♪ >> from our studios in new york city, this is "charlie rose." charlie: cybersecurity has become one of the greatest challenges facing this country. last february, president obama created a commission to address the growing threat. earlier this month the commission on enhancing national cybersecurity announced its findings in a comprehensive report, it called for urgent action to enhance american cybercapabilities. meanwhile last week, president obama ordered a full review of russia's election-related hacking. president-elect trump continues to dispute the kremlin's involvement. joining me now are the commissioner's chairs. former ibm ceo and a former

national security advisor. i'm pleased to have both of them here. tell me exactly briefly, quickly, then we'll turn to our does other contemporary issues and come back to the report per se, how this came about. >> it came about, the president looked at what the challenges were and things that had been addressed in the first seven years of his term and determined that there were a number of challenges that continued. essentially what this was was a preparation of a transition memo for the next president. jim clapper, the director of national intelligence, has the last three or four years in each of his presentations to the congress, on what the major facing the united states, has ranked cybersecurity number one. it's just not the case that the country has treated it as the number one threat. we have far more resources and emphasis and mind share and attention to counterterrorism,

which is appropriate. and homeland security. but we were, in terms of a whole range of dimensions, really kind of underfocused on the cybersecurity challenge. there were a number things that we could do that would enhance cybersecurity and that's how to commission came about. charlie: what did you do? >> basically what we did, i was honored to serve with tom as the private sector counterpart to this. we looked at areas that we were -- in the executive order looked to focus on. primarily kind of -- in broad terms, the issues around the security of the internet itself. identity management, internet of things, which is the area -- it's no longer your phone and computer, it's cameras, it's sensors, it's traffic monitors, health devices, all those things now are potentially devices where, a, hack or some issue -- where a hack or some issue could occur. in addition to that we were asked to look at government itself. the appropriate systems within government, the processes of government, how government responds to cyber versus counterterrorism and the like. and then we went off and did our work. international standards and

consumer -- charlie: how did you do your work? experts, hearings? >> we had hearings across the country. started with new york financial services, the financial community and the consumers in minneapolis. we had six hearings, i think. charlie: is it fair to say most people are vulnerable? >> i think most people who are uninformed are vulnerable. if you're aware as consumer of the technology that you can do things to protect yourself. i think the very important that everyone understand that there's no 100% solution in today's environment for a cyberthreat. so there's great risk. there are great benefits to the technology, whether it's economic expansion, commercial terms, enjoyment, personal life kinds of issues, which you do as an individual, but everybody should be sensitive to the fact that there's no 100% technical assurance that this will not

happen either to their company or to the individual. charlie: national security advisor, you dealt with putin, you dealt with the chinese, you know something about their record with respect to hacking. talk to me about how you see the crisis that we now face in terms of the president ordering an investigation into whether the russians hacked and finding out exactly what was done and why and, secondly, chuck schumer, john mccain, jack reid calling for congressional investigations -- the president wants to investigate. you have congress saying they won't investigate coming up when they go back in january, and the new congress as well. what do you think is going on? >> first of all, the investigations are fully appropriate at this point. last spring and summer you had some private sector organizations saying that the russian entities, russian-directed entities, entities that had long history of association with the russian intelligence services were responsible for some of the hacking into the democratic national committee and other

things. then you had an extraordinary thing happen in october. the director of national intelligence, jim clapper, who represents 17 intelligence agencies in this government, announced publicly that in fact the russian federation, directly from the government itself, was involved in hacking related to the election. you had admiral mike rogers, the head of the national security agency, come out and say -- charlie: and also cybercommand. >> that's exactly right. said at the "wall street journal" c.e.o. conference recently that in fact you had a country, clearly russia, who had interfered, tried to interfere in the election to try to get specific effects. this, though, -- and the russians of course deny all this. and say, we don't engage in cyberattacks and election interference. that of course is just not true. in my own judgment, again, i'm not seeing the intelligence that's been the subject of a lot of the debate, but as a broad matter, there's no doubt that i

think the russians, based on what we said publicly, have been involved in trying to interfere with the elections here. and it's part of a broader strategic approach by the russians. this is information warfare. espionage happens. what happened here is the information was acquired and then it was made public for certain purposes. i can't judge the intent with specificity, but clearly some intent was intended with respect to the elections and it's part of a broader kind of confrontation that we're having with putin's russia. charlie: let's just talk about -- so, there's no doubt in terms of these intelligence agencies, that clapper is responsible. they report to him and he reports to the president, correct? there's no doubt that in their mind, that there was hacking by the russians. >> right. charlie: what you seem to have today is some difference as to whether the intent was to help donald trump's election. reports in the press say that

