Al let us start with the issue of crime. This is a National Reentry week, where you are trying to help people who get out of prison to have a more productive life. Let me just start though, why do we have the highest incarceration rate in the world . Ms. Lynch you know, we certainly do have one of the highest rates in the world. It stems from a number of sources. I think we look back at the efforts that were made never truly seeking to reduce violence, to deal with the burgeoning drug problem, particularly in the 1980s and 1990s, and the violence that accompanied them. And what people thought was, a need to appear very, very tough on crime, without thinking through the results of a lot of those actions. We have lived with those results now for several generations seeing the effects of some of , the laws and regulations and statutes that we have. Al was the 1994 crime act bad . That had a lot of attention. In retrospect ms. Lynch it did not think through all of the consequences of what it thought it would do. It was seeking to address the incredible problem of violence accompanying the drug trade, particularly as it grew in our large cities. You had individuals coming from overseas who were part of trafficking. I was a young prosecutor in the 1990s, i remember those days, i think the fault was, the solution crafted in washington could be passed and essentially affect every neighborhood the same way. It just did not. I think many of us who were practicing in that area saw those results soon after that. And realized that if we could in fact use the portions of the crime bill to focus on the kingpins, the largescale traffickers, it would have a beneficial effect. As it hit the low level, nonviolent offenders it was not going to happen that way. Al bill clinton still says that it actually made the black Community Safer and murder rates were down. So he said there may have been unintended consequences. But it did some good, too. Is that a Fair Assessment . Ms. Lynch it is a mixed bag certainly it was effective when you are targeting those large traffickers, but when you are targeting the people who literally had tons of cocaine in warehouses in the new york area, who were bringing in large amounts by speedboats. It was a very effective tool. When however you are looking at individuals on the street who are peddling the amounts dangerous, yes. Definitely something that had to be dealt with. But were they the ones we were looking at and needed to inflict the longterm mandatory minimums. For example, as we look at those efforts can we are looking at ways to ameliorate them. Not saying people should be held unaccountable, they absolutely have to be. We have to have individualized prosecution, individualized looks at this, and really use our resources. Al you have a criminal justice bill sentencing reform that is winding its way through the house and senate, how confident are you, what are the odds, that a bill will Pass Congress and be sent to the president this year . Ms. Lynch it is very positive that this has bipartisan support, that recognizes that many of our states have been great laboratories of criminal justice reform. They have given ideas into this bill also. I think it is an incredibly positive thing that members across the aisle are working together. Absolutely, we support their efforts. We obviously are looking to support them as they continue this road. Al a different subject, the apple encryption, two cases so far, the government has found workarounds. This is only going to increase. The companies are not going to provide backdoors. Do you have strategies how this will be resolved . Ms. Lynch it is part of a larger conversation, it has to be a national conversation. We have been engaged in discussions for some time, try ing to highlight the services we have. We have to have strong encryption, but about warrantproof encryption, making sure we strike that right balance between protecting all of our information and intellectual property, and letting Law Enforcement protect our citizens. Al does it require legislation ultimately . We do not seem likely have made a great deal of progress in the last few months. Ms. Lynch the beginning of the debate, people are talking about legislation, certainly looking at whatever is proposed. I think is still requires a national conversation. It still requires participation of government, tech companies, who have very different positions. Al a really wide chasm, have we . Ms. Lynch i dont think we can call it one single chasm. The issue comes up in so many different ways. From a Law Enforcement perspective, looking for evidence on a device, we are looking for cooperation and help from the Tech Community in accessing that, as we have been fortunate enough to have in the past. We are now hitting these issues of at what point do the Companies Feel that encryption that they cannot provide that support. We are working on those. And i think that that discussion have to continue. Al it may end up going to the Supreme Court before it is all over. That brings me to the question i , know you very much want judge garland confirmed, it might not happen after the election. What are the consequences of an eightperson Supreme Court . Ms. Lynch it is certainly at its strongest with a full complement of jurists, like the ones we have now. Certainly judge garland falls into that category, his reputation precedes him as a fairminded jurist, experienced, outstanding writer, someone who can easily step into the great standards of the Supreme Court. Al what if he is not confirmed for a while . Does it much matter . The Lower Court Ruling that is found, what difference does it make . Ms. Lynch we have to look at the institutional difference. We have a system whereby the president makes a nomination, be it other judges or position confirmed by the senate, and there is a process that goes