>> rose: welcome to the program. we talk about politics again this evening with mike barnicle of msnbc and nick from the "new york times" and talk about mike pence. >> with mike pence, i think trump's gone with the safe and complimentary choice. not the choice that doubles down on his own attributes but the choice that contrasts with him. he is a temperamental inverse of trump. he's calm, mild-mannered in a lot of ways, an experienced executive, a long-time lawmaker and governor. so really he is the safer choice, i think, for trump who is looking to persuade people

he's not an outlier, not a viking coming in to destroy the place. >> rose: we continue this evening with a conversation i had with bryan stevenson almost a year ago about race in america. >> how are we going to recover from our history of racial injustice that has affected all of us and compromised our abilities to see one another fairly? i think that's the question we've never taken on. we've never tried to confront the legacy of slavery. >> rose: next we turn to iran and the nuclear deal which was signed a year ago. we talked to david sanger. karim sagapor and ray taki. >> i think of the nonproliferation box, the region box and the iran domestic box. as david alluded to earlier, it's been a success in the nonproliferation box but in both the geopolitical box and the iran investment box it's been more of a disappointment. many of iran's neighbors in the

region, particularly saudi arabia, israel, the smaller gulf countries say israel's long-standing behavior hasn't changed and they have more resources to double down on groups like hezbollah and shiite militias. in the iran election box last february, slightly changed the composition of the iranian parliament to slightly more modern actors. president rouhani is on its heels. the hard-line forces in iran are very much entrenched and i think the hope that the obama administration had this nuclear deal could moderate iran's regional or domestic practices hasn't been born out yet. >> rose: a movie called "the infiltrator." we talked to bryan cranston and brad furman and robert mazur

whose life the character is based on. >> it's an e-mail ga an amalgamn audience expects. when i read a story about a man who's fighting to deepkeep the goodness in him. > >> rose: funding for "charlie rose" has been provided by the following: >> 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.

>> rose: we begin this evening with politics again. donald trump is said to announce his vice presidential pick tomorrow morning here in new york. several indications point to indiana governor mike pence as his choice. the r.n.c. revealed thursday the speakers at next week's convention in cleveland. trump and clinton are locked in dead heat less than four months from election day according to the "new york times" poll. nick joins us from the "new york times." mike joins us, a contributor to msnbc and morning joe. pleased to have both of them. what do we make of this piece you wrote in the "new york times" today about support for trumper. >> mike pence is the safe

choice, the complementary choice. not the choice that doubles down on his attributes but contrasts with him. he's the ideological and temperamental inverse of trump. he's calm, mild-mannered in a lot of ways, experienced executive can, a long-time lawmaker and governor, so, really, he is the safer choice, i think, for trump who is looking to persuade people that he's not an outlier, not a viking, so to speak, coming in to destroy the place. >> rose: what do you know about this? >> all i know is mike pence has been on the morning joe program with us several times prior to his being governor of indiana, and i agree with nick. i think it's an effort to calm the waters within the republican party. >> rose: conservatives like him. >> conservatives like him but more importantly for donald trump i think the leadership of the republican party, he gives them some assurance it won't be completely crazy this fall. he is offbrand, though, from

trump. he's pretty boring. >> rose: but also i guess it appears that it's suggested to the republican leadership that he understands it and will follow his own instincts but they have someone they feel reflects their -- >> someone they can call (laughter) >> rose: i want to be in the room, i want to be in the room, right? so he puts them in the room. is that right? >> yeah, i think absolutely. this is a guy who has ties into the big donor networks. he's beloved by the koch world, david and charles koch's networks. he' also beloved by the club for growth i think and close to some of their leadership and donors, plus he has a record of accomplishment in indiana that i think a lot of conservative are comfortable with and, of course, he finally is an evangelical, speaks openly about his faith and i think he is a contrast to trump for a party for whom social issues and faith are

really, really important. >> rose: let's talk about the piece today in the "new york times" in which you talk about donald trump and his connection to white america. >> well, you know, i was curious when i started this piece. you know, for all that we had read about donald trump's rhetoric and attacks on illegal immigration, attacks on the judge for being of mexican descent, people from europe coming in, i was curious how did this impact the conversation a bit further away from politics and everyday life, and i found it was pretty profound that trump has sort of been a catalyst for a bunch of ingredients that were swirling around the country, the sense of war in the middle east, of some fear at the competent activism of "black lives matter," of the real impact of illegal immigration on a lot of communities, overcrowding,

