>> rose: welcome to the program. the first monday in october is when the supreme court season begins, for a look at what we might expect from the court this season, we talk to adam liptak of "the new york times" and jeffrey toobin of cnn and "the new yorker" magazine. >> i don't think there has ever been a justice in the history of the court who is this much of a swing justice. >> so you have four like leigh candidates who in the next presidential term or two will go and depending on the alignment, if a republican gets to replace one of the democratic appointees or vice versa, that changes the fabric of american life. >> and we conclude today with claire dains talking about the fifth season of homeland and what might happen to carrie matheson. >> i get to really understand what it is to be a different person and see

the world from a very, very turn place. and that freedom is just thrilling. you know. and i discover that oh yes, we all are connected. we really are all connected. and you know, and it encourages a kind of tolerance, you know, that is beautiful, you know, and very reassuring for me personally. >> adam liptak, jeffrey toobin and claire danes when we continue. >> funding >> rose: funding for "charlie rose" has been provided by: american express. >> rose: additional funding provided by: >> and by bloomberg, a provider of multimedia news and information services worldwide.

captioning sponsored by rose communications from our studios in new york city, this is charlie rose. >> the u.s. supreme court begins a new term on monday. voting rights, affirmative action and the death penalty are all on the docket. the justices may decide to also take cases on contraception and abortion. last term same-sex marriage was nationally legalized, at fordable care act were upheld. this term more big decisions will likely be made. to talk about these issues, adam liptak of the new york times is in washington. and jeffrey toobin of the new yorker and cnn is with me here in new york. i am pleased to have both of them. let me go first to adam. what does this look like, adam? what are the things that we ought to take note of in the first monday in october. >> well, the big picture is that last year, last term, the left side of the court had a very good year.

a lot of liberal decisions. a lot of liberal victories. this term the early signs are that the empire strikes back, that the conservative roberts court we know will deliver some more conservative opinions, justice kennedy still in the middle but i expect him to swing right rather than more than he did last term. and in cases on-- affirmative action and public unions, there's reason for the left to be nervous. >> they're also tackling items of political significance. always,. >> yes, and they are. this is, after all, the court of citizens united. and citizens united and as the lawyers say, an its progeny, the cases that have come out of citizens united have revolutionized campaign finance in the united states. and i think the deregulation of american politics is likely to continue this year. and there's also this very interesting case about redistricting which is, of course, deeply political. a very profound question

about whether districts, congress s&l-- congressional districtsing legislative districts, you count the number of human beings or you count the number of voters in each district. and that has a great deal of political significance. >> the interesting thing too is that the chief justice may even be a subject of political decision in the republican primaries, or in the general election. >> it's actually quite surprising. he's got a very conservative record. he's only deviated from what is usual ally was want twice, both of them, the affordable care act. but 98 percent of the time he votes to the right. and yet even those two deviations are enough for people to be running ads, comparing him to republican disappointments like anthony kennedy and david suitor. >> but this is of a piece with to me the largest development of american politics which is the evolution of the republican party there used to be moderates in the republican party it used to be a pretty

big tent and that was reflected in the supreme court. you had just-- justs like louis poeel, san ra day o'connor in the '80s. and suitor who actually was pretty much a liberal by the time he left, wasn't really a moderate. >> rose: appointed by george bush. >> and john paul stevens appointed by gerald ford. but the absence of any sort of moderation in the candidates running for president is reflected in their attitude toward the supreme court, that you have a justice, as adam said, who has been almost 100 percenter, with the only exception of the two affordable care act cases. and you have people like ted cruz saying, i would never have voted for him. he's a disappointment, even though he has voted the conservative line in every case except the two affordable care act cases. >> and these are the same people who say what they want are independent jourists unaffected by politics. and then when you have slight deviation, all of a sudden they are traitors.

>> let's talk about affirmative action, the texas case, what does that say. >> this looks like the case in which the supreme court may well cut back significantly on the ability of at least public universities to take account of race in admissions decisions. it's the second trip for this case, fisher of the university of texas to the supreme court. i don't think they would have taken it a second time unless they were ready to take some action. and at least the somewhat idiosyncratic university of texas at austin admissions plan is likely very much at risk. >> the appellate court rule for the university, did it not? >> it did. so the supreme court a couple of terms ago says you guys, appeals court, you didn't take a hard enough look. go back and take a hard look and decide whether you really mean it, that this is constitutional, this plan which allows admissions officers to take account of race, the appeals court says yes, we still think it's constitutionalment and the supreme court takes it again, probably not to say yes,

