers, secularists, and you have libya to see whether states that are comprised of historically adversarial ethnic and religious groups can survive as integrated states without significant oppression. all these things are going on simultaneously. >> rose: when you say there is a limit to how we can affect the events, in what way can we affect the events and what kind of presidential decision-making does that bring to president obama. >> i think first of all it's difficult for us to try and manager these different kinds of crises unilaterally. it's frankly just, we don't have the tools at our disposal. there are no good military options in any of these crises that i describe. 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, i think has limited options. i think it's in diplomacy certainly, but it is in trying to get the europeans and other 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 and you have others such as saudi arabia supporting the egyptian peace initiative, is there some way we can try and bring all of those countries together. we have pretty good relations with qatar. i think our relationship with turkey, while we've had some troubles, we still have 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 first of all a way to stop some of the violence, whether it's in syria or in gaza. but then see if we can't figure out a longer range approach to trying to deal with these problems. my worry whether it's the ukraine or the middle east is that our focus is so much on a short term solution that we're not thinking about what are the long term, what is the long term potential in terms of trying to present recurrence of these kinds of events as we look ahead. >> rose: are any of these events happening because there are as some other 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 of the u.s. disengaging.

i know that the administration makes the case of its diplomatic involvement and how busy it is, how involved it is around the world. but look, the reality is withdrawing from or disengaging from two wars, both of which end without a clear cut victory is a tricky business to avoid giving the impression you're disengaging from the rest of the world. and when you combine that with cutting the budgets for defense and the state department and the agency for international development, the instruments of american influence. and you have rhetoric about coming home again, about nation building at home. it does give the sense overall of the u.s. pulling back. and i think we can reverse that, but i think that there is that impression out there. but i don't believe it caused any of these particular situations. >> rose: if the impression is there of pulling back, how do we

reverse that? >> i think that first of all it is, there's just nothing and i know that it sounds like i'm arguing parochially for more money for defense, but i think a reassertion of the importance, if diplomacy and soft power if you will are important, then we need to increase the assets that we are applying to those things in our own budget and in terms of the resources that we have to apply. whether it's in egypt or elsewhere. and i think that there's no 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 internationally. >> rose: let me take them one by one. let's go to ukraine first. what do you think happened based on what you know and what you have read, and what should be beyond sanctions the response of the west? >> well, again i think we need to take a step back and look at this from a 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. states on its periphery that look to russia economically, politically and in terms of security. ukraine is the linchpin in trying to put together that kind of band of states.

my own view is that putin won't rest until he can at least prevent ukraine from moving to the west, either with the eu or nato, much less nato. and i think that 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 that there are also other areas on the periphery of russia to be concerned about, but this is his strategy. and we need a long term strategy in terms of how to counter it. and i think that we will get this, we'll have the investigation. my guess is the investigation will show that this was a mistake on the part of the pro russian rebels, that they didn't know they were shooting down a civilian airliner. but the russians neighborhood --

enabled them to do it whether they were standing there helping them pull the trigger remains to be seen. i think the length which putin is prepared to go to try and keep ukraine from sliding to the west. we have to figure out how do we give the ukrainians the economic, political and even military support in terms of helping them improve the quality of their own military to help them counterthat. >> rose: can we simply accept ukraine as a buffer between east and west neither pro russian nor pro west. >> no, i don't think we ought to accept that all. what putin is trying, the practical effect of what putin has been doing over the last several months actually going back going back to the russian invasion of georgia in 2008 is first of all up ending the notion that borders don't get changed in europe except through

mutual consent negotiation that you don't try and fulfill your territorial or claims through the use of military force and that countries have the right post the end of the soviet union to choose how they wish to align themselves politically, economically and in security terms. he's up ending all of that so this is much broader in my view than turmoil in eastern europe or 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 and europe since the end of the cold war. >> rose: do you have a clear view of what president obama's strategy is long term? >> well, i don't have, i frankly don't have a clear sense over 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 strategy to counter putin does require the involvement and the full cooperation of the europeans. and frankly i haven't seen their willingness to step up to the plate to the extent for example that president obama has. you know, the willingness of france to continue to go forward with the sale of these two warships to russia, in light of what's 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. >> rose: has it changed because of the shooting down of that plane as the west and