stressing services, language, culture, he's categorized the fears and give enthem a language they can speak, a language as simple as affiliating with trump or saying his name, the rallying cry. >> rose: trump allow the disaffected to vent feelings usually unspoken, and i assume by that you mean usually unspoken by national leaders. >> that's correct. i mean, i think that, you know, he, charlie, has done things in public as a candidate for a major party nomination that no one else has. i'll give you an example, and obviously people have been struck by the way these marginal figures on the far right, you know, i can't even call them conservatives, these are kind of white nationalists, anti-semites, david duke, people like him have said you should vote for trump.

the politician who were unlucky enough to get one of these endorsements, the game is clear, instantly you say i don't want anything to do with the person. trump plays it differently. he says, look, people are angry. when you talk to people, david duke or the white nationalists your audience haven't heard of that i spend time talking to, what they say is trump has spoken to them in their language, it is the best and most they ever hoped for out of a mainstream politician and trump is introducing a mainstream audience to their ideas about immigrants, people of color as vectors of disorder, disease and social decay, they are hearing him speak their language. >> rose: it is also a factor, mic, the fact that they believe he is because of his constant boasting of all the things he can do because he was a television star on a reality television program that somehow he knows how to deal with all

the people that they think -- i hate to use the word they -- but the people we're talking about who are supporting trump feel they have contempt for them. >> many of the trump supporters and voters, nick's piece is an important piece. the first thing it does, clearly, not everyone who supports or wants to vote for donald trump is a by got or a racist, but there is -- words are weapons -- >> rose: in fact, not all agree with him but somehow in this election season, think they they want to try something. >> but words are weapons and donald trump's words are sometimes used as weapons and his body language is sometimes a weapon. as nick pointed out, he can give a silent acquiescence and get away with it to, you know, the worst elements of our culture, the worst elements of our politics, but people, a lot of

the people that nick has written about who aspire to have more than they have now and are listening to donald trump, they know that over the last 15 or 20 years and in some cases much longer than that, the system has not worked for them. no institutions have worked for them. they've lost jobs. they've lost a piece of their -- their familiar existences, their towns shrink, cities shrink, their neighborhoods shrink and change. some of them in addition to losing jobs perhaps have lost children within a 15, 16-year-old war, and they have all of. this they have a list of grievances that trump in his own way managed to address in different ways. >> rose: why do you think hillary has not been able to or has she? >> i don't think she has. i think a lot of people, it's mystifying, charlie. hillary clinton, an accomplished woman, first lady of this

country for eight years, first lady of arkansas prior to that, united states senator, secretary of state, she's been on the landscape now for 40 years, 30 years quite publicly, national scene, and the number of people who don't know who she is, who are you at your core, is stunning. >> as you were saying, it's her resume, i think, that's part of the problem. i think a lot of these folks view her as part of the broken promises, part of the political structure and establishment, part of the powers that be that have hurt them and taken away parts of their lives that they cher rkd that worked against their economic and social interests for years. you know, for the same reasons that mike listed, her lengthy tenure in politics, she and her husband are the first family of democratic politics. they are among the most established, wealthy and powerful people in america. i'm not at all surprised that

people who have gotten the short end of the stick in this country are skeptical of her as a person who can change. >> rose: but why aren't they skeptical of donald trump? >> that's the mystery, right? i think the reason is he is totally unlike every other politician, and we've had that conversation before. >> rose: yes, we have. he changes the game in a sense he doesn't talk like them herksdz pt make the same kinds of promises, and in the case of my story, he doesn't play into i would say the kind of notions of civility and gentle speech around race that politicians are supposed to talk to, and i think there is a certain segment of the population for whom that's refreshing, they feel like he says it like it, is like they are experiencing it, and if they are feeling resentment directed at certain groups, if they fear muslims, if they fear sharia law in their community, that gossip or rumor or feel they have been

hurt by immigration, he taps into that in a real way. >> donald trump has the language of a neighborhood, no matter what neighborhood you live in or grievances you carry, he physically and verbally conducts himself as he's part of your neighborhood and people buy it, believe it and he sells it. he's a master marketer. i've never seen someone sell his brand the way he has sold his brand. he was speaking in a valley a couple of weeks ago about jobs and linking it to immigration, that so many people lost jobs because to have the flow of immigration, yet 25 to 30 miles south of where he was speaking you have pittsburgh, pennsylvania, where technology has taken more jobs than immigration ever has, and, you know, he never gets to that link. but what he's telling, people are buying. >> rose: because he can blame immigration on somebody else as well. >> right.

