♪ announcer: from our studios in new york city, this is "charlie rose." charlie: president trump announced today the u.s. would withdraw from the paris climate accord. president trump: in order to fulfill my solemn duty to protect america and its citizens, the united states will withdraw from the paris climate accord. so we are getting out. but we will start to negotiate and we will see if we can make a deal that is fair.

and if we can, that is great. and if we can't, that is fine. charlie: here is the report on the president's announcement from the "cbs evening news." reporter: the president's announcement was what conservative activists in and out of his administration were hoping to hear, but the president left the door open a bit, making clear that during the four years it takes to formally withdraw from the agreement he will try to get a deal he says would be fair to the u.s. president trump: this is less about the climate and more about other countries gaining a financial advantage over the united states. reporter: the paris accord, he said, would lead to the loss of millions of american jobs and redistribute u.s. wealth to the rest of the world. president trump: we don't want other leaders and countries laughing at us anymore. and they won't be. reporter: mr. trump's decision followed a spirited debate. chief strategist steve bannon and scott pruitt successfully

led the argument to get out of the agreement. secretary of state rex tillerson and the president's daughter tried but failed to convince mr. trump to stay in. in a statement, the leaders of italy, france, and germany said they regret the president's decision and urged other nations to speed up their actions to combat climate change. the heads of most major u.s. corporations also wanted mr. trump to stay in the paris accord. elon musk, c.e.o. of tesla and spacex, tweeted he is departing two presidential councils, adding climate change is real. the g.e. c.e.o. tweeted he is disappointed and the industry must now we do not depend on the -- must now lead and not depend on the government. president trump did not mention president obama by name but criticized his administration for failing to put america first when it negotiated the deal. president trump: i was elected to represent the citizens of pittsburgh, not paris. reporter: in a statement,

mr. obama responded. "i'm confident our states, cities, and businesses will step up and do even more to lead the way." charlie: the russia probe continues to make headlines with former f.b.i. director james comey set to testify before the senate intelligence committee next thursday. joining me is michael morell, the former deputy director of the c.i.a. and served twice as the agency's acting director. he is also a "cbs evening news" national security contributor, and i'm pleased to have him back at this table. welcome. a big news day. this is a significant decision by a president of the united states. mike: i think this is the worst decision he has made. i look at this from a national security perspective. and i see sort of three big implications here. the first is that climate, as a

result of this decision, the climate will be worse than it would be had we stayed in. that has two national security pieces to it. the first is, and this is a way to think about this, when a president thinks about national security, there is a whole bunch of things they need to be pursuing. having reliable allies and partners, making sure the united states of america does not get attacked by a terrorist, a whole list of things. at the very top of the list is preservation of the nation. when i think about the world and i think about the threats to the preservation of the nation, there are only three that i can see. first is nuclear war with russia. the second is a naturally occurring or man-made biological agent that kills a significant

percentage of the population. and the third is climate change. climate change is that serious over the long-term. and this decision -- charlie: over 200 nations agreed with you. mike: absolutely. and this decision almost ensures, if this goes through and the next president does not change it, this decision is going to make the climate worse and therefore have national security implications from that very significant prospective. the other national security issue here is that there are specific national security implications of climate change. for example, water shortages and fights, conflicts between nations overwater.

-- nations over water. instability caused by the increasing size of deserts. food problems in the instability that causes. there is a whole bunch of stuff we in the intelligence community study, the national security fallout of climate change. instability caused by the those are going to get worse as the climate gets worse. two huge national security implications. then there are two other implications that i think about. one is i think this is going to significantly impact u.s. leadership in the world. this is as bad if not worse than barack obama's decision not to enforce the redline on syria. as you remember, that decision led our allies and partners to question u.s. credibility. this is going to lead our allies and partners to question whether we have any interest in leading in the world anymore. charlie: it is said this is one of the primary reasons chancellor merkel made the speech she did in her own campaign in germany.

mike: i think -- charlie: said they could not depend on the united states anymore. we have to be prepared to act together in europe. mike: we have to be prepared to go our own way. and she sees a brighter future with china than the united states. remarkable set of statements, right? charlie: china is our primary competitor, not adversary but competitor. mike: i think part of it is domestic politics. part of it is an election coming up. and part of it is distancing herself from donald trump. part of it is actual reality and what is in german interests. i thought the president did very well in the middle east reassuring our middle eastern allies who for eight years believed the president of the united states did not have their back in their struggle against iran. i thought the president was very effective in reassuring them. directly the opposite in europe.

