that refutes suggestions by russian president vladimir putin. bashar's opponents were to blame. the officials who briefed reporters at the white house said intelligence sources documented that syrian planes carried out the april 4 coming. white house press secretary sean spicer is drawing criticism and reticle for -- ridiculed for comparing bashar al-assad to adolf hitler. he was criticized for failing to a knowledge the systemic in gasnation of jews chambers at concentration camps. it's nice or later said he was not trying to lessen the nature of the holocaust. the san bernardino school at the center of a murder suicide yesterday is closed for the time being. the closure comes a day after a man walks into it -- his estranged wife's classroom and hers fire, after killing

and an eight-year-old student. he then shot himself. u.s. attorney general jeff the u.s.made a tour of mexican border. he has vowed to fast-track deportations of immigrants in the portion that country illegally convicted of federal crimes. ♪ caroline: i'm caroline hyde. this is "bloomberg technology." coming up, while president trump meets ceos for his infrastructure plan, silicon valley executives are absent. how tech could play a bigger role. plus, lyft adds more than $1 billion to its valuation. could an ipo come sooner? toshiba warned about its future

on the heels of a highly anticipated earnings announcement. we will discuss whether the company can recover. messageresident trump's to corporate america, job creation at the top of the agenda. he made these comments at a meeting with 20 ceos. this was focused on his $1 trillion infrastructure program and tax reform. noticeably absent for the meeting where chief executive officers from the high-growth sector, tech. in december of last year, he trump had a meeting with the length of jeff bezos and 10 cook, just to name a few. how is silicon valley's relationship with the president evolving? here with us is cofounder of elevation partners and my guest host for the hour. first of all, your view on the new administration and their

priorities, do you think infrastructure is number one? >> no. i think just staying alive is the only thing they seem to care about. to me, the infrastructure thing is a headline. it's not actually a plan. relative to silicon valley, so far the actions they've taken are extremely disruptive. the head of the fcc has made it incredibly clear he will be hostile to the needs of consumers, and by extension, entrepreneurs who are trying to create new business technology. i am not optimistic. the opportunities for any president of the united states to build great value through technology are there, but the industry need help right now. a got itself a little bit of joint over the last few years. there are great opportunities, but also challenges. focused ony is too

getting rid of jobs. we are in this weird situation where technically the economy is at full employment, but tens of millions feel they have been left behind. i think they really have. i would like to see silicon valley have a new challenge, which would be to create industries that employ people in good jobs. i think if you have that kind of valleyenge, silicon would over time rise to eight and a lot of great things would come out of it.silicon valley itself created a lot of good jobs. there's no reason we can't do this broadly. caroline: it is fascinating that the administration has targeted immigration as the key threat, whereas automation has been what many feel has eroded jobs. should we not be looking for a paradigm shift in the way we all work? are you not that viewpoint, or do you feel that we need to have everyone fully employed? >> to me, that is the challenge. i look at this in a simple way.

the economy requires consumers . consumers spend two thirds of the money. it doesn't work if a large percentage of the population don't participate in economic recovery. the goal has to be to make jobs so people have more money to spend. henry ford's great innovation was not the production line, it was the notion he would pay his employees well enough so they can afford the cars. caroline: and then we saw a turn, they couldn't afford the cars anymore and then we thought a feeling of infrastructure. roger: i would argue that one of the challenges facing the country is we have been doing the same things now for nearly 40 years, cutting taxes and getting rid of regulations. there were benefits of the early part of the cycle, but i think the benefits have been accruing to fewer people in recent years. it is time to try something different. caroline: universal basic income? would you rather have a net?

roger: i don't know, i'm not confident to make that call. but i am confident to say it doesn't have to be the way it is right now. we have essentially -- you saw this week, united airlines with that horrible situation. we have had these increasing pieces of news of wells fargo. those are a direct result of deregulation going so far that companies have no regard to their employees -- for their customers, and no fear of repercussions if they treat them badly. in my mind, we have to make changes. those things aren't working. they are not healthy for the economy to have people treat customers that badly. caroline: it's fascinating, you say incentivize silicon valley or entrepreneurs, know -- wherever they might be. roger: that was the model until 1980. until 1980, companies viewed themselves as not just having company -- customers and shareholders, they also had the

