tv Charlie Rose Bloomberg January 25, 2016 7:00pm-8:01pm EST
♪ >> from our studios in new york city, this is "charlie rose." steven avery was wrongly convicted of sexual assault and attempted murder in 1985. he served 18 years and a wisconsin state prison before he was exonerated by dna evidence in 2003. in 2005, shortly after filing a lawsuit against the county that wrongly convicted him. avery became the prime suspect in the murder of teresa hall buck. a new network's documentary chronicles his prosecution and eventual conviction, it is called, "making a murderer."
new york times calls it an, compulsive, unpredictable. here is the trailer from "making a murderer." steven avery spent 18 years in prison for something he did not do. >> 18 years. >> 18 years. >> dna came through indicating that he had not committed the crime. >> law enforcement officers realize that they had screwed up big time. >> we were getting ready to bring a lawsuit of $36 million to manitowoc county itself. and the sheriff and the da would be on the hook for those damages. >> they are not heading that kind of money over to steven avery. i told them to be careful, they are not even close to being finished with you. >> do we have a body or anything yet? >> we have steven avery in custody though? >> his dna was found in the vehicle. >> what you want to say today? is convicted, he will spend the rest of his life in prison. >> we found a key that was
scrapped in dna. >> it is really strange. >> what is going on here? >> her last out for the day was at steven avery's home. >> if he did this -- [indiscernible] everything i have heard him say has not been the truth. >> 20 years ago. we are going through it now again. you're probably the most dangerous individual ever to set foot in his courtroom. >> the truth always comes out. ♪ joining me are the directors of making a murderer. i am pleased to have them at this table. for the first time. >> thank you, charlie. charlie: how did the start for both of you? >> back in november of 2005 the graduate film students at columbia diversity of the arts.
steven avery appeared on the front page of the new york times and the headline read, save by dna, now charged a new crime. steven as this potentially unique window into the system, as somebody who had been failed by the system in 1985. he now found himself back in a 20 years later. charlie: when you look at it and looked at his conviction for the second time, -- >> he had really just been charged. h. the murder of teresa halbac as laura said, this idea that this man who had been failed so terribly by the system, and really felt for 18 years, there had been opportunities for the system to correct itself, and it had in. now, he was stepping back in, 20 years later. in that 20 years, there had been advances in dna, there had been legislative reforms. a lot of talk that wrongful convictions do not happen anymore.
this was a thing of the past. we do not have dna back then. it was an opportunity to sort of test that theory. so, at that point, we decided to go into production and we went to wisconsin and move there and then documented this new case, the teresa murder case as it unfolded. this series sort of gives you this opportunity to use what we like as 2020 hindsight, it is very easy to look back at something. charlie: a couple things about it. it is so interesting. when you went to make the film, did you have a deal with netflix to do that? >> no, actually not. it was the two of us, corralling some family and friends. it was also funded. charlie: why do you think everybody is talking about this. what is it about this that we have not set already that makes it so compelling? >> i think for the most part, people understand that the criminal justice system is not
perfect. but, i think what this series really demonstrates is, what happens when it goes wrong. the cases in this series are really a stark illustration of that. one of the major characters in the series, was pulled into the system and became a codefendant with stephen and the halbach case, and he was 16 years old at the time an incredibly limited. his iq was in the range of 67-73. this was an individual who was interrogated alone by the investigators, and just really out of his depth. he had no prior experience with law enforcement. i think that is one of the most troubling aspects of this story and we hear quite a bit about that from people who of watch. charlie: do you to differ over any aspect of this in terms of how you read it? >> i think after a decade of
really working hand-in-hand, i think we see it -- i think we recognize different things as they were experiencing it, but going through that experience and then going through all of the footage and doing additional research and digging through primary source materials, i think we ended up in the same place. charlie: do you think steven avery killed theresa? >> i don't have a way of answering that because i have so many unanswered questions. that despite this being the largest criminal investigation in wisconsin history apparently i'm still left with so many unanswered questions. charlie: you just don't know. there are some any unanswered questions. how do you answer those questions? moira: also, i don't think the system is designed to deliver certainty. one of the major takeaways, for me, with respect to our process
