tv Charlie Rose Bloomberg June 4, 2017 11:00am-12:01pm EDT
>> from our studios in new york city. this is charlie rose. >> president trump announced today that the u.s. would withdraw from the paris climate accord. >> in order to fulfill my solemn duty to protect america and its citizens. the united states will withdraw from the paris climate accord, so we are getting out. [applause] we will negotiate and see there's a deal to be made. if we can, that is great. if we can't, that is fine. >> here is a report from the cbs evening news. >> the announcement was exactly
what the conservative activists wanted to hear. but he left the door open a bit, making it clear that in the four years it would take to formally withdraw from the agreement, he could find a new agreement favorable to the u.s.. >> this agreement is less about the climate, and more about other countries gaining a financial advantage over the united states. >> the paris accord he said, would lead to the laws of millions of american jobs and redistribute you as well across the world. >> we don't want other leaders and other countries laughing at us anymore. and they want to be. >> mr. trump's decision followed a spirited debate. stephen bannon, and aba administrators scott pruitt, --
epa administrator scott pruitt led the argument to leave their cords. his daughter, a ivanka trump, failed to convince him not to leave. they say that they regret the president's decision, and they asked other nations to speed up their actions to combat climate change. major ceos of u.s. corporations also stated that they were against leaving the accords. elon musk, special advisor to the president said he was departing the trump white house counsel stating that climate change is real. another ceo tweeted that he is disappointed. president trump is not mention president obama by name, but criticized his administration by failing to put america first when negotiating the deal. >> i was elected to represent the -- the citizens of pittsburgh, not paris. in a statement, president obama responded. >> i am confident that our
states, cities, and businesses will step up and do even more to lead the way. meanwhile, the russia probe continues to make headlines with james comey set to testify before the senate intelligence committee next thursday. jenny me now, is the deputy director of the sea -- cia. he is also a cbs news contributor. i am pleased to have them as always, back at this table. >> a big news day here. a big decision by the president of the united states. >> i think this is the worst decision he has made. i look at this as from a national security perspective. i see three big implications here. the first, is that, climate as a result of this decision, will be worse than it would be had we stayed in. that has to national security implications to it. the first is, i way to think about this, is -- when a
president thinks about national security as a whole, there are things that they need to be pursuing. having reliable allies and partners. making sure that the united states does not get attacked by terrorists. at the very top of the list, is preservation of the nation. when i think about the world, and the threats to the present -- preservation of the nation, there are only three, that i can see. the first is nuclear war with russia, and the second is a naturally occurring or man-made or logical, that would kill a significant number of the
population, and the third is climate change. climate change is that serious. over the long-term. this decision -- >> almost 200 nations agree with you. >> this decision, almost ensures that we, -- that if it goes through, and the next president does not change it, this decision will make the climate worse and therefore have national security implications with a very significant perspective. the other national security issue here, is that there are specific national security implications to climate change. for example, water shortages. fights, conflicts between nations over water.
instability caused by the increasing sizes of deserts. food problems, and the instability that that causes -- there is a whole bunch of stuff that we in the intelligence committee -- community actually study. those will get worse. as the climate gets worse. so there are two huge national security implications. then there are other implications that i think about, and one is what it -- this will impact u.s. security in the world -- u.s. leadership in the world. this is worse than barack obama's decision to not enforce the red line in syria. if you remember, it let our allies to question u.s. leadership. this will lead our allies to question whether we have any interest in leading the world anymore.
this is worse than barack obama's decision to not enforce the red line in syria. if you remember, it let our allies to question u.s. leadership. this will lead our allies to question whether we have any interest in leading the world anymore. >> it is said that this is one of the primary reasons that angela merkel made the speech that she did in her own campaign in germany. >> she said that she could not depend on the united states anymore. >> that's right, we have to be prepared to go our own way, and that she sees a private -- a better future with china that she sees with the united states. >> a remarkable set of statements. >> i think we are -- they are our primary competitor. >> i think part of it is domestic politics, and part of it is an election. and part of it, is also distancing herself from donald trump. but also, part of it is also the reality of the german interest. i felt that the president did very well in the middle east, reassuring or middle eastern allies, for eight years, believed that the president of the united states did not have their backs, and they are struggling against iran.