whether it's germany or the netherlands, france including, realize they have to change and more willing to embrace sanctions that lead them unhappy because it erodes the economic relationship they have. >> clearly there were some additional sanctions considered, and i guess approved by the eu yesterday focused primarily on people around putin and some very limited areas. but in terms of larger sanctions, 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 to what putin is doing and what he has enabled, that message is a

pretty weak one at this point. >> rose: that's the only option we have right now, is it not? >> i agree and think think actually that's one set of options that we have and i think that's necessary. but i think we also ought to be looking at what positively we can do to reinforce the baltic states, to help ukraine, to help some of these other states on the russian periphery. for example, the baltics are completely economically, almost completely economically dependent on russia. the russians can turn the knob on their economies very quickly and very easily. they can launch cyber attacks like they did years ago on alstonia. so can the west build an economic safety net under the baltic states as well as sending planes and things as a gesture of military support but can we build a safety net under those three countries in the west so that if the russians do squeeze the tap shut on them, that they

have an alternative that they aren't required to knuckle under. those are some positive things we could be doing it seems to me to reinforce the states on the periphery of russia that want to be part of the west and in their case are members of nato. >> rose: because of that, aren't we required by treaty to come to their defense? >> yes. that's why i think the russians would be very careful about any military operation in the baltic states because frankly they don't need to. the economic pressure, the economic leverage they have together with their ability to do cyber things and to do some of the co-vert things that they've done that we've seen in eastern ukraine i think is quite real in the baltic states. >> rose: does this seem like the kind of thing that could spiral out of control. >> i think there is a risk. in a way the shoot down of the shooting down of this malaysian air liner is an example of how things can spin out of control.

and how if you give people certain kinds of weapons, you don't have any control over how they use them. and either you don't care or you haven't thought about the consequences. either one of those alternatives is pretty unsettling but i think where it could get most dangerous continues to be in eastern ukraine. >> rose: united states and secretary of state is in the middle east, he's been in cairo, he's trying to negotiate a cease-fire. what are our options there? >> well again, i think that as long as hamas refuses to have any kind of conditions in terms of its behavior and actions towards israel, i think getting the israelis to back off is

pretty unrealistic. as they point out, new sovereign state can allow people just willie nilly to launch hundreds of rockets and missiles into their, into their civil space. and until hamas is willing to back away from that in some way and in some way that's 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 be up root it. my concern is that although not to this extent, we've seen this movie before. and what happens once the israelis are done and they withdraw from gaza? we then have another period, who knows how long, how hamas rearms and will go through the same thing a year or two or three years or whenever. is there a longer term way out

of this. the administration would argue it is and that's an agreement between the palestinians and the israelis. the problem is, which palestinian is israel negotiating with, abbas in the west bank 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. >> rose: who could stop them, the iranian, the qataris the turks? >> well it's not, they've been rearmed by the iranians and by others. i think that, but i do think that if the turks and particularly the qataris weighed in very strongly, that you might have some success. i know that there's a lot of speculation out there about seeing if we can get iran's help, how can we work together with iran and iraq, how might we

work with iran and gaza. i frankly believe that's a fool's errand, i think that iran's agenda in these places is very different from our own and although in some respects our interests may coincide in terms of certainly not wanting to see a spread of isis, this extremist islamic group, the notion that outcomes in iraq that we have a similarity of interests and the outcomes in iraq are just flat wrong. i think working with the iranians, i would be very skeptical of that. but there are other states in the region that i think do have influence on hamas, and the question is, whether that influence can be brought to the point where it gets hamas to make some concessions. >> rose: qatar has more influence, do you think, than most? >> well, i think that, my sense

is that turkey and qatar in particular have some influence there. not entirely clear to me, you know. i've been out of the government now for three years, so i don't have access to any intelligence about who is supplying hamas and so on. but based on what i read, those countries may have, turkey, qatar may have some influence. >> rose: you know people. let me talk about two things that are relevant to this. three things. one is, you essentially agree with the speech that the president made at west point when he essentially laid out his foreign policy strategy and what some called an obama doctrine. >> i wrote in my book that i felt that in recent decades, american presidents had been too willing to reach for a gun to solve international problems and pointed to the role president eisenhower played in an even