look, i've had lot of criticm from some readers on this story. they're saying everything he says is racist, but i've got to say, when you watch a recording of a room or a basketball court full of white students, kids, shouting trump, trump, trump, at a winning team of black and his hispanic kids, it says to me they understand the language spoken, figured it out and trump's name, for better or worse, has become a stand inn for a concern kind of hostility. >> there is a disjuncture about race and opportunity in this country and fascinating social science on this. there are large numbers of white people who believe for the most part incorrectly that blacks make as much money as white people, that their health outcomes are as good, which is

all incorrect, but they have come to believe whatever racial problems were in the country have been solved and according to the research more and more whites believe further progress for black people is coming at their expense, and it's a powerful alternate reality. you can see in the research that they think that the obama administration was essentially a prolonged affirmative action for people of color, for minorities, that his policies were full of racial significance when they weren't. but that is powerful to have people see this campaign and what he wants to return to. >> trump spent verbal energy talking about the the rigged system. part of the system has been rigged for decades and i first saw it beginning with school busing in boston where you had poor blacks and poor whites basically being told, okay, now you're going to be able to fight for the same small incremental

share of the educational and economic pie. let's see who wins. and there is a distance, a remove by the politicians who implemented those policies, by everyone who signed off on those policies. >> rose: thank you. thank you. >> rose: great to have you on. we'll be right back. >> rose: president obama held a town hall meeting in washington this evening on race relations and policing. he fielded questions from law enforcement and community leaders to promote greater understanding. this evening, we look back at parts of a conversation i had with bryan stevenson about race and justice in august of last year. bryan stevenson is founder and executive director of the equal justice initiative. tell me what it is you think is the most important question for this country as it considers race injustice. >> race injustice, how are we

going to recover from our legacy of racial inequality, this history of racial injustice that has infected all of us, that has comcompromised all our abilitieo see one another fairly? i think that's really the question bev never taken on. we've never tried to confront the legacy of slavery. i think we need to talk about slavery. i don't think we ever dealt with tht legacy. slavery wiz something that was really horrific in this country. for me the great evil of american slavery wasn't forced labor, the great evil of american slavery was the narrative of racial difference we created to legit mate it, the ideology of white supremacy and that consciousness, that narrative was never addressed by the 13th amendment and that's why i argue slavery didn't end in 1865, it evolved. >> rose: and exists in the

minds by what we think about the questions of race and color. >> i think there is a presumptuousness of race, we lynched people in the first half of the 21st century because of presumption of dangerousness and guilt and we separated ourselves and we still do. now on the streets, when people see young men of color, there is this presumption that they are dangerous or guilty and in the criminal croom you se -- the crl courtroom you see it all the time. i think we need reconciliation in america. >> rose:? i think we should reflect on the damage done. day one, row is a parks didn't give up her seat, day two dr. king led a march on

washington and day three we changed the laws and everybody gets to celebrate. >> rose: one year passed six six world powers reached a historical nuclear deal with iran. secretary of state john kerry said iran lived up to its expectations while challenges remain. tehran launched missile tests, and for its part iran complained it has yet to see economic relief it was promised. i am pleased to have you here on this program. david sanger, who had a front page story on the "new york times," a year later a mixed record for the iran accord, solid progress on core nuclear provisions but little more. let's begin talking about the nuclear provisions.

david? >> charlie, within the four corners of the agreement in which iran agreed to dismantle a large number of centrifuges while keeping some running in which it agreed to ship out about 98% of its fuel, in wit agreed to neutralize a big plutonium reactor, they have done everything they said they'd do. if you think back a year ago, you had members of congress, particularly opponents of the deal, and prime minister benjamin netanyahu of israel saying the iranians will never comply with the things they signed up for and the answer is they've complied with all of them. but the problem now is outside that range of the deal. they took advantage of wording they got negotiated in to change u.n. revolutions so they are now conducted these missile tests and nobody believes the u.n.

