for carlie rose on assignment. in a week when hillary clinton has locked up her party's nomination, we begin tobt with a look at this year's presidential election. i'm joined by political strategist anita dunn and vin weber. >> the discrediting of the two parties which precedes the campaign, almost, is a very big deal and that brings into the ime the whole two-party system in my judgement. i think within the republican party quite yonld the offensiveness of donald trump, the shift on some big issues like immigration and maybe even more importantly trade indicates you got a different kind of republican electorate than you've had before. and bernie is not going to win the nomination but he's changed-- he has mobilized a substantial con stit-- constituency on the left side of the democratic party which changes the democratic

party. so i think those things plus the fact that trump shows you don't have to run a conventional campaign if you can communicate in this environment shows politics can change a lot. >> we continue with norm ornstein from the american enterprise institute for a look at the 114th congress. >> we're headed for continuing rocky times. and that's true even if we show see a sweeping victory for one party that gives them complete control, would happen far more likely with democrats, but it's not likely. we're likely to have divided government for a significant period of time to come. and the parties each have their struggles. but the divisions across those lines are deep. >> we conclude with charlie's conversation with ezra edelman, marcia clark and carl douglas. they discuss a new documentary on the o.j. simpson trial, o.j. made in america. >> it is unfair since i never met o.j. but i came to, and you know this, charlie, like o.j.

reputationally had a reputation of not being a good actor. in hollywood. there is a reason why his career dried up. after spending two years thinking about o.j., watching footage of o.j., putting this whole thing together, i've come to the conclusion i think o.j. simpson is the greatest actor in american history. cumentary when we continue. >> funding for charlie rose is provided by the following: >> and by bloomberg, a provider of multimedia news and information services worldwide. captioning sponsored by rose communications from our studios in new york city, this is charlie rose.

good evening. i'm al hunt filling in for charlie rose who's on assignment. we begin tonight with politics. donald trump and hisry-- hillary clinton barring some unfore seeable act will face off in the presidential general election. clinton sewed up the nomination this week and last night won a big victory in california. she'll be the first woman presidential candidate of a major political party. >> and it may be hard to see tonight, but we are all standing under a glass ceiling right now. (cheers and applause) >> thanks to you, we have reached a milestone. first time-- the first time in our nation's history that a woman will be a major party nominee-- (cheers and applause) >> bernie sanders, however, has not bowed out yet. he will meet with president obama tomorrow.

donald trump who sealed his nomination a month ago won all five republican primaries last night. >> we're only getting started and it's going to be beautiful. remember that. tonight we close one chapter in history and we begin another. you have given me the honor to lead the republican party to victory this falling. >> trump also got in hold water this week over his denones yaition of a federal judge overseeing a fraud case against trump university. trump said the judge was biased because of his mexican heritage. the judge was born and raised in indiana. house speaker paul ryan called trump's remarks racist. >> we are joined by two of the smartest political strategists in america, able partisans but not associated with either presidential campaign. anita dunn was a top official in barack obama's 2008 campaign and then in the white house. she has been a leading strategist in the democratic campaigns dating back to bill

badly. vin weber a former congressman from minnesota was cochair of the john mccain and mitt romney presidential campaigns. this year he was a top advisor to jeb bush. welcome to you both. >> great to be here. >> thank, al. >> let me just start off, this is the beginning of the general election, i suppose. there is a d.c. primary next week but we really-- it's in full circle now. what are the odds going in, anita? >> well, i think dem graphically hillary clinton has always had an edge in this race in the general election that the last two elections have shown us that the republican party needs to broaden its coalition. they nominated probably the worst possible candidate for doing what they need to do and as a party they know they need to do it but it's going to be a close race because this is a closely divided country. i don't think the clinton campaign has ever been under any illusion that this was going to be a blowout or something easy. it's going to be tough and they're running against a candidate who doesn't play by

conventional rules. >> vin. >> i agree with anita. i would add another point which is kind of the other side of the argument. her point about the demographics and electoral college is right on target and that is what gives the democrats an edge. the republican argument which is not the same as the trump argument is that people are disinclined to have the same party three terms in a row. and we know that that is the case and the polling bears out that this is really not an exception to that. although the presidential arrival rating has been rising which helps a little bit, there still is a predisposition to want to switch horses after or switch parties after a couple of terms. so you kind of weigh those two things and i think at the end of the day anita's argument holds because the republicans have nominated a candidate who cannot begin to erode that demographic advantage that the democrats have particularly with asians and hispanics. >> one more question i will turn to anita on that, did you take any solace from his speech last night where he read from a tel

