♪ announcer: from our studios in new york city, this is "charlie rose." >> they are going to want to have the four corners of the airplane, so to speak, the wing, the nose, the tail, and really look at the evidence they have and that will help them to understand the sequence of events, and also where things might have originated. if it was a failure, or an explosion. they can get that information from the physical evidence. >> also this evening, john dickerson on the political race in america. >> the train is leaving the station. and hillary clinton. republicans do not want her. that is another reason why

donald trump is bringing up the clinton years. he wants to create a sense of, you know, hillary clinton wants to talk about the job legacy during bill clinton, he wants to talk about other things. that reminds republicans to say -- stay focused on who the real enemy here is for donald trump, and that is hillary clinton. charlie: and we conclude with bryan cranston playing lyndon b. johnson in hbo's "all the way." bryan cranston: i was fortunate enough to go from walter white and the complexity of that man to lyndon johnson. complex in different ways, but far greater a man than walter white ever was because of his altruistic nature. charlie: what happened to egyptair 804, a conversation with john dickerson, and bryan cranston when we continue. we begin this evening with egypt flight 804.

he crashed in its flight from paris to cairo. it may too abrupt turns according to the airline it was , carrying 56 passengers and 10 crewmembers. as of this taping investigators have found some of the wreckage, but have yet to confirm the cause of the crash. the egyptian minister of civil aviation said an act of terrorism is more likely than a technical failure. it comes after terrorists exploded a russian jet over the sinai peninsula last october, killing all people on board. 224 and there was a standoff that resulted in no injuries. joining me from illinois is deborah hersman. she is the president of the national safety council. she previously served as chairperson of the national transportation safety board. here in new york, michael hannah of the century foundation. i am pleased to have both of them on

this program. deborah what do we know now and , what does it indicate? deborah hersman: they looked at the radar track, and there will probably be a couple different sources of information for them to take a look at. there is civilian radar but also military radar, intelligence information coming in. they will probably be trying to overlay all that and cooperate -- corroborate the information the half on the different sources to create a mosaic of sorts to see the picture more clearly. this is going to be an international effort where a number of sources will aid in that effort. charlie: any evidence this is terrorism? michael hanna: it is surprising at this really early stage in the investigation how much the issue has come up already. a lot of intimation, in fact, it is terrorism. i lack the technical expertise to comment on whether a sort of turn of the plane suggest terrorism, but clearly egyptian aviation minister has mention this. we have reports of sourcing with

american officials and other european officials suggesting this. it looks that way, but obviously, one cannot be too sure. charlie: is there anything to say about what could have been the cause if it was not an explosion, deborah? deborah: it really is early. it is the first 24 hours. so, they will certainly be looking at things like mechanical failure, human error. there are a number of things. the weather does not seem to be a factor at this point. but they will be looking at all of those pieces. some of the evidence they are going to need would be whether -- would be the same whether it is safety or security, they want those reporters. they are going to want to have the four corners of the airplane -- the wing, the nose, the tail, and really look at the evidence that they have and that will help them understand the sequence of events and where things might have originated. if it was a failure, a mechanical failure, or an explosion.

they can get that from physical evidence. charlie: i would assume things they have going forward are that they have found debris and number two, they know something about possible width of and depth of the accident scene. or the scene with the plane hit the water. that says something about how they might find the recording box. yes? deborah: very helpful to have such good radar coverage in this area, and the fact that the debris is showing up so early. that is going to narrow their search field. the mediterranean is a heavily traveled sea, so they will have a lot more sense when it comes to the recovery operations about what their challenges are there. i think it is a good time of year. the weather can certainly be a help to them as execute those operations. there is a lot of international resources in that area that can be brought to bear.

charlie: what should be the conversation at this point about the tragedy? michael: clearly, people will think about terrorism, looking at the context of where it happened. you mentioned the metrojet crash. egypt has suffered from a variety of security issues for several years now. there is a low-level insurgency in the peninsula. led by isis affiliate. mainland egypt suffers from various kinds of anti-state and anti-regime violence, focus on police and army. and more recently, we have seen the sort of development, the evolution of international terrorism focusing on things like civilian aviation. this would be one more serious incident that egypt has suffered in recent months. you know, there has been no good news for egypt as of late. this would be keeping with that. charlie: or with respect that france has authority. -- been a target.

