♪ >> from our studios in new york city, this is "charlie rose." charlie: we begin this evening with our continuing coverage of fbi director james comey, who was fired yesterday by 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 comey's handling of the clinton email probe as a reason for dismissing him. asked earlier today, president trump gave a simple explanation. >> why did you fire director comey?

mr. trump 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, white house 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 shear, 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 resources to conduct the sprawling investigation into russia meddling in the u.s. 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 provided 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 was about the hillary emails, but there are not people in washington who believe that. even republicans who issued calls not just for an independent prosecutor, at least an explanation from the white house. 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 going 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 there were charges by john dean, nixon's counsel, against nixon on the record, and four days of public testimony at the senate 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. he, of course, 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. his replacement, whoever it is, will be somebody trump picks. byebody probably approved the attorney general sessions. morenow will have much control over where this investigation goes. it, but they ended 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 this, 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? tim: i think bob makes a couple of good points, but it has been my experience -- a number of 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 full steam ahead on a lot of these investigations. not just this investigation, but a number of them. it is moving forward. we are missing a lot of facts, but i find it strange. frequently in the fbi, we generally don't go over in extreme rate -- circumstances 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 if it needs more resources. the reason you might go over and ask the department of justice for assistance is to have more career attorneys put on it or to work closer with the fbi. we have to get through the facts and figure out what they are. this was a shock to the fbi, to the employees. the interim staff there, the interim director and the rest of the staff on the executive level 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 director of the fbi -- who was nominated, confirmed, takes the position. 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 say 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 it appears that the dag and attorney general relied on, the violation of those policies. that is where the rub comes in. fran had it right. this director was very well liked by the employees of the fbi. they had great respect for him. he took care of his employees, and morale was good. and if you build up that emotional bank account 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 independence and some transparency, but standing alone to and 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 russian probe will heat up for 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 committee, 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 ebb and flow. moments whentain new information comes out. whether it had to do with the former national security adviser michael flynn, or something like this. 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 too 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. charlie: could they demand, before they will confirm a new fbi 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. but 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. charlie: 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 nominated 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. the leverage points are not gone, but they are substantially reduced. i think the summation of all of this is that we have seen a rather skillful or at least powerful example of executive branch muscle. trump is the boss. he said, the fbi director is gone, and that's it. it's a new world we are in. i also think this idea that the fbi -- tim is suggesting the agents will be fine, they will be doing their work.

as everyone knows, and he the most 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 at this point through that channel, the fbi. >> on the question of leverage in a nomination, you have to consider that democrats who want to hold up the fbi director are playing with fire in the sense that the fbi director is one of the key national security officials that responds to terror and other attacks. they have to worry about the blowback if they are holding up a key national security official. 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 likelihood is that he expected 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. 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 organization. you have the same agents working the russian investigation yesterday morning, working it this morning. there are career prosecutors issuing subpoenas. in some respects, the firing, i 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. you also have two congressional oversight committees, and you got guys like bob woodward and dan balz and all the reporters out there. if these agents and prosecutors think that if 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. bob: they may not like it, but 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 investigation 45 years ago, it was 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, it is 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. it is a different world today in the digital world with the social media. with all the digital trail that everything goes on, it is much easier to build cases today than it was in the past. it's much easier, as we are seeing, leaks across government organizations into the media. 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 than it was then. 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 happen 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 the united states of america for a democratic society. 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 special 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.

as bob 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 below the radar, and what the senate intelligence committee begins to do somewhat above the radar, it will keep this very much in focus. as mike says, 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 not only that it was allowed to happen, in the discipline of the obama white house, that never would have been allowed to take place in the context of everything that went on today. then you had 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.

none of the traditional stuff in the white house where photographers take a lot of pictures. and yet 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 in russia and immediately tweeted out pictures of a beaming president trump shaking hands with sergey lavrov, but the russianak, 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. ♪

here,e: james spader is 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.