prompter and he didn't-- any anybody. >> for this reason, if donald trump could give a speech from a tell prompter and be compelling, i would say wow, there say new model thasm will work for him, that is what he is going to do. he was not compelling. >> that's the problem. >> he was to use a trumpian phrase, low energy. and he gets that better than s worked for him up to now and that is when the risks return. >> take off that democratic hat, put on the republican hat, we'll let you take it off. what would you advise him right now. >> it's fascinating. d by doing it his way, writing. his own rules and not backing down. when he goes out there so something totally outrage us. it's been a pattern of his. he doesn't back down. after four or five days he might go on to another topic but he's not backing down. al, you know, i've worked for a lot of insurgents in my life it is really hard when you actually

win to sit around and say okay, well, we were smarter than all you guys, we just won. we just beat you and now we're supposed to listen your advice and bring you guys in and let you basically run their campaign. that is a very difficult thing. by if i were advising donald trump what i would say is a general election is a totally different proposition from a primary. and you ran a great primary campaign in the sense that you won. but a general election is very d that would be the beginning of the conversation. >> he says he can change the electoral map, he even mentioned california which i done think anyone believes but he said places like pennsylvania and wisconsin and michigan. he's going to put those in play because of his unique appeal. does that worry you? >> well, actually as i recall, those of the republican nominees from 20008, 2012 said something similar at the beginning of their general elections.

pennsylvania is the great republican, it's kind of that white whale out there. it's just a-- you know, but i do think that trump's challenge, and it's a huge challenge, is to basically get voters who normally don't participate to turn out. okay, because the sort of universal. >> the white working class voters. >> people who support donald trump, the universe of registered and likely voters is a pretty set universe. and she leads him. and i don't see a lot to change that dynamic. so trying to change the electoral map means going out and trying to get people to participate who haven't participated in the past. that say difficult thing to do. story they put out.the kind the increased turnout in republican primaries was not primarily new voters flocking to the republican party. they were largely, general election voters who usually

didn't vote in primaries but this time give trump credit. they did get motivated enough to turn out in the primaries. but they're not new voters that wouldn't have showed up on general election day anyway. if they weren't young people, they weren't minorities, they weren't voters that the republicans have been struggling to improve with. they are typical republican voters but not typically primary voters with. >> some strategists said he has to get the reagan democrats. that is a problem, the reagan democrats became republicans. >> thank you, ronald reagan. that is the base, that doesn't add to the base. how about his running mates, will that be important, will that send a signal or do you say donald trump is such a unique figure he doesn't, you know, really listen a whole lot of people, it's not going to matter. >> i don't think a running mate carries you a state or a demographic group. i think that it does bear on the judgement of the candidate. i think people who are trying to assess donald trump will factor that in appropriately. if you pick somebody that you respect and you think well of,

you think wow, he made an important decision, i think better of him because of it. >> without would you say would deliver that for donald trump? >> i don't know. he's talked about bob corker who i have great respect for. he would do a lot of good things. he's highly regarded. he's a strong foreign policy leader, as chairman of the senate foreign relations committee and he would compensate for what is viewed as a real weakness on trumps part on trying to deal with international relations. he would probably do that well there are a number of other people, john kasich would be an ideal, i don't think kasich is even going to endorse donald trump, that is part of the problem. some of the people that would be the betion on the ticket are not likely to want to serve it. rld for speaker gingrich whohe is one of the smartest people and very insightful people. but yeah, sure, that wouldn't be bad. >> the decision for trump is incredibly important because to the extent there are voters out there who are saying i don't want to give the democrats

another term because the country wants to change. we just really like to change after eight years or i'm not that wild about hillary clinton but i'm really supernervous about donald trump. i would like to see who he surrounds himself with. it was the same thing, people said you know, let's see if he puts good people around him. that person knows what he is talking about. okay, i feel reassured about him. so i think that this decision for trump is a huge one. i think much more important for him than hillary clinton. because nobody questions her qualifications, her knowledge, her experience or her readiness to be president. >> let's turn to hillary and also the libertarian candidates. one more question on trump. do you expect to see other prominent politicians follow mark kirk, lindsey graham who said he's not going to vote for him, susan colins says she probably won't vote for him. will we see more of that. >> i would guess you will. i think it depends on what happens at the polls in the next few weeks. i think that trump has gotten sort of an artificial boost by

endinged republican nominating process earlier than we expected. the party sort of unitying behind him in many cases without great enthusiasm. but it gave him a little boost. i think eroded a lot of that stleu his behavior in the last couple of weeks. and now hillary has won the nomination quite convincingly after a series of very strong performances on her own part, including her acceptance speech last night. so my guess is that the gap between trump and hillary widened a little bit and as that starts to happen, a lot more republicans are going to start feeling nervous the way mark kirk clearly felt nervous. and i think so i think that is really-- if this were a conventional candidate and he nager would be saying we've, his got to start reassuring all those republicans to keep him from jumping ship. i don't think they'll do that. i done think that's trump's approach. but i think that's a threat to him. >> i think vin makes a good point about the foreign policy speech, her acceptance speech,

but she hasn't been a good candidate. she has been a lousy candidate up until the last week or two. and she also has real problems not so much with the bernie people but the young people we talked about earlier. her poll numbers among young people are about 20 points below obama. what does she do? what are her challenges now. what would you advise her? >> well, you know, it's interesting. she has had the lower poll numbers when they've had a choice, okay. and where there has been a dem grat-- democratic primary contest. but that contest, you know, is basically over now. bernie may not concede until the convention. as you recall gary hart and jessie jackson didn't concede until the convention but this is over. they start looking at this race differently now because it's no longer between bernie and hillary clinton. it's now donald trump and hillary clinton. and it's going to take some time. and i think people who think that bernie can flip a switch and send his sporpters to hillary clinton haven't worked on a lot of primary campaigns.