that's right. >> and it is worth noting in a bigger picture here, you know, every chief justice has a project. earl warren, his project was the end of segregation in the united states. warren berger was getting tough on crime. william rehnquist was reviving states' rights. john roberts, it's not entirely clear even after ten years what his project is. but to the extent he has one, i think it is getting rid of any sort of racial preferences. you know, he had a famous line in one of his early opinions where he said the way to get rid of discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race. and by that he meant any consideration of race by the government or a public institution like the university of texas, is unlawful. and i think he is going to use this case to the extent he can get anthony kennedy to come along, to really try to do away with any sort of racial preferences and admission. >> an bear in mind, bear in

mind that anthony kennedy has never in his career on the supreme court voted to uphold an affirmative action program so if you take the chief justices project as jeff described it, the fact that the chief almost certainly has four votes, and the fact that the fifth vote justice kennedy has never voted to uphold an affirmative action program, there's a lot of reason for liberals to be nervous about how this case comes out. >> and add to it that elainea kagan is recused from that case, so the liberal numbers are diminished in that case. >> is the affordable care act one more time going to be considered by the court? >> well, the affordable care act's provisions are going to be considered by the court for decades. this is such an enormous complicated. >> and the coverage comes up this time. >> yes. >> very likely. but the-- none of these cases have the magnitude of king versus burwell, the one that was decided last year or the constitutionality of the individual mandate.

the affordable care act -- >> both times, and the affordable care act is here to stay unless congress overturns it with the republican president. the courts are now done with the law as a whole. but many aspects of the law will be before the court including the-- . >> rose: so what is that? >> well, the-- it is related to the hobby lobby case which was decided a couple of years ago. the question is for companies that have religious objections to certain forms of contraception which require them to be covered, how much of them-- how much coverage they are obliged to pay for even though their corporations, not individuals, the court has held that at least privately held companies do have a right to maintain religious objections to their obligations under the law. >> and so these latest cases have an additional wrinkle. they look at not only

private companies but also religiously affiliated institutions, schools, hospitals, that don't want to do this, and the administration has offered them a compromise. they say in essence if you sign a form, we'll take care of it for you. you don't have to pay for it. we'll take care of it. the insurance company will take care of it. and the objection now is that even signing the form makes them complicity in something that's sinful. most appeals courts says that's too re-- remote an argument. but one appeals court has gone the other way, so this religiously affiliated institution, whether they have to sign a form is probably the next frontier among these contraception cases. they haven't taken a case yet but they very likely will. >> what kind of abortion case may they take? >> well, in 2010, you know, there was a sweep in the republican, in the midterm elections by the republicans. and in state after state, there were additional restrictions on abortion added. 20 week, no abortions after

20 weeks. many new requirements for the facilities that-- that were abortions can be conducted. whether doctors have to have admitting privileges in nearby hospitals. and basically all of those requirements have been percolating through the courts in challenges by abortion rights organizations, and at least some of them, i think, are urt this term.efore the >> rose: so in in fact they-- go ahead add well-- adam. >> if i had to guess the leading case comes out of texas. a couple of the kinds of provisions jeff just mentioned basically would drive the number of abortion clinics in texas from 40 to 10. the court has already interceded in that case to make sure that doesn't while it considers whether to hear it. i think that case out of texas is the most likely candidate. >> rose: and what they may decide, i'm asking, what they may decide is if, in fact, states have gone too far in restricting abortions. >> correct. that's the argument. it is interestinging. the supreme court has really

not engaged with the subject of abortion much at all in recent years. you know, there was 2000 was it 7, adam. >> 12007 where they upheld the partial-- federal partial-birth abortion law, so-called. but nothing since then. and the question is, the legal term of art that the court has adopted is do these laws create an undue burden, undue burden on a woman's right to an abortion. the term undue burden does not necessarily clear in its definition. and add usual, undue burden is probably going to mean what anthony kennedy thinks undue burden means. >> i thought you knew what he said. >> no. >> it's just-- i don't know what it is. >> we'll find out when he votes. >> the other thing to bear in mind is that the decision in that case and a bunch of these others probably lands in june of 2016, right in the heart of the presidential campaign, so

that's going to thrust these issues and the court into the middle of the presidential campaign. >> rose: what about the death penalty? is that an issue coming up? >> it's coming up in bits an pieces. on the last day of the term we had a major statement from bryer and ginsburg, in just about so many words saying they think the death penalty unconstitutional. they would like to hear a big fat challenge to allow the court to take a treas look at the large question of whether the death penalty is constitutional or not. that case has not yet arrived. but there are a bunch of death cases on the docket including, for instance, one about whether in a capital case, prosecutors can knock off every black off of a jury and in cases like that. >> but dharlie, you know, the-- charlie, the country has sort of passed by the supreme court on the death penal. the death penalty is shrinking the a rapid pace regardless of what the supreme court does. >> rose: and is that because of the fact that because of dna evidence is used to show that people who are on death row are innocent? or some other factor. >> there are a bunch of factors. and it's a vigorous debate

