With what he is doing. So you sort of have this strange triangle, aig, the government, mr. Greenburg himself and the shareholders. Rose we conclude this evening with the new film gone girl we have the director david finch and the stars ben affleck and rosamund pike. Also the arthur Gillian Flynn. What these guys put together was a really interesting challenge, and a really interesting and unusual protagonist it is not a conventional protagonist. Hollywood has an obsession of likability. If you read studio notes, the guy is not likable enough. We are not invested vested with him enough. So to make somebody likable the theory goes you have to, like, adhere to these six or seven articles of behavior. And this movie, this book and movie seem to totally want to abandon that. I certainly started the story with that idea of, you know, what how honest are we ever in relationships. You know, i like that idea that we are kind of emotional conartists when we start in on, you know, any sort of meeting that were presenting our best self forward. And i like that idea that you know, this was, you know, a murder mystery but marriage was a mystery, you know, to solve the murder, you have to solve the marriage and figure out who these two people really were. The opening of the Supreme Court, the aig case, and the movie gone girl when we continue. Funding for charl yee rose is provided by the following additional funding provided by 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. October and the u. S. Supreme court today opens its 2014, 2015 term. It declined to rule on the issue of gay marriage. That decision clears the way for gay couples to wed in five states and has banned samesex marriage. They also announced that there would be hearing some other important cases. Joining me now from washington, cnn chief legal analyst jeffrey toobin. So tell me about the new Supreme Court term, we are here on the first monday in october. Well, what we know is what it will not include. Is the final climactic battle over whether there is a constitutional right to samesex marriage. In a surprise to many people, including me, i must say, the Supreme Court today denied serbary, in other words, refused to hear five cases where circuit courts of appeals had held that there is a constitutional right to samesex marriage. So in fact, the decision today brings to 30 the number of states that will have samesex marriage. But it does not issue a ruling for all 50 states about whether there is a right to samesex marriage. So theyre kicking the can down the road a little farther. But the direction seems to be clear. Rose and theyre looking for the perfect case before they hear . I dont think thats thats it so much as theyre looking to see, first of all, is there a conflict between Appellate Court rulings on issues. So far every Appellate Court that has decided this case has decided it the same way. And said there is a constitutional right to samesex marriage. Now the interesting question is, there are a couple of more conservative circuits out there, including the 6th circuit which is based in cincinnati where those panels may say there is not a right to samesex marriage. So it could come back to the Supreme Court as early as this term, to address this question. But it seems to me the justices want to let this percolate for a little while longer before they address it. And tell me about elonis versus u. S. This is a rap music, case, right . Or this is its such a bizarre case. You know, it is yet another example of how Technology Changes the law. There is a couple that was romantically involved. And the man, they had a big fight. And the man posted a bunch of really terrible things on facebook that were at a very least malevolent and offensive, and possibly and seemingly threatening. He was prosecuted for making terrorist terroristic threats, including citing some rap music. And the question is, are those statements on facebook protected by the first amendment. Its a pretty hard case. Rose the other case is hold versus hob bs in which the justices will decide whether a muslim prison inmate may grow a half inch beard which is against prison regulations. Right. You know, this is there have been related cases involving religious accommodation of prisoners. How much do you have to accommodate. You know, is there a right to kosher or halal food in prison. And the courts have basically said yes. There, you know, related cases of in the military, can you force someone to not to wear a yalmlke because its not military regulation. This case, you know, poses the interest in prison discipline and security versus religious expressionment but it seems to me the beard is a pretty easy case, that they will allow the beard to be worn. Finally, this. Is this year likely to significantly define the legacy of chief justice rob erth roberts . I think its a little earlier early yet to say that. Buttothings to keep an eye on here that are related. One is race discrimination. This is a court, the conservative majority, and here Anthony Kennedy is very much with his fellow conservatives, really has a great distaste for any sort of consideration of race. Affirm of difficult action, racial preferences and admissions. And theres a case involving housing discrimination which gives them another opportunity to say, we are not going to recognize anything other than direct discrimination. I am not hiring you. Im not allowing you to rent a house because you are black. That any sort of statistical proof, they dont like. And in a similar way, on Voting Rights, any sort of consideration of race in Voting Rights is something thats clearly distasteful. And theres a case out of alabama that i think the conservatives will use to further narrow the traditional civil right as genda. So those are two, i think, very much worth keeping an eye on. Thanks for joining us. Pleasure to have you. All right, charlie. Well be right back. Stay with us. There is more high legal drama in washington. It concerns the governments 2008 bailout