michael: absolutely. if it is in fact terrorism, we have this egypt angle which we just discussed, but we also then have the possibility that this potentially is a security breach in europe, coming on the heels of the attack several months back in belgium, this begins to look like a worrisome trend, and it will exacerbate political issues that are roiling the entire continent. charlie: deborah, i keep asking starting this morning on cbs, is why can't we be, or should we be developing even streaming, some way of being able to have outside evidence of what is going on in a plane that is not dependent on finding things that are in the sea? deborah: there have been a lot of people advocating for something like this for many years. it really comes down to cost and the technology, the bandwidth. that is a lot of information to be sent, but it is not something

that is impossible from a technology perspective. they already send data back. the question is how often, how frequent that is, and what triggers singing that reports, whether it is on maintenance or the operation center? there is the ability to do it, but it has not been mandated across the board for all phases. charlie: why not? deborah: i would say cost is the biggest factor here. at the end of the day, you think about all of the data you could stream, and airplanes now are so sophisticated. they are not just recording 13 parameters. they are recording 1300 parameters. so, deciding which information you send back -- what are you providing? do you send all of that immediately or in real time? what do you want to capture? there is a lot of work that needs to be done to do this. but at the end of the day, it really does come down to the expense that it would really

required to do this. charlie: it would require some kind of implementation of that technological equipment. countries have to ask themselves should we mandate this, do we demand the same way we demand other types of safety items on a car? deborah: absolutely. we are try to identify risk, high priority areas, and trying to identify what you want to send back. there has to be some prioritization that would take place, even if we were to go down this path. because implementation would not likely occur across the board. you would have to face it in. charlie: thank you for joining us. deborah: thank you, charlie. charlie: we will be right back. stay with us. ♪

♪ charlie: the political campaign heats up, and joining me is john dickerson, political editor of "cbs news" and an anchor of "face the nation." welcome back. john: thank you, charlie. here we have the democrats fighting. bernie sanders does not want to go. he believes what? john: he does not want to go, you are right. he wants his message to be protected here. he built of movement but he wants that the protected, and now there is a fight over whether he is being railroaded of his moment and his movement.

he wants to take the bolts all the way through to california and washington d.c., and he feels like the system has been stacked against him. so, the question is whether these fights have been roiling, intricate in nevada. it becomes a larger part of his argument, which is the elites have rigged the system in the democratic party, and that meshes with his larger argument that the elites have rigged the economic system. will you keep that fight going, not only to the convention but afterwards, or will he put it back in the box and say, we fought the good fight, i was beaten fair and square, and i hand this case off to hillary clinton where she can prosecute on my behalf? charlie: for the unimaginable. he says this is a growing movement i am head of. we may even consider a third-party candidacy. john dickerson: they said so far they won't. they will stay in the democratic party, but you never know. one thing that happens in the fight over nevada and

back-and-forth, you have debbie wasserman schultz, the democratic party chair, is suggesting that sanders has been inciting this violence. sanders feels that is an effort to suggest it would push them out of the race. saying basically, the system has been stacked against him all along. so tempers get flaring in the heated that's the problem is logistics. running as third party getting on the ballot can be hard to do. charlie: what she is doing, reaching out to get him, to say to him, what can i do to bring you on board? what is it you need, want for your supporters? john: right. they tried to do -- they tried through senators, his friends. the problem, they tried to extend that friendship. the problem is the conversation,

if you start having them too early, you are showing him the door. and they have tried a number of gambits. hillary clinton has tried to say when i was behind barack obama, i recognized when it was over and i did the right thing. that is glossing over the history. there was real contention between clinton and obama in that way. but they have been trying to play this delicate dance, letting him have his movement. an extraordinary thing because if they honor that and go through the rest of the process, that will make it easier for him to come into the fold. the question of what he wants are anywhere from a lot of different policy things to what would a night of bernie sanders+

that is what ted kennedy got in 1980, an entire night to serve him and his ideas, not just bernie sanders speaking, but a whole night build around his themes. that would be a great gift to him and honor what he created, but it would be unpredictable and potentially have what happened in 1980, which is ted kennedy becomes a liberal hero, and jimmy carter is a second fiddle. charlie: and went on to lose to ronald reagan. john: it made it impossible for him to fight on two feet against reagan. it made him impossible to fight on two feet against reagan. you could see it sanders keeps the fight up and keeps going in philadelphia, some clinton people are saying, you are handing the selection to donald trump. charlie: who is going to win in california? john: based on everything we know, hillary clinton. wide margins. in michigan wide margins and sheehan of losing. in new york, her margin was bigger than people thought it would be. new jersey, things looked good. in california, they look good. you know, i think a win will be a win for her. and then there is the map, which

