♪ announcer: from our studios in new york city, this is "charlie rose." charlie: the news in washington this week is dominated by missiles, mcconnell, and manafort. despite the crisis over north korea, president trump found time to call out mitch mcconnell over the failure to pass health care. the president's lawyer reportedly accused robert mueller of "gross abuse of the judicial process" after the f.b.i. searched the home of the former campaign chairman. joining me for perspective is the host of "face the nation," john dickerson of cbs news. welcome to the program.

john: thank you. it is always great to see you. charlie: let's start with north korea. the president seems to be dialing up this confrontation with north korea. what do we understand about it? john: it is one foot on the gas and one foot on the brake it feels like with this administration. the president on thursday saying maybe his remarks on tuesday were not incendiary enough where he threatened to north korea and said if they threaten the united states again, they will see fire and fury the likes of which the world has never seen. an extraordinary thing to say on almost the 72nd anniversary to the day of the bombing of nagasaki. president trump: north korea best not make any more threats to the united states. they will be met with fire and fury like the world has never seen. he has been very threatening the

beyond a normal statement. as i said, they will be net with fire, fury, and frankly, power the likes of which this world has never seen before. thank you. john: the president said today maybe his rhetoric was not tough enough. on the other hand when you talk to administration officials involved in the delicate north korea question, they are going in the opposite direction. secretary of state tillerson said people can sleep soundly, not to pay attention to the rhetoric. a source in the administration today was basically acting as if the president had not said anything and kind of continuing on a path with north korea that looks more traditional. you saw the u.n. sanctions over the weekend. put pressure on north korea with sanctions, then you saw secretary tillerson last week say to north korea we are not interested in regime change. we are not going to attack you, kind of dialing down the rhetoric.

it seems to be the message you get from everybody but the president. charlie: how about the secretary of defense? john: secretary mattis, when asked about the president's remarks, said the president is in charge of rhetoric, i'm in charge of what i say. mattis said to the north korean leader, "do not keep doing things that will endanger the future of your country." very broad. but when it comes from secretary mattis, who has a lot of standing when he talks about following through on threats, it carried the weight of the military but without boxing himself in. when president trump said if north korea offered more threats, and a couple of hours later north korea threatened guam, they had already crossed the redline the president put before them. mattis is tough and sending the signal of toughness, but he is also working closely with the secretary of state.

because mattis has talked about how catastrophic any kind of military engagement with north korea would be, he is thinking about all military options but that does not necessarily mean -- or i should say, does not necessarily mean a kind of containment possibility. he is not just thinking about the most aggressive military option. charlie: i send the president -- i assume the president believes he has to get the attention of the north korean leader. and he has decided this is the only way to get his attention, using the kind of language he uses and would understand. john: i think that is right. we have heard secretary tillerson say a version of that. the question is, to what end? the language is either meaningful and therefore you follow up on the threat. f you do not follow up on the threat, what signal are you sending?

because the president did not follow up on his threat, we are in this strange position at the moment where it is not clear. but i think your assessment of his intent is probably right. charlie: the question is who he is sending the signal to as well? john: he is sending it to china as well as pyongyang. from talking to administration officials, they feel like china has not yet fully embraced its role here and fully embraced putting more pressure on north korea. and that part of their task and what people seem to be spending a great deal of time on is figuring out what the levers are to get china to keep putting pressure on north korea, do everything it can to keep north korea in the box a little bit. charlie: and determine the rationality of their leader as to whether he intends to attack the united states or simply wants to have a nuclear weapon because he believes the united states has evil intentions towards him, and this is the

only way he can protect himself and save himself in power. john: the question of what is going on in the might of the -- the mind of the north korean leader is crucial. you have hit on exactly the right thing. if they think he is a rational actor, then all of this bluster is towards a short-term goal. if they evaluate him and say the reason he wants a nuclear weapon is so he can reunite the peninsula and use it to blackmail other countries, blackmail the united states, that is an argument for preemptive action. at least in talking to some members of the administration, they believe kim jong-un is a much more rational actor than the crazy man theory would suggest. if you buy into that idea, even if he has a nuclear weapon, he would not just go firing it off as some of the scenarios would suggest. what you put your finger on is