underway. That gets undertaken. And that process is in fact what keeps a whole host of institutions running, not just the Supreme Court. We have to be careful not to let those processes grind to a halt. Al do you worry that the court, apart from the garland issue that the court has become, in the publics mind, too politicized. I think the arguments on the immigration case, you are not going to comment on an individual case, but that seemed to be a partisan divide. Is there fear the court will lose credibility if it is tossed into this partisan ring . Ms. Lynch one of the issues in society, it has been how great institutions like the Supreme Court have been drawn into that. And i think that every justice on the court works in critically incredibly hard to focus on the important issues before them. And despite who appointed them or what people might think of their affiliation, they work well together. They get along. And i think frankly it is a tragedy of the legal system that people have the view that they are decided along partisan lines. Al on that immigration case you worked for a president , in this Election Year critics say he has engaged in unprecedented overreach on executive action, immigration, environment, this is a reckless abuse of executive power. What is general lynchs answer to that . Ms. Lynch in the immigration case, when the president has acted with executive power, he has done so after careful review of the law of precedent. We will see what the court says, obviously abiding by the Supreme Court, working within it. That is our system. We have the utmost respect for the court. But with respect to those actions, this administration and the president look at legal precedent, congressional precedent, before they take that action. Al you are a proud native of North Carolina. Your state has been embroiled in several controversies lately. One of them recently, a federal judge upheld what i think would be called crackdowns on voting procedures in that state. A couple of questions. One, is the Justice Department going to appeal that decision . Ms. Lynch well obviously, we thought the law set up in mpermissible voting blocks, reduced registration as well. Al will you appeal the decision . Ms. Lynch we are looking at that decision carefully. We have not made a decision yet. What it really portends is the larger issue of Voting Rights in this country. Since the Shelby County decision, which did strike down portions of the Voting Rights acts, we have seen a number of states change voting laws. We will still use every tool to look at every provision of the Voting Rights act to make sure that the path to the voting ballot box is clear and free and open for everyone. It does raise significant concerns for us. Al do you think the North Carolina law is intended, aimed at africanamericans to disenfranchise, make it harder to vote . Ms. Lynch you have to look at a host of things there, not just the intent but the impact of the laws, as well. Particularly, if there is not a need shown for the particularly harsh laws. Any high level of voter fraud shown, you have to look at the impact there. Not just on minorities, but elderly individuals and students. Al doesnt it disproportionately affect minorities . Ms. Lynch we have had that view certainly in the texas litigation. We did prevail on that view initially. And actually later in that case as well, where we see that in particular, that is an area of great concern for the Justice Department. These laws have the possibility of accessing a lot of groups which is not what this is about. Al among the controversies in North Carolina, they passed a law that would prevent local governments from an acting anti enacting anti Discrimination Laws and they described what kind of bathrooms transgender people can use. Our justices looking at if they will possibly challenge that law . Ms. Lynch we are certainly monitoring that. The state legislature is looking at the law, so were looking to see what, if anything, they do to modify, change, or repeal it. We are monitoring the situation. Ould let it play out in North Carolina, before getting involved . Ms. Lynch i think they are looking to modify or repeal that law, whatever steps they take a we are monitoring. Al are there constitutional issues . Ms. Lynch in whatever state it will remain, whatever situation it implicates, and however it is crafted, we look very carefully to see that if it impacts the constitution or the federal statutes . Al general, you do not comment on specific cases. I know that. There is a very important investigation into Hillary Clintons use of a private email server when she was secretary of state, whether that violates any classification laws. She is almost certainly headed for the democratic nomination. The election is less than six months away, a little over six months away. Does the fbi over to the voters owe it to the voters to reach a decision quickly . Ms. Lynch you started that question with my answer. But you raise an important issue about how we actually conduct investigations of all types of cases. I think it is important that the American People know that this matter is being handled like any other matter, handled by the independent lawyers and agents who look at the facts and evidence, coming to a recommendation on it. And we handle it that way because it have to be treated because it has to be treated that way. People have to have confidence that we treat every case the same, no matter whose last name is involved, no matter how much publicity is involved. Al a person who might or might not be president of the united states, isnt time of the essence . And dont you owe it to the American People to come up with a decision soon . Ms. Lynch we have to be full thorough, and fair. We do not make predations of predictions on the time because that will essentially cut off the independence of that. We