i think the president was very effective in a reassuring them. directly opposite in europe. the president did not make any commitment to article five. saying that we would come to their defense in the treaty. he specifically did not say it. the decision on climate change -- our going back and forth -- where are we on russian politics -- that is a fundamental issue for me -- for europeans, particularly for germany. it is not surprising that they feel they need to go their own way, just as our middle eastern allies and partners felt that they needed to go their own way when they felt that barack obama did not have their back. >> in a statement -- the reagan
administration said that the agreement helps to forge serious questions for our country -- our relationships and leadership around the world. the agreement helps forge that. >> i am a big fan of secretary scholz. we talked about this before, he says that foreign policy and national security are a pretty easy thing. if you do these things -- say what you mean, in other words be articulate with a policy that everybody in the ministrations saying the same thing. -- in the administration saying the same thing. that is a problem for this
administration. secondly, you have to do what you say. if you draw a redline, you respect it. >> you lose credibility. >> that's right you lose credibility. you stick with it. so now, we are struggling -- >> people came to join it because you were there, and you were part of it, and otherwise they would not have joined if you weren't. >> and other will -- that is why some people are just that in going their own way on this as well. >> there are said to be warring factions in the white house. people who work for staying in the paris accord and people who
work for leaving. >> so, i have been an analyst of other countries my entire career, and now i have become an analyst of my own country because everyone wants to talk about what is going in washington -- what is going on in washington. what i see are for centers of gravity. in the white house, there -- on foreign policy, international economic issues, and climate change. one of them is what the media is now calling the "nationalist," group. peter navarro on trade, -- people who have this "america first " mentality people who wants to restrict immigration and trade. people was to opt out of trade agreements, go backwards on the environment, because he wants to save jobs in west virginia,
etc.. they are very narrowly focused -- narrowminded in my view. the second group is what the media is calling "globalists " the traditional republican security come -- camp. jim mattis the defense, rex tillerson the secretary of state, mike pompeo of the cia. >> you include mike pompeo in there? >> yes i do. gary cohn, nikki haley, the ambassador to the u.n.. that group, they see the world the way that i do, which says that the u.s. needs to lead. and when they do not eat meat less when they do not lead, the vacuum is sealed by our allies. that group believes in free trade, and climate trade -- climate change and sticking to our agreement on climate change. those are the two primary groups, and then there are two others. both of those others have only one person in it. the third one is jared kushner, who has amazing influence on the
president, and i think he comes at things not from an ideological perspective, not from my perspective of what is in the interest of national security, but from a person active of making sure that my father in law does not make a mistake. making sure that his legacy is not tarnished. i actually call him, interestingly, i call him the barack obama of the trump administration. >> why? >> he is risk adverse -- risk averse, he asks a lot of questions. >> that sounds very good to me. life that sounds good to me to, in this environment, it is a helpful thing. i think he is on the good side of the globalists. >> i think when you talk about him you are also mentioning his wife, yvonne cap. -- ivanka trump. >> it was with the globalists on climate change. then you have the president of the united states in the fourth group. people, i think, do not understand that presidents -- do not understand the president's worldview. i do not think he has the same strong views. i think that president trump's worldview was framed on the campaign trail. on the basis of what he said
that resonated with the crowds. what he basically said was, if there is a direct threat to the united states of america, we will deal with it, and we will crush it. other than that, we will withdraw from the world. >> let me ask you about the middle east again, please connect these things as they relate to the white house. that trip was largely a product, it is said, of jared kushner. it is said that he carries a -- he did a lot of conversations with the saudi's, coming into this. why do you think that was successful, and is it wise for the united states, to identify a run as the enemy, and identify
with the saudi's and everybody's --and emirates and the other nations, who believe that the problem in the gulf is about the sunni-shia issue. while obama thought that it was important for the united states to be talking about both sides, here is a complete shift. and you think that it is the right thing? >> part of it. yes, i think it is appropriate to see iran as a significant and strategic challenge. to u.s. interests in the middle east. there is a long list of things that concern us. they themselves conduct terrorism as a tool of statecraft.