more dangerous world in some respects than we face today. and manage to get through a lot of serious problems and resolve some interesting things and some important things without the use of u.s. combat forces. i am, i think that the place where i think i disagree with the president is more in terms of the tone and the approach that we take to the rest of the world. that we are not going to be forceful militarily, that we are not able to provide economic assistance. in other words, it was sort of that the tools, that our toolkit is kind of bare and the result

is we're going to avoid conflict situations around the world. i think that that's a formula for a lot of problems in the future. if people think we're disinclined to get engaged and you don't need to do that by military forces but sometimes deploying them had an important deterrent effect. and i guess i would be more willing to use our forces in that regard and to reassure our allies as well as deter our adversaries and i think you can do that without resorting to bombing people or launching armed drones every time a problem occurs we want to deal . >> rose: that's what the critics said about the president he's allowed perception to develop that you can cross a red line or that he's not presented to engage in a way that would deter. >> i think that, i think that

the failure to enforce the red line in syria a year and-a-half ago was a serious mistake. and i've always been of the view when it comes to u.s. presidents that if you cock the pistol you have to be ready to fire it. and i think the way it happened sent a very strong message around the world and frankly those kinds of impressions are lasting. and when you're the sole super power in the world, particularly in a military sense and you say that if you do something, you will pay the price for it, we will attack you militarily. and then you don't do that, it echos for a long time. >> rose: so what is the president's mind set? why do you think he was the way he is? >> well, i'm the last person o try and put the president of the

united states on the couch and try and divine motives. i think that, my own view is that -- >> rose: let me argue that you're the best person to do that because he trusted you, he admired you, he had confidence in you and he talked about these things with you. so you know his mind better than most. >> well, when i, you know, we, our 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 diverging at that point. i think people under estimate, first of all i think people under estimate the magnitude of the challenges that he's facing

with all these simultaneous crises. second, there are too many people whose idea of solving a foreign policy problem is to go blow something up. and 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. the congress is sick of war and that's true of both republicans and democrats. and the president is trying to figure out how does the united states stay engaged in the world when he's got a public and a congress that is willing to give rhetorical support but certainly not prepared to support military action in any of these places for that matter. my own view is that americans have never been very enthusiastic about military intervention. none of our wars have been very popular. world war ii after we were

attacked at pearl harbor was popular until 1944 when the public began to tire of war. but all the rest of our wars and especially you look at korea and vietnam and so on. so the question is, how does a president real people who has been at war for a dozen or 13 years and convey a message to the rest of the world that the united states is prepared to engage when it sees its interests threatened or the interests of its allies. and i think that's the challenge that the president faces now. and frankly i think his rhetoric has not been helpful in that regard. >> rose: the other thing is joe biden is profiled in this week's "new york" magazine by a very good writer and he talked, the vice president did about you and your, what you said in your

book about him. we have now a duel between gates and biden. have you changed your opinion of what you said in the book that he's been on the wrong side of every major foreign policy decision? >> no, i haven't. and i think that especially applies to the cold war. there was one thing that i said in an interview that i had seen in several places that he had, his comments after the revolution in iran, washington post fact checker couldn't find, they substantiated all the other statements i made that one they couldn't find any substance for and so i could not use it sense. joe in this article says that i was wrong on vietnam. the irony is i opposed the war in vietnam, i wrote about that in my first book, said i was wrong in the balkans. i wasn't in government during

the balkans and i'm not sure i ever took a public position. but the truth is, look, we just, joe and i have a different view of the world. i said in the book he's a fine man. he and i actually agreed on several important things during the obama administration. and i think that, i think getting into this kind of contest between each other is kind of foolish and i certainly don't intend to continue with him. there's no point to it. and frankly, i don't need to because i have no further aspirations. >> rose: i'm not trying to stir the pot but i am interested in clarification. let me quote from biden in this article. gates gets upset because i question the military he says. well i believe now, believed then that washington and jefferson were all right. war is too important to be left to generals. it is not their judgment to make. theirs is to execute. so i think you've seen a president who is loyal and supportive of the military but realizes he's the commander in

