ours studios in new york city, this is charlie rose. charley: we begin this evening with our continuing coverage of fbi director james comey who was fired yesterday i president trump. the dramatic news precipitated an immediate call by democrats and some republicans for an independent investigation into ties between russia and the trump campaign. it department of justice memo

cited clinton's ng of the email probe -- comey's handling of the clinton email probe as a reason for the firing. asked earlier today, president trump gave a simple expedition. >> why did you fire director comey? >> because he was not doing a good job. charlie: joining me from washington, bob woodward, associate editor of "the washington post," dan bolles, chief correspondent at "the washington post," michael shear, correspondent for "the new york times," and in new york, fran townsend who served as homeland security and counterterrorism adviser to president george w. bush. i am pleased to have all of them on this program. michael she are, what has been added to this story today? michael: a couple of things have been added. one is that we discovered today that just days before his firing, jim comey, the director of the fbi, requested additional conduct the

sprawling investigation into in the u.s.ing election and possible contacts with trump advisors. that generated additional intensity behind the democratic calls for an independent prosecutor. obviously, then raising the question among democrats and other critics as to whether or not that provides one more motivation or reason for president trump to fire the fbi director, suggesting that perhaps he was trying to stall or delay or hamper the investigation. that is ultimately where we are today. we know what happened. the director got fired. what we don't know is why. we have the white house explanation. he wasn't doing a good job. it's about the hillary emails, but there are not people in washington who believe that. who issuedicans calls not just for an independent prosecutor asked for

an explanation. charlie: are those the questions you are asking? dan: we are all asking those same questions. the problem the administration has had is coming up with a consistent and coherent explanation of what led to the firing. was it the memorandum produced by the deputy attorney general, which laid out the bill of particulars for how he believes comey mishandled the hillary clinton investigation, or was it, as the president said, he wasn't doing a good job, which suggests there is something on since the president came into office that has concerned the president? they have not been able to get a clear explanation of what led to the firing, and that has continued to keep the focus on them to do so. charlie: many people want to make comparisons to watergate and the saturday night massacre. there's no one better than you to compare them. it's the same, and it's

different at times. the focus of the person doing the investigation, fbi director comey, is out. at the same time, in the saturday night massacre in 1973, ages ago, it was at a point when john dean,charges by nixon's counsel, against nixon our days ofrd, and f public testimony at the watergate hearings and the revelation about the existence of this secret taping system. you can see that there was a path to seeing whether or not what dean said was true or not. now there's lots of surmise, lots of questions about the trump campaign, and the russian connection, but there is not the sort of evidence that existed in the watergate case.

what is interesting here -- i think it's very important -- it removes comey. last year in the campaign, put himself out as the one who was to make the judgments on the hillary clinton email investigation. he's got a lot of stature. he's gone. ended the't investigation, but they have diluted it. charlie: they can limit an investigation by firing jim comey? bob: i think that could be the result. it depends who they put in there. it depends how much the deputy attorney general who now is allegedly in charge of all of ,his, how he asserts himself

what the depth and intensity of the inquiry is. clearly under comey, it was going gangbusters, and as michael pointed out, he was recently seeking more resources for the fbi to do this. do we know how much more money and what exactly he wanted? was it a specific bill of particulars? i think that would add a lot. charlie: tim murphy? how will the fbi be affected by this? couplethink bob makes a of good points, but it has been a number ofe -- executives in this position coming up through the ranks when i was in the fbi -- look, is there a slight chance that some aspect of an investigation can be affected? potentially yes, but i have full

faith and confidence in the individuals in the fbi that it is. ahead on a lot of these investigations -- that it is full steam ahead on a lot of these investigations. we are missing a lot of facts, but i find it strange. frequently in the fbi, we usually don't go over and ask for more resources for an investigation. generally, that is done internally. the fbi has a $10 billion budget, 36,000 employees, and usually, funds and resources are shifted around to enhance an investigation. the reason you might go over and asked the department of justice for assistance is to have more career attorneys put on it or to work closer with the fbi. ve to get through the facts and figure out what they are. this was a shock to the fbi, to the employees. theinterim staff there, interim director, they are going to march forward just like they have done for the last 10, 20,