it takes awhile for people to-- you have spent a lot of energy being angry at the other candidate and you can't say well, now i feel great about it. but she's going to engage them on issues because these are people who really came into the process behind bernie around issues. she has to talk about issues, not just as four point plans but the value base below it which is what he has-- what bernie sanders has done a great job. >> i think that bernie sanders role in the fall campaign can be really important though for hillary clinton, if they ask him to do the right thing. the right thing in my view is not to beg him to go out and say wonderful things about hillary which will only convince a lot of centrist republicans and independents that maybe she is more liberal than i thought. but boy, he can go and attack donald trump with great effectiveness particularly with the young voters we have been talking about. >> college campuses and the like. >> we kind of count on the vice president to be that kind of negative surrogate. i think bernie sanders not being the vice presidential choice can

be a really effective negative surrogate against donald trump. >> let me ask you about, does this really hurt the down balance at candidates, there have been times clinton, well, clinton and reagan won re-election and didn't really carry anyone in with them. they all talked before you were born about the eisenhower jeact, he wins and he doesn't have any coat tails. the other hand had been landslide elections. should democrats say boy, we're in great shape for the senate and republicans worry about the house or is this going to be. >> the democrats campaign as if they have a great opportunity and the republicans should run scared. but i'm not sure it will be as bad as some people fear. first of all, we do have donald trump who is more removed from the republican party than any nominee certainly in my lifetime. second of all, the seats that are up in the senate particularly that are competitive, we have really good candidates. normally where you see a washout of incumbents in election year, you have people that got elected that really were kind of weak

from the get-go. that is not true of senator ayotte, of palt toomy, these are really high quality people. i. >> john mccain. >> i think republicans have to run scared. but i think we have a chance to hold on to the senate even gif enwhat i think is likely to be a substantial drabbing from the top of the ticket. >> that is a place with we're going to disagree. >> good. >> because do i think. >> why did i guess that. >> well, because frankly what we have seen is that the days of split tickets, 1984, 1988 where the democrats could lose the white house but pick up senate seats, where al gore could win an open seat in 1984 in tennessee while ronald reagan was winning the state, that was a huge margin. those days really are behind us at least right now. what we have seen in the last several elections is that the congressional and the senate performance tends to follow the presidential pomance much more than it used to. and i think that particularly the states where those republicans-- where those

republican incumbents are cutting across the midwest are very problematic even though those are certainly stronger incumbents than the ones you had to defend in '86. >> let me extrapolate. then you think that the republicans will keep the house and 50/50 in the senate right now. you think that the democrats will win the senate and have a shot at the house? >> i think we'll gain ground in ch those seminal electionsl that will change the whole nature nature of american politics politics is or is this just one of those quirks that happens and we get over it. >> i think there are a lot of things that tell us that this is a unique election. i think the discrediting of the two parties which precedes the campaign almost, is a very big deal. and that brings into question the whole two-party system in my judgement. i think within the republican party quite beyond the offensiveness of donald trump, the shifted on some big issues like immigration and maybe even more importantly trade indicates you got a different kind of

republican electorate than you've had before. and bernie is not going to win the nomination but he's mobilized a substantial constituency on the left wing of the democratic party which changes the democratic party. so i think those things plus the fact that trump has shown that you don't need to run a conventional campaign if you know how to communicate in this environment says politics can change a lot. >> anita. >> i couldn't agree with that more. i don't see this as just a fleuk or anomaly t is almost certainly the last presidential campaign st baby boomer presidentials t i also think that the-- both of the political parties will emerge to the extent there is still political parties very different than the ones that entered the cycle. >> one of my colleagues told me the other day that this election might be fun to cover but the post election is really go be going to be crazy. anita dunn and vin weber, thank you so much for joining us. we'll be right back.

