♪ >> from our studios in new york city, this is charlie rose. charlie: alexander leventhal is well known in the financial community. she is ceo of leventhal and company. she was diagnosed with tremors at the age of 30 coming of andrder that causes shaking affects 10 million people. a new drug called high-intensity focused ultrasound using 1000 ultrasound wave directed at the area. on august 22, she became the second person in new york to

undergo the procedure. we are here with her to discuss the treatment, along with her doctor he was a neurosurgeon at new york presbyterian. i am pleased to have both of them at this table for the first time. i must say, that alexander is a good friend of mine. welcome. guest: thank you very much. charlie: tell me about you. guest: i have had this since i was three it has been an issue in my career. i am in the financial services peoplend i need to have trust me and bill confident about me in terms of doing business and having the hand tremor, which was very visible, really cause problems. inside me and it affected my confidence. charlie: what did you do? you lived with it for a long time. guest: i did. i tried medications that either did not work or there was one

that actually lowered my blood pressure and i have lower blood pressure to begin with. handlent along trying to the daily tasks that are second nature for everybody else, picking up a cup of coffee, picking up sushi with chopsticks. it was a great embarrassment for me. i do not want to talk about it before. charlie: what causes it? guest: we do not know. this is an action tremor you go stillk up a glass and you all over yourselves. charlie: how is it different from parkinson's disease? guest: it is different. there openings in the brain that lead to different symptoms. in parkinson's disease, you have multiple symptoms and the tremors are different. you are sitting at and tremor in a way and you have stiffness and difficulty moving.

the essential tremor is isolated and it is -- it makes it difficult to perform daily activities, but otherwise you are fairly normal. charlie: the treatment that she took and you administered, was developed where? guest: in israel. it is based on operation for you make a small hole in the skull and you go into the middle of a circuit that regulates coordination, that is where the problem is. we normally put in electrode in there that is attached to a battery and it has been effective. what they found in israel is that they could generate the ultrasound waves going through this goal, but are very low energy. they could create a helmet that has a thousand sources that all converge on the one spot. isall of the energy

relatively safe as they go through the brain, but they add up. thecan burn or take out abnormally functioning spot and pretty up the brain -- free the brain to function normally. charlie: are there risks? guest: there are risks, even when you do anything inside the brain, there is a risk of bleeding. but so far it has been relatively safe. charlie: so far. guest: so far. it is a new procedure. we do not know if it will last as long. there is evidence that the effects could last for a year. but it is so new that we cannot say even 10 years, even though i am hopeful. and there is uniqueness each patient web-based on the shape of their head and the thickness of their school. physical -- the physics of it. charlie: so you have to go back for more treatment?

guest: they only do one side at a time. i would love to be able to do both sides. it is great for demonstration purposes, because this is my tremor. this is my hand now. charlie: and what has it done for your spirit and your confidence, since you no longer have to live with this? guest: it has been amazing. as i said before, there are second -- there are things that are second nature for everybody else. so when i do it for the third time, i am amazed and i chuckle inside. i am drinking my coffee by myself. from a confidence perspective and as i mentioned before, the issues of related to business, that has been a great difference for me as well. finally, i mentioned, i never wanted to talk about it. i was embarrassed. to "tell people about this, how

often do somebody have the ability to potentially change other people's lives. i am so grateful and honored to have that opportunity. charlie: take a look at this. we have a clip of your hand before the surgery. guest: holding myself with two hands. sometimes holding the wine glass by the glass and this am, which -- stem, which looks odd. charlie: and this is after the high focused treatment. guest: this is the mri machine. you can see the bottom half of her face, her held -- her head is held in place because the ultrasound must be so precise that you do not want the head to move. so it is in place. and you saw the helmet with the ultrasound beams and here we are working at the consult to deliver the ultrasound. charlie: you said it was noninvasive. guest: correct. charlie: and you can see the

test before and after treatment. guest: this is what we do during the procedure, you are drawing straight lines. at the end, this is her writing upside down, most of us might not even do that well on the other side upside down. she is drawing a circle upside down and doing a straight line upside down. you can see the improvement. charlie: is this a platform for the future? guest: i think that what we can do now is take all of the skills and knowledge that we have learned as surgeons and apply it to much less invasive type of technologies and this is what people want. so the idea that we can take out a certain part of the brain might be good for hmr tremor, we have epilepsy with an abnormal part of the brain, but what we can also do, what we have been experimenting with, is you use this a different way to open up the blood vessels that lead to a