on what's going on. part of it is jurors are spooked by dna exonerations. the costs are very high. for counties. and a lot of counties don't want to pay for these. there's less crime in the united states than there used to be in the '90s. so there are fewer opportunities to seek the death penalty. >> rose: go ahead. >> well, i mean, and when you combine all of that, and there are these new requirements from the supreme court that make these cases somewhat more difficult. and you have this whole issue of no one can figure out how to execute it. >> that's right, cruel and unusual. >> and even the methods that have been approved by the court, the so-called three drug cocktail, they can't find the drugs. so all of those things, they're only going to-- 22 executions so far in the united states, which would be-- here it is in the beginning of october, which is heading towards a low since the death penalty was reinstated. >> so jeff is right that the number is being driven down, down, down, but it's not

going to get to zero without the court. and maybe that's a tolerable number. it's not a large number at all. but just this past week, three nights in a row, the court was looking at stays of kix execution. they are still very much in the business of -- >> and steven bryer as he was promoting his most recent book was talking about it almost every stop that he thought that it might very well be cruel and unusual. >> one of the interesting fact, there hasn't been a single death sentence in texas this year. texas. >> no death sentence. >> what state has the most? >> well, texas, virginia, florida have always been -- >> california has a lot of death sentences, almost no executions. >> they have hundreds of people on death row. literally hundreds of people. but they have had a handful of executions since 197-- 1976. >> virginia has relatively few about it executes them pretty efficiently. >> how do they do it? >> lethal injection.

>> rose: is that the least-- is that the preferred method today? >> well, the court-- that is almost universal method. >> right, but the absence of the required drugs has made it problematic. and oklahoma in particular has been struggling with this, of trying to get the drugs that the supreme court has approve. and a lot of supplies,ers, especially in europe refuse to produce them for this purpose, so they are scrambling. it's a complicated problem. >> rose: is there any progress in terms of televising supreme court arguments? or -- >> i think we are probably moving in the opposite direction. >> i would agree. >> why? >> in part because in the last term there were three different protests. two over citizens united. one over same-sex marriage. and if cameras make those kinds of protests even more likely, that adds to the court's sense that somehow this nice, stayed formal

proceeding that we have will be disrupted or that it will give rise to grandstanding. but when they talk about grandstanding in their hearts they know it's not the advocates. they think it's themselves. they can't control themselves. >> both elana kagan and sonio sotomayor said oh i'm very open to the idea of cameras. they both now have stockholm syndrome. they are now-- they are now captive, they are identifying with their captor, oh, we're worried about cameras. i think the best we can hope for. >> rose: who are we defining as their cappers. >> the other seven justices. the only thing we can hope for, and maybe adam disagrees. i think they could move towards streaming the audio, live. >> funny thing happened today. they really should have same-day audio. it will be child's play to have same-day audio. now they have it at the end of the week. or as jeff suggests live audio. today apparently they accidentally posted same-day audio and they quick took it down. but that does demonstrate they're capable of doing it. >> rose: of course.

>> so why not have same-day audio. what arguments are at play when you say at least you could have same-day or live audio. why do they object to that? >> there's no -- >> i have no idea. >> there's no good argument. >> there's nothing remotely like a principlesed argument. the real argument, is that it would make it too easy for the press that same day to use audio. >> right. >> rose: you mean it would be helpful to you in writing your piece for the next day's people. >> not some of for me but radio and tv, it would make a big difference. >> that could show it that night. now by the enof the week they know the circus has moved on and we don't cover things friday that were argued tuesday. but. >> rose: this may be obvious from what both of you have said. so if you look at the upcoming supreme court calendar, it is simply what anthony kennedy decides to vote will decide most of what they have to decide. >> in a sentence, yeah. >> i'm-- i will sign on to that. >> in the big controversial

cases, the 5-4 cases, he's going to be the deciding justice two-thirds of the time. >> rose: boy that's a great role to play, isn't it? >> it's a good job to be anthony kennedy. maybe adam disagrees with me, but i don't think there has ever been a justice in the history of the court who is this much of a swing justice. you know louis powell had a lot of power. o'connor. but it was not always this clear a division. i think this is -- >> the idea logical center of the court used to be, and we saw this even with o'connor and kennedy. two justices, three justices. so when you argued to the court, you would kind of look around a little bit because you thought there would be several votes in play. now everybody looks laser like at anthony kennedy. >> and you read the briefs, quote, only his opinions. they really write to anthony kennedy. >> rose: who is the smartest person on the court? >> i would say they're all smart. i mean they are really all smart. >> so get this.