really crucial. the debate over what kind of a rational actor he is. the problem is the intelligence on this, they don't feel as if it is completely solid. every day they are feeling more nervous because they are learning the program is moving faster than some of their original assessments suggested. charlie: is the administration united on the rhetoric used by the president? john: not at all. in trying to get administration officials to say whether this was strategic -- i remember during george bush's presidency, in the administration they used to talk about, it was good having dick cheney seeming like he had a knife in his teeth because it allowed people in the administration to talk to allies in the middle east and say we do not want to let cheney loose. it was a nice good cop/bad cop. that is a traditional strategy in some places.

but when i seek strategic guidance here, mostly what i get back is this is improvisation by the president that has some of them scratching their heads. charlie: especially the use of the language. john: the use of the language and the redline drawing. there is no active foreign policy the president and his aides have criticized more than president obama's improvisational redline drawing when it came to syria and not following up on it was squandering of u.s. prestige. it seems curious the president would draw a redline he was not ready to follow up on, at least he has not in response to the immediate threat from the north koreans to encircle guam and fire. charlie: if you want to get health care passed, why do you believe it is in your interest to criticize the one person most likely to help you get passed, which -- mitch mcconnell?

john: there does not seem to be any strategic benefit to attacking mitch mcconnell. one explanation could be, and we have seen this in a number of instances, the president has distanced himself from his own role in health care reform. remember when he ran as a candidate and came into office, he promised he alone, because of his negotiating and marketing skills, would be able to pass health care. that he alone could do it and it was all in him and his skills. now that it has not passed, he is saying is all mitch mcconnell's fault. this is important. it matters to tax reform and sets the stage for the 2018 campaign. when they talk about draining the swamp, sometimes they are talking about mitch mcconnell. is this going to be a campaign in 2018 where you have the president running against his own party in congress?

that can create ugliness in a campaign year where everybody wants to be playing on the same team. charlie: as harry truman would say, the do-nothing congress. john: truman was running against republicans. in this case, you have a president running against his own -- charlie: running against congress. john: absolutely. the challenge is mitch mcconnell just got reelected relatively recently, so he is not up in 18. you put pressure on him. mitch mcconnell knows where a lot of things -- a lot of the levers are that can bedevil a president. the president has already felt overly constrained. you want mitch mcconnell to be on your team. he can do lots of things. there are investigations in the senate. you can do lots of things to help those investigations continue or keep them out of the

limelight. there is a lot you can do in the appropriations process that would help the president or not as he feels fit. charlie: speaking of investigations the mueller , investigation continues. we had this week notice of the fact paul manafort's house was searched. what do you read into that? john: well, obviously, the notion of an early dawn raid, a so-called no knock raid, suggests they had serious enough information about what they were looking for that they had the judge give the ok for that. i don't know if that means there is -- that they have some inkling of collusion. they may have found something totally separate and apart from the campaign and mueller is going after it because under his mandate he can go after crimes if he sees them. this is not necessarily proof there's something there to the collusion.

charlie: generally, if you have the f.b.i. do a no knock raid, you believe you will not have documents or information given to you that you have requested or are seeking. john: that's right. and the documents are charged enough or important enough that mr. manafort would not hand them over freely. you get a judge and say this is what we are looking for in that suggests there may have been a crime committed. we just don't know the nature of the actual crime. if it is with respect to the election, it is another piece of data in that you had a judge agree there was enough that it is hard to characterize this as a witch hunt. the other thing that interests me about paul manafort is the meeting with the russian lawyer sold to the president's son, has a meeting with an agent from the

russian government who had information harmful to hillary clinton. paul manafort, as described by the president and donald jr. was , so disinterested in the meeting when he attended that he spent all his time on the phone. that was one version of the story we heard. now we have heard that mr. manafort has turned over his notes from that meeting to the congressional committees investigating and that was in the documents mueller's team has collected, which suggests there was something important enough about the meeting that notes were worth taking. if those notes are in contradiction to the story about what that meeting was about, that does put you right in the center of the collusion question. charlie: notes are one thing manafort may have made for his own reference. jared kushner left the meeting, according to his testimony in closed session, because nothing was going on and he was bored. john: that is right. you have three possibilities.