we did not reassure. the president did not make a commitment to article 5 of the nato treaty that we would come to their defense. they wanted to hear it. he specifically did not say it. the decision on climate change, our going back and forth, where are we on russia policy? that is a fundamental issue for the europeans, particularly germany. we did not reassure them. it is not surprising they feel they need to go their own way just as our middle eastern partners and allies felt they needed to go their own way when they felt barack obama did not have their back. charlie: george shultz, secretary of state in the reagan administration, said if the u.s. fails to honor global agreements it helped to forge, it raises serious questions for this country's relationships and leadership around the world. agreements it helped forge. mike: i am a huge fan of secretary shultz.

i think maybe we have talked about this on the show before. he says foreign policy and national security is easy if you do three things. if you say what you mean, in other words, you have a clearly articulated policy with everybody in your administration saying exactly the same thing, consistency. you have a clear policy and you articulate it, and everybody says the same thing. that is a real problem for this administration. secondly, that you do what you say. if you draw a red line, you respect it. charlie: or you lose credibility. mike: or you lose credibility. if you force a treaty and join it, you stick with it. charlie: people came to join it because you were there and part of it. otherwise, they might not have joined. mike: one of the risks now is other people may see an interesting going their own way

-- interest in going their own way on this as well. charlie: there is also said to be warring factions in the white house. people for staying within the paris accord, people who wanted to leave it. we have identified some of them. mike: so i have been an analyst of other countries my entire career. now i have become an analyst of my own country because everybody wants to talk about what is going on in washington. i have been looking closely at this. obviously, i don't talk to these guys. but i see four centers of gravity in the white house on foreign policy, national security issues, international, economic issues, climate change. one of them is what the media is now calling a nationalist group. steve bannon. it is stephen miller. sebastian gorka, peter navarro on trade. it is people who have this america-first mentality, people

who want to restrict trade, people who want to restrict immigration, people who want to drop out of the climate change agreement, people who want to go backwards on the environment because they want to save jobs in west virginia, etc. they are very narrowly focused. narrow-minded, in my view. the second group or what the media is now calling globalists. i call them the traditional republican national security camp. general mcmaster, the national security advisor. jim mattis, defense secretary. rex tillerson, secretary of state. dan coats, nikki haley, ambassador to the u.n. gary cohn, economic advisor. that group sees the world the way i do, which is the u.s. has to lead. when the u.s. does not lead, that vacuum is filled by adversaries and we pay a price.

that group believes in free trade. that group believes in climate change -- in sticking to our commitments on climate change and the risks posed by climate change. those are the two primary groups and then there are two others. both of those others have only one person in it. the third one is jared kushner, who has amazing influence with the president. i think he comes at things not from an ideological perspective, not from a perspective of what is in the best long-term interest of u.s. national security, but from a perspective of making sure my father-in-law does not make a mistake, making sure his legacy is not tarred. i actually call him, interestingly, i call him the barack obama of the trump administration. he is risk-averse.

he asks a ton of questions, wants the answers before he makes a decision. charlie: sounds pretty good to me. mike: that sounds good to me in this environment. that sounds very good to me. i think that is a helpful thing. for the most part, he has been on the side of the globalists. charlie: i assume when you talk about him, you are also mentioning his wife, ivanka, even though they may not agree on everything. mike: him more on national security and her more on domestic policy. my understanding is he was with the globalists on the climate change debate. then you have the president of the united states who is the fourth. mike: him more on national people i think don't understand what the president's worldview is. i think people sometimes associate it with the bannon view of the world. i don't think he has the same strong views. i think president trump's worldview was framed on the campaign trail on the basis of

what he said that resonated with the crowds. and what he basically said was, what resonated with the crowds was, if there is a direct threat to the united states of america, we will deal with it and crush it. other than that, we are going to withdraw from the world. charlie: let me move to the middle east again. that trip was largely a product, it is said, of jared kushner because he carries the palestinian-middle east packet for the president. i think he had a lot of conversations with the saudis coming into this. why do you think that was successful? and is it wise for the united states to identify iran as the enemy and identify with the saudis and other sunni nations who believe the fight to the end and the middle east were in the

gulf is about sunni versus shia and saudi plus versus iran? to interrupt one more time. obama thought it was important for the united states to be talking to both sides. here is a complete shift. and you think it is the right thing. mike: part of it. yes, i think it is appropriate to see iran as a significant strategic challenge to u.s. interests in the middle east. there is a long list of things that concern us. very quickly. they themselves conduct terrorism as a tool of state. they provide support to terrorist groups. charlie: where are they doing that, for the benefit of the audience? where are they conducting terrorism? through hezbollah? mike: themselves, the state of iran through the igc force.