>> there are so politics. >> but if you had to choose. >> i'm not going to be that politics. i think chief justice roberts is the smartest. >> do you really. >> absolutely. in terms of raw, intlechlt i think like all of them he has written better opinions than others. but just in terms of mastery of the information. >> rose: not in a larger sense of an intellectual but in terms of just raw po-- writing book, scalia writes all these books. >> i just think in terms of raw power. >> rose: adam? >> you no he who else, i agree that the chief has all kinds of intellectual firepower. it is still early in her tenure but elainea kagan, there is every potential that she will be the equal. >> rose: it seems roberts other than affordable care has been most often, he seems to have a real interest in business. >> yes. no, i think that's something that i view as a mistake on my part in that i have not emphasized that enough in terms of describing the roberts court.

particularly when you look at the issue of lawsuits against businesses. if you have an individual on one side and a corporation on the other, i can tell you with a-- about 80% certainty which side is going to win knowing nothing else about the case. i mean this case, they really don't like personal injury lawyers, they don't like individual lawsuits. they don't like civil rights litigants. it's a very probusiness court. >> rose: adam, do you agree with that? >> absolutely. in fact, the two george w. bush appointee, the chief justice and justice alito by some political science measurements are the most pro-business justices in the last half century. and this term we're going to see them go after class actions and i don't think class actions are going to look very good afterwards. >> and labor unions. >> they don't like labor unions at all there is a big case out of california about public employee unions where it could cripple their able to get money from public

employees. which would hurt the democratic party a great deal since public employee unions -- >> how about criminal justice cases. >> this court, i don't think has huge differences on criminal justice. you know, they-- sonio sotomayer has taken it upon herself to be kind of the guardian of the criminal docket and to be the chief monitor-- . >> rose: wasn't she a prosecutor. >> she was a prosecutor but in a jurisdiction in new york that is a lot more liberal than the rest of the country. and she, i think, is taking a particular interest in that subject. but by and large, this is a pro law enforcement court. and you don't see a lot of convictions overturned. >> i would add one footnote. i see sometimes this court is suspicious of the federal government and of overcriminalization, and in the last term, the federal prosecutors had a fairly bad term. so it is a court that will

sometimes think that big government is bad even when big government is a prosecutor. >> in line with what adam said, today they declined to hear a case that was a huge defeat for the u.s. attorney here in new york. an insider, they chose not to hear it but the second skirt court of appels had overturned the convictions on the ground that basically beraris prosecutors pushed too hard. that their version of insider trading was not unlawful. and so that-- . >> rose: at the district court level? >> well, it was-- it was a successful prosecution in the district court. but then the court of appeals overturned the conviction. and the supreme court let that ruling stand. >> so. >> that was overturned. >> the insider trading cases may be a lot harder to make as a result of today's decision, nondecision. >> is the supreme court as exciting to cover as it always has been sm. >> i think the court ask in somewhat of a holding pattern right now, as we wait for generational

turnover. cuz these vac kansies tend to come in groups. yes it's true that john ball stevens served until he is 90-- 90. so i suppose all of these justices in their late 70s and early 80s could wait until chelsea clinton is president to leave. but i think it's likely that several of them will-- several of them will leave in the next few years. >> and especially, well, let's see, i said who it was, ginsburg. >> ginsburg is-- ginsburg is 83 and scalia is 79 now, or -- scalia and kennedy are 79. i think bryer is 77. yeah, so you have four likely candidates who in the next presidential term or two will go. and depending on the alignment, if a republican gets to replace one of the democratic a pointees or vice versa, that changes the fabric of american life. >> rose: i asked you who was the smartest who is the best writer? >> roberts. but elainea kagan is a very good writer. and i think as someone

without did not write a lot as a law professor, it's kind of surprising. but she's very conversational. >> those two are very good. and scalia, it's easy to forget, in his heyday was a transform difficult thinker and an excellent writer. and that is still surfaces from time to time, although maybe he lost-- . >> rose: and a great talker. >> yes, i think he's a charming man. and the most important justice on that court since william brennan left, scalia. >> the most influential, absolutely. >> kennedy? >> in terms of the development of the law, absolutely. of just intellectually, scale qa by a wide margin. >> rose: thank you for coming. >> great pleasure as always. >> nice to be here. >> rose: we turn next to claire danes, and the new season of "homeland" back in a moment. claire danes sheer. as you know, homeland has returned to showtime for its fifth season. she plays ex-ci agent carrie matheson.

"the new yorker" praises her performance saysing aa stand in for america's post 9/11 psychology, danes is terrific, a vulnerable, he is duckive bully. she veefd two memmees and two golden globe for her performance. i spoke with her recently about her career, about the upcoming season of homeland and other things. >> so homeland. >> yes. >> season five, you're back. >> we're old. we've been around for a while. i can't quite believe how many years in we are. but it still feels very electric and vittal. >> so where is carrie now? conditions carrie is actually happy. amazingly. very exotic experience for her. >> yeah, no. no, but she's in the private sector. she's quit the biz. she's very disillusioned by what she experienced in season four and felt very betrayed and by her mentor and friends. and so she is out.