the f.b.i. has not reached that conclusion, but the c.i.o. has. -- cia has. >> again, i don't have any way to judge that at this point. what is clear, which is why there needs to be an investigation, right, that's exactly the point of this, right, it's an extraordinary thing. a foreign power, in my own judgment, a power that has gone quite hostile to the united states since putin came back into office in the spring of 2012 has -- charlie: perhaps because he saw an opportunity. >> has attempted to interfere with the elections in the united states. and we should find out exactly what happened, what the intentions were, and what the effects were. charlie: john bolton, for example, who may be trump appointed to the state department or somewhere else, former u.n. ambassador, has said the following. he said, look, when the question came up about whether hillary clinton's server had been hacked, it was said, we don't know, but we saw no evidence of it, but the russians, if they did it, are smart enough now not to leave any evidence. then he points to what is happening now and says, look,

how are they so sure? did the russians leave evidence on one side but not leave evidence if they hacked on the other side? >> i don't know the details but i do know this. this is a process that takes into account all manner of information. that you have access to. you put it together in an analytical judgment and i know quite a bit about the intelligence community. it's not conceivable to me that the director of national intelligence would go out and say with high confidence that the russian federation has attempted to interfere if they didn't have quite a good case for that. again, this is why the country needs to know the answer to this question. charlie: the question is important regardless of what the motive was. the question is important. if they can hack into important government -- >> exactly. we're not debating the outcome. the outcome -- not debating the outcome of the election here. we've had an election, but it's important for the country to know what the vulnerable vulnerabilities were here from -- vulnerabilities were here from a technical perspective and it's

important to know whether the russian federation in a determined way tried to interfere in the elections. charlie: there have been cases in which you believe the chinese were doing this kind of thing too. >> i don't know we have a case of trying to interfere in an election. charlie: you listen to all these experts and clearly you want to do two things. one, you want to alert america by this report. to the dangers of not being prepared for -- with cybersecurity. >> correct. charlie: the second question is, how do you do that? >> there are multiple steps. we think the first step, which president obama was gracious enough to review it and suggest, is that we meet with the president-elect's team. some of the appropriate members of his team. and take them through the recommendations. because there's steps in here that i think any administration can do immediately and others will take some times. there are things that can be done immediately as far as establishing a collaborative initiative between the private

sector and the public sector around things like identity management. so make it harder for them to identify or hack you and while the government can become the standard for best practice of identity management, they can do that themselves. the internet of things. how to make those -- cameras, sensors, whatever, more secure, so whether you have a thermostat in your house or you use a fitbit or what have you, they're more secure. standards exist. you basically -- why those two things first? you addressed the biggest vulnerabilities, how they get access to us. -- to us as individuals who are sloppy with our passwords. or these devices no one associates being computers but they are these days, cameras, thermostats, etc. then there's the government itself. there's some roles for government, i'll pass the roles to tom and talk a little bit what they can do within the technology of the government and i think tom's better to address the roles of the management system of government. they can immediately consolidate their network on the civilian side of network. much like the military's already consolidated, and make it secure, so it's very difficult

to get access into the government systems, just through the network itself. long-term they need to fix their systems. in the short-term they could make it harder to get into those systems. there's a whole series of recommendations around what a new administration should do within the white house, within the -- i'll pass it. charlie: we have a conflict between silicon valley and the white house, with respect, and the justice department, as to, you know, backdoor -- all kinds of things having to do with security for devices. >> the key is, if you think about it, just pragmatically, there's a lot of issues around law enforcement, but the only way to solve this problem is if the technical community, a lot of silicon valley, and the government come together and the big research universities. there's the only way to solve the problem. charlie: why hasn't it been done? why haven't they come together to do this? everybody realizes there's a power here of balancing security and privacy. >> i'll speak a little bit to the silicon valley side of

things. the mindset of companies. it has nothing to do with the individuals and young companies. i.b.m. if you go back to the founder of i.b.m. the ultimate entrepreneur of his time they just wanted to be left alone. now we have the technology version of this today. these new social media companies, what have you, their preference when they come to work is, leave us alone. that's their preference, leave us alone. when things occur, they really don't want to be burdened by requests from the government for all these informations that they might have in their systems, etc. they want to be left alone. they start with a bias of, just kind of leave me alone. the other bias is, there's been situations to defend them for a second, whereas the information that they've shared, for whatever sets of reasons, is used in a way that hurts their company's brand. so you can share the information with the appropriate government agencies, we talk about information sharing in the report, but doing it in such a way where their brands are protected and it doesn't have an impact to their customers and