we provides support to international terrorist groups. >> where are they doing that, for the benefit of the audience am a are they conducting terrorism? by funding people like hezbollah? >> the state of iran, through the irg force, their covert action arm, they -- terrorism against jewish track -- israeli targets around the world, and against their neighbors. it has been going on for a long time. they are the only country in the world that, i think today, practices terrorism as a 12 statecraft. secondly, they support international terrorist groups like hezbollah, hummus and
others. -- hezbollah, hamas and others. third, they provide support to shia insurgent groups in the middle east, yemen is a great example. shia militant groups in eastern provinces of saudi arabia, other shia militant groups in bahrain, and that support is intended to overthrow those sunni regimes. fourth, it is a run in stick policy for the state of israel to disappear. -- state policy for israel to disappear. they hope to reestablish the persian empire in a very similar way to what vladimir putin sees himself establishing the russian empire. they hope to put -- if you put the nuclear program on top of that, this is a country that poses significant issues. >> not to mention that may just had a election, and someone who was not moderate, -- who is not considered moderate by us, was considered the more moderate of the other candidates. >> this is not a moderate from our perspective. you have to realize that this is an election, but every single candidate for president was approved by the supreme leader. this is not exactly open democracy. >> but they did not approve of
ahmadinejad. >> exactly. yes, we have to worry about iran, push back against them. we need to do that for a number of years, and we haven't read -- we haven't. >> president obama's principal point -- >> we need to push back on their behavior, but we also need to leave open a channel to them to get them out if they want to change their behavior. we also need to back our allies, make our allies feel that we are with them, we have their back, in the struggle against iran. they felt that president obama did not do that. what they felt in this trip, was that president trump will do that. so, they could not be happy -- could not be more happy with the president's trip, and how he is handling the middle east. >> take a look at what is going on in washington, with james comey testifying next week.
>> take a look at what is going on in washington, with james comey testifying next week. talking about the memos that he kept, he will do both a public and private testimony. what are the consequences of these -- of this? to have a fbi director say that he was urged to sport and invest -- to thwart an investigation. >> before he was fired, i thought there were three issues that needed to be investigated. with regard to trump associates, and the russians. the first, which jim comey had earlier said that the fbi was indeed investigating, was that if any trump associates come part with the russians and the interference of our election. did any of them help the russians? for example by choosing the material to be released? did anybody do that. the second thing is, did organized crime wonder money over an extended. of time? one of the president suns, i forget which one, said that russian money is flowing in. and there have been -- there is enough there to at least ask
that question. if anybody in the trump organization that it was russian organized crime money, that would be a crime. and even if they didn't know, the question becomes, did they do the due diligence required by u.s. law, to know where foreign money is coming from? that is an issue that needs to be investigated. the second issue, is whether there is anybody in the administration with access to classified information who has an inappropriate relationship with russian intelligence. i thought those were the three things that needed to be looked at, before jim conley was fired. now that he is fired, i think there is a fourth question, which is, will the president of the united states -- did he
obstruct justice by asking for jim comey, reportedly, asking for his loyalty, asking for his -- asking for him to let the investigation go? and then firing him. so, with regards to jared kushner, meeting with the russian ambassador, -- >> talking about alternative channels. like i think this is a great microcosm -- microcosm of the issue. the first thing i would say charlie, is that i look at this as the way that an intelligence analyst would. by doing that, the first thing i would say is that well, there is a big caveat here.