is basically for him to beat her in pledged delegates, you have to do something almost mathematically impossible. charlie: and then there is donald trump trying to unify his party. what he has been doing is attacking bill clinton and her with what objective? somehow to drive down any connection there may be between women that might not be heading to support her and and bring them over to the republican fold? john: there are several objectives. one is to act as a brake against attacks on him. his argument is, you play the woman card against me, this is how i am going to respond. charlie: i will counterpunch you. john: if you put it in the frame of counterpunching, it is like, well, it is an equal attack. that is not the case. he is using an asymmetrical kind of attack. if he is being attacked on family leave, he is being responding with bill clinton. if there is a story about his

relationship with women, he is talking about bill clinton. they did not put this in the new york times. but what he is doing is saying, if you want to go in this direction and talk about relationships with women, i have got plenty to talk about too, and that's got to cause some pause for the clinton campaign because of this reason. it puts the race in a turf he is more comfortable with, streetfighting, schoolyard fight. and also it is an ugly history with bill clinton and his relationship with monica lewinsky and some of these other charges. charlie: the question that he wants to raise is did she -- i would not show sisterhood with women who are the victims. john: all victims should be listened to. and no victims make up life. -- lies. if what about women that said that is the argument, things

-- what about these women that said things about your husband? she was asked about that, and she said they should be believed in the beginning. and then at the facts don't bear that out, but that is complicated territory and not a conversation she wants to have. she was to talk about anything but that. charlie: but it continues to be an issue. john: he does. and he knows have to play the media, too. charlie: yes, he does. if that is one thing we know about the 2016 campaign, donald trump understands media. john: and he understands new media. and he understands a conversation can take place whether the gate keepers of traditional media want that to take place or not. it's going to happen in social media and it is going to be picked up. he has more control over that. not because the gatekeepers are being lazy. it's because they don't have a role used to have. charlie: he is also announced who he would announce for a supreme court nomination. i assume that is to satisfy conservatives in the party who had some real problems with them even those who supported ted cruz. john: right. yes, that is what he is doing. and he is normalizing.

he is saying, i am the nominee, and i am starting to do things nominees for president do. forget about all this stuff in the past and things i said. i am a candidate now, and i am doing candidate-like things. in this case what he is saying is focus on the supreme court. what you want is a warm body in the oval office will name three justices, he said. and if the race comes down to that, everything else comes secondary. the supreme court will lock in social issues in law or not for the next 40 years, maybe. and so, you can worry, he would say, about my personal life, but who cares? the court is the thing. so both his credentials, but more importantly, it is keeping the conversation about a thing that will get conservatives to say, i may have all these reservations about him. i may not line up with his policy positions, which is also happening. people are saying i do not believe in x, y, z. but they do agree on the court. that is a place for him to find

common cause charlie: we . appreciate the consequences you say. john: and he meets with henry kissinger. kissinger told chris christie when he was going to run in 2012 don't worry about any foreign-policy experience. you can learn that. that is the argument here. charlie: it is a scary idea. john: anyone who has been in -- i talked about secretary bob gates, who you have loved interviewing over the years. and gates says, you cannot learn it all. if you are going to be taking second, lessons from people or taking a lot of advice, you have to listen. so the notion that you can get up to speed quickly or advisors around you to fill up your weaknesses is one question, but the second is, are you going to listen to them? and the further point gates made, you need someone on your staff that tells you know. -- no.