communities where they operate. caroline: but doesn't that erode efficiency? roger: why is efficiency the only thing we should focus on? i think it has taken us to where we are today. too much of a good thing. some efficiency is really healthy. caroline: slow it down? roger: just reprioritize. said there and say, right now we will have a period of time where people for creating jobs and industries -- caroline: trump did, he's trying to get people to -- roger: he's signing up to get jobs created by the people. the jobs are at full employment. there's nothing he can do. what we have to do is qualitatively change the jobs. sharing economy is not the answer. people have to have jobs where they can take care of things like health care. i don't know about universal income, but what i do know is universal health care would take away one of the biggest fears

and make it possible for the economy to do better. i think right now we have hollowed out the economy, we have eliminated the middle class in ways that are not healthy for public companies, not healthy for private companies. if you want to be a business person, ask the question, is there a better way than the way we are doing it now? the answer is likely yes. caroline: you've got people thinking already. to bead you have come here with me, my guest host for the day. toshiba has released its earnings after delaying the announcement twice, and gave a warning about its ability to even stay in business and the wake of a bankruptcy out of its nuclear westinghouse unit. the japanese conglomerate posted a $5.2 billion loss in the last quarter, but the are editors have not signed off on the data. you can see the closer impact on the sheba's troubles --

toshiba's troubles. you can see the market cap tumbling 50% since december, more than $10 billion marked off the market cap. qualcomm fires back at apple with a counter suit. we will discuss where things stand between the tech giants. that's next. this is bloomberg. ♪

caroline: now shares of dialogue semiconductor plunged the most in 16 years. the firm downgraded the u.k. days -- base, saying there is strong evidence apple plans to

replace the chips currently supplied by dialoge. sticking with chipmakers, qualcomm fighting back off to getting hit by a massive lawsuit from apple. the chipmaker denied any wrongdoing and issued counterclaims apple made false statements to regulators, ignored contracts, and interfered with qualcomm's business. who covers ian king, qualcomm for bloomberg technology. piecea tense and stormy of argument becoming -- between apple and qualcomm. >> what is fundamentally at stake is a lot of money. these two companies arguably led the smartphone revolution and made the most money. are slowing down, they are returning from absolute

qualcommwards margins, has been the one supplier that apple has not been able to create. it licensed technology in a very expensive way. whether apple uses chips or not, apple is clearly trying to do something about it. according to qualcomm, it is lying to do something about it. caroline: how do you interpret these titles in the courtroom? roger: i think he had it exactly right. the stakes, particularly in smartphones, are huge. this is the largest product in the history of technology. you have this situation where you could build, as in the case of dialoge, an entire company off of one component for one customer. that kind of scale we have not seen in a long time. these two between will come down to politics as much as it is to the law,

because there's a lot of murkiness around intellectual property law. they are both well-funded and have economic self-interest. probably favors qualcomm in this, and i suspect the common sense favors apple. they are both going to have leverage points around this, and we may make some new interpretations of the law around this. this will be a case that people will look at as a precedent for other things. much as with rambus seven or eight years ago, where there was a huge battle over a similar situation, rambus lost. they didn't lose because they didn't have valley contracts are because the intellectual property law favorite their position. they lost because politically,

the other people had more power. situation, i suspect apple has more political power than qualcomm. >> a big part of what qualcomm argued is, look how much value we have put into this, look how much income and money we created. we are not trying to cash in on some little sliver of an invention. we gave you everything we invent and patent up until today. caroline: it's not just the u.s. and not just apple, this is international. south korea is finding them. we see other players coming after apple. >> and if you take what qualcomm value, that is apple working behind the scenes, going to china, japan, korea, whispering in the years of regulators and saying, "these are the bad guys." caroline: do we know when the trial will begin? >> not at the moment. i asked the general counsel how long it will take.

roger: it won't be settled there. the fight will go on.the amount of money will be to huge to take whatever answer it is at face value. caroline: may the battle commenced. ian king, reporting on all .comingchips, and roger up , a above investors has some raising eyebrows about the timing of an ipo. we focus on the funding and competition with uber, next. this is bloomberg. ♪

caroline: now the ride hailing worth $7.5t is up from the $5.5 billion valuation from december 2015. more importantly, who is investing in lyft? kkr is one of a handful of asset management funds. lyft is tapping a set of

investors who have frequently backed public companies or provide funding ahead of an ipo the company has. cap quiet about exit plans investors have. -- still with us is our guest host for the hour, roger mcnamee. you are a man who has every single app out there. do you think this is a wise move by lyft to get bigger players in? it in a much simpler fashion. i think they need more capital. full disclosure, i am, through a fund i'm invested in, indirectly an investor in lyft. my observation about the category, the category has deep economic issues. for all intensive purposes, it got commoditized before it got near breakeven. they don't own even the cars or

have control over the drivers. what has been shown, at least in new york city, is that it is possible to segment and slice pieces of the market off and and uber by lyft taking narrow subset of the marketplace. there is a company in new york that just goes up and down the avenues, like a jtney. it's very cheap. you can do that. take's other was that just four and five-star goober drivers and gives the driver a much better deal than what uber does. so i look at that and say, the consumer proposition up until this point has felt good. the driver proposition has not been good. the unstated piece, how do you eplace the cars over time