chief. i assume you agree with everything he just said, don't you. >> i totally, i totally agree with that and i make the point in my book repeatedly along those lines. and the truth of the matter is president bush disagreed with the military. virtually every war we've fought, presidents have disagreed with the military and more often than not the presidents have been right. it was not the president's exercises his authority as commander in chief that concern me, not in the slightest. and i supported the decisions that he made, including when they did not go along with the recommendations of the generals. the thing that i was critical of was frankly my view based on a lot of information that i had that vice president biden was stoking mistrust of the military. it wasn't the president's mistrust of the military. and questioning their motives. those were the things that i had

a quarrel with, not the fact that the president must be commander in chief and that the civilians run our military. those things, all of those thing i totally agree with and frankly supported both president bush and president obama down straight down the line when it came to differences of view with the military. >> rose: bob gates, thank you. it's a pleasure as always. >> thanks, charlie. >> rose: preet bharara is here, he's the u.s. attorney for the southern district of new york. he's prosecuted some of the nation's most complex terrorism cases. his high profile prosecution of white collar crime have earned him the nickname the sheriff of wall street. he recently suffered his first defeat in an insider trading case after a string of 85 convictions. his office has broken ground in fighting cybercrime which he calls the most burdening problem we need to face. he's also taken on public

corruption bringing cases against numerous new york politicians. and he spoke at this year's harvard law school commencement. here he is, offering advice to the graduating class. >> 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. and 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 handled a small one. they want to try a case before they've argued a motion. they want to be generals before they have been good soldiers. but first, i submit, you have to learn some craft. actually, learn how to practice law in whatever area you first pick. >> rose: pretty good advice, which i agree with you totally. >> i'm glad. >> rose: when you crafted that speech, what were you thinking you had to do?

>> it's tough to give advice to a lot of people who are very smart and are about to be incredibly well credentialed. and think that everyone tells them that they're going to be nothing but successful. future presidents of the united states, future senators, leaders in the practice of law. and in business. so the advice that i wanted to give was advice that was meaningful to me and what i learned. i'm not a very old man but i've been around for a bit. i graduated from law school over 20 years ago. in my experience i think sometime the simplest advice is the best advice you can give, and that is among other things just do your job, keep your head down and good things will come to you if you do that. >> rose: i think you quoted from the movie, did you not. >> very good, i did. there's a great scene in the movie where mark wahlberg is getting yelled by somebody and says who the f are you, i'm the guy that does his job. you must be the other guy.

i always thought that was the excellent advice you be the guy that just does his job. smart people and credentialed people and other says who are going to rise to greatness sometimes forget the most important thing is to focus on the job at hand not thinking about the next job and the next promotion. when i promoted my how was and think about who to put where the person often who gets the call is the person who hasn't begged for it who hasn't lobbied for it or angled for it throughout a long period of time but a person who kept her head down and did a phenomenal job. you got to do your job. >> rose: that was two things. one that was the job they were chosen to do and a job that was important to you to do. >> yes, correct. you know, if people are looking too far down the road right down in front of you. what people expect and i learned this after becoming a manager of several hundred people is you respect people who are consistent every day. and people who are reliable every day. when you're thinking of who to

put on an important matter you want to think about the kinds of people who handled a small matter well and didn't only care we have a headline grabbing cases in their office and throughout the justice department. the people you want to have on the important cases are, were the more headline grabbing cases bottom all the cases are very important. are the ones where no one was looking and there was no fan fare did a terrific job. >> rose: people who want to be lawyers or journalists it's also true about artists. every good artist tells me it's about the work. it's about every day asking questions and making choices about color, about shape, about a whole range of things. >> i think that's true of the law. i think that's true of architecture. all big things are built from small acts and small things. if you don't know that then you've got something amiss in your head. a lot of people make that mistake. people are looking for the big