someone who saves you from yourself. all president say that is a crucial thing. charlie: and the other thing is that they can give you all the information they have and tutor you all you can. but in the end, you need to have judgment. you have to have and what architecture to make that kind of decision. in the end, these are big decisions, and presidents have to make them. all the advisors in the world will not make the right decision. john: i am smiling. the first time i heard that point articulated was a story about henry kissinger. who said just that. if you had all the information tot some point you just have leap. what tells you when to leap and not? that is instinct, that is judgment. character, values you created over a whole career you do not get from a brief. charlie: republicans seemed be falling in line. john: they really seem to be falling in line. there are those that make -- michael garson, a speech writer

for george w. bush, he said the donald trump said the republican establishment is weak and capitulating. and now they are falling behind him and proving them right, which is that there is the never trump movement, the notions of the third-party, that is all kind of going away. and the more trump gets -- the more people fall in line, the more people are going to fall in line. and also the train is leaving the station. and also hillary clinton. republicans do not want her. that is another reason called -- donald trump is bringing up the clinton years. he wants to create a sense of -- if hillary clinton wants to talk about the job legacy during bill clinton, he wants to talk about the scandal of those years. that two republicans reminds them to stay focused on who the real enemy is here for donald trump, and that is a hillary clinton. charlie: one other issue, money. donald trump has got to raise a lot of money. hillary clinton has, but she

does as well. john: he is the more interesting character because he ran one of the pillars of his primary candidacy, anybody who gets outside money is bought by the people who donate. well, now he is putting together a fund-raising operation with the republican national committee, so he would be presumably open to those charges. but he is got to raise the money to run a race and he has a super pac -- charlie: abelson says he will support him strongly. john: but under the old logic of trump, that means abelson owns him. trump would never admit to that. and for why he is funding trump, he made a strong case. you may disagree with all of my policy positions, but i earned a place. based on my experience with leadership, that is what i see in this candidate. the executive experience argument i am hearing from a lot of people supporting trump, i have never seen a candidate were people support him and disagree

with so many of his top policy positions. or what he said. [laughter] charlie: or his style, or temperament, or everything else. on the same time, balance, i will support him whether it is supreme court, anti-hillary clinton, whatever it is. john: and this executive experience piece is another pro-trump argument i am hearing a lot about. he is an executive. the second question is, ok, he has that talent. which executives have. but then what will he use it for? he will be very efficient at executing things you disagree with, and there is a logical gaps there. charlie: politics is kind of interesting, isn't it? john: yes it is. the worry is that donald trump and bernie sanders have surfaced things that we knew were out there, but they are obligated -- complicated and based on this general feeling we have known for a long time. the disappointment with washington and disappointment

with big institutions. charlie: democrats more about wall street and the establishment reflected by bernie sanders. republicans more about washington and -- john: well, that is right. washington and unelected judges. in some cases, the kind of political correctness culture. and so, those roiling factors that are out there are still real and have remedies that need more than just the circus of the campaign. another words, if wages are not getting any better, those people are still going to be angry if they feel like the system is still crooked. still cricket. -- that anger and that part of the election is still really fascinating. in a sense, it can sometimes get precluded by this other stuff. charlie: it is a very interesting thing. if you look ahead at the 2014 to the 2016 election, most people would have said the issue is going to be the economy.

and there is this whole middle-class, it is decreasing. people look at their lives and don't think their children will have good of lives their -- that they had. they see the wages of people in the top 1%, to take an example, is increasing the disparity. and we are left here. and this is america. and we always thought we would simply move forward. so that issue we all thought would be there, but it hasn't gotten a solution in terms of policies, but much more in terms of rhetoric. john: yeah. i think on the bernie sanders side, it is all about the bank. redo the rules that relate to the operation of the banks, increased free college tuition so you can increase earning potential of people, build unions, so there is more bargaining power. there is a policy argument on the left side. much of the campaign has been about, are you trueblue or not?

bernie sanders really believes this stuff, some democrats are skeptical of hillary clinton and there is a question of incrementalism versus having a big vision. there's been a lot of more general talk even though there are policy argument underneath. weaker policy program, and he has immigration, and he has huge tax cut and muslims, but his argument is, they are appealing to the voters who are furious about what you talk about, that basically believe because it is other people have special privilege or dealings. whether it is the elites or the special jobs. charlie: for the elites. john dickerson: the trade deal that have been arranged by elites. this goes back to the 19th

century where the eastern banks are making deal that ruin us. the elites are making trade deals, but also the fancy business people. they all think globalism and trade benefits them, but we are getting rid by these deals. who cares if goods are cheaper? my job is going away. that will be a huge question. it is a bit more broad, that trade debate. it haven't gotten policy specific. charlie: great to have you. john dickerson from cbs news. back in a moment, stay with us. ♪