? ? the assumption is there is a limitless supply of drivers. seems to have a much better relationship with drivers right now. they would be well advised to find a way to make them are -- the experience more financially rewarding, and go to the consumers and say, you should pay more for this because the drivers will do better, and this will be a better service. consumers have gotten too good a price, which is why this has exploded and why the math has worked poorly for the drivers. caroline: what is interesting is we have seen the backlash, like delete uber, whether or not it was fair. roger: indisputably fair. roger:caroline: why? hasr: i think uber conducted itself uniformly with a complete disregard not just for the law, but for social conventions. i look at this and i think, it

is one story after another, and there are literally no data points on the other side. all these stories can only be 70% accurate and it is still more than enough for people to go, "i'm not going to do that." caroline: if you were a direct invest -- roger: i had three shots and i passed all three times on this issue. caroline: because of the management? roger: yes, because of the culture. i have a value system. e rule.a no a-hol i don't invest in certain types of people and value systems. i'm prepared to give up great returns to do that. it was obvious uber had a great idea, and could have great success, but i was deeply troubled by what was already clear in those early days. a culture that essentially not just flaunted rules for the sake of flaunting them, but didn't

treat female employees well and didn't treat drivers well. i thought that there were better things for me to do with my capital. lyft has been better. caroline: you can tip drivers, for example. roger: but it isn't perfect. there's a lot of room to make it better. has had thisconomy promise in it that everyone would benefit from this. i think that hasn't been true for the people driving the cars. i would like to see that. i think that is an attainable goal. caroline: do you think that it is because for uber, drivers are a short-term investment, and in the longer term, the business, do you believe is predicated on automation? roger: maybe. but i look at this and i go, what a cold way of looking at it. that will cost billions to get to if they are going to do their own. caroline: they've got billions. roger: but they are spending

billions. they will need more capital to get there. i remember being here at bloomberg doing a show five years ago, and one of the senior here.ives of uber was took him aside afterwards and i said, "have you ever thought about taking all this capital you are getting and going to the panies, and say that we are going to do it amazon and google are doing? strip out everything that doesn't look like an uber." entry, all the cars look identical, they all have the service contract, they are maintained. they could have gotten their cars for maybe half of what the replacement cost is in the market today. it would have given them a permanent advantage. with the same money they spent said this point, they would own hundreds of thousands, if not millions of cars. i look back and think, that was a missed opportunity.

would it have worked out perfectly? i don't know. but it's clear the path they are on has a high risk of failure. caroline: you think they can go into the market publicly? roger: i don't know. loses almost as much money in a year as it has revenue. that is an equation where historically invested us have been gunshot -- investors are gun shy. and uber isind lyft genius. the execution left something to be desired. it is not the fall entirely of the companies, there are just too many people in it. having all that competition so early has led to this situation where the consumers get a great value and nobody else does. not the companies and not the drivers. it's hard to sustain that. it worries me. it was a great idea. caroline: and one that clearly

some investors still want. roger: and that's what makes market so beautiful. i could be totally wrong about this. it may be that they just let a little air out of the balloon and it will be fine. but i like investing at $7.5 billion in lyft way better. caroline: rather than $65 billion or something uber is at. roger mcnamee sticking with me, cofounder of elevation partners, my guest host this hour. coming up, your phone addiction isn't entirely your fault. we talked to one former google employee who says the engineers in silicon valley are the ones creating the obsession.this is bloomberg. ♪

mark: i'm mark crumpton. you are watching "bloomberg technology." first word news. vladimir putin wants the united nations to investigate the chemical weapons attack in