the big caveat is that the fact that we are in a public domain, may not turn out to be accurate. the real facts may be some were different. why do i say that? >> because you have experienced it. >> how do we know this jared kushner story? what we reportedly have, is that we have russians talking to each other about the meeting. we also have the u.s. collecting that intelligence of russians talking to each other about the meeting. then we have former officials and current officials, making that into reporters. -- leaking the best to reporters. and then they write stories based on those links, not having seen those intelligence documents, but having seen the people -- spoken to the people who leaks them. that is not good. as an analyst, looking at that, i will not appoint a high level of credibility to those facts. >> so you're saying, be careful here.
x that right, -- >> that is correct, be careful off the facts. my first thought when i thought of this, with that number one, this is not about jared kushner. it is about michael flynn, who was with jared kushner in that meeting. >> and he is known of that she is known to have had a relationship with the russians before that. >> i can believe that jared kushner was naive in asking to use russian, negations as a conduit. michael flynn should have known better. the focus is on jared kushner, because he is still in the administration. and he has enormous power. but, michael flynn was there, and he should be part of this story. the second thing that struck me, is that, it is less the desire to set up a channel -- remember
as reported by the washington post and the new york times, this was a channel for michael flynn to talk with the russians, supposedly to the russian military about syria and other issues. that was the channel. that does not bother me. greg's what if it was to talk about sanctions question mark >> that does not even bother me. >> what would bother you then? >> two things. i want to know why the request for secrecy. what were they trying to do? >> in order to make sure that you could be seen by the current administration? ask it might be that they were just worried about leaks. even the most benign conversation -- >> they do have a right to be paranoid about leaks. >> maybe they were trying to hide something else, i do not
know. but the request for secrecy is something that needs to be looked at. the second thing is was this slid's and thus was this flynn's and listeners idea? or did they have -- flynn's and kushner's idea? was this a well thought out approach? or was this kushner and flynn acting alone. implications either way. i think, the third thought i had, charlie, was that i am much more interested in what the trump associates said to the russians before the election, than i am in the election. i am more interested in whether they help the russians interfere with our election. i am primarily interested in what they said after the election, as a way to inform what they were doing with the
russians prior to read is much more important here to me. it is not unlikely that flynn did want to talk to them about syria, and sanctions him and other issues. i do not think that is a big deal. >> is that par for the course, for an administration that is not yet in power, and is it par for the course? people have always raised the question that we only have one president at a time. >> there is this thing called the logan act, which is meant to prevent a nongovernmental official from undermining u.s. policy. it has that -- it has been forced once. it hasn't been an forced in almost 200 years. during a presidential campaign, during the general election, there are foreign officials coming through those campaigns, having conversations, about what is your policy going to be? what are you thinking about? here is what we are thinking, we
would like your policy to be -- what are you thinking? that is helpful and there is no reason why that conversation has to stop during a transition. there is every reason to believe it should increase. that is why it doesn't bother me. here's the last point i will make, charlie. i think a lot of people, particularly some people in the media have been quick to grab this and conclude that something was done here that was inappropriate or even criminal. and i simply don't think the facts as we know them -- and you know my concerns about whether the facts are right. that the facts of the media take you there. take you to the judgment that there was something wrong down here. we have to be patient, we have to let the fbi do its investigation. charlie: former secretary of state hillary clinton and candidate for president 2016 said yesterday that she was
interested in the question of whether americans guided russians on how to weaponize information used against her? mike: i want to know that, too. that's why there is this focus on did anybody in the trump camp help the russians with both what to do with the information they stole from the dnc and what to do with the information they stole from john podesta as well as what fake news to amplify that would be most harmful to secretary clinton. i want to know that, too. charlie: president putin said in the last couple of days of this would've simply been from russia. not on the state level, but this could've been a hacker operating in a patriotic way. mike: i thought the word patriotic was the most interesting. charlie: because of modern technology, he suggested anything is possible and he even agreed with an observation made
by president trump that perhaps it came from somebody sitting in a room in new jersey. mike: it came from russian intelligence and the word patriotic tells you everything you need to know. charlie: let's go back to the middle east from investigations taking place. the possibilities in syria of deeper conflict between powers that are not part of the civil war. mike: i think we are entering a new phase and we are not giving enough focus to what is a growing risk. all of our focus is on the defeat of isis, the last fight in central mosul, and the fight in raqqa. that is where everybody's focus is.