will step in their way because the u.n. only calls upon them to show restraint, doesn't prohibit them. they are continuing their support of hezbollah and, of course, of the syrian president bashar al-assad, they were doing that before and are doing it more intensely now. so the opposition that you're hearing to the deal here in washington is all about the other things that iran is doing, and you're hearing candidates including donald trump who said to me in the interview i did with maggie haberman back in march, there was a terrible deal. in his next sentence, he says, and it's even worse because european companies are getting all the benefits from it. now boeing is getting a big recorder and congress is trying to step in to stop that. there is a lot of disagreement among the opponents of the deal in washington even among republican opponents about how one would throw a monkey wrench into the works here on sanctions

relief. >> rose: one aspect of this was it was supposed to widen the breakout period. has it done that? you would seem to think so if they had done some of the provisions of the deal. >> the breakout period was supposed to be extended to one year. there's some question about whether it's six months to seven months, but breakout period was always a sort of an unusual measure, simply because iran was unlikely to break out in terms of its declared installations. the threat of breaking out is whether they would have a surreptitious installation in the technologies they mastered in the safeguarded installations would be misused for that purpose. so that threat is still there, even though this deal has some verification regimes that are more exacting. i would say that in terms of the deal itself, david mentioned adhering to an agreement. this was always a deficient deal from a technological perspective. it had sunset clauses. it allowed r.&d. schedule

research and development, it allowed iran to do a great many things. in that sense, it was an advantageous deal. if you have a contract you like or mortgage you prefer how you would you adhere to it. >> rose: how would you respond to a general from israel that david quoted "even israel's top military officers said he was expressed. the deal removed the most serious danger to israel's existence for the foreseeable future ." isn't that for a country and prime minister who fought as hard as anyone to stop this deal including a speech to the congress suggest that the deal has not turned out to be what he feared most? >> well, the the general and others have to suggest the fact that in about seven years now this deal will sanction iran to begin to install high velocity

centrifuges. in about ten years it adds much more to it. the danger that the general feared is coming, delayed but coming and, at that time, iran will likely to have a robust expensive nuclear program that will not be subject to sanctions or any other measure because it's legally within their right to have that. >> rose: and the administration knew when it negotiated that it was providing for that possibility? >> well, h this deal has an expiration clause in it, a series of expiration cause. in that sense they not only understood that but that down the horizon this deal is to envision iran have an expansion, legitimized sanctioned nuclear program of industrial scale. >> rose: one aspect of this was the idea that somehow there was the belief not expressed but there was the belief that somehow there may be some moderation. is the united states doing anything to moderate their

behavior? >> charlie, i think about the nuclear deal in three different boxes, the nonproliferation box, the regional box and the iran domestic box. i think as david alluded to earlier it's been a success in the nonproliferation box but in the geopolitical and iran domestic box it's been more of a disappointment. many of iran's neighbors in the region, particularly saudi arabia, israel, the smaller gulf countries, say that iran's long-standing regional behavior hasn't changed at all and in fact they now have more resources to double down on groups like hezbollah and shiite militias in iraq and yemen, and in the iran domestic box we saw elections last february in iran which very slightly changed the composition of the iranian parliament to slightly more moderate actors, but president rouhani really is on his heels, the hard line forces in iran are still very much entrenched, and so i think that hope that the obama administration had that

this nuclear deal could moderate iran's regional policies or domestic practices hasn't been borne out yet. >> rose: so, david, was the deal worth it? >> well, charlie, within the confines of what they were trying to attempt, i think it was worth it because it has put off what i think was a fairly imminent confrontation, and i don't think the israelis were bluffing when they said at some moment they would probably have to take military action. they came up to the edge of it two or three times during the obama administration. the fact that no one is out there right now talking about an imminent conflict is good. on the other hand, as ray points out, this deal has got time limits in it and those time limits are shorter than what the administration wanted. >> rose: ray, in terms of the missile development taking place and changing the language at "the nations," what are they

developing and how dangerous is it? >> well, iran is developing long range missiles. the purpose of those missiles is to carry unconventional pay load which is basically nuclear arms in some respects, and this has always been an aspect of this deal that has been curious because a nuclear program produces weapons but also produce as means of delivering those weapons, and this agreement essentially excluded means of delivery from consideration which was also unusual and iran relies on missiles for defense purposes, ships them to hezbollah and others, but the concern is the intercontinental missiles for which there is no legitimate defense purpose other than carrying an unconventional pay load. >> rose: so back to the ten years when this has a sunset clause, that will be the test? in other words, i'm asking, you can't really say this deal has or has not worked until ten years out. >> that's right, charlie. but there are some early interesting markers.