syria. >> we have intelligence from various sources that similar provocations are being prepared in other regions of syria, including southern suburbs of damascus, where they are planning to plant chemicals and blame the syrian government for using them. we believe any displays of this kind deserve to be thoroughly investigated. mark: russia has rejected allegations that its ally, the syrian government, was responsible. more than 100 prospective candidates have signed up so far on the first day of registration an's presidential election. registration is open until saturday, and any iranian national can apply. although they do not approve dissidence or women for the final race. north korea's parliament convened today as the u.s. and south korea conducted the largest ever military exercises

on the grand -- korean peninsula since the start of their alliance. the uss carl vinson aircraft carrier is also headed to the area. experts say pyongyang could be preparing for its sixth nuclear launch. i'm mark crumpton in new york. this is bloomberg. it is after 5:30 p.m. tuesday in new york, 7:30 a.m. wednesday in sydney. david joins us with the markets. good morning. ahead of markets open, futures on australia's afx 200 index, up about a quarter of a percent. nikkei 200 and japan, down. today, we are looking at inflation data out of china. ppi was its highest since 2008 less month, and cpi close to the lowest since 2009. economists are expecting that will pull in a little bit now at 7.5 percent for producer prices and 1% for consumer prices.

we will also look at japan where the company's largest supermarket reports annual results. it is an interesting stock. it has not had a single by reading since 2015, but the share price is up 30%. it is now in a valuation. not that much different to amazon.com. those are the main things we will be looking at. i'm david fink going -- i'm david, "bloomberg technology," continues next. ♪ caroline: this is "bloomberg technology." i'm caroline hyde. many parents are convinced her children are addicted to their funds -- phones.

perhaps you are right. former google product manager this -- ethicist says silicon valley is creating phones to get people fixated. it is a phenomenon called rain hacking -- brain hacking. what are the long-term consequences? still with us, guest host for partners elevation cofounder roger mcnamee. this is fascinating. youran, i was looking at biography. why did you leave google? >> i think it's an interesting problem. all of these technology companies are locked into the

attention economy. no matter what you are building, whether a meditation app, or facebook, netflix, or youtube, you are still competing for attention. with theft conversation about the attention economy and whether it is creating the type of world we want to live in, both for democracy, and in terms of how it affects children with persuasive techniques with apps like snapchat that go public on networks like this. caroline: who are you targeting at the moment with your not-for-profit movement and the people listening? >> we just went on "60 minutes." there's a great piece with anderson cooper. people and industry do agree. it is hard to accept what is really at stake and how to get off the train. at the end of the day, if you are a product manager at youbook, your goal is how

are measured, how to maximize metrics. this increasing of usage doesn't add up to necessarily what we want the like.to look the world is increasingly persuasive. it sucks us in and leaves us having to show someone the most engaging things which aren't necessarily the best things for us,. roger: good to see you. election, actually over the course of the summer, i became increasingly alarmed by my perception that facebook had inadvertently become a 12 that was being used to distort democracy -- a tool that was being used to distort democracy, first with brexit, then over here. the first thing is i saw was the ultimate -- reluctance to accept responsibility, to dismiss this as running experiments. i'm curious, is this something you think can be addressed , are wehe industry

going to need some kind of regulatory thing from the outside to get the proper attention brought to it? >> you are right. much more have attention brought to it. the question is, where is it going to come from? will it be because of consumer pressure, when people realize companies are not building products to serve us? they have to serve advertisers. you are right to be concerned about how it was affecting the elections.it's one of my deepest concerns as well . facebook has a team of engineers working on the fake news problems, that they scrambled to after the u.s. election. no matter what they do, how will we know they are doing enough, how will we know it is transparent, and how do we know they are putting insufficient resources, especially if it conflicts with their own business? city -- this is like a city of one billion people, but we don't have any public representation. these three private companies,

apple, google, and facebook, they run the city and we have been inside it. but we don't have representation. roger: it does seem to me one of the challenges we face is that the consumer has no way become aware of what the problem is. i look at the issue of the so-called filter bubbles, particularly around local and facebook, where you basically only see things they believe you like already, so you build these walls that are essentially impervious to all outside influences. against that they have created add tools that allow advertisers to discriminate. that business model seems to be so successful that the economic argument for the status quo must be compelling to those companies. it's really hard to admit that you have caused brexit are contributing to trump getting elected if your entire business