certain area, so we can go through an injection to deliver gene therapy. which we have been working on. --s way, we can extend expand to other diseases, if we can use of this to deliver advanced therapies rather than take out a part of the brain. charlie: at the beginning -- guest: at the beginning, and had two issues. i was wobbly and unbalanced. that subsided entirely. the other was, i had to relearn to use my hand, because i was so used to try to control -- charlie: you had to trust your hand again. guest: right. it was like using one backed in practice -- bat in practice. my hand would jerk. it would go a foot away. charlie: you would recommend it. guest: absolutely.

charlie: we do not know what causes it. we believe it is hereditary. regina: correct. -- guest: correct. charlie: is it the same area of the brain that is response as responsible for parkinson's disease? guest: no. there are circuits that control movement that interact with one another and the particular one that is responsible is slightly different from that of parkinson's. and there are many circuits affecting parkinson's depending on what symptoms you have. this is much more specific. i think that the way that we are using it now would be applicable to a central tremor, things like epilepsy as i mentioned. if we can use this to open the blood brain it area. the blood vessels have a way of presenting things in the bloodstream from getting into the brain. we do not want every virus

getting into the brain. but that prevents us from getting imported drugs and antibodies, these new agent therapies comic not getting into the bloodstream. we now have the ability with this and we have proven it, to be able to open up the barrier and allow these things to get from the blood into specific areas and have targets. you have the opportunity to bring gene therapy to brain tumors and we are working to do that. we have the opportunity to deliver things for other diseases like alzheimer's and we are working on that. and many others. charlie: what else would you call a tremor? guest: there is a central tremor, which means it is isolated. parkinson's disease is a very specific resting tremor. other tremors are a result of different diseases in the brain. hydrocephalus is a buildup of spinal fluid in the brain and that is something that we can treat surgically to relieve the

fluid buildup. about cause confusion this with parkinson's. people can get a toxic buildup in their bloodstream. charlie: thank you. guest: thank you. ♪ we continue with a look at the troubled biotech company. stanford with a vision of trying to revolutionize medicine with blood testing that would be done on a very small samples of blood, either a brick from the arm or the finger. and the test would be done quickly, often just this rick, then you could diagnose conditions from that. it was pretty transformative. think it achievable, i

really meant a big change in medicine and in laboratory testing. was a powerful one. that is a lot of people bought into. investing people early new that they were facing a young lady if i just graduated and you might fail as many educators in silicon valley will. >> we continue with amy adams this book about her two new films, arrival and nocturnal animals. >> i work really hard, but i am much more relaxed. i'm not sure if that is reflected in the work. i feel more relaxed. i love the stories i get tell and i feel really grateful. i am in a great spot as far as gratitude goes. amy: i think i can approach things from a different point of view. instead of feeling like i will

get found out. every actor talks about that feeling. ♪

♪ holmes set off to revolutionize the blood testing industry when she founded sarah knows at the age of 19. by 2015, the biotech startup was valued at $9 billion, making her the youngest self-made millionaire. in a few short months and began

to unravel. investigative reporting revealed significant cracks in the company, calling into question the accuracy and legitimacy of the technology of the company. the company has come under probes, including whether it misled investors. elizabeth holmes has been banned from the industry for at least two years. two men from the wall street journal the been covering this story from the beginning. welcome. this is the 13 months of reporting from the journal, looking into the company. john, when did you get an indication that something might be a mess -- amiss? john: there was a new yorker piece in 2014, a profile of elizabeth holmes, and that piece per on my radar. she had gotten a fair amount of press, but i had not paid

attention until i saw that worry. in addition -- a story. in addition to putting her on my radar, there were a couple of passages i thought were strange. i had done investigative reporting for health care for the past decade and having a fair amount of experience, there were passengers -- passages that seemed off to me. i probably wouldn't have done anything with that, but a couple of weeks later -- what was she talking about? john: there were a couple of pieces in the piece about the no man's land that this company was pathof charting, the through. and a paragraph in which the writer asked her how the technology works and she danced around the issue, then gave a heavy-handed description that

