Old kid. Yup. Rose all this stuff that might make you careful. But you werent careful. I wasnt careful. I had a dream. Rose Loretta Lynch and phil knight when we continue. Funding for charlie rose is provided by the flowing o. And by bloomberg, a provider of multimedia news and Information Services worldwide. From our studios in new york city, this is charlie rose. Loretta lynch is the 83rd attorney general of the United States. A native of North Carolina and graduate of Harvard College and harvard law school. She was a federal prosecutor and rose to be u. S. Attorney for the Eastern District. She was sworn in as attorney general of the United States a year ago this week. Happy anniversary general, and welcome to the program. Thank you, and thank you for having me. Lets 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 . You know, im not sure we can speak for every other country. We certainly do have one of the highest rates in the world. And it stems from a number of sources. I think we look back at efforts that we made that were truly speaking to violence to deal with the burgeoning drug problem particularly in the 80s and 90st 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. Well, weve lived through the results of those actions now, for several generations, actually. And weve seen some of the affects of some of the laws and regulations and statutes that we passed. So the 934y crime act was that a mistake. It wasnt just the 94 crime act at the federal level there were a lot of states that had those laws as well. In retrospect do you think it was a mistake. I think it didnt look through all the consequences. I think it was seeking to address the incredible amount of violence accompanying the drug trade particularly the drug trade grew in our large cities. You had individuals coming from overseas who were part of trafficking. I was a young prosecutor in the 90s and i remember those days. And i think that the thought was as is often the case, that a solution that was crafted and in washington could be passed. And essentially affect every neighborhood the same way. And it just didnt. And i think many of us who were practicek in that area saw those results soon after that. And realized that while if we could, in fact, use the portions of the crime bill to focus on the kingpins, the large scale traffickers, that it was really focused on, that would have a beneficial effect. But as it hit the lower level nonviolent offenders, it was not going to be. Bill clinton still said that it actually made the black Community Safer and murder rates were down. So he said there may have been some unintended consequences but it did some good too. Is that a Fair Assessment . I think its definitely a mixed bag. Certainly it was an effective tool when you were targeting those large scale drug traffickers. When you were targeting the people who literally had tons of cocaine in warehouses in the new york area, who were bringing in large amounts of cocaine by speed boat. It is a very effective tool for going after those traffickers. When, however, you are looking at the individuals who were on the streelt who were peddling the amounts, dangerous yes, carrying violence, yes, definitely something that had to be dealt with. But were they the ones that we were really looking at and needing to inflict the longterm mandatory minimums on. For example, that someone of the reasons why as we look at the effects of all those efforts, were looking at ways to ameliorate them. Not to say that people shouldnt be held accountable. They absolutely have to be. But we have to make sure that we have individualized prosecution and individualized look at this. And really use our resources on those large scale traffickers who are behind therug trade. You have a criminal justice bill, sentencing reform thats winding its way through the house and the senate am how confident are you, what are the odds that a bill will actually Pass Congress and be sent to the president for his signature this year . Well, i think its a very positive thing that this is a bill that has bipartisan support. I think its an incredibly positive thing that this is a bill that recognizes that many of our states have been great laboratories of criminal Justice Reform and that they have given ideas that have found their way into this bill also. I think it is an incredibly positive thing that members from across the aisle are working together. Do you support what they are doing so far. Absolutely, absolutely. We support their efforts and we obviously are looking to support them as they continue this road. Let me turn to a totally different subject. The apple encryption case. Two cases so far. And the government has found workarounds in both. But this is only going to increase. And the companies are not going to provide back doors. Do you have a strategy to how this is going to be resolved . I think this is part of a larger conversation that has to be a national krvetion. We have been engaged in discussions with companies for some time trying to highlight the concerns that we have. Not about strong encryption. We have to have strong encryption but about warrantproof encryption. Making sure we strike that right balance between protecting all of our information, all of our intellectual property and letting Law Enforcement protect all of our citizens. Do you think, does it require ledge slaiks do you think ultimately. Because we dont seem to have made a great deal of progress in the last couple of months. I think we are at the beginning of the discussion. I think were at the beginning of the debate. People are