>> we are graduating tomorrow. 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 my feelings nonverbally. and often scared people. >> are you still like that? >> no. >> look at it. you see that? >> what? >> this letter has three typing errors, one of which i believe is a spelling error. >> i'm sorry. >> this is not the first time, either. 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 is very possible he did not commit. he asked me to tell you that, that he did not commit it. he felt it was important that you know that. >> $2000 will buy you all you need to read >> 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 exactly what i wanted, all of you against all of me. how can you possibly hope to

stop 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 in your life? 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 an answer 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 for my life, and the economics of being an actor has changed dramatically in the last 20 years, even more dramatically in the last 10 years. to make a living that i feel i have to make to pay for my life. one, i have to work on television. the films that i would be interested in doing, the

economic value -- model for those films -- charlie: they don't pay you much. james: they are unsustainable. and unfortunately, i have built an expensive life. charlie: what does that mean, a plane and boats and homes? james: no planes, a small, wooden sailboat. but homes, travel, and family. extended family and so on. and so i have found that television is able to finance many other things. for instance 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," a television show.

even "the avengers," was a film that i had great fun doing and paid all right. but unless it becomes a franchise where you're doing one after another of those marvel movies it is not a career. , nowadays, 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. one can work in television and not work particularly hard.

but, i just don't know how to do it any other way. that is just the way i know how to do it. charlie: in other words, you have your own standards. james: i bury myself in the work. it is why, when i did films, i 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. i do the same on television shows. but a television show is a very different animal than a film. a television show swallows you whole and choose you up and refuses to spit you out. 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. james: and there is an 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 have been doing this for a long time, you left home at age 17. were you going to be an actor? james: no, it first i think i thought it would be fun to be a private detective. charlie: no college? james: i let it sort of sneak up on me. i said, i am going to move to new york now and see what happens. i will 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. and i realized that would not be a career for me. believe and pretending was something i had not done since i was a kid. i realized i could make a living out of it, so i made a living out of it. charlie: all without going to acting classes. james: no, i did. there was a man named blair cutting. he taught at his studio here in town called the michael chekov studio. i studied with him on and off for the fun of it more than anything else. he was a clown, it was great fun. on,rked with them off and and then he died and that was the end of my studying. 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 loved that. i learned how to just relax and 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 you did when you were seven, 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. that is 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?

is 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 comfortable at all in just a straight dramatic role or a straight comedic role. i like dichotomy in a character. i like it reverence -- irre verence. i look for dichotomy in characters and i look for conflict. i have also never been very good at -- i like playing the provocateur in the film. or a show of any kind. mamet offeredid

role, i played a provocateur in that, as well. charlie: you think that is more interesting to you? james: i think i've spent a long time -- it is evidence looking at the clips we looked at. i spent my career growing into myself physically and growing into the character actor that i really wanted to be right from the very beginning. but i did not look like that particularly when i was young. so i played bad guys and i played this and that. i think i eventually grew into "lincoln" was a great example of that. i could've played that character in "lincoln" for months and months. i really love playing that character a lot. charlie: why? james: i just liked his company

a great deal. charlie: you liked being in his skin? james: i did. he had a great lust for life and was doing something very important that i think he felt was very important. and yet, he did it with utter irreverence. and i think i probably looked for that quality in the show that i'm on. raymond reddington. when one is committing to a television series, it is a significant commitment. i like to myself and say that if i cannot bear it i can escape , somehow. but you can't, or you are in trouble. charlie: how many years? james: the fourth season that's on right now. i think i was looking for that.

looking for somebody that no matter what is 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, dichotomous in him -- someone dealing in the round between life and death. that narrow strip between life and death. someone who lived so much of his life in that tiny median strip has such an enormous appreciation for life. it has a true sense of the precious nature of life that all the world has to give. ♪

so we need tablets installed... with the menu app ready to roll. in 12 weeks. yeah. ♪ ♪ the world of fast food is being changed by faster networks. ♪ ♪ data, applications, customer experience. ♪ ♪ which is why comcast business delivers consistent network performance and speed across all your locations. fast connections everywhere. that's how you outmaneuver. so new touch screens... and biometrics. in 574 branches. all done by... yesterday. ♪ ♪ banks aren't just undergoing a face lift. they're undergoing a transformation. a data fueled, security driven shift

in applications and customer experience. which is why comcast business delivers consistent network performance and speed across all your locations. hello, mr. deets. every branch running like headquarters. that's how you outmaneuver. play theseen you characters, does each one build on the other? i assume that every interview should inform other interviews i do. i assume it is the same way with characters. they teach you about your range and limits? james: your interests and curiosities. of films ientage

have chosen over the years was just something i was curious about. certainly looking for a character to play on television it better be a character i feel like i will be curious about for a while. about the great things "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 was enigmatic enough i riod i could take a long pe of time getting to know him. charlie: explain to people who blacklist,"n "the