30, 40 years working these investigations. i am not as concerned that this has an effect on the investigation, but i will agree with bob. it totally depends on who the next rector of the fbi is. charlie: i will come back to that. trump tweeted today, comey lost the confidence of almost everyone in washington, republicans and democrats alike. did he lose the confidence of the fbi? fran: look, i think it's fair to .ay that people liked comey he's smart. he's ethical. he's a good speaker, and he's a good leader. on a personal level, he was admired by many. almost uniformly, take the political figures out of this -- the men and women at various ranks of the fbi were horrified in the way that comey handled the press conference related to the announcement of the hillary clinton email investigation and later, several days before the

election, the reopening of it. it pulled the bureau into a political maelstrom that they don't want to find themselves in, and i think there was a good deal of discomfort inside the fbi that they found themselves there, and frankly, resentment. charlie: does that match what you know? tim: it matches in the sense that -- look, what happened was so public and so transparent, which was unprecedented in the way the fbi handles investigations, and that's what andppears that the dag attorney general relied on, the violation of those policies. where the rub comes in. fran had it right. this director was very well liked the employees of the fbi. they had great respect for him. the fbi more rall was good, and if you build up that emotional bank account well like he did in the first couple years, although they may have disagreed with the way he handled it, they still have great affection for him,

liked his independence. where this came to a crux is that extreme independence and transparency in that position doesn't totally work. you need some independenc and some transparency, bute standing alone trying to be extremely independent and transparent came back to hurt him. charlie: let me go back to the original question. anybody can jump in now. do you believe that the focus because of this firing on the forian probe will heat up reporters, investigators, for everybody now? reporters don't have subpoena power, but are we going to see now the possibility of a much more intensive focus on that? dan: i think there will be up to a point, but that depends on what information is available, what the senate and house committees are doing, particularly the senate , and other signs of an

intensification of it within the fbi and what they are doing. what we have seen on this, charlie, there is a little bit of an ad and flow -- ebb and flow. it sparks at certain moments. then it recedes a little bit, and more information comes out. the reality is, i think people realize that this is a constant thorn in the side of the white house and the president. it is something that obviously irritates the president, and in one way or the other, although he praised comey when comey did what he did in late october by announcing the reopening of the investigation into the clinton emails, the idea that comey in one way or the other was to independent must have gnawed at him. that is underlying part of what we saw here. there is going to be tremendous focus on this. there is nervousness on capitol

hill, obviously, even among republicans who have mostly defended the president for the firing of comey, and we will have to see how this unfolds. the calls for a special prosecutor from the democratic side intensified again. we are not at the point where that is likely, but another couple of events similar to this or revelations could add to that pressure and bring that about. they demand,d before they will confirm a new director, that there be a commitment to a special prosecutor or something like that? dan: they could try to do that. that would depend on how much unity there is on the republican side. the next director could be confirmed on a party-line vote. if you had a few defectors among the republicans, then the democrats could in fact hold it up. the other thing that has happened today, there are any

number of democrats, including senator warner, who's the ranking democrat on the intelligence committee. they have said they would not, at this point, have confidence in the deputy attorney general appointing the special prosecutor, that it ought to be handed to a senior career person because of what has happened over the firing. go ahead, bob. bob: the confirmation hearings for a new fbi director can't really be used for leverage in the senate to get some guarantee that an independent counsel, special prosecutor would be appointed. what happened back in watergate is elliott richardson was ,ominated as attorney general as the scandal was breaking open , and the senate made him promise to appoint a special prosecutor.

he did that. that led to the appointment of archibald coxe, who of course nick's and hated, and when coxe was coming after the tapes, he fired him. points are not gone, but they are substantially reduced. i think the summation of all of ais is that we have seen rather skillful or at least powerful example of executive branch muscle. trump is the boss. director is fbi gone, and that's it. it's a new world we are in. i also think this idea that the tim suggested, the fbi

agents will be doing their work. a lot of these investigations can be controlled from the top. they have to approve doing interviews. they have to approve what possible law violations they are examining, and that is going to be handled by the justice department. i think the expectation should not be large that there are going to be serious revelations added this point through that channel, the fbi. >> on the question of leverage in a nomination, you have to consider that democrats who want up the fbi director are playing with fire in the sense is one ofbi director the key national security officials who response to terror and other attacks. they have to worry about the blowback if they are holding up a key national security official. is one of the key national security officials who response to terror and other attacks. that's one thing. the other thing we have to think