and she is working for a benevolent billionaire, a philanthropist called auto during, she's head of security for his firm. and she has a lovely boyfriend who is a lawyer from the same firm. they are living together. >> rose: an a baby. >> and she's very kansas citied to her baby. and so yeah, there's like about five minutes of domestic bliss. so yeah. >> rose: oh no, she's back. >> yeah. >> rose: involved in -- >> so in the first episode, her boss is a very kind of progressive philanthropist. he is wanting to help refugees at a camp. yeah, in lebanon. and so they-- she protests. she says this say terrible idea.

but she goes anyway. and of course there's an assassination attempt. she assumes it's that her boss is the target and she discovers that she, in fact, is the target. so she has to figure out who is trying to kill her and why. but yeah. >> rose: and then we find also that-- had to come back to berlin to investigate some leakage. >> that's the big engine of the season. >> rose: that brings them back together. >> exactly. so there is a massive cyberpenetration in berlin station. and it's just a bunch of-- a couple of kids without kind of oops stumble into this incredible portal. and-- . >> rose: kind of a snowden like thing. >> exactly. and it creates great chaos. >> rose: so where is she in her mind now? we see her in episode five, she's no longer in the cia. she's happy. >> she's happy. >> rose: her by polarism. >> is under control.

she's taking her lithium every day. >> rose: really sm. >> ef reday. no, and no, so i think you know, she i think a big scene for her this year is that her history is not something she can excuse herself from, you know. >> rose: in other words, it used to be that what she ever-- whatever she did was somehow okay because she did such good things for the agency. >> right. well, i think that you know she discovers-- . >> rose: the good person she was was okay because -- >> well, she didn't have a life before. and you know, she didn't think that she could have a life. that she-- that she was entitled to that or that was possible because of her illness. she felt that her illness was going to wreck terrible havoc and suffering within any intimate relationship she forged. so she just gave that up entirely. and so she has this epiphany

last season where maybe that's not the case. that maybe her condition will not prohibit her from, you know, real closeness with others and therefore happiness. so she's trying that on. she's experimenting with that. and it works. but yes, what she's not acknowledging in this new iteration ask that she does have a incredible, an incredible gift for this work. and a kind of calling. and-- . >> rose: what is that gift? >> well, she is kind of a superhero, right. >> rose: sure. >> and she seemed to be smarter than everybody else. >> she's always right. it's very enjoyable to say that because it's so very far from the truth in my own reality. >> no, no, well, yeah, but no, that's the con seat. that cassandra is, you know, is actually sadly correct. and but yeah, so she -- incredibly intuitive and she has these amazing insights and she can connect

dots faster than anyone else and she will be able to-- . >> rose: she seems to be able to see around corners. >> she has these flashes of brilliance. >> rose: what does mandy bring here beyond the character to you because you talk about how great it is to -- >> yeah, well he is such a powerful performer, mandy. and you know, obviously a brilliant musician and singer as well. and that informs his approach to his acting so deeply. and it's just-- it's quite rare and specific to him. and a real just a thrill and a joy to play with. and you know, when we did the first reading of the pilot, obviously we were all very new to each other. and as soon as we started you know our first scene it was just clear that there

was this relationship there already, that we just kind of walked into. and it really-- . >> rose: like you meet somebody and all of a sudden. >> exactly it took us by such surprise. and you know, he is-- it's so fun because obviously carrie is a fast talker, you know, she's kind of stacatto and very high frequency and he is the opposite of that. and so there's just-- . >> rose: here's what he said. >> it was glorious from the very first second. i just loved it. there was a chemistry immediately. she was riveting, all i had to do was just listen to her. >> well, i feel the same way. i mean really identical, that those could have been my words exactly. and i just am so-- every choice he makes is so particular to his spirit and could never be reproduced or imitated by anyone else. and it's always-- it's

always compelling and it's always inspiring. and it makes me do something new, you know, that i'm not-- sure of. >> rose: you in fact said i know mandy's process. i know his music and how to run and to play about it. it's such a gift to get to know an actor with this many years and always in a new context. it's like being in a marriage. >> it is a little bit, yeah. you know, we've been at this for five years. we've outrun i think a lot of marriages. yeah. >> rose: but it's a happy marriage. and to have that feeling of trust and that history and that shorthand is such a privilege. >> rose: an her marriage to the agency which she has now left. >> uh-huh. >> rose: she can never leave the agency k she? >> i don't think she can. i think she-- she rediscovered how her passion for this work and her --.