so, you know, this is the one-year anniversary. so we are doing a first assessment. you know, we've discussed that first pass working within the nuclear side but not in many of the other areas. i think the next test is going to be what happens within iran if they don't see more of the economic benefits that they expected? now, i think they overexpected the economic benefits. you hear a lot of people say that there would be $150 billion of their assets unfrozen. the treasury department believes it's about $50 billion. but when you ask the questions of u.s. officials, so how much of those funds have actually been transferred back into iran or made use by iran outside of the country, they won't answer, and they won't answer, charlie, because the number is so low that they're afraid that it's going to worsen the politics of this for president rouhani and for the foreign minister who negotiated the deal. so you've seen the secretary of

state john kerry in the odd position of going out, urging european bankers to do more to open up their relationships with iran, because he knows that if the basis of support for this deal erodes in the next year or two in iran, then the whole thing could fall apart much more quickly than that schedule that we've discussed. so that will be the next marker. the third marker is what do you do if the i.r.g.c. and the next supreme leaders say at year eight and 15, it's full speed ahead. we're just going to go by the letter of the law here and build a full nuclear program and at that point you could be back where we were this year but that's a ways away. >> rose: the president said he'll reinstitute sanctions which is in your opinion harder to do the second time around. >> and the rest of the world moved away from the sanctions quickly. the only impediment to

investment in iran right now has been fear of u.s.-continued sanctions against a company or bank that broke the rules, and the iranians own antiquated banking system and ant acquainted company that has made many companies fear the risk of going into iran now even after a deal. >> rose: so what would have to happen to change iranian behavior? >> well, i'm skeptical that iran's fundamental behavior will really change until there is a different supreme leader. this current supreme leader is 77 years old, and i would argue he really fears reproachment with the united states more than he fears continued, contained confrontation, and i have to say i'm not as perhaps optimistic as david and ray that the nuclear deal will reach its tenth year because i think one of the

fundamental sources of contention about the deal is whether additional sanctions from the united states would constitute a violation of the deal, and the obama administration has been reluctant to react against iran's missile tests, regional provocations because they don't want to jeopardize main foreign legacy, but i can see a scenario wrb a year two, years from now, iran did something provocative in the region whether that's go after the u.s. forces, whether human rights abuses at home, more missile testing, acts against israel, and the next u.s. president and the next u.s. congress react by passing new sanctions against iran, and iran's supreme leader reacts by saying you just violated your end of the deal because we said any additional sanctions whether nuclear related or nonnuclear related are an abrogation of the deal and they said if the united states violates its end of the

deal, iran will reconstitute its nuclear activity, so i can see a scenario whereby two years from now the deal starts town ravel and we get into an escalatory situation and i would argue since the hostage crisis of 1979, iranian hard liners have tried to to promote external crises for internal political expediency. >> a very important point he made, during last year when john kerry was discussing and selling this deal to the hill and the public at large he promised as the administration did that the united states would remain vigilant on terrorism and issues of human rights and issue sanctions against iran if it violated obligations in terms of terrorism and human rights and other international conventions. so the idea of sanctioning iran for its malign behavior, they like to call it, has been something that the administration conceded to.

as we speak, there are 35 pieces of legislation on the hill that are designed to sanction iran, most importantly one was introduced today by senator corker and the bipartisan bill in the senate that sanctions iran's revolutionary guards for terrorism and regional aggression. so this idea of introducing sanctions to deal with other aspects of iran's behavior is something that the administration itself pledged. i agree they haven't followed through, but i can see other congresses, other administrations, other presidents actually following through and trying to impose some coercive pressure against iran as it becomes much more aggressive in the region and i can imagine an abuse of his own citizens at home. >> rose: thank you. thank you, charlie. >> rose: we'll be right back. stay with us. >> rose: in 1984 dade county

florida was the murder capital to have united states. a large part of the violence directly related to the escalating drug war and pablo escobar's medelliín cartel taskd with bringing down the network was federal agent robert mazur, his five years spent undercover for the u.s. customs, he is the subject of a new film called "the interview." here is the trailer. >> here's what i do. i'm an undercover narcotics agents. i sit with murders and made men and i lie. i lie my a ass off. >> washington wants the biggest bust in history, pablo escobar, and his main distributor alberto. >> i think we have been doing this backwards. we have been following the drugs to get the bad guys.