about is the disconnect that is likely. i can't get inside the president's brain, but the great expectedd is that he that by firing comey, this would make the russia investigation go away or become less of a political problem for him. if folks are right, and the investigation does continue, either because of the career folks at the department, the bureau, or also the intensity around the issue, president trump is going to become frustrated. the actions he took are not going to result in what he wanted to happen, and that is going to result in more tweets, more calling the investigations fake or phony or a hoax or a waste of money, as he did this week. i think what we are likely to see is not only the intensification of the investigation but also the intensification of the reaction

inside the white house. i think what we are likely to see is not only the he is going to get more and more frustrated as this drags on. fran: i think in some ways what bob is saying underestimates in large order the commitment of the men and women of the fbi. this is a 100 year old investigations. you have the same agents working the russian investigation yesterday working this morning. there are career prosecutors issuing subpoenas. firing, ispects, the don't want to underestimate the strength and power of jim comey, but in some respects, the firing of jim comey puts greater fire in the belly of the career agents, career prosecutors to, without fear of favor, follow this thing. wait a second, bob. have two congressional oversight committees, and you got guys like bob woodward and dan balls and all the reporters out there. if these agents and prosecutors think that if some -- in some way they are trying to be manipulated were influenced inappropriately, you bet between

congress and journalists, you are going to hear about it. but they may not like it, as you know, they can't freelance, and there is a very rigorous process in the fbi to go down certain channels of investigation, to even interview key people, particularly those close to trump. we will see. if you look at the watergate itestigation 45 years ago, ,as controlled and manipulated sometimes wittingly, sometimes unwittingly, by the fbi. it was limited, and it did not do the job that should be done. i think if you don't have somebody at the top leading, just like any organization, any cabinet office or department, if

you have somebody say, no, we are going, and we are going to get the job done. it's the difference between night and day. tim: there is some merit to what bob says, having someone in charge who is there that is truly independent and keeps the agents of the organization motivated. inis a different world today the digital world with the social media. it's much easier to build cases today than it was in the past. it's much easier, as we are seeing, leaks across government organizations. there seems to be a closer connection between media and investigative journalism. i don't disagree with you, but i think today is a different world. i think it's harder to control people today and influence them through the direct means you are talking about. what eventually would happen -- if you saw that happened today,

you could eventually have a another mark felt. who is going to be the journalist today who gets this? there is a potential there. i think people would go sideways if they are not allowed to continue an investigation they believe is fair and just and import into the united states of america. i think you would have huge issues. charlie: give us a sense of how this thing might tighten. obviously, leaks from the fbi and anywhere else -- in terms of bringing to bear pressure on the russian probe for these committees and for perhaps a investigator, special prosecutor. how would that happen? dan: i think there are two ways. one is through the fbi investigation. we learned yesterday they have begun to issue some subpoenas having to do with michael flynn.

there are obviously various avenues under investigation. said, there is no known concrete evidence of collusion, but this is an active investigation. there will almost certainly be more information that leaks out of that. that is inevitable. the senate intelligence committee is another focus where there will be a kind of doubling down at this point. because of what has happened with the firing of director comey, and because of the problems the house intelligence committee has gone through over the last couple months, the senate intelligence committee is looked at as the one place that could do a bipartisan investigation, and i think there will be every effort made on the part of chairman burr and vice chairman warner to maintain as much bipartisanship and intensity of that operation.

in the absence of a special prosecutor, that will be one of the more credible and somewhat public investigations into this whole episode. i think the pincer movement of what the fbi is doing, mostly thew the radar, and what senate intelligence committee begins to do somewhat above the radar, it will keep this very much in focus. as mike says come it will continue to frustrate the president immensely. charlie: is there any significance to the fact that the president met with the russian foreign minister today? >> it was really bizarre. that was one of the most oddly-timed and awkward moments. it was striking that it not only was allowed to happen. in the discipline of the obama white house, that never would have been allowed to take place. then you have this weird situation where the white house clearly, having scheduled the meeting, did not want any press or photos. it was a closed press event.