talking about legislation, certainly well look at whatever is. Youre open to that. Well look at whatever is proposed. I think it still requires this national conversation. And i think it still requires the participation of all the stakeholders. Citizens, government, the tech companies, who have very different positions depending upon how they as well. We havent really that wide cass am much, have we. I dont think you can call it one single casm because the issue comes up in so many different ways. From a Law Enforcement per spisk, if we are looking for evidence on a device, were looking for cooperation and help from the Tech Community in accessing that, as we have been fortunate to vuf in the past. Where now hitting these issues of at what point do the cmpanies feel encryption and those issues mean that they shouldnt or cant provide that support. And were working on those. And i think that discussion has to continue also. It may end up going to the Supreme Court, you know, before its all over. But that brings me to the question. I know you very much want judge gar land to be confirmed. It looks like it might not happen at least until after the what are the consequences of an eight person Supreme Court. I think the court is certainly at its strongest when it has a full complement of injurist like the outstanding ju rists we have now. Certainly judge gar land is someone that falls into that category. His reputation proceeds him as an experienced pros cuter, as a fair minded ju rist, as an experienced jurest and outstanding writer, somebody that could easily step into the great standards of the Supreme Court. But if he is not confirmed for awhile, does it much matter . They still solve cases. Sometimes the Lower Court Ruling is dominant then. What difference does it make . I think we have to look at the institutional difference there. We have a system whereby the president makes a nomination, be it of a Supreme Court justice and other judges or other positions that are confirmed by the senate. And theres a process that goes under way, that gets undertaken. And that process, in fact, is what helps keep a whole host of institutions running. Not just the Supreme Court. And i think we have to be careful not to let those processes grind to a halt. Are you worried that the court, apart from the gar land issue, the court has become at least in the publics mind too polit sized. You think of four republicans, four democrats the other way. You attended the, i think the arguments on the immigration case. And youre not going to comment on an individual case, i know, but that appeared to be almost a partisan divide. Is there a fear that the court will use its credibility if its tossed into this partisan. I think one of the unfortunate things about the polittization of so many issues in our society has been how great institutions like the Supreme Court have been drawn into that. You know, i think that every justice on the court works incredibly hard to focus on the important issues before them. And despite who appointed them or despite what people might think was their affiliation, they work well together, they get along together. And i think frankly its a tragedy for our legal system when people have a view that important issues are decided along those partisan lines. But you know, on that immigration case, you work for a president who critics, particularly republican critics in this election year, say has engaged in unprecedented overreach on executive actions, on immigration and the environment, that these are really, this is a reckless abuse of executive power. What is general lynchs answer to that . Well, i think that as we expressed in the pleadings and the immigration case, when the president has acted, with its executive power, hes done so after a careful review of law and precedent and looking at similar situations. And well see what the court says. And obviously well abide by the decision of the Supreme Court and well work within it. Because that is our system. We have the utmost respect for the court. But i can tell you that with respect to those actions, this administration, this president look at legal precedent. They look at administration president. They look at congressional precedent before they take those actions. You are a proud tar heel, a native of North Carolina. Your state has been embroiled in several controversy 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 . Well, obviously we felt that the law as was crafted by the legislature set up imper missable roadblocks to the voting booth for individuals for. Reduced registration as well. But will you appeal that decision . Well, were still reviewing that decision it is fairly lengthy. We have read it were looking at it carefully. We havent made that decision yet. But i think that what it really tor pend more tends is a larger issue of the issue of Voting Rights in this i c. Since the shellby county decision which did strike down portions of the Voting Rights act, particularly preclearance. We have seen a number of states change their voting laws. Now we will still use every tool in our toolbox. We will still look at every other provision of the Voting Rights act to make sure that the path to the voting ballot box is clear and free and open for every one. But it does raise significant concerns for us. Do you think the North Carolina law is intended to is aimed at africanamericans to disenfranchise or make it harder for blacks to vote . I think you have to look at a whole host of things there. And so i think that we have to look at the not just the intent but also the impact