one is that manafort's notes contain nothing interesting. two is they contain something interesting and jared kushner was smart enough to leave. or three, they contain things that may be in contradiction with jared kushner. for those who have forgotten, this meeting is so important because before that the administration said there were no contacts with russians seeking to influence the election. now we know at least there was this one meeting sold specifically with the intent of handing over information collected by the russian government on hillary clinton. that is what it was sold as. we don't know what happened in the meeting. we only have the word of the participants. it seems mueller is trying to find out what notes fill out the picture so we don't have to take people's words for. charlie: do we understand paul manafort is or is not cooperating with the mueller investigation? john: his lawyer says he is cooperating.

he is definitely cooperating with the congressional committees in handing over things. it's not clear. he's not cooperating at some level or they would not have gone knocking before the sun came up. it is unclear. we know what his lawyer says. mueller and his team have some view he is not cooperating fully or they would not have been making that kind of visit. charlie: i saw an interesting axios thisxia's -- week, talking about people that have influence in the new york crowd and generals with influence, you referenced earlier the divisions that might be about north korea. are there serious divisions about how to handle north korea or is it simply about the president's rhetoric? john: at the moment, it seems to be about the rhetoric. although the rhetoric has some connection to the next move. it is not unlike on russia.

this is preliminary. i don't want to sound like i have it wrapped up. on russia, on the one hand you see the vice president talking about the strength of nato pushing back against russia. you have material moving into the nato nations threatened. the u.s. putting its money where its mouth is in terms of supporting countries that might feel threatened by russia. you have the pentagon discussing that some level arming ukrainians against russians in ukraine. but then you have the president's remarks on russia which are completely at odds with all of that part of the administration. here you have a similar thing. you see the way in which they are working on the diplomatic track with north korea.

they are working at the u.n. it seems to be within the grooves of the normal foreign-policy approach. and then you have the president's rhetoric. it is hard to know if it is a split between the president and his team or whether there is more behind the president's remarks in terms of strategy. charlie: where does tax reform stand? john: well, paul ryan says tax reform will be easier than health care. having covered lots of tax reform and spent a lot of time with the former chairman of the ways and means committee and max baucus, they worked for five years and tax reform. the problem with tax reform is a couple of things. it is very hard to pay for if you want to do it in the way the president wants to. the president is following the same pattern he did with health care, promising the moon. huge tax reductions and growth and it will add up. that is what he did with health care. he said it will cost less, you get to go see your doctor.

they were not able to fulfill those promises. this is setting up the same way. there are swarms of lobbyists engaged in the tax question and will be trying to get their pieces of the legislation put in. everybody wants to pass tax reform. it is just very hard to do. it cannot be done at the levels the president wants in terms of cutting the corporate rate as much as he wants because it costs so much money. trillions of dollars more with the rates he wants. you have to fill that up with tax cuts -- spending cuts, and congress is not going to support those. they will go for it, but it will not be as easy as everyone is saying, which breaks the rule you are supposed to under-promise and over-deliver. charlie: does this put the president against republican orthodoxy? what he does it he says told the "wall street journal." he told the story in the "wall