the russians had their official photographer, just like the white house has their own official photographer, and the russian official photographer was part of the state run media and russia -- in russia and tweeted out pictures of a beaming president trump shaking hands with sergey lavrov, but also surrogate kids act, the russian ambassador, who has been at the heart of this whole thing for months now. you had this spectacle, these photos racing across twitter, putting this scene of him and the russians in the middle of this exploding controversy. charlie: thank you. it's a pleasure to have you here. fran: thanks, charlie. charlie: we will be right back.

stay with us. ♪

charlie: james a very here. the actor is known for bringing life to dark and instructive characters. his films include "pretty in pink" and "crash." he won three emmys for his work on "the practice" and "boston legal." here is a look at some of his work. >> when are we going to get

together and do something? >> try never. >> i'm talking about more than sex. >> no, you are not. >can you get off of my car? >> i used to express -- express my feelings nonverbally. i often scared people. >> are you still like that? >> no. it.ook at you see that? >> what? >> this letter has three typing errors, one of which i believe is a spelling error. >> i'm sorry. >> there have been others i've let go because it was in the first few weeks. this cannot go on.

>> if mercy truly lives within these walls, within your hearts as justices, as people, you cannot cause this man to be injected with chemicals for the purpose of killing him for a crime it's possible he did not commit. he asked me to tell you that, that he did not commit it. important that you know that. will he be unhappy if we lose? >> the money we manage to raise for this endeavor is only for your fees, food, and lodging. >> it's that squirrel-infested addict. >> should we get to work? >> this is the best i can do. -- >> this is the best i can do. this is exactly what i wanted, all of you against all of me.

charlie: he currently stars as the concierge of crime on "the blacklist." the nbc hit series is in its fourth season. i am pleased to have james spader at this table. what do you say about those performances? [laughter] james: i don't have much to say about that. they have to speak for themselves. they seem almost disconnected from me when i see them like that. almost all of those feel like -- even more recent things feel like a distant memory. charlie: really? why do you think that is? because so many other interesting things have happened? james: it's partly that, but i think it's also a question of volume of material more than anything else. i'm working on a television show now, and there's such an enormous amount of material that one is working with. charlie: you keep working as hard as you do for what reason?

james: i wish that i could -- i wish that i could come up with that felt not as pragmatic as the truth, but the truth is that i work as hard as i do -- it's twofold. i work as hard as i do to pay , and the economics of being an actor has changed dramatically in the last 20 and the economics of being an actor has changed dramatically in the last 20 years. and even more dramatically in the last 10 years.

to make a living that i feel i have to make to pay for my life. i have to work on television. the films that i would be , theested in doing economic value for those films -- charlie: they don't pay you much. james: homes, travel, and family. extended family and so on. and so i have found that television is able to finance many other things. i would not have been able to do lincoln, which i loved doing. i would not be able to do that if i wasn't working for a year as a guest on the office television show. was a filmengers

that i had great fun doing and paid all right. it becomes a franchise where you're doing one after another, it is not a career. , to a great degree, and probably the reason for the explosion on television in terms of programming is that writers, directors, and actors have migrated to a great degree to pay for the plays and films that they might like to do. charlie: at the same time, you can do very good work on television now. there are stories on television that they couldn't tell. james: yes. the second part of the answer to that question. andcan work in television not work particularly hard.

i just don't know how to do it any other way. charlie: in other words, you have your own standards. james: i bury myself in the work. films, i, when i did did not do many of them. i did as few as i possibly could because i just buried myself in it. when i stopped, i was relieved and glad to have stopped. on television shows. but a television show is a very different animal than a film. a to volition -- a television show swallows you up and you are in it for quite some time. and you are paid well for that and that is lovely. you build a relationship with your viewers that really becomes

a partnership in an odd way. you must face that yourself. charlie: of course. is an and there understanding between yourself and your viewers. and an expectation. that one becomes beholden to. charlie: you really do. you don't want to do less than your best. do they expect that? james: i think so. charlie: you left, age 17. were you going to be an actor? james: at first, i thought it would be fun to be a private detective. i let it sort of sneak up on me. i'm just going to be there for a bit and see what happens. one thing led to another. i worked a string of odd jobs.