seemed almost childish of chemical experiment. and so those passages caught my eye. to be fair, it may not have done anything with it unless a tip came to me two or three weeks later. host: talk about the tip. john: this was a person that had talked to a person that had talked to a recently departed employee. and the rest of the message was -- thrust of the message was things were not as they seemed at the company. the need the glowing coverage -- beneath the glowing coverage, there were serious problems and is somebody should be looking into it. i pulled on mastering over the course of the -- on the string over the course of the next couple of weeks and i went from there. >> it took 10 months from the

time of the original tip to us publishing the story, that is how long it took. and john mentioned this expertise in health care. he knows health and science really well. i think what helped was the fact you are looking at this with an outsiders lens. this is not somebody who is part of silicon valley and the ecosystem there. it allowed you to have skepticism and a freedom to write about it. sometimes you do not feel it in the midst of it. host: there are so many layers to the story. we could talk about it for a day. 10 days ago you came out with the article on the grandson of the former secretary of state, george schultz. tyler scholz left his company a whistleblower. he created controversy inside his own family. he was one of the first people

that you spoke to about what was going on. john: it was not the first i talked to, not the first source. he perhaps was not the most important source, but he was an important source and a corroborative. i've heard of his existence from the first store's -- source and i figured i would reach out to him. linkedined him up on and used a great function on there, the emailing function, essentially in email -- an em ail. did not hear anything back for three weeks. suddenly, almost a month later, i am at my desk in the middle of the afternoon and my phone rings. it is tyler. he said, you wrote me. >> burner clone.

phone. john: he had been gone from the company, almost a year at that point. 11 months. host: as you are tracking this down, when you approached your editors about what to do and that was sort of help you need to, how did that coalesce? john: i described the early goings as seeing if there was anything to this. iflly, you know, let's see there is a story at all and let's try to understand the issues, so i do not think that we necessarily were convinced that we had a story for quite some time, for many weeks. gradually i think, as i got people to talk to me and mostly off of the record, unfortunately club because these people were

former employees. there was no way to get them on the record, so i had to do a lot of corroborating and as we got to a certain level, the critical mass of information coming from the ex employees, we were convinced that this was something that touched on public health. host: he was feeling pressure from his family and was followed by private investigators must so i was wondering if you were followed? i know that you came under immense pressure from the company and others, but maybe you can talk about that process. john: i do not know if i was followed. if i was to find out that i was, it would not surprise me. tyler and i met again in may on the stanford campus. passed on toge was tyler via his grandfather that within a few days of the meeting, that the company was

aware we had met again. >> to tell you about the pressure, the journal was threatened twice with a lawsuit by one of the most high profile lawyers in the nation. they were threatening litigation. the executives of the company sought to have him recant and write statements and that he had misquoted tyler. and there was a moment after one of the stories, in the cafeteria at the company, where elizabeth holmes was talking about a story that john had done and there was a fair amount of anger in the room and is suddenly a chance -- chant started. you."w to be "f so what john was facing with frequency, to his credit, he brushed the sauce. but there were personal elements to this that john faced. host: never mind the fact that

wasowner of the newspaper an investor. >> yes. i have to tell you, that is a point of pride for us, because journalists are independent. what they exhibited is extraordinary. no interference of any kind at any point. the editors handled the story from the get-go. john and i had to port from the editor in chief -- support from the editor in chief, from the great words that we got, we had an enormous amount of support and never was there anything but, keep going. host: rupert murdoch was not the only big name investor. elizabeth holmes was able to secure some enormous contributions from enormously popular and influential people at a very young age. john: yes.

there are two categories of investors, those that came in early. she had just dropped out of stanford. tim draper, the capitalist, who had a daughter that was a childhood friend of elizabeth. and larry ellison came in in the first three years. groomeds who had ellison. all of those people were there at the beginning. and they knew what they were getting into and that this was essentially a kid with a great idea. and they knew that the company succeed or fail. and another category of investors came in from 2000-2000 -- 2014-2015. and when you look at how much money was raised, that is when most of the money was raised. $630 million --

host: just before -- john: the last chunk of it was raised two months after i started looking into the company. host: how is it that somebody at that age, she founded it at the raised plenty of money into her mid-20's. more money came in when she was 29 years old. what was it that she was able to say and to do based on what you've been able to find, to get that cash? stanforde came out of with a vision to revolutionize medicine with blood testing that would be done on a very small samples of blood, either pricked from the arm, then the finger. the tests would be done quickly off of just a painless prick.