>> rose: in season five. >> in season five, i think towards the end of the season she-- and i'm glad. >> rose: might have thought it wasn't for her? >> i think you know in the beginning of season five she is very relieved to be out of it. she does not miss it. but, but i kind of miss her playing it. you know, i missed playing it because i miss the joy that i have had in her kind of-- yeah, in her relationship to her work. she really does love it. and it's fun to play that kind of love. >> rose: there's a saying in russia. and i have said this of vladimir putin in a recent interview, there is no such thing as a former kgb agent. >> uh-huh. >> rose: once a kgb agent, always a kgb agent. because at there is something about the culture

and something about the house of mirrors and something about life on the press i business. >> right. >> rose: that is its own -- >> i think it's probably very intoxicateing, this line of work. i think it's probably very a ikt diddive. because the stakes are so very life-- addictive because the stakes are so very high. and you know, there's actors, they're acting. but for real, you know. i can't imagine that. i can't imagine-- . >> rose: there's nothing in you that could imagine being a cia agent? >> no, not really, no. i mean i tried. but no, i think --. >> rose: cuz you met them and talked to them. >> uh-huh, uh-huh, yeah. it is-- no, i have this-- i have this spy big sister. it's really fun. she's wonderful. >> rose: and does she inform you in terms of what carrie might think and feel?

>> yeah. >> rose: your cia big sister. >> yeah, she does. i mean i really just learned the most from observing her behavior and the way she talks as much as what she says. >> rose: what does it is a about you that, you went to yale when you were already a very successful actor. >> uh-huh. >> rose: because you wanted what? >> well, i had been-- i was a kid actor, right so i started this when i was 12. >> rose: and thought about it when you were three. >> yeah, yeah, exactly. and i, so i didn't really get to go to high school i was tutored on locations and trailers and very odd costumes in a really kind of fractured way. i remember taking my sats when i was shooting the rainmaker. i had been a night shoot and the teamstar dropped me off at the school with like my two number two pencils and

you know, just so-- disoriented. so that was my high school experience. and i was lonely. i was just working with adults. and so i think i wanted to go to college to just socialize as much as to learn. which is probably true for most people. but there was another level of urgency for me. >> rose: so not only your curiosity to learn things, different kinds of things, but also the socializing process of it all. >> absolutely. that was really vital for me. because i was starting to feel a little weird. >> rose: weird. >> yeah. >> rose: meaning. >> well, i like, didn't know how to hang out. it's very important to know how to do that. >> rose: it is. >> so yeah. >> rose: not having necessarily an at ease with your contemporaries. >> i was very self-conscious. i was, you know, i was starting to become a bon zy tree or something. >> rose: here is something interesting. one of your directors said when you were 13, you were so good that it was a little scary for them.

this is at 13. >> that's very nice to hear. >> rose: you don't know what is about you that makes somebody scary. >> no, i mean. >> rose: it was a commanding presence even then. >> that's funny because yes, i was a kid acker but i never thought of myself as that. >> rose: you thought of yourself as a regular kid. >> i was an ago ever who happened to be a kid. >> rose: oh, i see. >> and in your had heart and in your soul everything about you were an actor. >> yeah. and i started taking acting class when i was ten. and you know, so seriously and with such commitment and fervour, and i really meant it. and people would say but you're only ten. i would think only ten, like, i've been doing this forever. i'm exhausted. >> rose: and i'm in a hurry. >> yeah, no. >> rose: i have to get here and here and here. >> plenty of teeferl. i think one afternoon as a one-day old person, is enough. to make something. >> rose: but i'm struck by going off to college, beyond

the socializing, there is about you this almost intellectual curiosity. >> uh-huh. >> rose: you care about knowing what is really-- as we said, you have been a student of bipolar, what it means, how does it affect you. >> actually, at school i thought i was going to be a psychology major, so that was always my interest. and that was always my plan b. was to go into therapy, psychology, be a therapist. and now i get to have my cake and eat it. i get to do both. >> rose: you didn't graduate because i degree didn't mean that much to you. >> yeah, i think at two years i really understood what that experience was. i figured out how to hang out. i kind of got the fundamentals of you know, a higher education. i learned how to think critically and discerningly. i knew how to write an essay. like i'm sure those skills would have been further developed and refined in those extra two years. but i thought that i was going to be able to act every summer.

and it doesn't work that way, you know. i failed to realize how much work goes into getting work. i wasn't available to read scripts, a project would start in july then got pushed to october, so three years passioned and i hadn't acted at all. i just missed it terribly. >> rose: that sounds like carrie, like she misses the cia. >> but it's interesting. >> rose: you missed acting. >> i did. i missed it a lot. and i just needed to do it again. and also, one of the aims, one of the intentions of going to school was to commit to acting as an adult, you know, i wanted to make sure that i wasn't just doing it out of habit or, you know, based on a decision i had made as a ten-year-old. i kind of needed to reevaluate and renew my vows so to speak. >> rose: your vows to the idea of being -- >> to being a performer. like is that really-- . my ambition always is to

work with creatively adventureous, expansive, like-minded people, to be working with writing material that makes me a little bigger, makes me understand the world a little better, a little more deeply. and you know, to be a ham and get paid for it. >> it's great, you know, yeah, that's-- and you know, have a life. and friendships that are intact and matter. and a relationship with my husband, that is rich and good. >> rose: here is what they say about you, that are you constantly doing lines with each other. >> we are, yes. >> rose: riding along. >> sometimes in the taxi i will be reading his lines, yeah, i am. with him when he's in some hotel room or something, we're always doing that. drills with each other. yeah. >> rose: when you look at