♪ charlie: bryan cranston is here. he reprises his tony award-winning performance as lyndon b. johnson in the hbo adaptation of robert schenkkan's play "all the way." johnson attempts to pass the civil rights act. the deadline, cranston has captured the muscle and complexities, insecurities, vulgarities, and sometimes newly overwhelming political talents of the 36th potus. here is a trailer. >> i keep having this dream. searchese war party the house. it is only a matter of time before they haul me up into the

light where there knives gleam. >> he's gone, the president. >> accidental president, that is what they will say. >> bless your heart. that is what people need to hear. >> i urge you to connect president kennedy's civil rights bill into law. >> it ain't going to be easy, dr. king. >> we will hold his feet to the fire until he does. >> we had to filibuster this bill. >> if you get in my way, i will crush you. >> this civil rights bill just killed your election chances. >> if the government does not do what is right -- >> is that a threat? >> that old car, boy. >> everybody wants power.

>> everybody wants power. they think it should be given out free of charge like mardi gras beads. nothing comes free, nothing. >> you will think every seven or is going to start dancing to your town? >> all i am asking is to live as a basic human being. >> i am trying to turn his country around and prevent a major war. >> it is time today. >> to step down now would be wrong for your country. >> nobody is surrendering. >> we are making history here. >> and you have to decide how you want history to remember you. charlie: i am pleased to have bryan cranston back at this program. interestingly we ended with that clip he has lyndon johnson did not see this be in history. bryan cranston: he died of what he feared he would die of, and that was a fatal heart attack. charlie: but he started smoking again. bryan cranston: he did.

when he got on the chopper leaving washington at nixon's inauguration, he picked up a cigarette, and he said, i gave all my life to them. now i will do for me. he let his hair grow down, it was nice and curly and gray, smoked again, kept drinking. he was a man who really lived under his terms, you know? charlie: but the point is, there is some, today, appreciation of his example. what he did in the arena other than vietnam. so he didn't see what was happening today. bryan cranston: two years ago, when we were doing the play version on broadway, celebrated the 50th anniversary of the signing of the civil rights act in 1964. it was appropriate to then

look back, and i think we are doing a play, and it was the anniversary. a lot of people writing columns and looking back at what i call the revisiting of history as opposed to -- we were not asking them -- charlie: revisiting. bryan cranston: there is a distinct difference. you look at the entirety of a man's legacy, yes, vietnam was his waterloo. it was a failure. and i think it took him down. when it came to march 21, 1968, he said i will not accept the nomination, that was because of that. you look at his massive achievements, it is towering but he was able to do, one of which was free the corporation for public broadcasting. charlie: we are thankful for that. at the same time, there was this

towering ego, towering sense of capacity to take things in his hands, and get insecurity. bryan cranston: massive the highs and lows. tremendous ambition and guts and all that it takes to achieve at that level. and equally tremendous insecurities and doubt and frustration. i remember bill moyers telling me three days before the 1963 election when all the polls were saying, he is in by a significant margin, he said, i don't want it, the people don't love me. he was worried about something, and it was, no mr. president. they said, you are not going to quit the race, you are going to be in. and the people around him had to manage that aspect of him as well as counsel and guide the positive aspects of him. charlie: you see that in the

first clip we saw in terms of, they will always think of me as an accidental president. bryan cranston: he was extremely worried about that. if he did not win the election on his own in 1964, he would have considered himself a failure. charlie: is he the most interesting figure that you have invoked in fiction or in reality, and was walter white more interesting than lyndon johnson? bryan cranston: boy, i tell you that is a that is a hard one. if i could move the categories fiction and nonfiction, that makes it easier. towering lyndon johnson. i was fortunate enough to go from walter white and the complexity of that man to lyndon johnson, complex in different ways. and, but far greater a man than walter white ever was because of his altruistic nature. it was a big bite.

charlie: but walter white had his intellect and he had his skills. bryan cranston: he did, and he had his ego. he was driven to succeed in that specific area of his life. made poor choices as well, as you all do. you get old enough in the game, you are going to make good and bad choices. i know warren buffett said to me when i asked him, so, is there a way you go about it? he said, just make more good choices than bad ones. there you go. charlie: speaking of presidents, you had time with president obama? there was a time in the new york times. bryan cranston: it was a surprise to me that i got the call. charlie: what did they say, the president would like to see you?