they conduct terrorism against israeli and jewish targets around the world and against their neighbors. it has been ongoing for a very long time. that is themselves, right? they are the only country in the world i think today practices terrorism as a tool of statecraft. secondly, they provide support to international terrorist groups, hezbollah and hamas among others. hezbollah cannot exist without the support from israel -- charlie: from iran. mike: from iran, i'm sorry. third is they provide support to shia insurgent groups in the middle east. yemen is a great example. shia militant groups in the eastern provinces of saudi arabia. shia groups in bahrain. that support is intended to overthrow those sunni regimes. fourth is it is iranian state

policy for the state of israel to disappear. it is iranian state policy for iran to become the head of power in the middle east calling shots, reestablish the persian empire in a similar way to the way vladimir putin sees himself reestablishing the russian empire. and put the nuclear program on top of this. shots, reestablish the persian empire in a similar way to the this is a country that poses a significant set of issues. charlie: notwithstanding the fact they just had an election and someone who might not be a moderate in our judgment but was more moderate than the other candidates. mike: certainly more moderate than the hardliners. but this is not a moderate from our perspective. and realize that this was an election, put every single candidate for president was approved by the supreme leader. this is not exactly open democracy. charlie: there were some they did not approve like ahmadinejad.

mike: exactly. so yes, we have got to worry about iran. we need to push back against iranian bad behavior in the region. we have needed to do that for a number of years. we have not. charlie: a group of states do not want to talk to them, they just want to compete with them. i think that was president obama's principal. mike: so we need to push back on the bad behavior but leave open a channel to them to give them an out should they want to change that behavior, right? and we need to back our allies, make our allies feel that we are with them, that we have their a channel to them to give them back in the struggle against iran. and they felt president obama did not do that. and what they felt in this trip was president trump will do that. so they could not be more happy with the president's trip and the way the president is handling the middle east.

♪ ♪

charlie: take a look at what is going on in washington. we have got james comey testifying next week talking about memos he kept, both public and private testimony. only he and others know exactly where one ends and the other begins. what is the consequence of this,

to have an f.b.i. director perhaps say i was urged to thwart an investigation into a nominee to be the national security advisor to the president, if in fact that is what he says? mike: so before jim comey was fired, i thought there were three issues that needed to be investigated with regard to trump associates and the russians. the first, which jim comey earlier said the f.b.i. was indeed investigating, was, did any trump associates conspire with the russians in their interference of our election? did any of them help the russians? choose the material to be released, for example, for maximum impact? help them think about the timing of releasing the material for maximum impact? did anybody do that?

second is, did russian organized crime launder money through the trump organization over an extended time? remember, one of the president's sons said russian money is flowing in, right? and there has been -- there is enough there to at least ask that question. if anybody in the trump organization knew that it was russian organized crime money, that would be a crime. and even if they did not know, the question becomes, did they do the due diligence required under u.s. law to know where foreign money is coming from? that is an issue that needs to be investigated i hope. the third thing that needs to be investigated is, is there anybody in the trump administration with access to classified information who has an inappropriate relationship with russian intelligence? i thought those were the three things that needed to be looked at before jim comey was fired. now that he is fired and we have

been through all of this, i think there is a fourth question, which is, did the president of the united states obstruct justice in asking for jim comey -- reportedly -- asking for his loyalty, asking for him to let the michael flynn investigation go, and then in firing him? now there is a fourth issue i think. with regard to jared kushner -- charlie: meeting with the russian ambassador, talking about alternative channels. mike: i think this is a great microcosm of the bigger issue. so the first thing i would say is i look at this as an intelligence analyst would look at an issue. when i do that, the first thing i say is, wow, there is a big caveat here. the big caveat here is that the facts that are in the public domain may not turn out to be accurate. the real facts may be somewhat

different than the facts in the public domain. why do i say that? charlie: because you have experienced it. mike: how do we know this jared kushner story? what we reportedly have is we have russians talking to each other about the meeting. and we have the u.s. collecting that intelligence, of the russians talking to each other about the meeting. then we have former officials and current officials leaking that to reporters. and we have the reporters then writing stories based on those leaks, not having seen the intelligence documents but having talked to people who have read from them. that is not a great sourcing chain. if i'm an analyst looking at that, i am not to put a high level of credibility on those facts just because of that sourcing chain. charlie: you were saying of jared kushner meeting with the russians.