therefore their revenue bases. the point we're making, it starts with collaboration. the key for these incidents when they occur is information sharing and it's both the network providers as well as the technology companies, to share the information in a way where they can do it in a secure way and a way that protects them, the companies now, from litigation, trial lawyers, etc. but at the same time allows the government and the appropriate authorities to have access to what they need to do their jobs. charlie: large companies are hit all the times in terms of hacking. >> they're better at it. charlie: in terms of defensive measures. >> exactly. we did this in our hearings as well. financial services is much foe -- financial services -- the technology companies i think is extremely good. you put the banks right up there with them. they're very, very good. our vulnerability is the midsized companies. and the midsized companies need

to really adopt a standard that was created by nist in the government for cybersecurity and adopt the same standards that the large guys charlie: that's part of what this report is about? >> very uneven in the united states. we try to identify the coming trends. the internet of things. we're going to have billions of devices connected to the internet in the foreseeable future here. essentially what happened is the physical world and the cyberworld have converged. all these devices you use every day are going to be points of vulnerability. we tried to think about that, that's a vulnerability in the cybersecurity system, what we call for here is setting standards and trying to get security by design, security at the front end. in these devices. and simple things too for consumers. tell consumers that this fact, their -- that in fact, here are standards and this device has met standards through a labeling. a nutritional labeling sort of thing. when we were growing up, if you

had an appliance and it had a u.l. signal on it, underwriters lab signal on it, by an independent organization, you had some confidence that that was a safe device. we don't have anything like that in the software world, or the internet things devices world. we call for a number of steps like that to try to anticipate trends. you asked why it hasn't been done. you have to put in place the incentives to do this. because the incentive of a company is to get its device, its product to market as quickly as possible. we're trying to put in place structures and incentives so security is thought about, unlike when the internet first came on, security wasn't the focus. >> no. scientific documents. that's how to began. -- how it began. >> try to get a number of these big trends right from the start. >> the energy star, there was a big focus on energy star a few years ago. think of this as a cyberstar. when you as a consumer, whether it's a software product or device, will have this star that you know at least it competes at some level of a standard of security. then that would help educate all

the people. the incentives are interesting. we debated this in the commission because we felt it should be market-driven approaches, you know, versus heavily regulated. because stuff moves too fast. what is the balance of the right level of incentives to allow this to occur? i think we agree that, including the private sector and the folks there that are representing the government, all agree that we need a design and security day one. that's the most important thing. educate the user and design in day one. don't have it be an afterthought. after products are already on the market. >> and get cleaned up later by the i.t. part. charlie: i remember, he did an interview and said this during an interview with r.a. ellison, he said to me at the time, that this question of, what in fact is n.s.a. doing? and all things about what remained accessible and phone calls and all of that kind of stuff. he said, there's so much stuff

about individuals out there and so many people have access to it, it's remarkable. what you can find out. >> correct. yes. but this is why now we say that if the people -- if you were aware of all that, you would take i think precautions to protect yourself, like you do with your credit cards. if say, do you protect your credit card? of course you protect your credit cards. it should be the same thing. you can say, well, it's harder to use. it's really not. you swipe the credit card and clip it with the chip. it can be simplified. but i think the consumer, we have a whole section here of consumer awareness to educate the consumer to address these kinds of vulnerabilities. >> there's an education piece and a number of things we talked about is trying to make these devices so that it is easier for the consumers to act in an appropriate and secure way. one of the r&d priorities we ask for here is to do deeper work on trying to get to devices that are easier to use and are more naturally used by the consumer in a secure way.

charlie: do we have now a significant collaboration with the tech community? >> yes. sure we do. >> i think so. i guess there were incidents along the way, but i really do believe at the end of the day there's a pretty good working relationship between the tech community and government. it's been especially true, you take d.o.d. or homeland, national security, there's been an excellent relationship for years and still continues to be. >> there's work to be done. one of the things we call for, sam referenced earlier, we call for here is much deeper and faster sharing. and provide more incentives and protections for companies who are concerned about certain vulnerabilities. give them more incentive to share with the government. we also -- some of the things that are at status right now, for example, is the password. our evidence shows that if you look at the last six years, most of the major breaches were

related to some sort of flaw in identity. so there are, you know, offerings out there that can protect you. multifactor authentication is one, for example. but not being used broadly. we call for a process here to get to that. charlie: people stand up and say do it now. >> exactly. so we call for here, for example, to develop the best authentication technologies that you can, and start with the government. for example, to have the government say -- the government has mass consumer citizen facing portals. i.r.s., health care, the v.a., your passport office, d.h.s. and we should start -- we should set an example, in fact, if you deal with those portals, those interfaces, you need to have stronger authentication. even multifactor authentication. we should make every federal contractor and employee use it. this is an incredibly important parcel solution.