and then you could diagnose a bunch of conditions from that. it was pretty transformative, if it was achievable. and if the company could do it. it meant big changes in medicine and in laboratory testing industry. was a powerful one that a lot of people bought into. but again, the people invested -- investing early new that they lady thatg a young could fail. in some ways was the patients. one of our writers did a story about the patients that had results they could not rely on and it set them off on a very agonizing moments. one in particular is a 60-year-old woman that had

breast cancer, double mastectomy. she had a test for an estrogen hormone. she got results back and they are off the charts high, indicating it could be a rare tumor or a reoccurrence of cancer. she freaks out and talks to her doctor, they go to another lab and for 10 days she is agonizing over this and the results come back and they are perfectly normal. a lot of these patients did not here for months that the results were unreliable. and ther the reporting medicaid services stepped in and is sanctioned the company, that tens of thousands of reports were deemed to be unreliable and were thrown out. of -- andas a lot there was a human toll that is important to know as well. host: we have seen some of the stories on the patients. did they complain at a state or

federal level? where was a mostly people inside the company that raised concerns? john; it was both. those were two threads i was pursuing during the 10 months up to the first story. one was employees with misgivings with what they were seeing my because of the impact on public health. and on the other end, where the company launched most of their testing sites, there were patients getting results that were alarming -- one patient in particular had to go to the emergency room for four hours on the eve of thanksgiving. being put through health care, having to shoulder these initial expenses and then learning with the labs come back then nothing is wrong. but these patients trusted their doctors and so the patients i think for the most part were trying to figure out what was going on with their doctors,

then the doctors were beginning to suspect something was wrong with the blood tests. i think it was beginning to coalesce when i got there. i went to phoenix for a week and it did reporting. host: what is she up to now? what is her condition, that you can gather? john: she is still running theranos. many people are wondering why. the simple answer, she owns more than half of the equity of the company. the board probably cannot even unseat her if they wanted to. extent now is the technology being used? : it is not being used at all in the sense that they have shut down there was -- their blood draw sites, most of

them in phoenix. in the walgreens stores. host: walgreens is suing them. john: walgreens is suing them. now they are pivoting to offer a new device. they are hoping that if they can run studies showing that this device is reliable and accurate, that it can then persuade the fda to approve it for sale and then sell it to other lives and hospitals -- labs and hospitals. that is the new business plan. but it will be an uphill climb, because running a trial or a study is a costly thing and it is a lengthy process. they are only now beginning to do the real validation studies to try to prove that the minilab

is accurate and reliable. the work is starting now. the question is, whether the company will have a life expectancy to see the process through. >> they are not going to be able to raise more money anytime soon, so this is a time to get things done. host: so are the big-name investors, they are still backing the company? or, what is their situation? john -- >> some of them are trying to sell back shares, so they can claim tax losses. others are still backing the company. and others are suing. ofn: walgreens, as a result giving a lot of money as loans, and a san francisco hedge fund has sued as well. they invested $96 billion. they now want the money back.

one more theys, are an important player in all of this. john mentioned stores you could go to, you could go to the pharmacy and get blood drawn. they had plans for a partnership where the blood tests would be in thousands of walgreens across the nation. so before this came to light, that is what we are removing sword. walgreens found out that they were misled initially about the prospects, but even the course -- during the course of john's reporting, they claimed in litigation that they were not aware of the developments that were taking place. they were reading about it in the journal. and in a suit, walgreens said more than 11% of customers who have their blood drawn from the pharmacies and besides -- sites, they had unreliable results. john: you can imagine the

number of people, if they had world out the site across the country in the walgreens. the potential for the real harmful errors would have grown exponentially. host: extraordinary reporting from the wall street journal. thank you both for joining us. john: thank you. ♪

♪ >> good evening. i am in for charlie rose who is away on assignment. amy adams is here. she is a five-time academy award nominated actress. there is a look at some of her work. >>'s top teasing me. -- stop teasing me. meet --d you like to lie to me? i want to know your name. >> are you wearing any makeup? you could wear more if you wanted to. you are so tall. were you born in chicago? i was born right here. my favorite animal is the meerkat. they are so cute. boyfriends?s of i bet you did.

ever try out for cheerleading? >> like a bug. >> you are beautiful. how many children do you have? six.e had >> what do you want to be when you grow up? >> you just don't like him. you don't like that he uses a ballpoint pen. takes not like that it three months. you do not like that he likes frosty the snowman. you are letting him convince you of something terrible. i like frosty the snowman. and i think it would be nice if this school was not run like a job. i want to inspire my students to love it too.