street journal" about how he was talking to a friend, bob kraft -- charlie: a billionaire friend. [laughter] john: right. the owner of the patriots, who aren't taxed too much. don't worry about taxing the rich. the president said i agree with him. in other words, tax rates and stay there at the top, but basically, tax the rich to pay for the middle class to put it in clumsy terms. that is not traditional republican orthodoxy. charlie: it's not paul ryan's view. john: it is not paul ryan's view at all. it would be one of those fascinating things the president might do. fascinating in terms of breaking the traditional molds. but we don't know. he just said that in one interview in that slightly offhand way, so we will see. if he were to continue down that road, it would be breaking with republican orthodoxy. charlie: so far, can we tell whether john kelly has had any impact on doings at the white

house? clearly, if you look at tweets, the answer is no. john: yes. i like dan balz's way of looking at this talking about managing , up and down. on the managing down question john kelly seems to say here is , the way this place should operate. in terms of leaks, it has been quite leaky since reince priebus left. and the leaks are in some cases with respect to this crusade against h.r. mcmaster, the national security advisor, that has this russia-tinged element. in other words on social media, attacks on mcmaster which seem coordinated and have some similarities to the kind of coordinated attacks before the election. you have that going on. you have the leaks of the transcripts last week. however, there is a sense in the

white house that things are moving more smoothly in terms of managing down. in terms of managing up, the president's twitter feed was more relaxed for a while. now it is back on its normal course. i should say in his remarks on thursday, he was laconic almost in terms of not being dramatic. on the other hand, he said he was fine with vladimir putin kicking 755 u.s. personnel out of russia. he said it will help us cut the payroll. that, first of all i don't think , that is true, they stay on the payroll. second of all, that was sort of flippant and off script. maybe no drama in one place that -- but sort of dramatic in another place. charlie: thank you for joining us tonight. we will be right back. stay with us. ♪

♪ >> carol and her husband are going to new york next month. we were hoping you could recommend a show for them to see while they are there. >> definitely. what sort of shows are you into? >> we heard "jersey boys" is good. >> that is a musical. that is not what i am into. >> what are you into?

dialogue driven drum -- driven dramas that explore the human condition. great things are few and far between. theater is in a troubled state in america right now. most things are trash. you would be surprised at who they allow to do shows on broadway. i heard that "cats" just opened and it is supposed to be good. >> i have heard good things about that one. great, thanks. charlie: jessica williams is here. she was hired as a correspondent on "the daily show with jon stewart" when she was just a 22-year-old college student. she created many popular pieces on racism, sexism, and lgbtq for that program. she is the cohost of the popular comedy podcast, "2 dope queens." this summer, she stars in the netflix film "the incredible jessica james." she plays a struggling playwright trying to get over her ex-boyfriend. "variety" describes her performance as a force of

nature. here is the trailer. >> ♪ >> i am tall and pretty. i am smart. obviously, i will have many great loves in my life. >> why would i be offended? >> i was hoping it would help me get over this guy. >> i'm getting a lot of inquiries regarding your status. >> my raw feminine energy. ladies, you are all queens. >> do you have more than one vibrator? >> has one man ever fulfilled all of your needs? >> the incredible jessica james. ♪ >> i am 25 and in this weird transitional phase. >> i need to tell you how i feel. >> fine. how do you feel?

>> i don't know. ♪ >> the abc's of subverting the patriarchal paradigm. it is never too soon to start questioning. the system. what system? the system we are all prisoner to. >> i am not prisoner to any system. you just pretended to be poop out of a diaper, so -- >> you are a very complicated person. >> i know. sorry. >> you never need to apologize for that. there are so many other things you could apologize for. [laughter] ♪ >> i did not realize my feelings were not as valid as yours. >> i really like you. >> of course you do. everybody does. i am freaking dope. what is your name? charlie: welcome.

jessica: thank you so much. i'm excited to be here. this is legendary for me. when i look back on my life, i will think about this. i will be like, oh my god. charlie: i vote you myself. andere on the colbert show i said, why not come over here? you said, where? >> i was already nervous about doing "colbert." they were like, charlie wants to say hi. i appreciate that. why? charlie: you know j.k. rowling. for your birthday, you went to see j.k. rowling. >> i did. she and i have the same birthday. i've been trying to do this thing where i go, can i come? my best friend and i have been doing it, sort of putting yourself out there. usually, you find people will be like, sure. when i was hanging out with her a few weeks ago, she was like i'm celebrating my birthday with my family. i was like, can i come? she was like, sure. it was really amazing.