this success of this. >> uh-huh. >> rose: five years, it's not like a movie here that you do and then you go do another movie. this is a character that you have inhabited, you have shapd, you have been, is that acting at its best? >> it's really interesting. it's sort of like the 7-up series or boyhood, it really is an amazing project to grow up alongside a character in realtime. and i am finding it fascinating. and i-- i am fascinated that i still find it fascinating. that's pretty astonishing. >> rose: after five years. >> yeah, that it still feels-- . >> rose: vital to you. >> it still feels like i'm figuring it out, you know, i still have to crack it. and there's the danger of like falling in to old habits or that complacency. but alex and our show-runner and his team of writers,

they are always pushing the boundaries fourth for themselves. therefore, demanding that we actors follow suit, and do the same. >> rose: what are you figuring out that you have to crack? >> well, there is-- there's a new challenge every year. so last year it was how to grieve the loss of brody and to kind of decide if that was a true love or not. can she have a life and do this work? there's that. and then this year, i think it's, you know, it's kind of the opposite of that. but ultimately she's going to have to find a way to integrate her passion. >> rose: her new life with her passion. >> yeah. >> rose: . >> you know, who is carrie as a mother, you know. who is carrie-- .

>> rose: but she's putting her baby on a plane in episode three. >> yeah, she doesn't want to though. she's genuinely sad about it, and last season she was-- she was throwing her on the plane, please, please. >> rose: but is it because in the end it's such a love for her daughter that she doesn't want to put her at risk. >> that's right, yeah. it is the responsible choice. but it's-- i can't imagine a greater sacrifice, and how horrendous. >> rose: there's also this. the role of-- i mean you are the narrator for this. >> a very unreliable one. >> rose: that'sed way they describe it, unreliable narrator. >> yes. >> rose: and what do they mean by that. because -- >> she can't trust-- she can't even trust herself, yeah. you know her chemistry, her brain chemistry is such that, you know, she, she may be

responding to a kind of delusion or craziness, yeah, it makes it verying sighting. >> rose: does this resonate with you, the atlantic magazine says carrie a mentally and emotionally unstable, the narrative goes, but she's also extraordinary. although her brain chemistry thwarts her chances of lasting happiness, it gives her a broad streak of genius that makes her the country's most effective weapon in the fight against terror. >> uh-huh. >> rose: does that resonate? >> it doesment and i think that, you know, this-- i think brilliant leaders are maybe-- maybe they have to be a little eccentric. maybe they have to be free and forward thinking. and a little idiosyncratic. maybe they shouldn't fit into the-- . >> rose: there is some evidence of that when we look at some of the people that are in these places as we learn more about them. >> that's right. >> rose: but what have you learned about where your

relationship between bipolar and sort of brilliance? >> you think, yes, there's a lot of evidence that those two things are connected. you know, there are a lot of examples of really-- you know, genius minds. yeah. anyway. >> rose: here's what i'm struck by too. here we are in year five. >> uh-huh. >> rose: it seems to me that she is as fresh and as fascinating as she was in season one. it's just she is at a different plain. >> yeah. >> rose: season four was a transition. and now she's fully into the transition. >> yes. >> rose: yet being pulled back. >> right. >> rose: but as you talk about it, it is enormously exiling and fresh for you this is not you saying here we go with another season. >> no, exactly. i was being a little glub and facetious saying she's happy am but actually, what

does that mean for her. i really-- i've never experienced. >> rose: that is the question -- >> i have never experienced that before as her. you know, so what does that look like. i have to kind of, you know, yeah, lay that down, design it. so that's-- . >> rose: everybody always asks you this, i'm sure, but you must have thought about it, therefore. where is-- was's the relationship between carrie and qlar claire? >> what dow find in her that -- >> my stock jokey answer is we're both fake blonds, you know. i mean we are very different. i mean we are, the differences are more obvious than the similarities. we both love our work that sounds ridiculous. but you know, we both have this, you know, this gift of being deeply attractive to

our respective lines of work. although there is a lot of role playing. a lot of travel. >> and very into our world. but and i think i have a kind of linear focus in general. i can be quite driven. and i can be very hard on myself. >> really? >> and i think she's also those things too. so but and we're both pretty earnest. we both care a lot. like a little too much. >> rose: a little too much. >> yeah, yeah. and you know, what is so-- i love that she is such a protagonist and that she kind of drives the action forward. has's such a-- that's very, very unusual, to have that chance as a woman. >> rose: and to be that. >> to be that. to be the -- >> you're not that in real life, you drive your-- you can't do what you have done.