so be it. think that owning a duck is an impossible feat. >> nothing is impossible. do not be afraid. >> no fear, julia. >> this is where we are at. at the lowest level, to have to explain ourselves. for what? for what we do we have to grovel. the only way to defend ourselves is attack. we will never dominate our environment the way that we should unless we attack. >> he does not love you, he loves me. i know it and you know it. it was beautiful and it was real. we loved each other. >> you scare him and you

manipulate them and you use your son. host: she is into films now playing in theaters, arrival and nocturnal animals. this week a mode you will receive a tribute for her acting career. i am pleased to have amy adams back at the table. welcome. amy: thank you. host: those are all some of my favorite movies. let's start with the new ones, with "arrival." i do not want to give too much away. the plot is a delicate thing. is play a linguist who hired, or kind of drafted into this project of aliens who have landed and they are hovering above earth and you have to figure out their language. amy: exactly. deciphering an alien language.

host: this is an unusual science-fiction story. this is not your typical alien invasion movie. amy: i think that is one of the things i was attracted to, it felt really different. from the first pages i opened. but upon finishing it, which i y when found k.g. -- cage i am talking about it, but when i finished reading it i went back and read it again. that is what is compelling to me. filmmaker, with the who is a wonderful filmmaker. a compassionate man and a very soft-spoken. he has a wonderful way of speaking about his intentions and what he wanted to do and it felt really different and special. i wanted to be a part of it. host: talk about the character. she is, there is a lot going on. but there isntist,

a kind of interesting emotional dimension to the story. if you can say anything without giving anything away. amy: i am playing somebody who is sort of a heavyweight on her shoulders of emotional experience and her life and that is the journey we take the audience on, with her. this is where i start to sound like i do not know what my character is doing. after you see the film, you will understand -- it was interesting for that role, because i wanted to work on the first feeling, but also hold on to the second. so creating an emotional life that could -- it did not play the hand too quickly. but if you watch it again, it was pretty tricky. host: we have to almost speak in code. amy: it is so funny.

host: there is something about your character that the first time you see the movie, you will assume to be true. but then you discover, is not. so that is crucial to the emotional, the sort of emotional temperature or reality of the character. it is fascinating. i wonder how you did that so it could play both ways. amy: you have to prepare a character and -- that has her own life experiences and her own weight outside of what the audience knows it's happening. and understand that the character is going through this at the same time the audience is, so what she is learning, she is learning with the audience. so when you realize that, it is a different experience. it was tricky. again, the filmmaker was great about taking the temperature all the time about where we were emotionally and it was one of

those things we had conversations about, how we could create the sense of emotional truth, while at the same time playing two realities. host: let's look at a clip where you first introduce yourself to these -- i guess they are called the -- pods. they are seven feet. >> louise? louise. >> what is that? >> dr.? >> what are you doing? >> you need to see me. >> dr., are you ok? >> they need to see me. >> she is walking toward them.

[suspenseful music] [heavy breathing] that is a proper introduction. host: it is an amazing thing, because the audience is going along with the character and learning where there is to learn. nobody knows are these creatures, do they mean us harm? amy: what is their purpose? host: and how do they communicate? and the quality that your character has is empathy. she realizes, whatever they are, you cannot talk to them from behind a screen. you have to somehow find a connection. amy: and speaking and learning

about language, one of the things i had assumed is they were more translators, but so many of them do fieldwork and go into communities with indigenous languages. that is something i found fascinating. having to become a very empathetic person and not make judgments, staying open to receive information from people. although it seems highly intellectual, it is this wonderful warmth science in a way, because it deals with individual particle -- anthropological studies and there are so many elements to it, so they gave me a place to start on how she would approach this compassionately. host: it is interesting. so many times when you see scientist in the movies they are engineers and linguistics, i'm not sure i can think of another movie where the hero is a linguist. amy: yeah.

also this movie is unusual as a science-fiction movie, because this is not ultimately about the technology as much as it is about the feeling, the emotion -- amy: it is very tonal, not in a way that i think keeps it from being accessible, and there is suspense, those wonderful elements you want in a science-fiction movie, but it is a much more quiet film than that. when we shot it, it was the most calm and quiet set i have ever been on. which is strange for a science-fiction movie. it was calm, and the director was so compassionate. it translates into have these wonderful sounds and music. johan johanson.