different manual labor jobs. make-believe and pretending it was something that i had done since i was a kid. all without going to acting classes. no, i did. there was a man named blair cutting. i studied with him on and off, really for the fun of it more than anything else. and then he died in that was the end of my studying. james: you learned a lot -- charlie: you learned a lot. james: i learned to have fun and

be fast on my feet. we did a lot of improvisation in the class. i love that. andarned how to just relax continue to play. when i have found is that it takes an enormous amount of work, practice, and effort to remind yourself just to do the same thing when you were playing cops and robbers in the backyard. and you adopt a lot of baggage. you hold on a lot of baggage as you grow up and get older. which is completely superfluous and should get rid of it. just go and make believe and play cops and robbers. that's the best way. charlie: if you look at the offers that you get to do different things, what percentage of them are the kind of character you did in boston legal and you do today? the notion of the unsavory but

somehow compelling character? that 75% of what people want you to do because they see you doing that? james: i think it is also a matter of searching things out. things i don't think i would be in just ae at all straight dramatic role or a straight comedic role. i like dichotomy in a character. i like your reference. i look for dichotomy in characters and i look for conflict. goode also never been very at -- i like playing the film.ateur in the i was offered a play, broadway race, it was great fun.

you think that is more interesting to you? james: i think i've spent a long it is evidence looking at the clips we looked at. i spent my career growing into growinghysically and into the character actor that i really wanted to be right from the very beginning. so i played bad guys and i played this and that. -- i think i eventually grew lincoln was a great example of that. i could've played a character in lincoln for months and months. love playing that character a lot. charlie: why? james: i just like his company a

great deal. charlie: you like being his skin. fors: he had a great lust life and was doing something very important that i think he felt was very important. and yet, he did it with utter irreverence. lookedhink i probably for that quality in the show that i'm on. raymond redington. when one is committing to a television series, it is a significant commitment. i can escape somehow. how many years? james: the fourth season that's on right now. i think i was looking for that.

someone that no matter what his life may be, as dire as it may be, he always retain irreverence and a sense of humor. and a great appreciation for what i found so strangely again. dealing in the realm of life and death. it has such an enormous appreciation for life. it has a true sense of the thatous nature of life all the world has to give. ♪

charlie: and you play these characters, does each one build on the other? i assume that every interview and you should inform another interview i do. they all have their own light that you should learn something and pay attention. is it something about your range and your limits? your interests and -- something i was

curious about. and certainly looking for a character to play on television that could be something i would be curious about for a while. blacklist, the pilot. and even probably for the first season if not two seasons. and today, the project was the story, the world, his life, his character. that ienigmatic enough could take a long time getting to know him. charlie: explain people who have not seen the black list who he is. james: a man who has led a criminal life for going on three decades now. 25 years or something. he has been wanted by the fbi,

on their most wanted list for some time. he has made it to number one. i think that's where he's at. ago, heday, four years surrendered himself to the fbi to a specific person at the fbi .hat he knew this assistant director harold cooper played by harry lenox. he said he would make a deal with them where he could continue to live his life and be out and about, but he would give perpetrators that were on his list. but that he would only work through this one woman. a young woman, that she would be his liaison. a relationship with a certain respect for each other. was it more than that?

i think that is what the show is, to a great degree, about. the nature of that. the nature of his relationships with all of the people, this relationship he has at the fbi wasn't public knowledge. are, in fact,hole still hunting him. during his time working with this, you know, secret task force, he actually moved up on the list to number one. he is still out there. , living thisimes illicit life. but he's made a bargain. they've made a faustian bargain with him. charlie: and the person that encapsulates the character like you do, they have to be smart.