of aig. Global Financial Services powerhouse was rescued at the height of the economic crisis since 2011, aig former c. E. O. Hank greenburg has taken aggressive aim at the terms of that rescue. His lawsuit argued that the government cheated shareholders out of 40 billion. The trial began last week and continues this week with david boyd, greenburgs lawyer said to grill a list of star witnesses am these include former Federal Reserve chairman ben bernanke. Hank paulson, former president of the new york fed, tim gtener who later became treasury secretary under president obama. Im joined by Aaron Kessler of the New York Times and leslie discuss. Of the wall street journal. Scism of the wall street journal. Give me the significance of this trial beyond the the suit which is to recover some money, leslie . The case is significant because it really challenges what the government was doing. Now of course weve had dowd frank since then that has put in place measures for how you would resolve companies if they get into financial trouble. But this would be a really big slap in the face of the government. But not having properly carried out this particular rescue. Rose and its probably the first time that these guys have been under oath to explain their actions and by a very, very good trial lawyer who is not only read their book, but also subpoenaed or gotten information about the writing of their books and what they have said. Every possible note or utterance they made, about this case. Precisely. These gentlemen gentlemen have testified extensively in congress. And been before the financial crisis inquirery commission. So they are used to giving testimony. But they may not be used to the bull dog approach, that theyre going to face with david here. Rose aaron, what do you think of this case . I think youre correct. I mean essentially what you have here is a situation where the government bailed out aig to the tunes of tens of billions of dollars. And then they come back in this case, six years later, and they say it wasnt enough. So its one of those things where the government seems to believe if aig has the ability to dictate the terms of its own bailout that that sets a very dangerous precedent for any other Company Going forward, even with dowd frank, should trouble arrive in the future. Yes, i want to add to that, that the plaintiffs, Star International company run by Hank Greenburg, maintains that the government wrongly applied punitive terms, wrongly sought to penalize it. The government and its response says no, we werent so much being punitive as we were looking, we were concerned about moral hazard. And we felt we had to put together a very stiff set of terms because we didnt want to encourage other companies to be reckless, and then think they could come to us and getter deal than they could get from the private sector. Rose but does it make the case, will david boyd be able to make the case that somehow the terms in this situation were different from the terms with other banks, and that therefore they want beyond the law in the collateral they demanded, the stock, as well as the Interest Rates they imposed. In certain ways theyve already raised that at the trial, just in the first week, and now this testimony by hank paulson. And they almost have the government officials admitting that that is the case, that it was a harsher penalty for aig, that did have a higher Interest Rate than any other bank. But what the government has said is look, were justified to do that. We had our reasons, that we felt it was necessary, and it was legal. But in terms of the basic tenants of whether or not aig was treated differently, its almost like thats already been decided and now theyre arguing over whether that was right or wrong. Exactly. I think hank paulson today testified, said under oath that it was apples to oranges, some of these comparisons that david was bringing up about tougher treatment for aig versus some other companies. And he said we were acting based on the kirx in this case so, it will be based on the circumstances in this case. So it will be interesting how the judge, does it matter in the end legally that one got a different set of conditions than many others did. Rose what was the hardest question for hank paulson today . He did struggle a little bit on a question about china. He seems to take issue with the idea that the china aes government, the cic, was going come in and save the day for aig. He was very skeptical that was going to happen, mr. Boist tried to press him on that to see whether he was really open to the idea of a chinese rescue. And then hank paulson would push back, probably the hardest, de all day, against that idea. Rose and then youll hear from ben bernanke and also from tim quitener, as i said, these are the three people who were at the centre of the financial crisis, how difficult a road is this for david boyes to climb. He has several challenges. First he has to prove that the government did act beyond went beyond the reaches of the fed really reserve statute, correct. But then on top of that he may have to prove damages. And Economic Loss to aig. So even if hes able to convince the judge that aig that the government did something wrong here, the government may still be able to say, but where is the harm . Where is the loss . They cant prove they were hurt by anything we did. So it seems like david does have a pretty hard pretty hard case. But hes got a lot of money, you know. Mr. Greenburg has been paying the legal bills, and theres been a lot of money coming in. But they have been able to spend a lot to build as good a case as you could possibly build. And mr. Boyes has been successful in certain aspects of defending mr. Greenburg, has he not . The government has fought to get this case thrown out a couple of times. And you know, still here we are in court. And a couple claims remain. So that says david boyes has had some success so far. Rose aaron . Thats exactly right. There is also a case a couple of years