mike: be careful of the facts. that is the first point. my first thought when i thought about all of this was number one, this is not just about jared kushner. this is also about michael flynn. he was with jared kushner in that meeting. charlie: he is known to have had a relationship with the russians. pre-trump relationship. mike: and while i can maybe believe jared kushner was naïve in asking to use russian secure communications as the conduit, michael flynn should have known better, right? the focus is on jared kushner because he is still in the administration, he is still in the white house and michael flynn is not. but michael flynn was there, i think he should be part of the story. the second thing that struck me is it is less the desire to set up a channel. remember, this was reported to

be a channel for michael flynn to talk to the russians, supposedly to the russian military, supposedly about syria and other issues. that was the channel. that does not bother me. charlie: what if it was to talk about sanctions? mike: that does not even bother me. charlie: what bothers you? mike: what bothers me is two things. i want to know why the request for secrecy. what were they trying to hide? charlie: in order to make sure you were not seen? mike: by the current administration. it could be they were worried about leaks. even the most benign conversation -- maybe that was the reason. maybe they are trying to hide something else. i don't know. but that request for secrecy is something that needed to be looked at. the second question i have is

was this flynn and kushner's idea that they carried up completely on their own or did they have permission from the president-elect? did they have instruction and permission from the president-elect, the vice president-elect, the head of the transition of the time, other senior members of the transition team? was this a well-thought-out approach or was this kushner and flynn acting alone? implications either way. i think the third thought i had, charlie, was i am much more interested in what the trump associates said to the russians before the election than i am after the election because i am much more interested in the question of did they help the russians interfere in our election. and i am primarily interested in what they said after the election as a way to inform what they were doing with the russians prior. that is much more important here

to me. it is not unlikely flynn did want to talk to them about syria and sanctions and other issues. i don't think that is that big of a deal. charlie: is that par for the course for an administration not yet in power? and is it par for the course because someone will always raise the question that we only have one president at a time? mike: there is the logan act that is supposed to prevent a nongovernmental official from undermining u.s. policy. it has never been enforced -- once. it has not been enforced in a couple hundred years. during a presidential campaign, during a general election campaign, there are foreign officials coming through both campaigns having conversations about what is your policy going to be, what are you thinking about, here is what we are

thinking, we would like your policy to be this, what are you guys thinking, so that conversation is already occurring. charlie: and helpful. mike: and helpful. and there is no reason that conversation has to stop during the transition. there is every reason to believe it should increase. that is why it does not bother me. here's the last point i will make, charlie. i think some people, particularly some people in the media have been quick to grab this and conclude that something was done here that was inappropriate or even criminal. and i simply don't think the facts as we know them, that the facts of the media take you there to the judgment that there was something wrong down here. we have to be patient, we have to let the fbi do its investigation.

charlie: clinton said she was interested in the question of whether americans guided russians on how to weaponize information used against her? mike: i want to know that too. that's why there is this focus on did anybody in the trump camp help the russians with both what to do with the information they stole from the dnc and with what to do with the information stolen from -- and what fake news to amplify they'll be most harmful to secretary clinton. charlie: president putin said this could have simply then -- simply been from russia.

this could've been them hacking in a patriotic way. and because of modern technology anything is possible. he agreed with an observation made by president trump that perhaps it came from somebody sitting in a room in new jersey. >> came from russian intelligence and the word patriotic tells you everything you need to know. >> let's go back to the middle east. the possibilities in syria of deeper conflict between powers that are not part of the civil war. >> i think we are entering a new phase and not giving enough focus to what is a growing risk. all of our focus is on the defeat of isis, the last fight and the fight toand the fightds come in rock. that is where everyone's focus

is. growing risk of conflict between the major powers who are involved in this war, mainly between the united states and iran and the united states and russia. what is happening, what is the dynamic here? for the longest time there were two separate wars. there was a civil war between a sod and the syrian opposition, assad and the syrian opposition, and there was a second floor, which was a war between the u.s. and its allies and isis. >> bashar al-assad said he was part of that war. guest: but he really wasn't. what is happening is as a sod is assad is gaining