do not predict the timing of any of our matters. Al have you talked about it with the fbi director . I am not going to get an answer, i have tried. Let me talk about the generic issue of classification. The violation is intent, as it was in the David Petreus case . Or is it gross negligence . What is the standard, what is the test . Ms. Lynch we received an inquiry into the handling of classified information particularly people no longer in government, as the weather in as to whether it was properly or improperly handled. That is a security review. We get a number of situations, that was the genesis of this matter. So, beyond that i will not comment on the specifics. But to say that we do look at the issues presented. But as i said before, we look at them thoroughly and fairly and independently. Al i understand. Leaving aside this case, and you have had other cases, not while you were general but john deutch, David Petreus, what is the standard . Is it intent, gross negligence . Or is it Something Else . Ms. Lynch every case, it just depends on how it comes up. Every case is different. It really depends on the facts of every particular case. Al there was a lot of damage caused by the economic cataclysm of 2006, 2007, 2008. In the Eastern District of new york, you certainly saw that. Does it bother you that no one from wall street has gone to there was 1000 people that went to jail. This is far worse. Ms. Lynch it was a far ranging effect. You are right. This was systemic, longterm damage. That is why the department has taken a systemic, longterm approach to that. I get this question a lot why , has no one gone to jail . I remind people of the over 4000 people in the financial industry who have in fact been indicted and prosecuted, and in fact most of them gone to jail over matters arising of the failure. Not just in terms of what we saw in 2008, but the failures that were uncovered and revealed of the malfeasance, the way people were mishandling investor money misleading clients. So there in fact has been al you know what i am saying you hear this from everybody from Bernie Sanders to donald trump, that main street got mainstream got clobbered. The big guys paid some fines but they can afford it. It is kind of back to business as usual. That is an exaggeration, i am sure. But that is public perception. And the statute of limitations is running out. Ms. Lynch it is the perception. I will say again that it does not take into account the work that has been done in this area, this field. Certainly when i was a prosecutor in brooklyn, when i came back to the department in 2010, involving people who defrauded people literally out of their life savings, who went after groups of individuals based upon one person, making inroads into the community or into the Law Enforcement communities, taking the life savings, there were cases all over the country. They did not get the attention that the whole crash data. Crash got. That is somewhat unfortunate because those are very real cases and victims who truly suffered in this. And in everything one of those and in every one of those cases the aim was to bring , justice to the victims. Al another subject is terrorism. What are you seeing in terms of americans trying to travel to or return from the syria and iraq battlefield . Ms. Lynch we saw an uptick over the last two years, a number of americans that were increasingly younger. And they also included young women, who were seeking to travel overseas to syria to join isil or some connected organizations. They wanted to join the fight in general. Those numbers have gone down a bit in terms of what we are seeing. We have done over 80 cases involving these individuals. We do prosecute them when we have the evidence. We do take this extremely seriously. While the number of individuals trying to leave the u. S. Is down, it is increasing certainly from other countries. The concern that we have however is, as the terrorist threat has morphed, the danger from the homegrown extremists, those who become radicalized usually online, usually from information that has been there for years, and that isil is still feeding to propagate their views. Those individuals, for whatever reason, are susceptible, for whatever reason are drawn to the extremist view, the extremist ideology, are isolated or vulnerable or cut off from family connections, at the behest of these online urgings that is a concern of ours. That is what we are seeing in the u. S. , certainly in some of the cases that have recently come to light San Bernardino for example. And others that have been prosecuted. And so, that is where we see a concern that we have. Because obviously those individuals leaving syria fight find it much easier to get into europe and propagate those larger, wellplanned attacks there. Al let me ask you a final question. There was partisan rancor over your appointment. As there is over most things these days. How are you getting along with republicans . Ms. Lynch the mutuality of thought on those issues has been refreshing to see and it has been very good to work with. We look forward to more like that. Al attorney general loretta lynch, thank you so much for joining us. Charlie phil knight is here. In 1962, he was a stanford graduate. And he had a crazy idea. He wanted to import lowcost Running Shoes from japan. 50 years later, that crazy idea is now known as nike the Largest SportingGoods Company in the world, topping 30 billion. It it has become one of the most recognizable brands in popular culture, and sponsors some of the most elite athletes. He will step down in june. Lls us stories of his early days in a memoir called shoedog. Phil it is great to be here. I was last year here in 1994. If i come back 100 years later charlie deal. It has been a remarkable life. Phil it certainly has. Charlie how do they convince you to write a book . Phil i