charlie: did you read all of her books? jessica: it didn't need to be done. i have been reading her for so long. i feel connected to her work. but also, i just like hanging out with her. i think she likes hanging out with me. charlie: when you hang out, what do you do? jessica: we talk. charlie: go to bars, sit in fancy homes, go to dinner? go on dates together? jessica: we eat and have cocktails and talk. we just really enjoy talking to each other, which is really nice. now i am embarrassed about my friendships. charlie: we don't want to embarrass you. what is interesting about her, she has been at this table a couple of times, it is how much rejection she got before she got a bestseller. how many people turned her down who look at themselves now and say, am i an idiot? why couldn't i have recognized

it? me, part oft is, to the reason why i find her so inspiring, is because of everything she went through even before she started writing "potter." she is a genuine inspiration. i think she is an amazing person to look at as an example is a woman, mom, wife, and all those things. it is amazing how she puts everything together. charlie: she is beginning to express some of her political opinions. jessica: her and everybody else. ♪ ♪

track your pack. set a curfew, or two. make dinner-time device free. [ music stops ] [ music plays again ] a smarter way to wifi is awesome. introducing xfinity xfi. amazing speed, coverage and control. change the way you wifi. xfinity. the future of awesome.

charlie: it could not be better for you now, could it? jessica: no, i don't think so. i am really waiting for the other foot to drop. i feel like with "the incredible jessica james" coming out, with my podcast, we are doing a bunch of hbo specials i am really excited about. my career is really starting to take off in a way i was not expecting in my wildest dreams. charlie: when you were growing up, did you have a role model? did you have someone who you said, that's what i like to the? jessica: yeah, i had a few. growing up, i think there is two

different types of grandmas. a milk and cookies grandma and a cigarettes, wants to go to atlantic city type of grandma. totally. mine was the latter, and she loved late-night and "snl" and "mad tv" and adult swim, and she watched a lot of conan stuff, and i got to see that early on. later in life, she became really obese. she was diabetic. she watched tv all day. i know, for me, this person is watching tv and that is something that makes her happy then this is a valid medium. laughter is something that can really help people be a little less lonely. i figured out very early on i really liked to be witty, so yeah. i knew i wanted to be an actress. bent was a sort of

comedy because i had seen so much of it at an early age. charlie: what did you do? jessica: i did a lot of school plays when i was 14 or 15 . l.a., ii grew up in started auditioning and i remember, for one of my auditions, i ended up looking at a tv show called "just for kicks." it was about four girls on the soccer team. we shot one season of that and then we got canceled. i was devastated. i was 15 and a half. i was like, "my life is trash." pack it up. then i went back to school and i auditioned for my school's improv team. they had this thing called comedy sports. is short for competitive team improv like "whose line is it anyway?" i did one of the worst scenes ever. i was an astronaut who had an afro on the moon, and my afro

got cut off and, the scene, i , "ah, hell naw," but i was like 16 years old, so that was good for me. i knew that was something that feels right so i did a lot of improv. charlie: actors will say, "in college, i tried this because i wanted to meet women." on stage, they would say, "i love this." people find certain sports they love because they went out for it and you say, "i am for this." you do it well, too, you want to do it even more. jessica: anytime i had that sentiment of i want to try this because i want to meet hot dudes, it has always been a nightmare. it never works. this feels bad. charlie: what is the best way to meet hot dudes? jessica: i don't know. it is so crazy right now. charlie: it is hard because of

how famous you have become? at -- ina rel -- a.k.a.ight now relationship. [laughter] i am in a relatsh. i had been on the daily show for a little bit. it was not like i could just be on tinder. i was on for three days and i would get guys being like "i love you on the daily show." and i'm like, "i'm mortified." i was on it for a little bit and quickly deleted it, but i would go through a cycle of being on it, deleting it, being on it, deleting it. charlie: when did you start acting? jessica: when i was 10 or 11. i was really, really into acting. i liked disney and nickelodeon stars and i watched a show called "all that," a sketch comedy show for kids.