thing. people talk about derek jeter, right. what's impressive about derek jeter. he has an amazing record but it's the every day, day in and day out never missing a practice never missing a game putting your head down and getting it done. the clip he played was after i talked about a pitcher who pitched a no hurt. perfect game no hurt in the same season a few years ago and the advice that was given to him by the pitching coach was just go out there and try to be good. if you go out there and try to be good you have a chance to be great. and i think that's phenomenal advice. >> rose: that's a great story. let me talk about your job. how do you see your job. i think you once 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. >> i think my job is to oversee a group of the most intelligent 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 a difference in the world, they can make the world a little bit better and a little bit safer and learn some craft along the way. and there's nothing better than working with a group of people like that. >> rose: justice robert jackson said men areqjmore oftn bribed by their loyalties and ambitions than by money, by their loyalties and ambitions than by money. >> 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, it's true. i mean different people had different motivations for communicating their crimes. or not monolithic, terrorists are engaging in activity for a particular reason. cyber criminals are engaging in their activities sometimes for a completely opposite reason. it depends on the crime and we do a wide variety of things in our office and you can't generalize. >> rose: marketwatch you know compared your impressive record

of 85 wins, straight wins to joe demaggio's historic pitching winning streak. >> i did a little bit better than demaggio. >> rose: yes. how hard is it to win 85 straight cases. >> it's really hard. some people criticized us when we had 85 consecutive convictions. >> rose: they said you're picking thes easy one. >> it's appropriately aggressive but very aggressive because i think that's what the public wants and i think th very aggrei think that's what the public wants and i think that's what our job is and our mandate is. in one days acquittal can always happen, the one awe information puts in perspective the work of the f.b.i. and the u.s. attorney office and my career folks accomplish. it's a big deal to convict people like that. >> rose: did you see it come coming. >> as i say any time 12 jurors,

average americans get together and agree unanimously on someone's guilt which more often than not that person will be separated from his liberty that's a big deal. there's no case we've ever brought where we say it's a slam dunk. it can always go south. we bring the case because we think it's right to bring and we have proof beyond a reasonable doubt. >> rose: more proof than others. there's more evidence. >> sure, absolutely. that case was not the most overwhelming case of the 86 nor was the police the overwhelming case of the 86 and you never know how things will play out and what the rulings will be and what the jury will decide. that's in many ways the glory of the american system. >> rose: you ought to be the first person who say prosecutorial discretion, deciding what cases you are going to go after. it's a powerful powerful thing what the government can do when it comes down on your head. >> i absolutely agree. the power of a prosecutor is in some ways unraveled and we take

care of people who have not just a smart mind -- >> rose: you can take away somebody's freedom like that. >> not quite like that because there's a system and there's a defense lawyer and a judge and process and a lot of save guards built into the system. but it's 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 of time. prosecutors should not be measured by the cases they bring but by the cases they don't bring the cases they walk away from. people don't know about those cases because we make decisions every day. >> rose: you walk away not because you make a decision about guilt or innocence but 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 so 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 potentially convict the person

beyond a reasonable doubt. you need both things. but the important thing for your compass is to make sure that when you're headed to the pillow at night you're absolutely convinced that the person you've charged or the person you're considering charging is absolutely guilty of the crime. my point about weighing quantum of evidence is that we should not shy away from cases where we believe absolutely the person's guilty and we have a good bit of evidence and we think we can prevail in the case but it's a tough case. we should be bringing the tough cases as the 85 and 1 record. >> rose: you believe there's some evidence if you believe it's a slam dunk or not a slap dunk you ought to go ahead because that's what justice is about. >> yes and i think if prosecutors started shying away because they're embarrassed about losing a case that was a righteous case to bring it wouldn't be good for them are the public or the law gist -- legitimacy of the prosecutor's judgment. >> rose: are you convinced -- >> i never had e vincibility in

the first place and anybody who does doesn't belong in a particular kind of job. >> rose: is it possible you're over confident in the case that you lost. >> no, i don't think so. look, you should never be overconfident in any case that you bring. 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 was more confident than i was in other cases. but in no case i like to see are prosecutors ever overconfident. the system is you have 12 ordinary americans who sit in the box and they may see things very differently from how you see them. and thing may go differently at the trial than you expected them to go. and so i hope it's the case that none of my prosecutors going to trial are overconfident. you should always have a little bit of self doubt as i also said in the harvard speech. >> rose: do you analyze when you lost much more than you analyzed when you won. >> i never been accused of under analyzing anything. we have a phrase we use in my