ist: and given that it itself, there is technology that went into making the movie into producing these effects, yet the acting is so intimate and quiet and so kind of, not always calm but it feels like a different kind of peace in that way. i wonder when i see performances like this, the authenticity of feeling that you manage to summon, how you do it when you are in a setting like that, when you are not interacting with another person or actor? amy: with a screen. [laughter] amy: i do not know. it is one of those, i think it is our job as actors to create that which is not there, and the

relationship that i have with jeremy, i have that to work off of. but we are creating relationships with characters that do not exist except on the page, so i feel like it is an extension of that. the relationship i create with them and the wonder and the fear, all of these things existing at the same time. it feels real to me when i am doing it. you feel kind of crazy club at it feels very real. host: i was thinking about the sort of greatest hits montage we started with and now it is more than 10 years, and i wonder if your approach to it has changed in that time frame, if you feel differently about it? amy: i feel a lot different than i did. when i started i had a similar approach in terms of technical, you know, technical approach. but i feel calmer.

i feel really open and willing to do characters that can have a subtle interior life and trust that. i am very calm in that. it is a strange thing. i am hard on myself and i work really hard, but i am so much for relaxed than when i started. i am not sure if it is reflected in my work or the characters are just more relaxed. but i am more relaxed and i love the stories i get to tell and i'm in a great spot as far as gratitude goes. i think i can approach things from a different point of view instead of feeling like i will be found out. every actor talks about that feeling of getting found out. well, if i get found out, it was a nice run. all the same, i have a very

similar approach as far as wanting to make it as real as possible and trying to come even when i did in chanted, i wanted it to feel real. even though it clearly cannot be. she had to be believable. host: that is an interesting segue to the other movie that you are certainly keeping with, nocturnal animals. it has very little in common with "arrival," but there is a kind of mood of quiet and melancholy around a lot of it. certainly around your character. there is, there are a lot of plot twists, but also emotional feelings thatthe seem to be in play turned to be out a little different than what you thought. tell us a little bit about this. thing, tomplicated

movies inside of one movie. amy: i saw both movies back-to-back. i was struck that they are such different movies and different characters. i was like, oh, i wonder why i was struck by these two different approaches to storytelling. things like that do not come around too often. and i shot them back to back. with nocturnal animals, i think, i am so attracted to the subtlety of storytelling. as far as my character, susan, the way that she was going to have to communicate seeming impossible and challenging, so of course -- tom ford had a wonderful way of talking about how he intended to move through past and present and fiction and reality and using music and lights and a story and how he would do that. again, both characters have a

sense of melancholy for very different reasons. maybe this is my melancholy period. as an actor, i feel i could go through periods and this is my melancholy one. host: when audience needs her and she is drawn back into these memories, it is not a spoiler, but she gets a novel that her former husband has written. well, he may or may not have dedicated it to her. it is a very interesting and complicated gesture, sending this book to her. darkeneds darkened, a story and it makes her examine his intentions and her choices. host: some of the most powerful and interesting scenes in the movie are just a reading. amy: thank you.

tom left the camera running for a long time and he created a wonderful insecurity, which i believe you should use anything that is happening in the moment, so there are moments where i was really struggling, because it is 13 minutes and he just left the camera rolling with no director. and it was such a wonderful -- i never get those opportunities as an actress to sit with myself, feeling exposed in that way. and it would happen in arrival as well come along takes -- well, long takes. and i felt it was a beautiful gift to get that. to feel the depths of feeling exposed as an actor. i know they are there, but many times you have dialogue or another character to lead on and in both these films, sometimes i did not have anybody. so it was a great exercise.

host: that is true. there are a lot of moment where it is just you in a way and all of the work and everything the audience has is what you are doing. amy: both films, i forget who told meek mill but somebody said i breathe a lot. that is funny, because when i was doing it, i would constantly remind myself on a take, i would just breathe. that is the key to creating life. host: thank you for coming here and breathing and talking. it has been wonderful. ♪

mark: i'm mark halperin. john: i'm john heilemann. with all due respect to all those people floating the idea of chris christie being the new rnc chairman, we have five works for you. >> sit down and shut up. ♪ john: on the show tonight, trump's transition team, and one lean, mean howard dean. but first, it's been 23 days since donald trump became th