i really convinced my parents on how to let me do acting classes as a kid and my parents were like, "you are going to keep your grades up?" "yeah." " ok, you can do it." by the time i got to "the daily show," i threw myself into it. i did upright citizens brigade, i did comedy sports. i tried to really put sketches up as much as possible, and when i got the job, i moved to new york, and i was really intimidated because i was 22, and i know how i auditioned for that show, i was just like, you know what, what is it about me? i'm 22 years old, black, a woman, i have all this raw energy. i think i'm going to try and be the most myself i can possibly be. i did not look up any of the other amazing correspondence. i did not look up samantha bee or oliver or wyatt.

i just tried to be myself, so i ended up -- charlie: i think that is the best thing to be. jessica: i am still learning it. charlie: authenticity to your own self. you own you are. >> i think people really respond to something that is truthful. sometimes, your truth is not the right fit for certain things, but once it finds its way, then people really get into it. charlie: most of the skits we saw you do, most of the time, you were doing something on location. was it created by you? was it your idea? or did it come from producers at "the daily show?" jessica: it was everything. "the daily show" is such a machine. producers would throw stuff out and pitch it. jon would throw stuff out. that is what we would do. or i would throw stuff out. while catalog of work is just a mixture of all of these sort of

amazing people that have worked on the show and everything that came together. charlie: do you grow simply by doing it? you have the opportunity to do almost everything. you do it and listen to people who are there with you and figure out at every test by participating with a group of talented people. outcome away better. jessica: i think it is the way to do it. just getting out there is the scariest thing, just going for it. right now, i am writing and i have been spending a lot of time reading so much about writing, but a lot of the advice is "just do it." do the thing. charlie: there is nothing harder than looking at a blank page. what you really have to do is put together the first sentence. that is how you do it. do you want to -- what kind of things do you want to write? jessica: i want to write scripts for me, my own show. i want to write more things for women and more things that give people of color a platform as

well, and members of the lgbtq community. i really want to -- whatever i do, i want to make sure it is a platform to help pull up women and people of color. charlie: do you feel like you are a woman empowered because of , so nowess you've had you have power to do things for all the people you just said? jessica: yeah, sometimes. sometimes, i wake up and i feel i am the most powerful women on the planet. some days, i wake up and i'm like, "what if today i stayed home and played the sims?" charlie: what? jessica: oh my gosh, you don't know what the sims are? it's incredible. i have so much trash to teach you about. it is this computer game where basically it is just a bunch of little people, you can do a lot of world building. it is really fun.

it is a nice way to feel control over an environment, which i really enjoy. some days, i just like to play the sims and stay in. my relationship with power and feeling empowered is that it just ebbs and flows. charlie: is it all fun? jessica: like everything? like life? charlie: the success you have had and the opportunity to create and do what you are damn good at. jessica: a lot of it is fun, but a lot of it is really stressful. everything is on a deadline. everything comes together last minute. everything has a lot of moving parts. everyone has something to say. there is always some dude who is making it weird somehow, somewhere, and you are just like, ok, this does not feel great. then there are moments when the director goes "action," and you feel like that was worth it, so

it comes and it goes. queens" started when i .as taping a daily show bit i knew about her because she was a black woman. she had a white boyfriend. charlie: a boyfriend is a bae? jessica: he could be. a bae means before anyone else. if you are a mama's boy, your mom could be bae. she was a comedian. she had a white bae. she did ucv in new york. i had just moved to new york for "the daily show." i just internet stalked her.