what if we chase the money. >> we need to find new undercover identities. >> look at this, ball coney. do the math, i would be 77 years old. >> that's about right, leathery and scraggly. >> there we go, bob mosella. welcome to a life of crime. let's do this. welcome to the united states. these men launder money for the cartel. >> i need a face-to-face with your boss. >> it was an audition, you got the part. >> so mr. musella, what can you do for me? >> she's my present for you tonight, mr. bob. >> i'm engaged. so? are you kidding me? fianceé, bob? >> meet your soon to be wife, kathy, bob, i wish you many happy years. >> damn, i need a fianceé! have you ever had your palm read?

destiny has marked you. >> you know who is the biggest money landerrer in the u.s.? >> i thought it was me. they will make you die for days. >> i do not do business under threat. >> unfortunately you are not in a position to dictate terms to pablo. >> he's a cop! one wrong move and we're dead. >> in my business, there is no loyalty that never ends well. >> are you in danger from pablo escobar? >> we have a chance to take them all down. >> rose: joining me is the star of the film bryan cranston, director brad furman and robert

mazur. mr. mazur's identity is hidden for security reasons. what is it about you, sir, with drugs and businesses? >> i just want to follow the well written word. when i received this script written by brad furman's mother, ellen furman, it was so compelling, not just this fantastic plot which is true and brought down the seventh largest bank in the world at the time, but also how this man reconciles living that dirty life during the day and then going home and being the husband and the father and helping his kids with homework and taking out the trash and doing fatherly, mon day chores and things, how does he deal with that? that's what really drew me to the show. >> how do you do it? well, i was lucky. i was very fortunate. i was trained to do this type of work and got trained through an undercover school that had a lot of former undercover agents who shared their experiences with me, psychologists involved in it, then i had leadership within

the agency that allowed me to spend 18 months putting together a sophisticated front which was my shield that i could deal with it. so that gave me confidence to deal in my long-term undercover role, so the team really pulled together. >> rose: what's the cardinal rule for an undercover agent? >> well, so the psychologists tell me, they're looking for people who kind of have a black and white, not a big grey area in between for interpretation, an on and off switch. because if you rationalize right from wrong, this long journey of years of a double life can begin to go down a slippery slope. so i think that's one of the things they look for. >> rose: to always have a sense of right and wrong. >> yeah and not have the big rationalization area where you can somehow cause yourself to slip and maybe begin to become a victim of stockholm syndrome and find yourself gravitating toward -- >> rose: did you find people within the story that you had some admiration for? >> i wouldn't say admiration, but i would say just like any

human being, when you deal with someone on multiple levels, because i got to see them not just as a bad guy but as a father and as a husband, as a businessman. not everyone is bad to the core, and, so, when you know all those multiple levels and ultimately come to the conclusion can of this where people get arrested, i think you tend to recognize that there are innocent people within their family who will suffer as well. so in that regard, i had sympathy. >> rose: how did you find property? just outthere in the public space? >> it's a property that was, i think, debated over and people were fighting for it for a long time. tom cruz, brad pitt, then mark cuban optioned it, then they developed it unsuccessfully and i think bob wasn't very happy with what occurred and it just sat. >> rose: did you have a veto over the project? >> the rights came back to me for a very short period of time when don contacted me. >> my dear friend from n.y.u.

found the book on the shelf and said we have to make the movie. i had a fascination and love for the space and upon reading it, i completely agree bob represented the true american hero and felt it was a story that needed to be told. >> rose: this guy was in your film lincoln's lawyer. >> he was. and you still hired me for the show. you don't learn your lesson. >> rose: your first and only choice? >> yes, actually, at the time that i originally -- i don't think we ever spoke about it. i like being very frank in my interviews. international was driving how we finance movies today and bryan at the time on breaking bad didn't appear to have enough "international value see so over two years they were forcing me to look at some other actors and wasn't working tore me, it was a very regardous process.