of the laws as well. Particularly if there is not really been show a need for these successively harsh limitations on voting. When there hasnt been any need shown or any particular high level voter fraud shown, you have to look at the impact there. Not just on minorities but on elderly individuals, on students as well. You know. Doesnt it disproportionately affect minorities. In the North Carolina case and in other cases, 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. And so where we see that in particular, thats an area of great concern for the Justice Department. But i will tell you that these laws have the possibility of impacting a host of groups access to the ballot box and that is not what this country is about. The other controversy, among the other controversies down in North Carolina is they passed a law that would prevent local governments from enacting antidiscrimination laws. And they prescribe what public bathrooms transgender people can use. Are there constitutional issues raised in that . Is justice looking at whether theyre going to possibly challenge that law . Well, obviously were aware of that law. And it certainly is a situation that were monitoring. I believe the state Legislature Legislature is also looking at the law. So were looking to see what if anything they do to modify it, change it or repeal it. Its being played out in North Carolina right now but we are monitoring that situation. So you would let it play out in North Carolina before you would decide if you would get involved in it. I think the state legislature is considering whether to modify that law or appeal it if at all. So we certainly want to see what, if any, steps they take. But we are monster moniterring that. Are there constitutional issues. I think there could be. When we look at it and look at the law in whatever state it will remain, whatever situation it impli implicates and however it is graforted crafted, we look carefully on whether this affects the constitution or general statutes. You dont comment on specific cases, i know that. But 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 class if i kaition laws. She is almost certainly headed for the democratic nomination in three months. The election is less than six months away or a little over six months away. There has been the doesnt the fbi and jus justice owe it to the voters to reach a decision very scwikly. You sort of started my answer with your question. I know will you will not comment on the merits. You raise important issues about how we actually conduct investigations of all types of cases. And i think its important that the American People know that this matter is being handled like any other matter. It is being handled by the independent career, lawyers, agents who look at the facts and look at the evidence and will come to a recommendation on it. And we handle it that way because it has to be treated like any other case. People have to have confidence that we treat every case the same, no matter whose last name is involved or no matter how much publicity it gets. Im not talking about favoritism or lack of the same for anyone. But its not like any other case. I mean this potentially affects the person who might or might not be the next president of the United States. And im not talking about what decision you come down with. Im just saying isnt time of the essence and dont you owe it to the American People to come up with a decision very soon . I think we owe it to them to do a full, thorough and independent review. Even if that takes until october. Of everything that comes to our attention. We have to be full, thorough, fair and independent of that. And we dont make predictions on the time. Because that essentially cuts off the independence of that. It cuts off. The thoroughness of that. We dont predict the timing of any of our matters. But have you talked about it with the fbi directer. We dont predict the timing of any of our matters. I am not going to get an answer, i can tell, i tried. Let me talk about class if i kaition, is the central issue here of whether there was a vy lengths. Is st intent as it was in the David Petraeus case or is it gross nedges what is the standard, what is the test . I think what has been reported is that we received an inquiry into the handling much classified information particularly of people who were no longer in government as to whether or not it had been improperly handled or properly handled. And thats the security review that we get in a number of situations, and that was the genesis of this matter. And so beyond that im not going to be able to comment on the specifics of it, except to say that we do look at the issues presented. But as i said before, we look at them thoroughly, fairly, independently and a recommendation will be made. But im saying leaving aside this case, and you have had other cases, not when you were attorney general but David Petraeus, and im just trying to say what is the standard for is it intent or is it gross nedges or Something Else . You know, every case is different. There is no standard. Every case it just depinneds upon how a matter comes up. It really depends upon the facts of every particular case. There was a lot of damage caused by the economic cataclysm of 2008, 9, in the Eastern District in new york, you certainly saw that. There does it bother you that no one from wall street has gone to jail . There were a thousand people who went to jail during the ss l crisis, this was far worse and no oneness think it had a far ranging effect it was definitely you were right, this is systemic longterm