when i met her, she was like, "what was something you always wanted to do?" i said "stand up." she said "you should come cohost my show with me." we did a show at ucb east and we really clicked on stage. it was just fun and we both felt like this was incredible. so we kept doing that because we loved doing it. we were like, we should make it a podcast. studios,red with wnyc a public radio station here. we partnered with them and we created a show called "2 dope queens." charlie: who gave it the name? jessica: we both did. i think it took us 15 minutes. i don't know what the alternatives were, but we were like, let's do it. i'd say we are dope. dope can mean multiple things.

back in the day, it was a drug. charlie: what is the something else? jessica: it is just cool. we are cool. "we are would you say, dope?" charlie: i'm dope. [laughter] queens" is dope phoebe and i hosting stand up storytellers and musicians. usually, these people are people of color, members of the lgbtq community and women. we always try to make sure those people are represented. as comedians and actors, we are often supporting somebody else's narrative, so we want to give people that we think are talented an opportunity. charlie: success is doing good and well. doing good for other people, giving them a chance to do something. doing well for yourself. using and empowering not just

the kind of celebrity that you have that has brought you attention and using that attention, to have other people -- to help other people within your own community. jessica: it seems lame cannot do that, like a waste. part of making sure that there is representation of different types of people, sometimes you have to take a chance and pull people up with you. it would be a shame to get a platform and not use that to help other people. that seems bananas to not do that. charlie: at this stage in your life, you feel more new york or l.a.? jessica: i don't know. i grew up in l.a.. i grew up in the south bay. i have been here for five years. i don't know. charlie: you don't have to be the one. you can do both. jessica: it is lame to not choose a side. lame, so choose.

jessica: i will choose l.a. i don't want to walk out and have people say "why didn't you stay?" i really like -- when i was in l.a., people were walking around me. they were walking really slow, and i wanted to go "move." charlie: that would not happen in new york. jessica: you can just do that and it's fine. i've become a new york monster. [laughter] charlie: "2 dope queens" has been read by hbo. with wnyce do it studios. charlie: hbo announced they would do two specials of "2 dope -- "2 dope queens ." jessica: it is out, live as of

maybe 1.5 hours ago. we are going to do 41-hour -- we are going to do 4 1-hour specials for hbo, so we are excited about that. those will be live taped. charlie: what is the most challenging and difficult for you? >> um, i would say the hardest thing was the daily show. charlie: even though you had producers and other people? jessica: we would go with one producer, travel somewhere, probably the south and interview somebody in their living room or something like that, which feels very intimate. a lot of times, they would say things that were bananas. charlie: did they know they were bananas? jessica: no. i think, doing those interviews i don't think people thought were nuts. i think a part of growing up for me and learning about other people is people have a justification for everything. whether it makes sense to you or not, people in their minds have found reasoning, so it never came off that they didn't -- that they thought that what they were saying was crazy.

charlie: and they don't think that people -- in some cases they do -- think that people are contemptuous of them for believing it? jessica: they don't think there is a world where we don't agree with them. also, they think they are going to prove us wrong in some way, but it never really worked out like that. it was difficult because you're traveling to somebody's home and interviewing them and it is really intense and you want to get a specific amount of information out of them. interviewing is hard. i don't know if you know this, charlie, but interviewing is hard. charlie: it has taken me a while to get it going. what about something like "saturday night live?" is that something that would be of interest to you are -- to you or are you beyond that?

i would love to eventually -- my dream is to be able to host. that is a dream. now, just because i want to work on my own show. charlie: ownership is great. they are your mistakes. you make the decisions. it is control. jessica: it is all on me. that show is great. i really want to do my own show. charlie: what kinds of things do you want to create now that you have the leverage to get partners and people to give you an opportunity on that, whether it is hbo or netflix? did you create "jessica?" jessica: no, i did not create "jessica james." i worked on "jessica james" with the writer and director, who is amazing, and we had done this movie, "peoples, places, things" together two years before. he said something really nice when we were done. i was a supporting character in that. i really loved working with you.

