From our studios in new york city, this is charlie rose. And once we begin with the president and his announcement of the resignation of chuck hagel. Chuck hagel discuss the final quarter of my president he and determined it was an appropriate time for him to complete his service. As the president noted, today i have submitted my resignation. It has been the greatest privilege of my life to lead, and to serve with the men and women of the Defense Department and support their families. I am proud of what we have accomplished. We has prepared ourselves, for the Successful Transition in afghanistan. We have bolstered enduring alliances and strengthened emerging partnerships. I interviewed chuck hagel last week. I talked about rumors about changes in his National Security team. Maybe he wants to change his National Security advisor, his secretary of defense. Maybe he wants to change other elements. Is that true . You would have to ask the president. You concern yourself with it . I serve a
And then the north korean government dont tell [inaudible] the second cause, the poor environmental about media industry, as some have already said, too much competition between Media Companies and between people exist. And too little too much space on newspaper and too much time on tv news. So we have to write reports, whatever, everyday, every night. So sometimes well have enough time to verify the facts and check. Its reality. And i think some reporters have the first belief that North Koreans do not argue about their article. And then the last code i have, ideological [inaudible] i want to bring [inaudible] you know, everybody have their own view of north korea. So do the journalists. Some are conservatives and some are [inaudible] so usually the conservatives want to blame north korea, right . And the progressives want to verify. So when conservative journalists meet, conservative also received conservative pundit, or and vice versa. Progressive meet progresses. I think it is like
Them gavel to gavel, but my perception, and i think the perception of many were those very concerns in those cases. But i think whats far more important is to survey the people that were involved in a particular case, the lawyers, the witnesses, i mean, the things that our pilot is going to do. Their perceptions, i think, are much more compelling and persuasive than the perceptions of somebody who is watching it on tv, who doesnt know all the facts, who doesnt know what that witness testified to in a deposition and whether theyre shading their testimony now when theyre in front of television camera. We may not. Viewers may not know that but the parties involved on whose bhaf your speaking, the concerns of the parties involved, certainly we would have these are issues that would have come up time and time again, wouldnt they . As we televise trials all over the country, many of them high profile . All i can tell you, sir, is i think its important to survey people. Im not aware in the st
2010. Before that, audio from one term generally wasnt available until the beginning of the next term and so i was wondering, whats your view on the impact of having these audio recordings available now publicly within the same week of the argument and has there been an improvement in Public Access . Well, it certainly a good first step, but when were talking about the age of the internet, when someone can tweet something and millions of people can see it and read it and share it seconds after its been sent, especially in news when youre talking about something well release it that week. I mean, in the news business, a week later is really yesterdays news. So, for the people that really rl interested and there are a surprising amount of them that whether theyre shutins or just people interested in the way that we conduct ourselves in the judiciary, i think at least having simultaneous broadcast of the audio might be a good first start. I just have a problem again with the audio only. N
He doesnt get to do that. Okay. Now his own dhs secretary, jay johns Johns Johnson stated it to enforce a duly enacted constitutional law thats beyond simple prosecutorial discretion. I think that the a least three of our witnesses believe the president has crossed that line. Could you be more specific and let me start with mr. Dupree. Thank you. I think secretary johnson is correct when he says there is a line. I think in this case the president not only crossed the line but that line is far, far, far in the distance. Thats kind of like the line he drew on syria. Right . I think that is an apt analogy. Thank you. I dont know that the constitution requires a certain number of people beyond which he could not grant deferred action to. I dont think the constitution speaks to that degree my time is limited. Im just going to quote very quickly from the opinion quoted by members of this committee and some of the witnesses and that is the cheney opinion. This is the part thats conveniently i