if you're not doing it, you're making yourself vulnerable. charlie: when you travel to moscow or beijing, do you use your cell phone? do you use your computer? >> no. [laughter] >> when i was working, they would give me a new one when i returned. they would scrape the software. >> the hardware devices -- they would completely replace the software. i also knew, i was trained, never leave the computer in your room, they would come in and take your hard files. i was trained. i lived in asia almost 35 years ago, i was trained back then not to do these things. some of us were trained decades ago what not to do in these kinds of countries. charlie: when you would return as c.e.o. of i.b.m., they would wipe your computer completely. and your phone and whatever else you'd used. >> and i'd have a new software system that they'd put in that was cleaned up and secure. what they would do is -- and it's also -- you can do it here but what they would -- when you click on your phone, they would put some piece of software into your phone to monitor what was

going on. once you come back to work in the united states and you're at work and you're behind your fire wall, they're in the system at that point. that's how they do it. charlie: isn't that what happened at sony? >> exactly. it is much more sophisticated today. it's really hard to find out who it was for some of these incidents because they'll hijack somebody's server. for example, i think they hijacked a server in japan or something, went into sony, came from probably north korea. but they hacked a server and they come in that way so if you track the server trends or the trails rather it's hard to find exactly origination of it. they've gotten -- the nation states have gotten very sophisticated. >> most cases you'd find that if you undertook a number -- the steps we outline in this report, you can significantly enhance your cybersecurity. charlie: what happens now?

you hope you will have a meeting with trump? >> yeah. we offered to meet with the president-elect's team. send them a report. we hope to hear from them. they were encouraging over the weekend that they would give us an audience with the appropriate people. charlie: thanks. >> have a good holiday. charlie: congratulations for the hard work you've done and the rest of the commission member. >> we have a great team. charlie: we'll be right back. stay with us. ♪

charlie: the boston marathon bombing claimed the lives of three people and injured more than 150 on april 15, 2013. the ensuing four-day manhunt for the tsarnaevs throughout the city and surrounds towns -- surrounding towns captivated the nation. patriots day is a new film. it depicts the harrowing week from the perspective of the police, the victims and the perpetrators. the guardian called the film a moving and compelling homage to a city and its spirit. here's a look at the trailer. >> why are you laughing? >> i look like a clown. >> it's the color. >> i'm basically a crossing guard. you got my whistle and my stop sign? >> come here. give me a kiss. >> i love you. >> i love you.

>> how many times you run this thing? >> 43 overall. >> that's impressive. [cheering] ♪

charlie: i am pleased to have wahlberg andark former boston police commissioner ed davis right here at this table. welcome one and all. let me begin with this. you were reluctant, you as a bostonian, were reluctant to make a film too early. why? >> the question was, is it too soon. and then we realized that it's really not soon enough. every day you turn on the news or open up a newspaper, there's another attack somewhere. we felt we wanted to promote that message. love will always win. we need to come together and unite and i also, looking at how my city, my hometown, reacted and responded in the face of terror, it was amazing.

it made me so proud to be a bostonian. and i wanted to share that story with people. charlie: cbs, "60 minutes," you were somehow involved in this. >> yeah. "60 minutes" were producers on the film, which for me as a writer was an extraordinary resource. because when i wanted to meet people like the police commissioner, this gentleman, ed davis, his counterparts in the f.b.i., and others in the community, "60 minutes" was very effective at opening those doors and letting me get i think a very candid relationship going with the commissioner very early. which was very helpful. charlie: john goodman plays you. >> he does a tremendous job. he's an exceptional actor. he's become a good friend, a good man. charlie: we were together this morning on cbs this morning. take me back to the time. what was your -- you'd never seen anything like this, you had no idea it would be possible, something like this to happen in boston. >> right.