i we want to him and i remember sitting at a place here in new york city off times square after a business meeting we had, i said, i don't care about the money, i want to make it work. in the two-year span, the wildfire caught on of breaking bad and picked up internationally. >> rose: you thought he was the right man because -- >> what i've learned about the cornerstone of acting is the trust wean the director and the actor. what i saw with bryan, the little work he did, the gravidas of the lawyer, he's a tremendous leader. his moral and ethical compass as an individual is so rare especially in hollywood, and he's such a special human being. and when you have all those qualities as a person and we have this bond of trust and friendship and he's a producer, he's a filmmaker, he's an artist, he's an actor, when you have someone with all those qualities in the acting, i knew

you had to invest in the moral compass of bob and i knew bryan would invoke that for an audience. >> rose: beyond the story of adventure, drugs, following the money and all of that, you see it's a film and friendship and betrayal. >> it is, to an extent. if bob mazur is doing his job well, it means he is garnering trust from the cartel or whomever he's infiltrating, getting them to trust him implightsly and, in that, there is a lot of social interaction, he has to dine with them, socialize with them, and drink with them, party with them, get to know their wives and their families, and, you know, intellectually, i think you can justify what you're doing -- this is the job, what i'm sworn to do, the right thing to do for society, to take down a known criminal. i wonder, though, emotionally, are we always connected to our

bodies? are our bodies, our hearts, in other words, saying, i like this man, i really like his wife, his kids are nice, and how do you reconcile those two? so if bob is doing his job right, at the end of the two and a half year operation, he has to then reveal himself to be not who he says he is. he then has to have his friend, his acquaintance arrested and then do the best he can to send that person to prison. what other job requires you to do such a thing? so i think it's fascinating on that element, and on the element of the du duality he had to live abeing a family member and crooked partner. >> you're undercover, you've got to do whatever you have to do

man. you should have (bleep) that stripper, do a line of coke, anything you have to stay alive. i can't believe i have to talk you into this. i know these peernlings you have to play with them, drink with them, (bleep) with them. that's how you get their trust. >> i'm alive, aren't i? you're a piece of work, bob, you're a (bleep) piece of work. why are you doing this, presidenbob, whydo you bother? you guys could be playing critic on a yacht or whatever white people do when they retire. >> why are you doing this? because i love (bleep). that's why. it's my (bleep) drug of choice and nobody does it better than me. so listen to me sometimes, will you? >> rose: he can walk in a room, i need a lot of preparation, as bryan says, i'm o.c.d., i constantly dot the is, cross the ts, but emir

can can take it over with his aura. he's a very believable guy. >> john johjohn is that guy, to. he has a quick wit and can win over people with his spontaneity and brevity. it's amazing. >> rose: your moth wror this? yes. it garners a laugh. no question about it. >> rose: well, tell me about your mother. >> she always dreamed of being a writer, but that is something that isn't always realistic with people, particularly choices of careers. when she left law behind, she pursued screen writing, won a "time" literary award and when we were interviewing someone for the job, we couldn't find someone that we needed to evoke this type of screenplay. in the place of johnny brosco

and joe pistone, we knew we didn't want to be in that territory, and i think my mom, on the male subject matter, the education, years of life experience, the law experience, herbeing a mother and a family person, all of these elements, i think brought a really unique perspective i have to the material so when we actually wanted to hire her, politically don who brought me the book said we'll never get her approved. fortunately our producer was amazing and recognizing my mom was the best writer for the job and we got her hired so it was a real blessing. >> rose: a clip with you and your partner. here it is. >> you are disrespectful. balcony, as italian sounding name as ever. >> i would be 77 years old. about right, leathery and scraggly. >> let's go. are you even looking.

>> yeah. here we go. bob mocella. dates are perfect. >> what about this one? dominguez. >> close enough to emir i suppose. >> yeah, kind of sexy. the dates work. sexy? >> yeah. who the hell cares if it's sexy. >> i care. it's my name. i want it to have a sexy name. >> rose: there you go. we stole that scene. it was in the script, but this was a for tight scheduled and difficult shoot. it was on the chopping block. brad and i said, we've got to get this scene. on weekend when we weren't working, we said let's just get the cameras, get a van. we had cooperation with -- we did our own hair and we just went out, no permits, and found this cemetery and we just said

unload quietly, and set up the camera, come on! and there was a maintenance worker coming in and we were this close to being booted out. >> rose: anything they didn't get that you wanted them to get that you wanted them to capture because it's your life? >> well, it's such a challenge for them to be able to put 384 pages in, but you think that the bank aspect of it always intrigued me and the international banking communities involvement and i think brad captured hat in its shell, the most important essence of it, where it was if quid pro quo of more deposits and i'll scratch your back and do what it is that you want to do, which is unfortunately something that is attractive. >> rose: give me the money, i'll take care of you. >> what did you learn about the war on drugs? sounds good but it's incredible. eth like saying we're going to stop prostitution, that the it. i don't think it's ever going to be able to be stopped. you can't let that enormity stop