bryan cranston: it came from the writer of the new york times, "a table for three," philip. they, of course went to the office of the president first. you had all interest in this, and then they came to me. and when he said yes, we could go, and that is the way it was presented. i would like to do an interview with you and the president of alreadyed states and he approved it. now it is up to you. what day? charlie: i can be there. what was he like? bryan cranston: i had a few different feelings. we worked for 45 days, and the bulk of that was the oval office, and it was the exact size. they did copious amounts of research to make sure of the accuracy of the decor and the pictures and everything. so that when i walked into the oval office this time it was like, yeah, this is familiar. i like the place. i heard you are leaving. are you going to put it on the market? and that was me. i probably, it is a default

mechanism to try to get relaxed or comfortable in some environment. charlie: what did you talk about? i guess you talked about what the writer asked you. bryan cranston: i found him charming, bright, funny, engaging. anyone that can make a guest feel comfortable and relaxed in their own home or their own work environment has a nice quality. charlie: what surprised you about him? bryan cranston: there was never a time that i didn't realize he was the commander in chief, president of united states. i don't mean that in a way of presenting himself as being better than anyone or anything like that. there was a dignity to his comportment that i appreciated, that i want in my president. charlie: but at the same time, people talk about lyndon johnson

as the best president african-americans have had in the white house. bryan cranston: i think there is a lot of truth to that, especially during those times. charlie: john lewis. bryan cranston: and andrew young. they were very helpful coming to the play and being supportive of the film, able to tell this story as honestly as possible. you need consultants like that. you need people who were there, who knew the man. dick goodwin, bill moyers, joe cawafano. charlie: you talk to each of them? bryan cranston: yeah. they opened their hearts and their minds to me and allowed me to pick their brains and ask what it was like, you know, to try to get a sense of the man. i am not doing an impersonation. i am paying homage to him in the most honest way possible. charlie: but you are not doing the impersonation of him for sure. but through the wonder of

whatever happens for the one or before you go on stage, it is remarkable. bryan cranston: thank you. he had thin lips and beady eyes, so thank you, charlie. he had the squinty eyes, thin lips and in makeup, you can do a lot. i had cheek implants. i had a chin added, i had a nose, ears that poked my ears out, but also elongated them. i put on 15 or 16 pounds, and i was in lifts that would add three inches to me. i was completely done up. i was not the same person. but it was an honor to slip into those shoes, it really was. charlie: i never met him, but --

bryan cranston: it does work. it shows a complicated relationship he had with martin luther king that our film, which is written by an awesome playwright, robert schenkkan, he shows the political acumen of both men, and how they jockeyed for position in trying to to feel each other out and realized the two men, i believe in my reason, they knew that they were trying to get to the same goal. but their agenda and scheduling and timing was always different. and consistently different. their constituents were different. charlie: and martin luther king tells lyndon b. johnson -- bryan cranston: he tells them in no uncertain terms that there can be no changes, or he will look embarrassed in front of his

own people. everything would be turned upside down. but martin luther king knew very well that the real jewel in the crown of the voting rights act that happened in 1965 year later -- charlie: with that you change politics. bryan cranston: instead of the african-american community begging to be included, now they get a voice. and then the politicians have to come to them and appeal to their sensibilities and intellect. and it changed things. unfortunately, things stay the same, and they change. we have suppression of voting rights and ease/ability. we have gerrymandering going on, and the intent of the law has been abused, and hopefully that will change back so that we realize the value of each person having a voice. that is what we should stand for. that should be the hallmark. charlie: the relationship with

moyers, he is a friend of mine and i worked with him, is the most interesting and complex and undefinable for me. people that were close to lyndon johnson said he would like a sun, but he left. he left the white house. bryan cranston: he did. charlie: johnson, you know bill better than me. bryan cranston: i don't know if you know less, because you knew bill. i was able to sit down with him and his wife judith. a story that judith told that was relayed to me and robert schenkkan, we did not have it in the play, but we put it in the movie to show the impact that

lady bird had on lbj. and it is a moment when, back in the day, in our youth, there were cigarettes on every coffee table in every house. and so, the ranch was the same. at one point, lbj would pick up a cigarette and light it and just start smoking. and lady bird would not dare to embarrass him or scold him. she would pick up a cigarette in front of company. but he did not want her smoking. so she is smoking, and he put his out, and she would put hers out, not a word was spoken. and bill moyers was very, very helpful. he has a wonderful quote, "11 of the most interesting people i have ever met was lyndon johnson." charlie: that is great. that is just great. and you feel that way yourself in terms of trying to understand him? bryan cranston: i think so. he is a complex man. one thing that triggered for me -- as an actor, the character is outside of you. until you do the research and