we prepare for possible terrorist events but you never think it's going to happen to you. when i got there and saw these were i.e.d., they were built to kill and maim people, we had people dead at the scene, i realized the enormity of the event. had a really tremendous sense of urgency to track these guys down and get them off the street. charlie: in the beginning the response is, you also have the f.b.i. on site. >> right. charlie: there's a degree of conflict there. >> there can be, yes. we worked together very closely on a bunch of different cases. but this is a complex undertaking. and there's always differences of opinion. those came to the fore in our investigation. charlie: what's your recommendation to any police commission in america in terms of to respond to a terrorist attack? >> the all in the preparation. you need to have a plan. you need to be you prepared, you need to know where your resources are and you need to have relationships with the f.b.i. and with the other responders, the people who are going to be your partners if it all goes wrong. so you need to know them

beforehand. you can't be introducing yourself to them the day the thing happens. charlie: mark, your character's a composite, one officer, a composite. >> yes. really focusing on two officers. one who was at the finish line and was basically put in charge after the explosions, and another who was on pursuit with billy evans and eventually there in watertown when the younger brother was captured. charlie: who helped you? who did you reach out to? this is a city you love. >> i reached out to everybody. the first person i spoke to was my parish priest to get his advice. he knew what my intentions were in wanting to tell the story. so we needed to reach out to everybody. i had to take pete, first of all, i took pete to my neighborhood and where i grew up and to the boys club to meet bob, who is the c.e.o. of the boys club, and met with many different people, these officers, victims, their families. survivors. we had to meet with everybody. had to communicate to everybody

what our intentions were. and once they knew that, they were extremely supportive. because we tended to -- intended to show people what boston strong really means. charlie: you have acknowledged too there were people who were holding you responsible for portraying in the movie -- >> absolutely. yeah. on they were happy that finally they knew who was kind of in charge or who they could speak to and who they could hold accountable. so then they immediately started reaching out to me as well and telling me what they were comfortable with and what they were not. certainly pete and i had utmost respect and we didn't want to make things worse. we were certainly willing to do whatever they asked of us. charlie: what was the challenge for you? >> i think when we got -- when i had the privilege of meeting so many people and it was thanks initially to mark who brought me in that community, i'm a new yorker, bostonians are extremely friendly, but they're also guarded and when we were trying to get information from people like commissioner davis or his

counterpart and the f.b.i. and certainly the victims and the survivors, these were people who were not inclined to tell us their story right away. but once they did open up and they started telling us their stories and we met people like patrick and jessica downs, young people couple in the beginning of their marriage who were watching this marathon and suddenly they were blown up and they lost their legs, we met them and saw their spirit and the inspiration that they passed on to everyone. i think the biggest challenge was for us just making sure we did them proud. making sure we did the commissioner proud. mark and i took that very seriously. we saw what they'd gone through, our jobs were -- paled in comparison to what they'd gone through. him we just wanted to make them feel as though we respected them and got it right. charlie: you told the indy wire, i think, this was the most intense film making experience of your life. >> yes. mark and i have done three nonfiction films now. we did lone survivor.

that was about navy seals deep , water about the oil rig and now patriots day. they're all intense. and but there really is something about this story, these weren't navy seals or tough oil rig guys. these were just regular folks, families that were out on one of the first spring days in boston and enjoying themselves and suddenly there's blood and death and body parts in the streets and nobody was ready for it. that was very touching. to think about commissioner davis waking up that day, going about his day, and suddenly to be the guy who did actually happen on his watch. and the president calls him and says, ok, commissioner, whatever you need, we got your back, but you got to solve this. go get 'em. charlie: joe biden called too? >> he did. yes. the attorney general, the vice president, it was an incredible, unique experience. charlie: calling you saying, we're behind you, do what have what you have to do. >> pledging all of the resources

of the federal government. to this investigation. they delivered. we needed helicopters, helicopters landed. if we needed armored personnel carriers, they were there. the military was on scene with 1,500 troops in two hours. it was remarkable. charlie: there were people who felt like it was too hard for them to relive this? >> yeah and it's understandable. when you talk to -- we wanted to make sure that we showed the families of the victims, law enforcement, first responders, and survivors, the movie before anybody else saw it. can't expect them to say, wow, i really like this movie. they're reliving the worst day of their lives. that's more than understandable. to know that we got it right and we wanted to honor them and their loved ones, that was very much appreciated. charlie: how do you depict the tsarnaev brothers? >> that was a real challenge. we wanted -- it's hard to do any research on those two brothers and we did quite a bit. it's hard to research them and not become actually quite fascinated. it's a very unique and bizarre situation.

these were not -- like mohammed atta and the saudis that snuck in and blew up the towers, these were assimilated guys. one was in dartmouth. he was a marijuana dealer, he was a lady's man, had three girlfriends, i met with two of them. the other was a very good boxer. wanted to represent the u.s. in the olympic team. these are guys we see at starbucks. charlie: how do they become radicalized? >> it they became radicalized both through their family the , mother and father were really tough cases. but also through the internet and seeing all this, you know, extremist propaganda online. it's a refuge for people that are alienated. it's something that, you know, if somebody wants to prove themselves, they can go in this direction. any sympathy that you have for them in the movie, to me it's nullified by what he did. he placed the bomb behind these two children and blew them up. i can't ever forget that.