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. and one day, four years ago, he surrendered himself to the fbi to a specific person at the fbi that 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 them 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. charlie: a relationship with a certain respect for each other. was it more than that?

james: 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 in his sphere of influence. this relationship he has at the fbi wasn't public knowledge. the fbi as a whole are, in fact, still hunting him. he is still on the most wanted list 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. committing crimes, living this 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.

i think part of the attraction is that they are so smart that they can outwit lots of people. including bad guys. james: enormously compelling. to 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 terms of your sense of -- i mean -- james: i think he's well aware -- i know he is well aware of the cost that comes with that. but, you know, he lives in a world that that exists 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. james: i just had a conversation with a great friend of mine about that very thing. i was talking about how i was so happy to just be able to walk in the park and take a nap. we were talking about that very thing. what drives one to go forward? 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 -- that there is another reason why, it is not just to do that. there is something else that is a need for that. charlie: you like doing something that you know you do it well, and the people you know know you do it well. do you have time to read during the season? james: 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. therefore, i don't tend to be looking for more fictional. i tend to read nonfiction during the season. and as soon as i get a break at christmas time or during the summer hiatus, anytime i get a week off or something, i will read fiction.

charlie: take a look at this. this is a clip in which redd goes to war with his nemesis. here it is. >> are you familiar with master james of st. george? favored architect of edward the first. you know why? 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. i pity the poor footsoldier 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. >> you forget i was by your side the whole time. i know what was required to amass your power -- who you hurt, who you betrayed, who you killed.

importantly as your cleaner, i , know where the bodies are buried. were buried. and i am going to use them and the stories they tell to put you in the ground. >> you've been busy. >> ♪ these boots are made for walking and that is what they will do one of these days these boots are going to walk all over you ♪ charlie: tell me about that scene. james: that is a woman who has been an associate of his for a long, long time. she was his cleaner. she would clean up his mess. disposing of bodies, cleaning a 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. it is good business. but at the end of the day, it is just business. in service of what? safety, security, health. the well-being of ones we love. i really have only one friend. you are my friend. and i -- i misjudged you, in a way that no apology can suffice.

i am ashamed of that. i want you to keep the box, and on the day you decide to leave -- >> i am not going to leave. >> you can. charlie: he wants him to leave or not leave? james: no, he is devoted to him. he is a really fantastic gentlemen. he retired just in the last year , or two years. 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. charlie: and a good actor. james: and a good actor. i can't imagine doing the show without him.

our relationship is very similar to the one on the show. that feeling that you get from him is 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. he is always there. charlie: i am mostly amazed at 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 was a disagreement between the producers and the director of the pilot about the frame. was,t was a scene where i the sick -- the character i was playing was sitting in this box, manacled to a chair. they shot a wide shot and it was a longish scene. i played it with the character

of elizabeth keen. -- keane. he sort of came in very slowly but he didn't go in any tighter than say, waist or something. the director of the pilot did not want to go further. he said it played fantastically. the producers said you have to , come in for a closer shot. they started to argue back-and-forth. i said, why don't you come to here? almost uncomfortably close inside of your head, that is the show. charlie: thank you. come back. let me give you what you need to know about "the blacklist," it airs nbc's thursday night at 10:00 p.m. thank you for joining us. see you next time. ♪ >> i am alisa parenti from

washington. president trump said it was his decision to fire james comey, the fbi director. john said he was going to do it, regardless of the recommendation from the justice department. president trump: i was going to fire comey, my decision. there is no good time to do it, by the way. >> the president also said comey told him on three different invest -- occasions, he was not under investigation. the window has