there is something else happening and that is the growing risk of conflict between the major powers who are involved in this war, mainly between the united states and iran and the united states and russia. what is happening? what is the dynamic here? for the longest time, charlie, there were two separate wars. there was a civil war between assad and the syrian opposition and there was a second war between the u.s. and its allies and isis. charlie: bashar al-assad said he was part of that war. mike: but he really wasn't. now what is happening is that as assad is gaining ascendancy in civil war and as he is winning territory back that the syrian opposition took early on in the war, he and his iranian and hezbollah militia allies are
getting closer and closer to the syrian opposition forces that the u.s. has trained for fighting isis. just in the last two weeks, u.s. forces struck shia militia forces backed by iran, fighting for assad because those forces were getting too close to a military base where u.s. and british forces train opposition fighters to fight isis. u.s. -- it was the second time we've actually struck syrian government forces. second time was last week. the day before yesterday, the russians attacked western-backed, western-trained syrian opposition forces who are
fighting isis because there are getting close to a shia militia group. what is happening now is these forces used to be separated and now they are getting closer and closer and closer together. this is a growing risk and something that the pentagon needs to pay attention to. the state department needs to pay attention to. the situation room in the white house needs to pay great attention to. charlie: and the risk is something causes another person to react and then it becomes spiraling how to control and that is how wars start. thank you for coming. michael morell, back in a moment. stay with us. ♪
♪ charlie: christopher plummer is here. he is an oscar, tony, and award-winning actor. he stars in the new film, "the exception" as kaiser wilhelm ii. it is an adaptation of novel "the kaiser's last kiss" that follows the kaiser's visit to the netherlands during world war ii. >> you have beautiful hands. they are quite unused to physical labor? >> war changes everything. >> the kaiser relates of great symbolic importance to the german people.
>> you will speak only when spoken to in all discussion of politics is for bidden. >> you are to take immediate command of the military guard. british secret service have an agent in the area. >> if anything happens to him, captain, you will be shot. >> captain, there is a british spy after me. >> my name is stephan, i was wondering what your's was. >> take your clothes off. >> the female staff are not to be interfered with. >> the old man is getting a visit tomorrow. >> it seems we are to go back to berlin. >> can that be true? you are to be king again?
>> i'm jewish. >> i don't care. >> there was another transmission last night. >> the ss murdered my father. >> i think we should keep this to ourselves. i will protect you. >> are you serious? >> be careful, nobody is safe. >> can an officer have loyalty greater to anything that his country? >> marry me. now. today. >> he's going to turn you over to the gestapo. >> trust me. charlie: i am very pleased to have christopher plummer back at this table. welcome. christopher: thank you very much.
it is great to see you. charlie: tell me about what happened to kaiser wilhelm. we will talk about the movie and a second. christopher: i think he just went on living in holland and he died there. that part of his life is so vague and he never went anywhere, so nobody followed him and i don't think anybody really cared anymore. charlie: that was a problem for him. he wanted to be relevant. christopher: he did have those two chances. one not so accurate, perhaps, but the fact that the nazi party wanted him to come and be a puppet, but the real one was churchill wanting him to come and crown him and put him ahead of a losing country. horrible. he was pulled between these two sort of desires of his and that was what was so fascinating to play. charlie: here you have a german soldier coming in. i had forgotten heinrich himmler was in the netherlands.