charlie: knowing what he was doing. >> no question, yes. charlie: that he's going to take the lives of children. >> right. and he did. charlie: is he talking? >> i spoke to one of the jailers and i said, what explains this guy? was he under the influence of the brother? what's happening with him? the jailer said to me, he spent a lot of time with him, he said, he's a terrorist. charlie: that's what he is. he knows it? and acknowledges it. >> that's the only way to explain what he's done and the way he acts in prison. charlie: you wanted to show the courage of boston strong. from the police officers to the victims who lost limbs, lost loved ones. three victims. >> four. charlie: a lot of people near death. >> 42 were critical. dozens of amputations. charlie: you wanted to show what? >> courage. resolve. hope.

charlie: recovery. >> love, recovery. what real strength is and heroes are we've always had these great iconic sports heroes in boston and we put them up on a pedestal. ted williams, larry bird, the list goes on. mickey ward. then to see women, men, women from all walks of life running towards the problem, it really redefined the term hero for me and gave me such a huge sense of pride, to be from boston. boston, whenever i kind of left and was outside of boston early on, was always about, you know, the busing strike and racial divide and all that stuff, to see people come together from all walks of life, all races, religions, coming and helping, it really just gave me -- filled me with pride and wanted to see that. it's something where people said, hey, make sure you get it right and show people who we are and what boston strong means. charlie: how have they dealt with it, those people who lost a limb, who lost a child? >> to see patrick and jessica come together and radiate so

much love and light and hope and positivity is remarkable to me. we saw -- when we saw patrick finish the race, he ran the marathon this year on a running blade. and to see him run and go into jessica's arms and them hugging and holding each other, i felt like, wow, i just find so much inspiration from them. charlie: what do we need to do to minimize this kind of thing? obviously good intelligence is one aspect of it. >> right. we need to shut down those websites and the f.b.i.'s done an incredible job of doing that over the last year or so. we need to stay on top of this. but truly, we need to connect with people in the communities. we need to know the muslim community where some of this is bubbling up. and know them not in a -- we don't have to be an intelligence gathering, we need to form relationships with them. dzhokhar was thrown out of the mosque a couple of weeks before this incident. if someone in the mosque had

told us about that, that would have reinvigorated the investigation the f.b.i. had. so that's the answer to it. making sure that our officers are doing community policing and getting to know everybody. charlie: this is a scene i wanted to see. this is between mark's character, advocating that the f.b.i., one of the interesting and critical points, release photos of the suspects. here it is. >> those are not our guys. meanwhile, you guys aren't any closer to identifying the two we're really looking for. we need to release those pictures. >> if we release the photos now, we have zero control. >> if we overplay our hands we , may force these guys to react. >> gentlemen, if i may, right now boston's working against us. normally you got a murder, no one rats. we don't got that problem. in this city, when it comes to terrorism, everybody wants to talk. you have a lot of people talking, but they're talking about the wrong people. you released the photos of our guys, sit back and listen, trust me, let boston work for us. i'm telling you. >> i understand boston. but i can't just snap my

fingers. this decision goes all the way up to the attorney general. >> then give me his number. i'll call him right now. this is my [beep] city, rick! release the god damn pictures! charlie: if you made this film again, what would you do differently? anything? >> that's an interesting question. i'm very happy with the film. charlie: you made the film you intended to make. >> yes. there were so many people who played a critical role in this. and these 150-odd hours, from the time the bombs went off from the time they captured the younger brother in the boat, i would've liked to have gone deeper. there's a young chinese american named danny meng who was carjacked by the two brothers. who arguably, you know, was more responsible than anyone, single person, for not only capturing the brothers but they were on their way to manhattan, they were coming right here to blow up times square. this young man had such courage and poise and intelligence for that hour and a half he was in

the car, while they gassed up and took all his money and atm, getting ready to leave and he knew they were going to kill him and come to manhattan and he planned the right moment for an escape and to do what he did took such incredible courage. the commissioner would probably agree, he was very much a part of the capture and that's just one example of so many people who did so much. if we had another hour in the movie, we could have filled it up. charlie: whenever you talk to people who are heroic, they said, i did what i had to do. i did what i was trained to do. did i what my duty was, all of that. the two of you, what is it about the chemistry between the two of you, why do you work together so often? >> i love him. i love him like a brother. i love him as a film maker. he was an actor first. he created such a great, creative environment for both people in front of and behind the cameras. he's extremely collaborative. he pushes you and brings the best out of me and i hope that i