>> the 114th congress doesn't have many legislative days left in the session. they leave in a couple of weeks for the party conventions and august recess. then they come back for a short september. they also have few accomplishments. major issues like the pacific trade pact, criminal justice reform, the nomination of judge mer rick garland to the supreme court and a major cancer initiative in memory of vice president biden's late son will likely be unresolved when lawmakers adjourn this fall. washington's leading congressional watcher norman ornstein is a scholar at the american enterprise institute. he could authored a book with tom man several years ago on congress called if even-- it's even worse than it looks. they've updated now to it's even worse than it was. norman, it's good to have you here. >> always a pleasure. >> let's talk about congress. you write about a disfunctional congress but the country is

deeply divided as we see in polls. doesn't congress just really manifest that in. >> do a degree but it's more than thatment because there are issues where you don't have a lot of those deep divisions. you mentioned some of them. criminal justice reform has broad bipartisan support. dealing with the zika virus, the opioid crisis, the puerto rican debt problem which is causing the island which is under american aegis to go through enormous trauma. all of those things have broad support and congress still can't act. it's one thing if you have issues where you have a deep partisan idea logical divide. when you don't have those and you have congress not able to move. and with fewer days in session left than i can ever remember, although they may come back after the election, it's still no excuse. some of these are urgent. i doant know how you can use the term other than disfunctional unless you want to make it worse. >> i know it dependses on the outcome. right now looking at it, will thissier's elections make it better or worse? >> i think we're headed for

continuing rocky times. and that is true even if we show see a sweeping victory for one party that gives them complete control, would happen far more likely with democrats but it's not likely. we're likely to have divided government for a significant period of time to come. and the parties each have their struggles. but the divisions across those lines are deep. and let me just suggest one thing. just imagine if we get what maybe the most likely outcome even though there are no sure thing, hillary clinton wins. there is maybe a narrow democratic majority in the senate. republicans keep the house. you're going to have a republican party going through a deep existential crisis and within a few months, and i think maybe the window of doing anything will be even shorter than it usually is, less than a hundred days. within a few months republicans are going to say how do we recapture our m o.j. o. we have to win those mid terms coming up. how do we do that, we have a

tried and freu formula. we used in 2010. we used it with great subbing sus in 1014 we delegitimate the president, government and the process, we belong everything as much as we can and we make victories look ugly and go out to the country and say anything would be better than this. that is not good. >> that brings up what i guess we shall call a spirited disagreement that you have had with senator mitch mcconnell on these matters. he told charlie recently that the of the quoted observation attributed to him that his goal was a one-term obama presidency, he said everything god that wrob except bob woodard what. he said i said that but we still can get things done. did mitch get a bum rap wrap. >> no, he did not get a bum wrap. i looked up again just to be sure. another quote from him after the 2010 mid term, in which mcconnell said, reflecting on obama's agenda, well, of course we weren't going to support it

because then the accomplishments would have looked bipartisan. and if people think that they're bipartisan and they like them, that's not goes to be good. in effect, he said, that will damage the republican brand so we oppose. and we know that there was basically a conscience opposition to whatever obama was for. >> what mitch mcconnell says that obama was so far to the left that unlike, he says, bill clinton and joe biden, he wouldn't move to the center and deal. you know, if you go back to the first stimulus package one thing we know is very early on the economy struggling deeply, dave obe a congressman from wisconsin, chairman of the house appropriations committee called in his republican counterpart, jerry lewis of california and said jerry, we're going to do a stimulus. i've got the charge of trying to put the package tosmght the economy is flat on its back. we want to work with you. tell us the things that you would like to have in. tell us the absolute nonstarters, go back to your rank and file members and your

leaders and let me know and we'll work it out. and lewis pointed up and said i've got orders from headquarters, dave, we're not going to cooperate. now then you go to the affordable care act, the health associations. max bah kus, the democrat from montana. >> chairman of the finance committee joins with his dear friend and counterpart chuck grassley, republican of iowa. they create a gang of six. they start with the principles and the plans that grassley had put forward when bill clinton was president, all of those ideas came out of republican quarters. so the idea that this was sharply to the left, a plan that in the end didn't even have a public option, i think just doesn't exort with reality. >> surely the democrats have some fall for this disfunction, don't they? >> there are no angels here. i think we have to definitely say that. and we've got note just polarization, tribalism that has developed on both sides. but i think if you look at the behavior of congress, the

behavior of the parties, especially since barack obama became president, the blame is asymmetric. and what we had was a conscience effort by republicans starting on the day of obama's inaugural, that we know that was reported very deeply and confirmed by robert draper, a very good reporter, that they determined before obama actually took office, that they were going to unite in opposition to him. like a parliamentary mine ort party. but in our political system that brings chaos, not clarity. >> norman, switching to the house, over 80% of the seat there are noncompetitive. we know right now today, you know, five months before the election who's going to win those seats. an r or a d. is that because of gerree mannedderring where each party gets together and carves out the seats, what would you do to make it more comettive. >> i'm all for changing the system of districting. you noarks the old line that