is that where he died? he died from an attack on him. christopher: i don't know. i don't remember. charlie: whether it was the netherlands or not. they caught him in a jeep when he was going somewhere. so he is there and this nazi soldier comes then all of a sudden he has to choose between love of country and lovable woman. a classic dilemma. christopher: yes. i thought it was beautifully handled by johnny courtney because he is an actor who has done all of these action films and he is a hell of a lot better than that and he played that very difficult part you described beautifully. indeed as did young lily james. charlie: the woman? christopher: yes, the woman. charlie: tell me what you know about kaiser wilhelm. christopher: there isn't a hell of a lot.
research is fascinating for me, but there was very little on this rather empty man who is so insecure as well as being a narcissist and we know all about that. charlie: charlie: i read this and i'm asking you, you played lear. did you reach back into your sense of lear as a portrayal of kaiser wilhelm? christopher: there is a lot of lear, you are absolutely right, in kaiser wilhelm. he values his medals more than he does his kingdom and he really is a -- lear was just "forked animal,"
as shakespeare calls it. once you brush all the honors away you are a forked animal. he is an animal on a spit. lear was a good thing. i did indeed think about it, but i had fun with kaiser. he was a wonderful strutter. -- imagine firing bismarck when europe absolutely needed that. charlie: when you approach these, why did you take this role? christopher: first of all, i love good writing and the assignment was very good. you don't often get it on the screen -- it was also a wonderful theatrical character and something i had never done
before. i had never played the kaiser. i don't know who has played the kaiser, actually. perhaps some german actor has done it on the box. do you? i can't remember. i thought, i have got to grab this is maybe nobody else has done it. it's my turn. charlie: he has some definition. christopher: i have fun with him because we don't know anything about him from the time he was exiled on or not very little, he must have mellowed -- everybody mellows a little bit and so i concentrated on that, making him more of a person in becoming a little bit more sensitive a person. his wife played absolutely wonderfully by i think one of our absolutely greatest actresses, janet. she is extraordinary. charlie: would you tell her when you see her that we want her back at this table. christopher: if she is talking
to me. i did not bring her. >> my grandfather was an army officer, as was my father. he was killed just before i was born. >> and your mother? >> from a landowning family. >> which one? >> related to the -- distantly. after the war she had to clean houses. i remember helping her wheel home in a barrel. by the time we got to the bakery, it was worthless. she died of tuberculosis when i was 12. >> am i to blame for every misfortune on this earth? i gave my life to the fatherland and this is my thanks?
nobody cares. my navy to trade me, nobody remembers my army fell apart. where were they? after all i have done for them, they stabbed me in the back. they lost me the war. they lost me my country. charlie: to you want to work hard at this stage? christopher: three weeks is about it for a vacation. i'm dying to go on again. i enjoy what i'm doing. bad or good. charlie: you would rather be acting than playing golf. christopher: tennis was my game. i love tennis. i played all my life. charlie: what is it that you enjoy most other than this extraordinary professional life?
christopher: music, i think. classical music. i studied the classics. charlie: as a pianist? christopher: yes, as a pianist. i grew up in montréal and i am young enough to have seen rachmaninoff play the piano and he played his majesty's theater. charlie: i think that is so important, to have a lot of folks around the house and talk about them so there is a curiosity and secondly, that music. christopher: my wife was always telling me, for you, you have a lot of books around the house that you don't read. she has always accused me. and, of course, i realized how impossibly hard work it is an very lonely work it is to be a
concert pianist and my cousin is a very fine one and she plays all over the world. she really is doing what i once wanted to be. music has helped me in enormously. shading, giving each seen a different tone and on a different plane. it is terribly important and you do it in the theater because you got all the great writers writing for you, but you don't always get a chance to do it on screen. here was one chance. charlie: it may be true in theater more than film, and i am asking, that you have a chance to be more influenced by your colleagues, your other actors on stage than you do in film because often scenes are shot differently and you are alone.