model depends on you having done the very things that enabled those outcomes. >> i completely agree. history,ok through there are often times in history where we discovered that something is morally repugnant that the whole economy is based on it. so it used to be slavery. when the british empire wanted to get out of slavery, they had to give up 2% of their gdp every year for 60 years. now the whole tech economy is propped up by advertising. it has served us really well and created wealth. there's a lot of great things that came from it, but when the -- if i'mtoo high facebook and i have one newsfeed that has filter bubbles that confirms your existing beliefs, and i have another feed that doesn't confirm your beliefs, if the one that doesn't confirm your beliefs loses engagement, everyone else will swoop in. with facebook, i'm locked into

doing what is bad for democracy. caroline: which stakeholder is it best to target? is it best to target the consumer? shareholder, an investor, is it to them to hold the executives to account? is it employees? >> i think this is a thing we are working out. i love the idea of having more shareholder control and when we collectively realize the cost in democracy and children. that's a fantastic way to move to other industries in the past. i think the threat of regulation is another one. although there is option now the in california, there is california legislature's you can go to. that is the conversation i'm trying to create. caroline: fascinating. thank you very much. ethicist,gle design tristan harris, and roger

mcnamee, from silver lake partners. wonderful to have you. now to a story we are watching. a top european regulator will likely order yahoo! to make changes after one of the biggest data breaches in history. ireland's data protection commissioner says yahoos european union is at least in part to blame for the incident. under the new rules, companies probed for serious violations will be fined as much as 4% of global annual sales. toshiba reports earnings results after delaying the report twice. we will dig into the results and the warning about its future. this is bloomberg. ♪

caroline: let's turn back to toshiba. after months of dealing with the fallout from the bankruptcy of westinghouse, the conglomerate o revealed little about its future. crippled, or could the sale of its business get it on track? cory johnson joins us along with our guest host, roger mcnamee of elevation partners. you had wonderful analogies last time we looked at the history of this company. cory: it is an interestingcory: business. this westinghouse nuclear power business is so interesting. so many problems, many of them of their own making. accounting problems, a whistleblower, toshiba not clean. they finally say they will publish financial results even though the accountant won't sign off on it and by the way,, we might go bankrupt. caroline: roger, we were talking earlier about japan's history in chips, and they used to rule the

roost. roger: they really did. i will never forget the late 1980's, meeting the vice chair of toshiba when it was just a chip company, at least in the u.s. they were so dominant. the only american company that showed viability was intel. we were out of memory and we were beaten by japanese companies everywhere. he basically said you can get rid of intel, you don't need to be a semiconductor analyst anymore, because it is over. we are tempted to look at google, facebook, apple, all that way today. what's going on at toshiba gives you a sense that in technology nothing is forever. cory: also they made really dumb bets. betting in nuclear power was just a bad business decision. roger: but big companies make bad business decisions frequently. that's part of what comes with the territory of outgrowing your

market. you outgrow your market and basically look for something else that looks like it will replace it, and inevitably they are not domain experts and the thing they buy, so something goes wrong. caroline: talking about japan a long time ago versus u.s. now, we have seen a garnering of control. think of the purchase of whatsapp or instagram that mark at zuckerberg made. control is there for shareholders to rein in bad behavior? cory: stocks go to zero every year. there's always a big fraud. important is also when you look at the problems of what toshiba has done. this nuclear power business is one where they contracts are so

long and the construction takes so many years, and the financial guarantee to provide to customers is so great, that when the company's gambles -- stumbles, they don't have the financial backing. onoline: a thought governance, particularly as we have seen the snap ipo. control at so much the helm of the companies. roger: i wouldn't count on corporate governance to bail you out of any problem in the united states. i think in general, corporate governance in the united states is something they would pay lip service to, which in reality is at best dormant, at worst genuinely harmful. i think activist investors in general produce bad long run outcomes that they optimize for the shore, -- short time. you wonder whether so many

people who are dissatisfied. it is because activist shareholders or the people who preceded them went in and slash ed and burned and moved out of the factories. they would move to the sun belt, then to asia. that has been with us for a long time. they keep changing names. first it was email, then raiders , then activists. nonetheless -- roger: at the end of the day, it is the same thing. someone is out to make a buck. there are times when that is the best strategy for the company, but there are also times when that may be the only strategy for a limited number of investors are very short period of time. 40 years into that practice, more often than not, it isn't

working out. -- theyd it is legally. go early so they can't get sued earlier. and it strikes terror into the investors hearts. cory johnson, our bloomberg editor at large and roger mcnamee making a great team. we will be talking about internet privacy protections. we will talk net neutrality rules. we are focused on the future of the sec -- sec, next. this is bloomberg. ♪