ascendancy in civil war and as he is winning territory back that the syrian opposition took early on in the war, he and his iranian and hezbollah allies are getting closer and closer to the syrian opposition forces that the u.s. has trained for fighting isis. and just in the last two weeks, u.s. forces -- shia and militia forces backed by iran, fighting for a sod -- for assad, because those forces were getting too close to a military base u.s. forces trained -- is the first time we struck syrian government forces. second time was last week. just yesterday, the day before yesterday, the russians attacked syrian opposition forces who are fighting isis because there are getting close to a shia militia

group. these forces used to be separated, now they are getting closer and closer together. this is a growing risk and something that the pentagon needs to pay attention to. charlie: eight do something causing it to react. thank you for coming. michael morel. stay with us. ♪

>> christopher plummer is an award-winning actor, stars in the film the exception as kaiser wilhelm the second. it is an adaptation of novel that follows the kaiser to the netherlands. here's a look of the trailer. >> you have beautiful hands. we are quite -- they are quite unused to physical labor? >> the kaiser relates of great symbolic importance to the german people.

>> you only speak when spoken to. >> you are to take immediate command of the military guard. british secret service have an agent in the area. if anything happens to him you will be shocked. >> there is a british spy after me. >> i was wondering what your name was. take your clothes off. >> the female staff are not to be interfered with. the old man is getting a visit tomorrow. >> it seems we are to go back to berlin. >> you are to be king again? >> i'm jewish.

>> i don't care. >> there was another transmission last night. >> the ss murdered my father. >> i will protect you. >> are you serious? >> be careful, nobody is safe. >> greater than his country. >> marry me. today. >> he's going to turn you over to the gestapo. >> trust me. >> i am very pleased to have christopher plummer back at this table. >> great to see you. charlie: tell me what happened with kaiser wilhelm.

christopher: he went to holland and died there. she never went anywhere you i think nobody really cared anymore. >> but that was a problem for him, he wanted to be relevant. christopher: he had those two chances. the fact that the nonstate party -- the not see party wanted him to be a puppet. the real one was churchill wanting to crown him. he was pulled between these two desires of his, and that is what

was so fascinating. >> here you have a german soldier coming in. i forgot heinrich himmler was in the netherlands. is that where he died? was so fascinating. they caught him in a cheap. he is there. and then this not see soldier comes. then he has to choose between love of country and love of a woman. >> i thought it was beautifully handled. he is an actor is done all these action films and he was dying to do something. he played that very difficult part. very sensitive, as indeed young lily james. >> tell me what you know about kaiser wilhelm. christopher: take mike wallace, i grew up with mike wallace.

research is fascinating for me. there was very little on this rather empty man who is so insecure as well as being a narcissist. and we all know well about that. charlie: i read this and i'm asking you, you played lear. did you reach back into your sense of lear? as a portrayal of kaiser wilhelm? >> there is a lot of lear in kaiser wilhelm. he values his medals more than his kingdom. he was just a forked animal. once you brush all the animals -- brush all the honors away you are a forked animal. he is an animal on a spit. lear was a good thing. also i had great fun.

and imagine firing bismarck when europe absolutely needed that. >> when you approach these, why did you take this role? chris for: you don't often get it on the screen. it's a wonderfully theatrical character. i don't know who has played the kaiser. perhaps some german act or has done it on the box. i have to grab this. nobody else has done it. maybe it's my turn. >> because we don't know any

thing about him at the time he was exiled on or not very little, everybody melts a little bit. i concentrated on that, making him become more sensitive. his wife laid absolutely wonderfully. in this business, she is extraordinary. if she is talking to me. that's right. >> my grandfather was an army officer. he was killed just before i was

born. >> and your mother, that sure mother? >> from a landowning family. -- and your mother? >> from a landowning family. she had to clean houses. by the time we got to the bakery it was worthless. she died of tuberculosis when i is 12. am i to blame for every misfortune on this earth? i gave my life to the fatherland, and this is my thanks? nobody cares, nobody are members

my army fell apart. where were they? after all i have done for them, they have stabbed me in the back. they lost me the war. they lost me my country. charlie: christopher: three weeks is about it. i'm dying to go on again. i enjoy what i'm doing. bad or good. >> you would rather be acting than playing golf. crist for: tennis come i love tennis. charlie: what is it you enjoy most other than this extraordinary life? christopher: music, i think. classical music.