christopher: that is right. there is a sort of love bond or hate bond. jason robarth was my -- and we tore this town apart, or we thought we did. it was p.j. clarke's. charlie: yes. still exists, but not the same. christopher: nothing is the same god dammit. i don't mind being an old-fashioned son of a bitch. when we play together we would always whisper under the lines together. he would say "i wish we would go tonight" and then continue. we used to go down to the white horse tavern. charlie: in the village. christopher: yes and i saw dylan
thomas get up and speak. charlie: in the tavern. christopher: he haunted that place. charlie: would he read his portrayal? christopher: he was angry about something. charlie: rage into the night. christopher: yes, he had gone off again. i don't member what it was all about, but it was so musical and he was extraordinary. he could talk on any subject. charlie: d have any great regrets that you didn't do this or take this role, that you didn't take this opportunity to do something when it was within grasp? christopher: i don't have any regrets and i shouldn't have because i have been extremely lucky. i somehow managed to cut terrible corners in my life and i have gotten away with it.
charlie: like what? christopher: i can't tell you. it is too embarrassing. charlie: cutting corners. christopher: to be lazy and do it all technically. that was only for a while and i got down to the serious stuff. as i got older i realized there wasn't that much time left and i better be good and real and honest when i do my work. charlie: you have always taken the work seriously. christopher: yes, even though i have had horrendous fun, marvelous fun. charlie: you always played to be good. -- always wanted to do a musical. christopher: he was going to do "guys and dolls" when i was at the national theater. garson canin was to come over and directed, but it didn't happen and i can't remember why.
for some reason, it all exploded in the air. charlie: this seems like such a great time in british theater. feel good, richardson, olivier. burton. christopher: peter o'toole was terrific. charlie: you, canadian who they let in. christopher: my colonial friend, it was awful. charlie: and burton being a welshman they let in. christopher: yes. i liked him very much. i didn't know him as well as peter. peter o'toole was magical. you have seen that. he did "lawrence of arabia" and he left me to play the part he was going to play on the national theater, which was henry the second. fortunately, we all made a big success of it and i got the prize that year.
he came back at the end of the season backstage to see me and there was rather a lot of posh people in the room. rather elegant and older and i had to be polite. peter came to me and he said i want to show you something, i want to show you something, and he lifted his pants and took them down and there was his bare ass in front of all these people who were terribly shocked. he said this is what those camels to do me. i tell you what i do for my art. of course, he had to ride bareback in that. charlie: that changed his life, that change his career. christopher: yes it did and to me, he never got the credit he should have for that. charlie: was there a role that changed your trajectory?
christopher: yes, later on in life it was "the insider." back then, henry the fifth got me going, actually up in stafford, canada. i was 26 and that got me my name above the title on broadway. it was the success of "henry iv" that started me going on a rough ride, but a good one. charlie: what did you think "the sound of music?" christopher: you of all people bring that up. charlie: i have no pride in doing that. i am just being a little bit mischievous here. christopher: do you really care? charlie: no, i don't. i don't because i know it was not the favorite thing for you. christopher: it was not, because everybody in the world saw it.
charlie: they did and they fell in love with it. christopher: but i was playing a part unfortunately that was rather dull, i thought and then i was terribly arrogant and very spoiled. i had already played "hamlet" and "macbeth." charlie: you said don't they know, i am a shakespearean actor. here to serve some commercial venture. would you spend more time on the stage or more time in film? christopher: if i was in marvelous shape i would go for the theater again. i may do something again before i croak. charlie: well i hope not soon. christopher: well not on your show. charlie: certainly not on my show. the film was called "the exception." thank you for joining us. see you next time. ♪
jonathan: from new york city for our viewers worldwide, i am jonathan ferro with 30 minutes dedicated to fixed income, this is "bloomberg real yield." ♪ jonathan: coming up, a downside surprise on payrolls. may job numbers in the united states disappoint. wage growth goes nowhere fast. fuel for treasury bulls, the 10 year yield plunges to a new low. spreads just keep grinding tighter. we start with the big issue, the payrolls report injecting uncertainty into the fed's next move. >> it is a weaker number than