ago where Hank Greenburg sued aig about who owned star, the company that is now suing in this court. So he represented mr. Greenburg and won that case, and was able to show that Hank Greenburg actually was the controlling interest in star, as opposed to aig. And whats interesting is now you go a couple years later, and here we are in court. And there is no one from aig that is necessarily on mr. Greenburgs side. You have a few of his old friends from the company, and what not. But aig itself is not a party to this suit, and they dont really agree with what he is doing. You sort of have this strange triangle, aig, the government, mr. Greenburg and the shareholders. Rose you come back to what mr. Denser said who is the governments lawyer. He said its like theyve said thanks for the life boats, but theyre just not comfortable enough. In his opening argument. In some ways aigs interests are aligned with the government here. Because as we have reported in a story at the the wall street journal, there are some indemnification provisions in the Credit Facility that is at the heart of this case. So if, if mr. Greenburg wins this case, if star wins this case and there is some big award, the government could turn to aig and say well, we like your help paying for this. There are some good reasons why aig could get, you know, arguably could get out of that indim anyification agreement. But its an interesting twist here. Rose aaron, how is aig doing now, some eight, nine years later . Its doing okay. Thats part of what the government has been saying. Is look, to get to the previous point about damages, where are the damages here . The aig shareholders might have obviously taken a certain haircut at the time, if you will, in terms of the shares and the way they were diluted. But they ultimately made money. The government is saying look, the shareholders in this case wound up making money, so there is no way we should have to go back later on and give them even more. Remarkably aig is doing okay, all things considered. Rose what interested me about this, is just the dynamic of this courtroom, with the issues as big as they are, and the money as large as it is, and the personalities who are in there, as witnesses, you know, and the star quality of david, reputed to be, certainly one of the great trial lawyers. Its interesting, though, in terms of you mention mr. Boyes and his style. He has this sort of conversational style and the way he deals with the witnesses,. And mr. Paulson today was very straightforward, if you will, might not be the best word. But he would answer the questions very directly. They kind of moved through very quickly, much more quickly than we would have thought. Whereas last week the feds general counsel was on the stand and seemed to contest every little point. They were arguing over the meaning of words like what does many mean, or, you know, is a bond downgraded, and so that took days. I mean so it will be interesting to see if mr. Quitener and ben bernanke learn from what hank paulson did today and sort of follow in that lead. Rose thanks, leslie, thanks, aaron. In full disclosure i should note that many years ago the Star Foundation like many other found station foundations was one. Underwriters of this show, and david boyes has been a long time personal friend of mine. Back in a moment. Stay with us. Rose Gillian Flynn wrote a 2012 thriller called gone girl it has sold 8 million copies worldwide it follows nick and amy dunn a couple experiencing a marriage gone wrong when amy mysteriously goes missing. Nick becomes a prime suspect in the investigation of her possible murder. It is now filmed by david finch, heres is the trailer for gone girl. Nick dunn, youre probably the most hated man in america right now. Did you kill your wife, nick . Every one told us, and told us, marriage is hard work. Not for me and nick. As you all know, my wife, Amy Elliott Dunn disappeared three days ago. I had nothing to do with the disappearance of my wife. I have nothing to hide. You dont know if she has friends. You dont know what she does all day, and you dont know your wifes blood type. Just being a good guy,. Boy, you really dont like hirjs do you. All im trying to do is be nice to the people who are volunteering to help find amy. I will practice believing my husband loves me. But i could be wrong. Have you ever seen that guy in the glasses before. Amy is the kind of girl who attracts admirers. Im hoping you can tell me what this means. Amys treasure hunt. You seen this girl around here. Yeah, i remember her. I know you. I saw you at the volunteer center. I wanted to help. Whats your want. She wanted a gun. We are all scared, but we are all fear now. I feel like something to be jetisoned is necessary. I feel like i could disappear. The hallmark of a socio path is a lack of empathy. Amy lost a lot of blood in there and somebody mopped it up. Why would they mop up the blood if they were trying to stage a crime scene. Whatever they found, i think its safe to assume it is bad. I finally realized im frightened of my own husband. In a deposition what to say, what not to say. A trained monkey. Who doesnt get legal injections. Shes going eat auliffe. You assaulted her. Thats not good enough for you. I hit her . Absolutely not, i never touched her. Involved in the disappearance of our daughter. Without a body, without a murder weapon, their only hope is a confession. Do yall know anything yet. You need to tell me, how was your marriage, nick. Are you asking me if i killed my wife. Man of my dreams, this man of mine. What about my side. This man may kill me, in her own words. This may may man may truly kill me. Did you ever hear the expression, the simplest answer is often the correct one. Actually, i have never found that to be true. Rose joining me now david fincher, the director, Gillian Flynn, the author, screenwriter and two the stars ben affleck and rosamund pike. Im pleased to have them here at this table. Welcome. Thank you very much. Rose explai