do the same for him. with these particular stories, we care. it's not about us. it's about the stories that we're telling and the people that we're honoring and making sure that we get that right and hold everybody else to that standard. charlie: it's a remarkable story. let me just tell you, it opens in new york and l.a. on december 21. december 21. >> boston as well. charlie: boston as well. new york, l.a. and boston. and nationwide on january 13. "patriots day." we'll be right back. ♪

charlie: andy cohen is here. he's the former head of development at bravo and current host of "watch what happens live." also a "new york times" best selling author. his new book is a follow-up to his 2014 book, a deep look at a shallow year. it is called "superficial: more adventures from the andy cohen diaries." i am very pleased to have him back welcome. , did you this -- so, first of all, were you at all surprised about the reaction to the first book? >> no. i actually thought it was going to be great. i thought it was going to really sell. charlie: because, a, it's interesting conversation about what's going on around -- in people's lives and their curiosity, and secondly, you promote the hell out of it. >> and thirdly, i think it's a well written book, if i could say.

and it is funny. i loved warhol's diaries when they came out. that was what the first one was inspired by. charlie: what did you love about them? >> he took me places that i -- i at the time in my life would never have been invited to. it's 11 years of globe trotting and party hopping and opinions and it's really dishy and just opened my eyes up to a world that i wanted to live in. i think with my diaries, for me it's a world of celebrity and behind the scenes of a late night talk show and producing the housewives and also, you know, having a dog and having great parents and -- it's a well-rounded situation. charlie: have you moved into this place where, you know, you have the same kind of thing that andy had in terms of going from one new york event to another new york event, with an insight into what's happening? >> kind of. yeah.

i think the also kind of a deconstruction of celebrity culture today. from the vantage point of kind of becoming a celebrity and dealing with celebrities and partying with them. it's all that. i found myself, i was like, wait a minute, i'm now getting invited to this stuff. myself. let me start writing. charlie: so when do you write? >> i write every night. i either jot down some notes or write a full, you know, just get it all out. then i fill in the blanks on airplanes, which i'm on a lot. i go back to the last week or week or two and just flesh things out. charlie: how much do you write? >> how much do i write meaning? charlie: is it one event or a string of consciousness? >> it could be -- i could write three little items, i could write nothing, i could -- it just depends what happened to me that day.

charlie: and you don't edit much? >> i did edit much. this was two years. i went back and pull out, i took out days altogether that just weren't interesting, that were, if things started to feel monotonous. i did it for the reader so it would be interesting. charlie: there were no times you felt you went too far? >> there are certain vulnerabilities i reveal in this book that i didn't in the past one. charlie: about yourself? >> about myself. and about some situations with other people that i maybe wouldn't have put in the last one but i just thought, you know what, i was in such a groove from writing that i just wanted to keep going. i felt like i had to deliver in a different way with this one. if you're writing a follow-up, you want it to be better and bigger and more interesting. charlie: you describe it as deep and shallow. >> much like me. i am high and low. i think that's what worked when i was programming bravo. we could have "top chef" and

"project runway" were more emmy-winning shows and mix those in with "the housewives" or other shows that are considered to give the viewer something different. i have a radio program on sirius. it is programmed with everything . we have music and talk about pop culture and dan rather and politics. charlie: would you never want to give up the programming aspect of your life? you program a radio channel, you program bravo. >> i was a producer at cbs news for 10 years. i feel -- and then, i just produced television for my entire career. 26 years. so i could never give up that. i'm a very active executive producer of my late night show. charlie: is it satisfying or gives you an opportunity to -- >> it's both. it's what i am -- i couldn't dial back. i could never say, oh, now you

do it. charlie: just be on air. >> i couldn't do it. charlie: what's the perfect program for you? >> my show is kind of the perfect show for me. because it's just -- it allows me to do everything that i love and it's a silly, fun, half hour product of my own imagination that has come to life for 7 1/2 years. charlie: if you weren't doing that or you wanted to do something in addition, what would it be? what show is there on the air? >> for me to -- you know what -- charlie: would you like to do "good morning america"? >> the hours are a little freaky to me. as you can relate to. you're a night owl. you're up there in the morning. i saw you yesterday morning. i love the idea of that. because you can talk about everything and learn about everything. i'm interested in a lot. but for my current, i do not know i'd kind of like to do a , game show, believe it or not.

charlie: you have looked into that? >> yes, i have. i'm working on it. i'll get one. yeah, yeah. watch. charlie: which one do you like? >> there are a few -- there are machinations. in the book, there's a moment where i'm going to host a new version of "match game" that doesn't happen. it sounds stupid. it's just fun to me. charlie: do you believe that your life is so interesting other people will be curious about my life, or about my observations about others? >> i think, look, i think it is so egotistical to say, my life is so interesting, people would be interested. but i've now written three books about my life and so i've kind of gotten over that thing. i think, yeah, to give people a window on it, but i write with a lot of humor and self-deprecation. i call the book "superficial," i'm trying to get ahead of it. charlie: let's talk about other great inventions one might have. would you like to write a novel?