i studied as a pianist. trolley thing you grew up in canada thinking i might be great. christopher: yes, i grew up in montréal. i'm young enough to have seen rachmaninoff playing piano. my mother taught me everything that there was. god bless her. charlie: i think that is so important. and to somehow have a lot of books around the house. so there's a curiosity. christopher: my wife was always telling me, you have a lot of books around the house, but you don't read them. realized of course, i

how impossibly hard work it really is and how lonely being a concert pianist is. really she is doing what i once wanted from me. but music has helped me enormously. me shade and color a role if it's really huge and worthy. charlie: shade -- christopher: shading, giving each scene a different tone, on a different plane. it's terribly important. you do it in the theater because you have all the great writers doing it for you. you don't always get the chance on the screen. but here was my chats. charlie: you have a chance to -- christopher: he was my pal to be more enclosed by your colleagues on stage than in film? christopher: yes, yes.

is love. there is a love bond or hate bond. was my pal during the 1950's. and we tour this counterpart, or we thought we did. charlie: was this the bar? christpoher: still exists. nothing. it's not the same. i don't mind being an old-fashioned son of a -- charlie: the saloon idea is gone. christopher: we would always whisper under the line. i saw thomas get up and speak. charlie: in the tavern? crist and he haunted that little place. -- christopher: he haunted that little place. and he got up and harangued, i

don't really remember what it was all about. it was so musical. he was extraordinary. he could talk on any subject. a charlie: do you have any great regrets? that you didn't take this opportunity to do something when it was within grasp? christopher: i don't have regrets. i have been extremely lucky. i have managed to cut terrible corners in my life and i have gotten away with it. charlie: like what? christopher: i can't tell you, it's too embarrassing. to be lazy and do it all

technically. but that was only for a while and that i got down to the serious stuff. as i got older i realized there wasn't that much time left and i better be good and real and honest when i do my work. charlie: but you have always taken the work seriously. christopher: even though i have had horrendous fun. i have had marvelous fun. >> it is important for you to be good. >> yes. >> i think laurence olivier always wanted to do a musical. >> he was going to go to guys and dolls. the following season he was to play nathan detroit.

it didn't happen and i can't remember why. for some reason it all exploded in the air. >> this seems like such a great time in british theater. richardson. olivier. burton. you, canadian who they let in. >> a colonial friend. >> and burton being a welshman they let in. >> yes. i liked him very much. i didn't know him as well as peter. i have seen that. he is magical. he did lawrence of arabia and left me to play the part he was going to play in the national theatre, which was henry the second. so i actually got this role because he left to go and make lawrence of arabia. fortunately we made a big success of it and i got the

prize that here. and he came back at the end of the season to see me. there were a lateral is a rather lot of posh people in the room. peter came and said i want to show you something. and he took them down and there was his bare asked in front of all the people who were terribly shocked. he said this is what those camels due to me. -- he said this is what those camels do to me. i tell you what i do for my art. of course he had to ride bareback in that. charlie: that changed his life, that changed his career. christopher: it did. and to me he never got the credit he should have gotten. charlie: was there a role that changed your trajectory? christopher: later on it was the

insider. back then henry the fifth got me going up in stratford canada. i was 26. and that got me my name above the title on broadway. it was the success of henry the fifth that really started me going. on a rough ride, but a good one. charlie: what did you think the sound of music? christopher: you of all people bringing that up. charlie: i have no pride in doing that. just being a little mischievous. christopher: do you really care? charlie: i don't. i don't because i know it was not the favorite thing. christopher: it was not, because everybody in the world saw it.

but i was playing a part that was rather dull. i thought. and then i was terribly arrogant and very spoiled. i had already played hamlet and macbeth. charlie: you said one of my doing? don't say no. i'm a shakespearean actor. here to serve some commercial venture. would you spend more time on the stage or more time in film? christopher: if i was in marvelous shape i would go for the theater again. i may do something again before i croak. charlie: well i hope not soon. christopher: will not on your

show. charlie: the film is called the exception, thank you for joining us.

alisa: i am alisa parenti from washington and you are watching "bloomberg technology." let's start with a check of your first word news. secretary of state rex tillerson hopes people keep the decision to quit the paris climate accord "in perspective." speaking at the state department, he said it is important for everyone to recognize the united states has a terrific record at reducing greenhouse gas emissions. he had urged president trump to stay in the paris deal. police have released new video hoping to prompt someone to come forward with more information. the investigation continues into last week's attack that killed 22 people at a concert. 10 men remain in custody on suspicion of terrorism charges.