voters should choose their representatives and not allow representatives to choose their voters is compelling to me. i would love to have a system like the one in iowa, the one in arizona, the one in california where an independent commission draws those district lines. but it's not a panacea. the biggest problem we have now, al, is first a cultural one that people view the other party not as a worthy adversary but as the enemy. but also that bill bishops journalist who wrote the book the big sword was right. people have moved into areas where they are surrounded by like-minded individuals. >> neighborhood patterns and democrats concentrated in their cities means that if you drew perfect lines, very compact, you know, communities. represented. you might make it worse rather than better. they would be more homogenous. so we've got to find other ways to get around this problem. and i actually think we may need to think more boldly. maybe a constitutional change,

this is not going to happen in our lifetime. a little bit like a german system where maybe a hundred members of the house are chosen at large so that they represent broader issues. >> the whole nation. >> right. >> to break out of this pattern a little bit. but i wish that if we just did redistricting reform we would solve these problems. it's not going to do it. >> it was-- who said we have met the enemy and he was us, let me ask you how much responsibility the media has in this. >> if you are an obscure member of congress and you go on the floor of the house and you scream out to the president, to his face that he's a liar, you get an enormous amount of air time on cable television. if you are an allan grayson, a democrat who basically said republicans were murders because of the way they were voting on the health care situation, you get an enormous amount of air time. if you have your noases to the grindstone and are dealing with an porpt area of public policy, you're not going to get much time on cable news.

cable news is now all about eyeballs and ratings. and that means you focus on people screaming. and that means that the one was do the work tend to leave. and that's what we have seen. the last several years we've also had a hemorrhaging in congress of the workhorses. on both sides. you know, troubled by the money race, troubled by the fact that not much is getting done. but also unable to get any traction to move those issues along. >> if you could pick two or three members from each party, really younger members who could be potential leaders in the future and maybe change some of this disfunction who comes to mind? >> so on the democratic side, i think crist van holden who is moving from the house to the senate is very much a future leader of the bod you have got a whole large crew of people in the senate and if i'm looking at a republican, ben

sas who took a strong and principled stand against donald strump, who is very conservative and smart as a whip and willing to move across party lines is somebody i would pient to as well. >> one i would add to that mid be corrie gardener of colorado who has been a different senator than he was a house member. >> absolutely. i found i had a long conversation with david perdue of georgia who really wants to get some solutions done on the budget front. there are thoughtful members. it is just so easy now no matter what to get caught up in the tribal trap. and devote along with your party in a fashion that gives short-term political advantage but doesn't deal with a large number of the issues. >> thank you so much for being with us. we'll be right back. >> o.j. simpson is one of the most captivating and controversial figures of the modern era. he first became known as a star football player for the university of southern california and then in the nfl.

he transsinnedded his athletic career to become a beloved figure in popular culture. in 1994 he was charged with the murders of his ex-wife nicole brown simpson and ronald l goldman. the subsequent trial transfixed the nation. o.j. made in america is a new documentary that chronicals simpson's rise and fall. the los angeles times calls the documentary a master work of scholarship, journalism and cinematic art. here's the trailer for o.j. made in america. >> i called imhim, o.j., you're breaking the laws of god. one day everybody is going to know everything that you have done, man. >> if you are a black man in america, are you fighting our war. >> who seen a man, where you

going to run to. >> the reality of black america and white america, two totally separate worlds. >> for us o.j. was-- . >> none of the people that we associated with looked at >> ♪ where you going to run to. ♪ really? o.j. simpson, civil rights victim?

it was diskussing. -- disgusting, it was appalling. >> where he going to run to. ♪ where you going to run to. ♪. >> it is easy to be-- . >> part one of the pfeiffer part documentary series premiers on abc saturday june 11th. the remaining four parts will air on espn beginning june 14th. joining me is the director of the documentary ezra edelman. the former prosecutor and author of without a doubt, marcia clark and civil rights attorney carl

95 defense team.ed on simpson's i'm pleased to have all of them here at this table. welcome and welcome and welcome. >> thank you, charlie. >> why does this and this man and this case resonate? is it because it is a story of what? >> oh, it's a story of everything. it's a story of race. it's a story of masculinity, a story of class, gender, celebrity, the criminal justice system. i mean it's a story about america. >> and how did you decide to do this? >> it's a little bit unsatisfying. i was approaching by espn by conner shell who runs espn films. and he had this idea of doing something big are and more ambitious. it started out as a five hour film and it just grew over the course of a couple years of doing it. >> and now that you have completed it, what do you want us to take away? >> that everything is not so

simple. >> and that you will learn new things. >> you will definitely learn new things and you will learn about a history that you may have never known or you may have forgotten. >> what do you think we'll learn? >> you are going to learn a lot about the reason, the verdict was the verdict. the film is a fascinating exploration of the history of los angeles, the city that i love. and the troubling relationship between the african-american community, and the lapd. only through understanding that story can anyone seek to begin to appreciate how and why this verdict was ever rendered this way. >> it's amazing because that is what introduces you to think about it. you go from people coming to los angeles because they think it's a great place. black people. >> sure. >> and then there is watts. >> sure. >> in los angeles. >> correct. >> and they're burning down everything in sight. >> correct. and many of the injustices with the society that people were leaving from the jim crowe south