office all the time we talk about post mortems, we do them when we are win and when we lose, we do a post mortem of this interview and people will tell me what i should have said and done better in response to your questions and gotten off this topic more quickly but it is often the case prosecutors have overwhelming facts in support of their case. and you know, a funny thing that people say about prosecutors is a lot of people think they're great lawyers. but they didn't lawyer as well as the defense but what they had was the facts and they had the truth on their side. there are a lot of cases that people lose where they lawyered it perfectly. and for reasons outside of the control they lost the case and the reverse is also true. i can tell you in the case that you've been referring to, the prosecutors in the case that are phenomenal job did a terrific job. >> rose: wouldn't have done anything differently. >> i don't believe so, really. >> rose: what's your post mortem on that case tell you. >> you win some you lose some. >> rose: you win some you loose some is the post mortem. >> we haven't finished the pest mortem.

>> rose: do you feel the article on wall street. >> it's a little bit silly. when i speak to business groups and students who are responsible for policing good behavior at firms, what i like to say is aside from the occasionally flourish by a journalist, who calls me the sheriff of wall street and the other people have been called that also, they're really the best sheriffs. it's the general counsel and the company or the ceo of the company who sets the tone or the head compliance officer and 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 who are the ones are in the best place to make sure bad conduct is ferreted out early. i often say a lot of pain could have been saved on the part of a lot of people. not by prosecutors but by people who were in a position to know that bad things were happening. i mean you're talking about the bernard madoff group or the hedge fund or are you talking

about penn state. there are lots and lots of people at those places. >> rose: terrorism. you believe and you like to see because this came up and shaq mahmoud, you like to see them prosecuted. >> i am the u.s. attorney and overseeing a group of civilian prosecutors who argue their cases in civilian court that's a pretty good form. as the attorney general also pointed out the department and our office in particular has a great track record and while year after year has gone by where people are awaiting some kind of accountability and families are waiting some kind of closure in another form, in guantanamo bay, terrorists after terrorists has been convicted in the courthouse in my district and in other districts as well. it's important for justice not only to happen but for it to happen within some reasonable time. there's no guarantee in every

case on a rigged system as we've been talking about for a bit. i think the track record shows that we can do them pretty well and you can do them in an open way and you can do them in a way that families appreciate and can get closure on. >> rose: you're saying that to the world too. >> i think legitimacy is important and when justice comes on a reasonable timetable that has an effect how people view the proceeding. >> rose: as you know fear is on the part of some they'll use this as a platform and a pulpit to talk about their own ideology. >> no system is perfect and they have inherent risks and there are collateral risks to everything. i haven't talked a lot about this debate. we prefer going back to what we talked about at the beginning of the show, we're the guys who do our jobs and the prosecutors in my office when people say what about this, what about that, they basically say through their work we're the guys who do their jobs it must be the other guys. in case after case recently convicted the son-in-law of osama bin laden and a few weeks

we convicted -- who was not just a preacher of faith but a trainer of terrorists out of the united kingdom. we have other cases coming up in the future and there's never any guarantee how they're going to turn out. we've also been talking about. 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 that you mention don't seem to have come to pass and the critics themselves i believe have become a little bit more muted about them. >> rose: the cyber he is -- espionage and cybercrime a focus for you and the justice system. >> yes. i was saying recently there was a conference at another network where people were talking about issues that were important to business and to wall street and others. and the secretary of the treasury of the united states chose to devote a substantial portion of his address to the threat of cybercrime and cyber

espionage. i think former general alexander once talked about the threat of cyber espionage and mostly hacking from china as a time we're witnessing the greatest transfer of wealth in the history of the world. and it's something we should be taking very seriously. i think the good news is people are taking it a lot more seriously than they ever have before. over the five years i've been on this job i think the percentage of resources we've dedicated to it and the fbi and the secret service and all other parts of the government has gone up not by two-fold or three fold but i think tenfold or more because it's important. >> rose: is this the kind of thing where as fast as you develop security systems hackers are developing means to get around them. >> i don't think it's quite sophisticated but there is an aspect to that which is why i think law enforcement and intelligence agencies are doing a good job stepping up to the place and making sure we have the ability to stay one step ahead. the other thing is there are simple things people can do. it's very complicated and