time and energy put into it, you hope and trust that character will at some point seat into -- seep into your soul through osmosis, for lack of a better term or acting term. until that happens -- and the second time i went to the lbj office in texas, which is a terrific library, i noticed a letter from jackie kennedy addressed to the new president five days after the assassination. she wrote, "dear mr. president, thank you so much for walking behind jack on pennsylvania avenue, behind the caisson. i know you did not need to do that, and the secret service told you not to. "please don't." you did it anyway, and it brought love and respect to the

man. thank you also for taking the time to write two letters to my children about how you love and respect their father. they might not know it now, but they will know it later." he took the time to write to two children. when the unbelievable presidency was taken over like that, and he wrote these two letters, that meant everything to me. i said, there is the soul of that man, the goodness of that man. as crude as he may be on the outside, rough and edgy on the outside, that is his center. charlie: and he understood that continuity in america. he wanted his photograph with her when he took the oath of office. bryan cranston: he felt it would be terribly disrespectful if she was not included. she is in agony.

everyone is upset. no one really knows the protocol and what to do, or how we should arrange things, or where do we sit? it was a mess. charlie: how do you come to understanding him on vietnam, because we know there were conversations? with russell, richard russell, chairman of the armed services, i think. he is on the phone. because russell had been like a father to him in the senate, and helped them out over defending his own position. bryan cranston: that is the saddest chapter in his life. he was a domestic man. he really did not want the burden of international foreign relations. he wanted to focus on making america better. charlie: and the things were handed to him. bryan cranston: he inherited the situation of vietnam on the kennedy administration. robert mcnamara was a go-getter.

i read that in every matter, it was advised that if we do this assault, we do this escalation, we will break the back of the north vietnamese, and it will be over. and he reluctantly said, do it. and it did not work. mr. president, this will work. do it. ultimately, he is responsible, and he knew it. he failed in vietnam. he knew what it was doing. he could not find the answers. and he also, i must admit, i think he had the political hubris that he did not want to be the first president to lose a war. charlie: he said it. i think he said that to richard wilson. bryan cranston: but he knew instinctively that this was a bad deal, and there was a no-win situation here. and yet, because of that hanging

over him, he continued. charlie: here is what i don't understand about lyndon johnson in part. he went and received the silver star. there were a lot of people who made greater sacrifices, lived their life differently. he was a member of congress. you would think that he would know. bryan cranston: yeah. it is sad. in retrospect, you look and go, that was a mistake, clear and simple. we learn from those mistakes. not always. hopefully, clearer heads will guide us in the future. but i think it is fair, as we said in the onset that after all this time, is to revisit his legacy both in what he was able to achieve domestically and honestly look at what he failed at in this foreign policy. charlie: has this been a high level before? whetted your liking for history? bryan cranston: i have become mini-nerd for a short

period of time. now i have to go do this, and you study this over here, and some ask you about the presidency, and i forgot that part. i have to bone up on it again. but it was fascinating. here we are in 2016 with the most unprecedented presidential election ever. charlie: unbelievable. my question is, is it transformative or an exception? will it be different because donald trump has such mastery of social media so far? do we now see a series of celebrity candidates, or is he an exception in whatever happens? bryan cranston: well, i believe a few things. i don't hesitate to think donald trump loves this country. i believe he does. i absolutely believe that what he believes -- charlie: as does hillary clinton as does -- bryan cranston: for all of our sake, let's give each other that

much breathing room. and respect off the top. once you do that, it is hard to say he is destroying, he is going to -- and then the finger-pointing is lessened. the polemic nature has been pervasive. charlie: but you ask a series of questions doing with all candidates, and specifically donald trump. what are they prepared to do, and what line that he to cross in order to serve their ambition? bryan cranston: that is the big ask factor with donald trump, because nobody knows, not even donald trump. charlie: i agree with you. great to have you. bryan cranston, "all the way" on hbo premieres saturday, may 21, this saturday, at 8:00 p.m. the remarkable lyndon johnson, understanding history. thank you for joining us. see you next time. ♪

david: welcome to bloomberg businessweek. carol: we are inside the magazine headquarters. david: and one of the women building the life coaching industry. ♪ ellen: can i