regrettably encounted erred the same kind of abject racism when it came to l.a that was enlightening for me swsm i lived in l.a. my entire life and i learned a great deal. and it was all put together in such a great way, that it really reinforced to me why i chose to become a civil rights lawyer. i remember texting ezra after watching the film, to thank him for reminding me of those issues that i fietd for every day of my life as a civil rights lawyer. >> rose: this made you famous, this case. >> yeah. >> rose: it made you almost a household word. you lived it and now you see this whole larger picture. tell me how you-- watching this film, felt. what did you think? how did it resonate within you? what did you learn you didn't know. >> what i learned that i didn't know is a different story thanked way it resonated. >> rose: let's take the

resonant first. >> okay. i thought people will finally see the reality that we knew working downtown in the criminal courts building for many, many years. i have been trying cases downtown for ten years. and whenever there was an african-american defendant race was going to be an issue. and the question of the mistrust of law enforcement and the mistris of the criminal justice system was always an issue. so to me it was a wonderful thing to show everybody its realities of as carl said, life in los angeles and what the real relationship was between minorities and lapd and the real sense of mistrust and bad feeling between them that had existed for so many years. and our office was fighting those cases and we were prosecuting those cops. we caught prosecuting the rodney king cops but did not succeed. but we were well aware of it.

carl was certainly too. all of us trying cases down there were aware of it. but i didn't realize how much, how little others were aware of it outside of that micros could am, i guess you would call it. >> rose: and what did you learn? >> i learned what a great actor simpson really was. i never appreciated just how charismatic, how affable, self-effacing, generous he could appear on the air. because i had never seen him on camera as a sportscaster or during his football career. i had only seen him, i remembered naked gun, the hertz commercial, limited snap shots, but to see what he was able to pull off on camera in more lengthy interviews was very impresessive. i thought in a smaller version, in the court room, because he always knew where the camera was. he knew when it was on him and he played to it every time. it was not the same picture that i got when the camera was not on him. >> i learned from this

documentary some of the reasons why o.j. was the man he was. i didn't know as much about his background growing up at gal lay owe high school and the section in san francisco. i didn't know as much about his interactions with his colleagues and old friends, which helped to shape the man that i came to learn and came to meet and came to know. and that was fascinating for me to learn those information. >> rose: how about marcia's notion that he was an actor beyond her understanding. >> i understand why she would say that, because she is an advocate for her position. i did not see that same side of him that she may have thought that she saw. >> rose: you didn't. >> no, i did not. he was a very engaged client. very much in tune to how things played, and how he wanted his representatives to conduct themselves in a court room.

because he had made a career basically-- he was the first athletic pitchman. and he knew how things played and he was an engaged client every day making sure that his particular version of the trial would be reflected by the lawyer representing him. >> rose: what was the challenge for you? >> getting people like carl and marcia to sit down and talk about this, openly and honestly. >> rose: it was a difficult sell? >> ask marcia. >> rose: you didn't want to do this. >> nope. >> rose: why not, because you had this part of your life and you have a new life. >> that's true. that's true, charlie. but it was also that i didn't know what they were going to do. whether it was going to be a tabloid thing and go for the minute usualia, but what happened was in a lengthy discussion with one of the producers i learned they were going to make it a much larger picture and talk about race and talk about the impact of race and celebrity on the system, on the criminal justice system and on the verdict. and i thought okay, this is something that is very porntd. and i really should do it. >> rose: and part of a story

that you knew as the prosecutor. >> yes, exactly. >> rose: so what else? getting them at the table is part of it. >> getting them at the table and by the way, since the foundation of the film, the foundation of the film since we interviewed 72 people, 66 of whom are in the film, that was the most challenging and most important to et going this film done. and the second thing is, you know, coa lessing all this material in to something that is engaging and coherent. >> rose: you told the vice's alex wong, i knew about o.j. atu sc and what he represented at the time and how he became the first black corporate pitchman as far as ad leases go. he was fascinated how he want from this great foot bawlt player atu sc to the guy on national television with endorsements before he even played at the nfl. one to tell the story that existed in the mid 60st along with the tension in l.a. at the time that culminated with the watts riots. those were things that were very connected to the murder trial 30 years later. i mean it does say that so much

of human life is connected. >> yes. >> culturally. , celeb result, sports, politics. it's all interconnected. >> frankly it is very easy for me to start out snowing i was going to do a story about race. the gigantic theme in this film, and o.j.'s story. having said that once you start down this path, what i did realize is exactly what you said. the interconnectedness between all these things. and you can't simplify it to say this is what this was it was just about race. >> no. >> kus you can't separate o.j.'s celebrity. and then you get into all these other issues. and so that sort of dawned on me pretty quickly. at the same time you can't possibly tell this story and understand what happened in 1994 and '95 in you go back to 1991 and '92. i mean this say history that in a situation that people have been living with in los angeles,