they're very sophisticated actors trying to harm financial in institutions and individuals and infrastructure but times it's true they're going to be the easiest unlocked door. they're 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. >> rose: it is always with us, i assume, because of ambition and greed and money, what is your message to governments about corruption. >> the government where there are corrupt officials the message is knock it off. it's a simple message. i think that there's a role for lots of people to play not just brought keurts but the public and the press to make sure they are ferreting out bad conduct. i think like anything else you cannot prosecute your way out of a corruption problem. corruption exists in lot of places and it's existed for a lang time. it seems to be more severe in the administrate of new york than other places and that's

borne out by case after case after case along with my partners and the f.b.i. and elsewhere have been bringing. so the message is we're going to keep bringing the places so long as people are acting corruptly. >> rose: you said that about governor cuomo -- >> after that there was a big call, a good-bye product good cases brought by my office and there was a call for something more to be done. a commission was set up with great fan fare because of the case my office brought apparently. i testified at the first public hearing of that dmition and talked about the need for independence and the need to be aggressive and the need to go after public corruption the same way our office was going after it. after nine months which appeared to be a shorter period of time than was expected, we understood that the commission was going shut down and our interest above all other interests is make sure the job is getting done because we're the people doing the job. we asked for or received or

ultimately voluntarily were offered all the documents that had been collected by that commission so that the work to continue. because if other people are not going to do it, then we would do it and that's our main mission. >> rose: so you're doing it. >> we're doing it. >> rose: because you have the documents to further the investigation. >> we have the documents and we have resources and the wherewithal and i think the kind of fearlessness and independent unthat is required to do difficult public corruption cases. >> rose: what do we nod -- not understand about the woman from india the diplomat who was sent home. >> i don't know what other people understand or not understand. that was a case as people may know where the state department decided to open an investigation and to open a case because this person had lied about what to for her domestic worker was going to be. >> rose: on an application. >> on an application on an american embassy and claimed laws, all the labor laws and other laws of the united states.

had a duplicate contract with those sections were essentially crossed off. instead of paying the prevailing wage which is a requirement of $9.50 according to the evidence we gathered and that's in the indictment paid i think less than a buck an hour. and state department got in touch with because there was a complaint made by domestic worr believed the domestic worker. they investigated it, they owned the case they brought it to us, they asked us to approve criminal charges. they made the arrest, they made assertions about immunity and it was not the case of the century again but an important case. >> rose: probably the case of the century. >> probably but not every case could be the case of the century. >> rose: there was real protest in india about this as you know. >> there were. >> rose: that's the reason, because of the misunderstanding and that's why i asked you if there was a misunderstanding about it. >> apart from the merits of the case, the thing that i have talked about a little bit in recent time was there was a lot

of attention paid to the motivations of the prosecutors, particularly me, because if you haven't noticed i happen to be indian-american. both the defendant in the case was from india and the alleged victim from the case was the from india and a lot of people bought of got bent out of shape suggesting i must be some kind of slow self serving tenor to authorize that case. i don't think what people understand not just in this case but a lot of things. to understand that our office is an independent office with career prosecutors who work with career agents whether you're talking about the diplomat case or the moreland commission or you're talking about the russian spy case or you're talking insider traiting cases no matter what thate income origin or background or national origin of the defendants are, we just do our job based on the facts and the evidence. and there's no targeting of anyone based on their ethnicity or racial origin. it doesn't make any sense. and over time you've done this for five years, i and my office

have been criticized for being anti-russian, being anti-chinese, anti-latino at times for being anti-democrat, anti-republican and anti-indian. the point is if every single constituency had to say you're anti-that maybe the conclusion we're anti-crime and just doing our job. >> rose: great to have you here. >> thanks so much. captioning sponsored by rose communications captioned by media access group at wgbh access.wgbh.org

>> and by bloomberg. a provider of multimedia news and information services worldwide.

. this is "nightly business report" with tyler mathisen and susie gharib. >> 300% gain, shares of puma biotech blast off nearly