>> i don't-- . >> rose: without driving a life forward. >> no, that's true, that's true. thank you for saying that. but i meant really in most fiction out there, most projects, you know, it's really not the woman who-- . >> rose: an there this is really wonderful. >> yeah, it is. i cannot believe my luck. i cannot believe my luck that i have this much room to play. it's absurd. >> because it gives all the instinct in you as a human being as an acker an outlet that she is the way she is, and all that i feel, i can show. >> yeah, and i love that she gets to be powerful and assertive and courageous and truly vulnerable. because i think real vulnerability does require courage and we're a little bit confused about that in our culture. >> rose: i agree. explain more about that because i totally agree. >> i think that you know, there's a claire cry face,

that mean-- you know, i actually am very kind of flattered by that. because you know, i-- i get to be, to expose real ugly stuff, real stuff, you know, sometimes it's ugly. but i think it's just human and true. and there aren't aren't many outlets for it in pop culture. and here is one. and you know, i'm a professional feeler. i like the feelings. i'm for them. so i get to, you know, i get to do that here a whole lot. and also be d -- and also save the day, you know. >> does em pat-- empathy play anything for you. >> well, empathy is everything for me. that is what i do. i am an empath, right? and i get to-- i mean, i get to really understand what it is to be a different person

and see the world from a very, very different place. and that freedom is just thrilling, you know. and i discover that oh yes, we all are connected. we really are all connected. and you know, and it encourages a kind of tolerance, you know, that is beautiful, you know, and very reassuring for me personally, you know. >> have you ever had in your life not bipolar, not some diagnosed issue, but a sense that i'm a bit crazy? i'm a bit mad, i'm a bit-- i want to use the right term because people in the mental health world are very careful about -- >> of course. >> rose: understandably so. >> yeah. >> rose: about not using terms that stereotype what is a very real medical problem. >> absolutely. >> rose: but for you in a sense, you felt out of control or you felt -- >> of course.

i mean i think within-- yes, i think as a very young person, as a kid, i had a very unruley imagination. i had a big imaginationment and i think that took me sometimes to understand and harness. >> rose: harness is the right word. >> right. and i kind of, and true for most kids, brains are developings. but i really had to figure out how to differentiate the real from the unreal. >> rose: how did you do it, just -- >> practice. >> rose: practice. >> living. and has all of this stimulated in you an interest in spy craft and all-- beyond feeding your informational base to play the character, but just out of general interest? >> sure. >> rose: this world of intrigue and in terms of spying and who knows what, when, where. >> yeah. i'm just-- i'm still amazed that it actually exists, you know. and that there is this huge

yundz world, so to speak, and subculture that is aboveground, even. you can't see it. >> rose: i will tell you an interesting story talking about vladimir putin. there was an interesting story where he said i am awe sure this was a couch destay, he was accuse the cia. i say how do you know. he said i know, i have friends there, i have people there. do you think i stopped talking to those people? we know what you did. >> right. >> rose: this is real -- >> well, i think that work does engender a kind of paranoia. but you know, are you really paranoid that they are, in fact, after you. i mean i think it can be supported by facts, that suspicion. >> it is a very difficult state to be in, constantly. >> rose: i'm also interested in finally in this idea of what people are curious about, beyond me, someone who both loves and is interested in and does interviews in that world, love and is interested in acting an does interviews in that world, and knows you. but what are people curious

about with respect to this series for you. what is your feedback about carrie matheson. is it personal? is it what? >> well, i think that-- . >> rose: what shapes her. >> i think they care about her struggle, her personal struggle. they are-- . >> rose: her vulnerability, you know, that amazing kind of juxtaposition of vulnerability and power and strength. and i think that, you know, we-- we explore what it is to do this kind of work. and we understand the kind of sacrifice that patriots make. and how lonely an experience that can be. and you you know, these very isolated characters reach for each other, to forge some connection, i think that's very interesting and

exciting and moving. >> rose: thank you. >> uh-huh. >> rose: it's great to see you. >> nice to see you too. >> for more about this program and earlier episodes visit us on-line at pbs.org and charlie rose.com 78 captioning sponsored by rose communications captioned by media access group at wgbh access.wgbh.org

>> rose: funding for "charlie rose" has been provided by: american express. >> rose: additional funding provided by: >> and by bloomberg, a provider of multimedia news and information services worldwide.

♪ >> announcer: this is "nightly business report" with tyler mathisen and sue herera. by stake. an activist investor jumps into ge in order to revive the share price of one of the most widely owned stocks in mutual funds. deal reached. 12 nations, one controversial trade pact. and the impact on the u.s. economy could be massive. cost of convenience. why you're paying record amounts to withdraw your cash. all of that and more tonight on "nightly business report" for monday october 5th. good evening, everyone, and welcome. glad you could be with us on this rally monday. stocks started the week on a high note. the dow jones industrial average soared 304 points to 16,776. the nasdaq was up