for decades. and unless you emotionally respond to that as a viewer, you will fail to understand why that trial. >> it does make you want to understand every historical event. and every event of great focus within a context. >> right. >> if it does, sure. >> and it's so important. i mean one of the most important themes in this series i think is that very message to what you just said, charlie, that everything is-- you have to consider it in context. nothing happens in a vacuum. and noter did the rodney king verdict. and neither did the simpson verdict. you know, all of these things are part of the fabric, together, there is a cause and effect that links them all importantly. and i think that this series brilliantly shows that. >> and at the same time, within the context, within the imperative of getting the social context in, it's also imperative to remember that murder is

murder. and loss a loss. >> sure. >> and i think the film does a great job of reflecting humanity of that as well. but as importantly, i have learned the more things change, charlie, the more they remain the same. one reason why this documentary and the whole o.j. simpson story is resonating now with millenials is because the issues that were right then regretliably, are still issues that are in the forefront of the conversation today. the black lives matter movement, ferguson, trayvon mar din-- martin, those kinds of issues. i have a 24 year old son who was too young then to understand all the issues going on now am but have i had that story that all parents of young african-american males have in los angeles, about how to act. and how to respond with police officers and how to say yes, sir, no sir, keep your hands where they can be very visible.

that was part of the history and the context that this film really shows well. >> rose: what did you think you had to do and the defense team have to do? what was demanded? >> it's important to remember that the burden is not on the defense. the defendant does not have to prove anything. and what we have to do is believing in the constitution, holding the prosecution to their burden, of proving the accused guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. and that's just not some slick phrase or cliche. that is real. and in this case, there was a tremendous mountain of evidence. and so our challenge was ever strong. that's why some of the things that came out, the glove demonstration, the fuhrman tape, really resonated with this jury because ultimately we were trying to make the prosecution prove their burden of proving him guilty beyond a reasonable

doubt. >> rose: how important was the glove? >> i think the glove was probably, charlie, the most dramatic day of my life inside of a court room. and i have been a lawyer for 36 years. we always learn the first day in law school to never ask a question-- . >> rose: you don't know the answer to. >> that is ten times if there is a demonstration. i would dare say 50 times if that demonstration is going to be shown before 95 million people on television. >> rose: so. >> the prosecution took a huge chance. >> rose: that is what i mean. >> a huge chance was taken, perhaps not the wisest chance depending on the outcome particularly right now. >> rose: what do you think happened with the glove. >> it was a terrible idea. i never wanted to do it. it was suggested first by judge ito. we were at side bar and he said he should try on the gloves, i objected. the latex will screw up the fit. and they had been frozen and unfrozen, there was everything wrong with it.

you can't duplicate the conditions. >> rose: you knew. >> terrible idea. it was the biggest fight that chris and i ever had. nd i actually-- . >> rose: he wanted to allow it. >> he was in favor of it. he said if we don't do t the defense will and i said let them, let them. >> rose: you were filing-- smiling because of what. >> because i love to hear the post more tell examinations of this debacle. and how it came to be. >> i was unaware of the internal tensions going on on the prosecution team. so to hear then and to hear it now, is really illuminating to me given what i know about what happened. >> rose: but just for a moment, ezra, excuse me. >> they are much more interesting than me. >> rose: just for a moment, i mean did you have any doubt that he could make this glove look like it didn't fit? or that the glove didn't fit. >> i like the latter interpretation. there were weeks and weeks of

dna testimony and evidence. there were weeks and weeks of domestic violence testimony, charlie. but this was the murder glove. and the murder glove did not fit the accused murderer. and we were confident after that event that the images would resonated-- resonate. i didn't understand all the dna stuff, barry schekman would scrks i don't know what's going on. it's like you and the witness having a private conversation. but the murder glove not fitting was resonant and it was something we were confident the jury would take with them to the very last day of the trial. >> rose: if it doesn't fit, acquit. >> it was jerry alman oldman's line, on a saturday, after that glove demonstration, had that line. and we were were high fiving after it came through. >> rose: you knew you had a tough chal ingvar after that. >> we did way before that. i didn't think that-- it was a visual moment. it was a moment that certainly

the media enjoyed, obviously carl enjoyed. and we were-- what carl doesn't know is that we were at side bar. i objected to it. it's on the record, my objection is on the rod and i pulled chris aside and we stepped away from side bar and argues. and i called upstairs to the restful of the team and says is there any reason you can think to do this. and every one said no, no, we can't do this. and you couldn't stop it it was his witness and his choice to make. i know that the press had dubbed me as lead prosecutor. i was coprosecuter. i was not chris' boss. and carl doesn't see it that way, that's fine. but i know what is inside. i know what happened behind the scenes. >> rose: chris said the same thing. >> yeah, i think he would. i think he would have to. i know what happened. so all i can say is, look, the case was lost before we walked into court. that's the thrut. and we-- that's the truth. we had a jury pool. >> rose: the case was lost before you walked into the court. >> yes. >> rose: because? >> we are were downtown.