he said, "wait, i can write you a movie. we met a bunch before we pitched the idea of "the incredible jessica james." he said, i'm thinking of the structure being like this. what are your thoughts? by the time we worked out a deal, they had added me on as executive producer. that was really exciting. i got a lot of creative input and i think that is what is so fun about the movie is you can see a lot of things like she abbreviates words and she feels very much like me. jessica james feels like jessica williams, which is me. charlie: how did that work? you put her together and you said, "this is me, so therefore i will make her like me?" jessica: i said i really want to create an authentic character and i wanted her to feel whole, so we pulled a lot of inspiration from things i say.

she and i are pretty different . she's a lot more forthright. you mentioned something earlier? on tinder, we matched. awesome. saidted you "hi" and you s up."and you said "what' did you come here tonight expecting to bone? it's not going to happen. >> did i do something wrong? >> as soon as i walked in, you shook my hand. >> what should i have done? >> you should have grabbed me by the shoulder and whispered something sexy in my ear like "go to the bathroom and take off your panties. i want to smell them." >> you would have done that if i told you to do that? >> maybe. there is a chance i would have punched you in the ding-a-ling. i don't know.

i'm sort of in a weird, transitional phase in my life. charlie: you don't think of yourself as forthright? jessica: i go to therapy every week. i do. therapy is the best. i'm a new yorker. charlie: exactly. woody allen has made it famous. he is a therapy guy and you are a therapy girl. jessica: yes, that's me. charlie: what is a session like? you go in and say, "this is what happened to me." jessica: yeah, kind of. i have a really cool therapist. her name is heather. she is great. charlie: do you call her heather or dr. something? jessica: i call her heather. i promise you, she is really cool. i just talk to her about my week and anything that is kicking around if i had like a nightmare a few days before. i had this really crazy nightmare and she is like, "tell me more." she cares. charlie: you describe it and she

can interpret it for you? jessica: totally. charlie: how has it helped you? jessica: how? charlie: give me a chance to try. it helps you understand yourself, your motivations, and why you feel this way or that way about some experience in your life. is that part of it? jessica: absolutely. --gives me charlie: does it change you? jessica: in small increments. i have never gone and regretted it. every time i go, i feel lighter than i did when i went in. i think it has got to be very positive. even when i do not feel like going, which is half the time. when i leave her office, i am like, i'm so happy i did that for myself. it is an investment in me. then i can go out in the world knowing a little bit more about myself and knowing how to handle external situations outside of my control, which really is the reason i go to therapy. how do i handle things that seem

like they are out of my control is my big question. charlie: i think it makes you a cool woman. the whole sense of saying -- [laughter] charlie: "how can i handle life?" if i could get some help -- whatever gets you through the night. if you could find some way that somebody and some person or experience that helps you understand where you are, what you are, who you are, then that -- then that is a good day. jessica: it is pretty priceless. it is amazing. charlie: and so are you. thank you for coming. jessica: are you kidding? this is amazing. thank you so much. charlie: will you come back? jessica: yes. let me see if my schedule -- yes, of course. charlie: see you next time. ♪ >> are you going to invite me up? >> i was thinking maybe not. >> why?

i already know, your bathroom is gross. >> i cleaned it thoroughly. i think we should slow down. it was tremendous. called me like four days later? what's the problem? >> i probably seem to you like i have my -- together but i just got out of a marriage eight months ago and everything is a bit -- >> you don't seem like you have it together and i don't either. i just got out of a relationship, too. >> all the more reason to say good night. >> really? i am a unicorn. ♪

>> you are watching "bloomberg technology." fighting french police. and eight-year-old girl was killed and at least five people were injured when a driver slammed into the sidewalk cafe of a pizza restaurant in a small town east of paris. police say the attack was intentional and the driver was arrested. signed antrump executive order to launch a trade investigation about china over the alleged theft of technology and intellectual property. it gives the office of u.s. trade representative the authority to consider the probe.