caroline: now on the latest tech funding board, a real estate firm is gearing up to be canada's first tech ipo in two years. according to people familiar with the matter, they are seeking to raise around $94 million or a valuation of $750 million. shop if i was the last canadian

shopify was the last canadian company to go public. meanwhile, patrick draw he is looking to exploit stock market gains to fuel stock market functions. altice usa was formed with two u.s. acquisitions. sticking with the united states, a new fcc chairman has made no secret to the fact he would like to undo net neutrality rules of the creamiest -- previous administration. reports, he some has already begun sketching out ideas to do that. still with us is our guest host throughout the hour, roger mcnamee, cofounder of elevation partners. he started out by saying you are

worried about privacy. started out by saying you are worried about privacy. roger: simply put, we live in an era now where -- let's think about media, whether music or movies. streaming services are becoming much more prevalent. in music, they dominate. increasingly, they are a huge factor in television programming and movies. when you think about it, though services are very concentrated. they are only a handful of players. if you were to take the net neutrality rules and eliminate them now, you would essentially be locking those people in place. the entrepreneurs who create content and entrepreneurs who might want to compete with be at a massive disadvantage. that is sobout pai disturbing if he has an unerring preference for the largest incumbent players over absolutely everyone else.

i don't know if you saw the thing they are talking about, no more selfish -- cell phone usage after the plane lands. that kind of stuff is needlessly antagonistic toward consumers. i don't understand the thought process of the whole administration.they operate in this idea that doesn't need customers and it doesn't need customer satisfaction to produce better outcomes. it doesn't make sense to me. any business there opportunities from some of these unwanted names?i'm looking at the isp providers who are now able, theoretically, to sell data and viewing habits on the internet. many say the rise of the vpn is upon us and we will start to see more private internet service providers coming to the fore. are there any winners out there? pai himself said he still wants to keep the fairness in there. roger: i think that is baloney.

i don't think he has interest in fairness for any other than a handful of major players. caroline: why? roger: why do they have a muslim ban? why did they needlessly blow up a bunch of empty buildings in syria? i don't understand anything these people are doing. it's not thoughtful. it is not based on evidence. it's not based on consumer needs. it's not based on any desire to make consumers happy. i find it deeply, deeply disturbing. the sale of consumer data permission,umers' without any ability to opt out -- in whose interest is that? caroline: but they weren't being -- the isp said do the same for google and facebook, have been regulated to the same extent with customers data. clear, i would be

fine with that. i think that would be a much better solution than opening it all up. again, we just got off with tristan harris. the use of consumer data by and google has produced some really unfortunate outcomes. i think our refusal to accept those as lessons to learn from great harm tog our society. when you harm a society, you are harming the economy. caroline: how do you put your money to work? how do you put your voice to work at the moment to be able to see a better outcome? roger: those are two different questions. on money, right now i'm about 70% in t bills because i'm terrified. not to say the market can't go up, but my risk market -- tolerances lower than it was. at the market, each action taken by the government is harmful and the responses have been more or

.ess lame i still own apple. i still own facebook. i own stocks, but not very many. i am highly concentrated and mostly in t-bills. in terms of influence, and trying to help companies. i've been working with facebook say, hang gone, there's a way to do this better. to their credit, there are people in facebook trying to do -- trying to do that. it has been wonderful to have you throughout this hour. roger mcnamee, founder of elevation partners and silver lake partners. that does it for this edition of "bloomberg technology." ♪

attention homeowners age sixty-two and older. one reverse mortgage has a great way for you to live a better retirement... it's called a reverse mortgage. call rfree information kityour with no obligation. it answers questions like... how a reverse mortgage works, how much you qualify for, the ways to receive your money and more. plus, when you call now, you'll get this magnifier with led light absolutely free! when you call the experts at one reverse mortgage today you'll learn the benefits of a government-insured reverse mortgage. it will eliminate your monthly mortgage payments and give you tax-free cash from the equity in your home... and here's the best part... you still own yohome. call now! take control of your retirement

today! ♪ announcer: from our studios in new york city, this is "charlie rose." we begin this evening assad regimehe resumed bombing rebel targets a day after the u.s. launched missile strikes at a syrian air base on friday. it was the first time the u.s. directly intervene in the syrian the war. meanwhile, secretary of state tillerson criticized russia ahead of his first diplomatic trip to moscow tuesday. he suggested the kremlin may be complicit in the chemical weapons assault that killed dozens last week. questions are raised about president trump's