art of the attraction is that they are so smart that they can outwit lots of people. including bad guys. james: enormously compelling. --all of us, about gangsters charlie: your guy is pretty violent, too. james: he is. he is. yes. charlie: is that good or bad in -- i meanour sense of -- charliejames: i think he's welle -- i know he is well aware of the cost that comes with that. but, you know, he lives in a world that that exist s in. it would be foolish to think

that he doesn't. charlie: i often ask athletes, especially, why do you still do it? if they do it beyond a certain time. boxers. i've asked this of sugar ray leonard. why do you do this? he made a lot of money and was successful. he had a group of advisers. he said, charlie, it's what i do. it's what i know. had a conversation with a great friend of mine about that very thing. soas talking about how i was happy to just be able to walk in the park and take a nap. we were talking about that very thing. forward?es one to go and i say to him, perhaps being glib, i have to pay my bills. i will be working until the day i die because i have to pay my

bills. charlie: because of the lifestyle i like. james: one must fess up that it isn't just to do that. there is something else that is a need for that. charlie: you like doing something that you know do it well and the people you know know you do it well. do you have time to read during the season? i can read nonfiction during the season. i have trouble reading fiction because i am consuming a large volume of fictional material for the show. i don't tend to be looking for .ore fictional i tend to read nonfiction during the season. a break at as i get christmas time or during the summer hiatus, anytime i get a week off or something, i will

read fiction. charlie: this is a clip in which goes to war with his nemesis. here it is. >> are you familiar with master james of st. george? favored architect of edward the first. concentric construction. he literally built castles within castles. impossible to penetrate. you could breach the outer wall only to be faced with a heavily fortified gatehouse and a high inner wall line. the foot that made it that far. the architecture of my organization has risen stone by stone over decades. you can't get inside to hurt me. >> i've been by your side the whole time. i know what was required to unlock your power. betrayed,rt, who you

who you killed. as your cleaner, i know where the bodies are buried. were buried. because i'm going to use them and the stories they tell to put you in the ground. >> you've been busy. one of these days these boots are going to walk all over you ♪ so tell me about that scene. who hashat is a woman been an associate of his for a long, long time. cleaner.is she would clean up his mess. , cleaning a bodies crime scene.

and has for years and years and years and years. since the beginning. and they have had a terrible falling out. charlie: she knows all the secrets. james: she knows all the secrets. that is an ice hockey rink. the remains of 86 bodies that she has gone around the country and dug up from different places where she disposed of them. she has brought them to this ice hockey rink and they are all on ice. she is about to turn those 86 bodies with all of the records associated with those individuals, turn them over to the fbi. charlie: roll tape. this is where you see redd express his love for his bodyguard and confidant.

>> most of my associates are under the impression that once i have granted them a favor, they are indebted to me for life. it is a false assumption. they are indebted to me because i make them a lot of money. they are loyal to me because i have earned it. but at the end of the day, it is just business. in service of what? health.security, the well-being of ones we love. i only have one friend. you are my friend. i -- i misjudged you, in a way.

suffice.y can i am ashamed of that. i want you to keep the box, and on the day you decide to leave -- >> i can't. >> you can. charlie: he wants him to leave or not leave? james: he is devoted to him. he is a really fantastic gentlemen. retired just in the last year, i guess. 20 years in the new york city fire department. the first three seasons of our show, he was still working as a fireman up at the harlem hilton. and a good actor. james: and a good actor.

i can't imagine doing the show without him. our relationship is ray similar to the one on the show. just what he brings to our day. and he's with me every scene. i don't think there's a day that i can remember where he and i are not working together. atrlie: i am mostly amazed how much your director uses close-ups. it's almost like 60 minutes. james: that is something that came out of a discussion when we were shooting the pilot. there is a disagreement between the producers and the director in the pilot about the frame. and it was a scene where i was -- the character i was playing with sitting in this box, manacled to a chair. they shot a wide shot and it was a longish scene. playing with the character of elizabeth keen.

he sort of came in very slowly but he didn't go in any tighter than say, waste or something -- waiste or somethi the ng. the director didn't want to go tighter. he says, it plays tight. it, you have said to come in for a close shot. they started to argue back-and-forth. i said, why don't you come to hear. -- here. almost uncomfortably close inside of the head. and that is your show. charlie: thank you. come back. let me give you what you need to know about blacklist. it is in the fourth season on nbc and their thursday night at 10:00 p.m. thank you for joining us. see you next time. ♪

♪

betty: asian-pacific shares falling as wall street -- wall street retreated. yvonne: the bank of england's governor taking a for granted that brexit will be smooth. however, investors are not so sure. said heresident trump intended to fire the fbi director all along. yvonne: korea may see its biggest ipo in years. they raised more than $2 billion.