you from performing your duty as a law enforcement officer or as a citizen, and the nobility that bob showed was to do just that and, despite personal threats and danger, he persevered and became the most effective operation of its day to this day. i think it was, like, 85 arrests made on that day, and -- >> rose: is there a live contract on your life? >> i wish i knew there was a place to go check that list. but i don't think that there is it's a totally different experience for me. i know these people. i lived with these things. so i have a different perspective of it than someone who gets the opportunity to play it for a while and go to something else. >> rose: do you miss this

life? >> no. you know what i miss -- and i've told this to a bunch of people -- my heroin in this was getting information nobody else could get, to have four or five conversations that led to the easier of more than a ton of cocaine in downtown manhattan in a warehouse, to a person who's part of public service who wants to be a part of making a difference, to me, the energy, the high i would get from that was mesmerizing and i now recognize -- i came to this conclusion and not saying it's a good one that i climbed through this portal of the real world into the underworld at a level i thought no other undercover agent would get, so i wanted to use 24-7, every second as i could to get as much information as i could because i knew the portal would be closing in a particularly time. in hindsight, i probably took a few more risks in the last couple of months that earlier on i may not have only because i was chasing that high. >> rose: how far up in the

bank's executives did the criminality go? >> right to the board. i dealt with board members who we have on tape who admitted to the fact that they knew it was drug money and that, you know, they had a plan to be able to handle it. i think they were interested in handling money, seeking secrecy from government. didn't matter if it came from terrorists, or people pilfering or drug traffic, they had plan to be able to handle it. i wish i could say they're the only bank that's ever done that but i can't. >> rose: has it change at all? there's 400 billion a year according to "the nations" on drugs and crime generated from the sale of illegal drugs. >> rose: $400 billion. that's what "the nations" "the d nations said. >> rose: that kind of money will always do it.

>> i think so. >> rose: what's next for you, sir? >> i was thinking the enormity of it all. >> we thought bob's story was a weird small dent in a big picture nobody knew of. so the awareness of just telling the story, if you're left with something, you're going to do your due diligence and just creating awareness hopefully can create change. >> rose: at the end, pablo escobar got his. but how good was he? what was his reputation within the cartels? >> well, you know, he got his four or five years later. and i was dealing with people who reported to him. obviously, the cartels violence during that time frame was extreme. >> rose: hasn't changed. yeah, and the mexican cartels show they're capable. >> rose: did that happen

because the cartels in colombia and medelliín were taken down. >> there was a business change in the cartel because of the reenactment of capabilities to the u.s. they decided to sell wholesale to the cart elts and let them do the dirty work of bringing it into america so it was more of a business plan than blocking them from doing anything else. >> rose: pretty smart. i think what's fascinating is our government shut bob down because as he dug deeper into peeling back the layers of the onion he realized how rotten things were within our own government and the corruption there. >> rose: this is the kind of character you like to play, a complex character, a character on the edge, a character who makes his own sense of danger. >> or finds himself in the middle of danger, you know. but duty-bound, a cause to fight

for. >> rose: conflicted. conflicted. i think it's a more honest amal gum of personalities that a more sophisticated audience expects and demands to see and moves me when i read a novel or a story about someone not just all good but fighting and struggling to keep the goodness in him and whether that's president johnson or dalton or bob mazur. >> rose: "the interview" opens july 13. for more about this program and earlier episodes, visit us online at pbs.org and charlierose.com. captioning sponsored by rose communications captioned by

media access group at wgbh access.wgbh.org >> rose: funding for "charlie rose" has been provided by: >> and by bloomberg, a provider of multimedia news and information services worldwide. >> rose: on the next charlie rose, a conversation with john meacham. meacham. join us.

man: it's like holy mother of comfort food.ion. woman: throw it down. it's noodle crack. patel: you have to be ready for the heart attack on a platter. crowell: okay, i'm the bacon guy. man: oh, i just did a jig every time i dipped into it. man #2: it just completely blew my mind. woman: it felt like i had a mouthful of raw vegetables and dry dough. sbrocco: oh, please. i want the dessert first! [ laughs ] i told him he had to wait.