>> i think -- i was talking to dan rather about this yesterday who said that he had been working on one and he found that every character talked like him. and i was saying how hard that would be. i think in my fantasy, maybe, but it just seems difficult. i love nonfiction. i have a new imprint actually with holt. charlie: imagine my surprise. >> i'm working -- it's a lot of nonfiction that i'm developing. i don't know that i would be good at being a fiction writer. charlie: so you're in publishing now and you're looking for nonfiction books and you have some insight in terms of people who you know can tell a story. do you go out and ask them to write the book or is it more your reacting to people who come to you -- you're reacting to people who come to you? >> someone wrote a piece in "the new york times" the other day who i don't think had ever written one that i responded to and i called the guy and said, let's talk about a book, have you thought about it. there are people who i have said, you have ever thought about this and we've gotten together and talked about things. charlie: you are one man conglomerate. >> well. it depends how you define conglomerate.

charlie: it certainly does. what about a documentary? would you like to make a documentary? >> i would love it, 100%. charlie: who would you like to make a documentary about? >> no one has done the definitive documentary -- you're going to laugh because it's so, you know, whatever, but on diana ross. i'd like to do one on her. charlie: she used to live in my building. >> i know your building. i know that. i found out what building you lived in yesterday. i thought it was too stupid of me to say to you that i knew that she lived in the building. she is someone i am fascinated by for a variety of regions -- reasons. i think she changed things, she was -- if we talk about today, there would be no beyonce if there had been no diana ross. she came from the projects, there was a lot of racial stuff that she faced that she was a ground breaker -- detroit, also, i think she was a little bit of a thug when she was in the supremes. i'd like to get into that.

there's a lot of -- there's more to that story than i think has been told. charlie: you also do public speaking. >> i do. anderson cooper and i are on tour together. yeah. yeah. charlie: what do you do? >> it's called ac-2, deep talk and shallow tales. you can guess who the deep part of anderson and i are. we are great buddies. we have a great time together. we booked a date in boston and a few more and a year and a half later, i mean, the schedule is full up for 2017. charlie: how many would you do in 2017? would you do one a month? >> i think we have about 20 on the books. i think. we go in and we walk out and we talk. we tell stories about our lives we play very well off each , other. it's about being on the front lines of celebrity and world events. basically. he's funnier than i think a lot

of people realize. charlie: are you interviewing him or him interviewing you? >> the first part is kind of me interviewing him but it really is a conversation. then the second part is him interviewing me and we bring video clips and then we open it up to the audience for their questions. i drink on stage. i get him to drink a little bit. he way less than i. i drink tequila. charlie: straight? >> i drink it and fresca. it's called a fresquila. it's great. charlie: what does he drink? >> i pour him the same. it is only the only the last 10 dates on the tour that i've gotten him to start drinking a little bit. he drinks -- he's a lightweight. yeah. charlie: he's also doing a lot. >> he does a lot. people say -- we have friends who say that both of us, you work too hard, certainly my parents say this to me. you don't get enough sleep. some people have judgment of me, like, ugh, you're doing more, and i sense judgment with them.

i say, you have to understand, i'm living my dream life. this is all stuff that i'm dying to be doing. if six of these things that i'm doing were taken away and i was only doing one, i would still be happy. charlie: but you would also say, this is so much fun. >> it's so great. it's like you. charlie: exactly. what should you be doing other than this that would be more fun? name it. >> i totally agree. i'm from the model of more. i'd like to do more. charlie: is any part of you lonely? >> i have moment in the book which are share moments which -- where i come home from the show and i'm alone and i'm like, wow, this actually isn't great. i don't feel great. text me. charlie: i'll text you. "superficial: more adventures from the andy cohen diaries," andy cohen, great to have you here. continued success. >> thank you. i appreciate it. charlie: thank you for joining

us. see you next time. ♪ ♪

>> in the dollar reaches a 10 month high against the yen as the fed raises rates and signals more hikes next year. bullion to aushing 10 month low. it dropped 15% in december. >> oil is under pressure after the dollar gain countered a decline in the u.s. files. >> a new security headache get yahoo!. unidentified hackers