we were going to have a jury that was in large-- the jury veneer was always had a significant-- . >> rose: you descrnt to work hard it was already lost. >> apparently. i intent 16 months, it was a walkover. >> i'm not saying that, we had the pool that we had. it was a huge obstacle. >> rose: i can't believe you thought you could not succeed. >> we thought honestly, the best we could do is hang it. that's what we thought. knowing that we were going to have a significant african-american contingent on the jury, the best we could do is hang it. and then even that became impossible. but that was right from the start to say that the glove demonstration was the turning point or that made the difference, we also addressed all of those issues with the glove expert, who explained. everything that i said to you. and then we actually put the same gloves on his hands and they fit beautiful.

the glover he didn't have to wear ta lex with. we put pristine identical gloves on his hand and they fit. >> . >> i think you have to watch the film for this. >> is this a tease. >> absolutely. i do want to i feel like i'm sitting here having to play tie breaker with the two of them, play referee. >> i will say this in terms of -- it's one fair since i never met o.j. but i came to and you know this, charlie, like o.j. reputationally had a reputation of not being a good actor when he came to hollywood. there is a reason why his career dried up. after spending two years thinking about o.j., watching footage of o.j., putting this whole thing together. i've come to a conclusion i think o.j. simpson is the greatest actor in american history, period. >> so i agree with marcia on

this one. >> rose: why do you say that. >> in terms of his entire being. >> rose: why do you say that? >> cuz the guy could be in any room with any person, young or old, black or white, speak in spanish, speak in english and cocharm the pants off them. and he could get them to like him. >> rose: obviously he couldn't put it on screen because you said. >> i'm not saying-- he's not the greatest film actor, he's just the greatest actor. he lived his life every day going into the world that he went into, and presentedded himself so purely as this lovable man that belied so much that was inside of him and who he was going back to where he came from. >> rose: the demons inside. >> that i can't answer. >> rose: what was inside of him that he. >> look, the way i look at this, however fair, unfair it is, is that a guy who grew up where he grew up, to so at a young age be thrust into a world that was so diametrically opposed to where he came, and then to sort of end up where he earnedded up, living where he lived, in the world

that he hung out with. it is a long way from the projects of san francisco. >> rose: so what was he like after the trial, after the acquittal? >> i didn't get the benefit of knowing him much after the trial. i last saw o.j. at johnny cochran's funeral in march of 2005. >> rose: how was he received there? >> at that setting he w asked ay cochran to stand up. and i looked to the side and o.j. and michael jackson were just a few chairs away. and they both stood up. and my community after the trial, o.j. was always received well. >> rose: really. >> yes. >> can i ask something. >> rose: yes, please. >> he sort of buried the lead there because al sharpton gave one of the eulogies. and we're in this sorted of huge church and o.j. is in the audience. and he looks down at o.j. and he said brother simpson, with all due respect, when that verdict

came in on october 3rd, 1995, and we all erupted in cheers, we weren't cheering for you. we were cheering for johnny. and the entire church exploded. and so i think that says. >> is that true? >> yes. that's really what many don't under stand. >> rose: why. >> semitrue. >> rose: there were a lot of people that exploded never knew who johnny cochran hardly was. >> but what they saw were african-american lawyers and they learned that competent tense comes in all colors, charlie. i remember attending a convention of african-american lawyers at the natd bar association after this particular trial. and we were received there like rock stars. i remember barry scheck was there, lee bailey was there, and little small towns across the nation, because the trial was on cnn every day, people became to respect the intelligence of an african-american professional. and that, i think, as much as

anything, was one reason why folks were cheering across the country. not for o.j. per se. >> rose: this remarkable achievement in terms of putting this, how many hours, seven. >> almost eight hoursing to. it is about america, it is about all the things we talked about. so i thank you. >> thank you. >> thank you charlie. >> rose: thank you for joining us. >> for more about this program and earlier episodes visit us online at pbs.org and charlie rose.com. captioning sponsored by rose communications captioned by media access group at wgbh access.wgbh.org

>> rose: funding for "charlie rose" has been provided by: >> and by bloomberg, a provider of multimedia news and information services worldwide.

this is "nightly business report" with tyler mathisen and sue herera. not too hot, not too cold. why oil prices may be entering a level that is just right for the economy and your investments. >> dousbling down, am zon makes a big investment in india and it's not the only major american company on the prowl there. why eight years after the housing crisis the american psyche has yet to heal. all that and more on the "nightly business report." the dow closes back above 18,000, but we begin with big news about oil where prices hit a new high for the year and that may be what the