was, part of our inquiry was to what extent can the system deliver on its promises of truth and justice. i really came away from this process thinking that the system can do a better job of delivering truth. -- i'm sorry, justice, which is a process. charlie: sanchez? -- van truth? laura: that's right. there is so much ambiguity in these matters. there's a many ingredients that go into the investigation and prosecution of a case. one of the things he really wanted to do for our viewers was to document the pre-trial proceedings. what came before the trial stage , so that viewers can understand what basic rights defense attorneys are fighting for at that point. significant decisions that the judges are making which
determine what types of evidence the jury even gets to hear. we have been criticized recently for not including all evidence in the series. that, thisd say to is a documentary, it is not playing out in real time. of course, we have to make editorial choices about the types of evidence get put in. even the jury, and a criminal case, does not hear all of the evidence that either side would like to offer because the judges are making decisions at the pre-trial stage about what types of evidence is reliable, what might tend to prejudice the jury. charlie: the 2007 trial lasted how long? laura: just over five weeks. stevens trial. charlie: 200 hours. laura: something around that. charlie: you have to decide what to include and what to exclude? here is trial in our series that takes over three hours. that includes press conference as an out-of-court scene. not even 3rs of courtroom
footage. charlie: what is the biggest question that you have now? having gone through all this? sensation, talked about? moira: a major question i come away with is to what extent are we as a society going to step up and try to -- charlie: that's what i thought you would say. what it will take to change the system. laura: a big part of that is trained to recognize and injustice as it is happening. and to try to interrupt that. because, if we do not do that, and if it leads to a wrongful conviction, that also necessarily leads to a wrongful acquittal. which means, an innocent person is being locked away while the guilty person is left free. we see that in the first episode with steven avery and greg reality. who went on to attack women for 10 years while steven avery was imprisoned serving gregory
allen's term. is,a: my biggest question how can we come together on this? because, i see a lot of talk and response to this series, people taking sides. debating guilt and innocence, when, that is actually know what the series is about. it is about failures within our system. and why those are happening and how can we do better. there is so much that we could unite about. or unite over, about this. as laura mentioned, a wrongful conviction is a wrongful acquittal. you do not have to care about the person going to prison wrongly, you should care about the old doer on your streets. charlie: exactly. so what happens, then? do most people watch all the way through? they cannot resist once they start it? moira: i have been hearing a lot of that pete -- of that. over one day or two days.
stars as eddie carbone the tragic protagonist in arthur miller's "a view from the bridge." exports the pursuit of the american dream, a rational love, and the trail. the broadway production originally and london where it one and olivier award for best revival. wrote, mr.k times strong is the most powerful single performance you are likely to see this year. he also has a some career often plain villainous characters. here's a look at some of his most haunting roles. >> they attacked us. on lands, in 1998. by sea, in 2000. and from the air, and 2001. they murdered 3000 of our citizens in cold blood. they have slaughtered our forward deploy and what the -- have we done about it? >> congratulations.
i have always welcomed his majesty service. if you speak a word of what i'm about to show you, you'll be executed for high treason. you will lie to your friends, your family, and everybody that you meet about what it is you really do. >> i have returned from beyond the grave to the phil english destiny. and extend the boundaries of this great empire. the -- outside. listen. listen to the fear. i will use that as a weapon to control them and then the world. >> he's traveling to beirut. it's dangerous to travel, he will disappear. i want him taken from his hotel and put him in a car.
>> [indiscernible] i am pleased to have mark strong at this table for the first time. it is a pleasure, and welcome. mark: thank you, i am very happy to be here. charlie: tell me how this began for you. mark: i got a call having not done a play for about 12 years. charlie: which surprised me because he began a theater. mark: i did. i did a lot of theater at the beginning. i was in a shift their company and the national theater in all the theaters in london. charlie: you have been on stage for 12 years because you had some interesting film roles or because you are pursuing a film career or something else? mark: i think i had done so much theater and it was a kind of genre that i was very familiar with and i did not really know about film. contemporary's of were making films and doing films and it was a world that i realize i could
have access to, i just did not know how. then i got a couple of rolls -- roles. and once i was in the club, it is very hard not to continue with that. he for no, 12 years had gone by. charlie: one performance leads to another. so you got a call finally and somebody said, i have an offer you cannot refuse? davidi went to talk to and he sent me "a view from the bridge." what was it that spoke to you? mark: it is very hard. that is next in question. it is very hard to say what a character really speaks to you. it is instinctive, something that i just felt. i knew who this guy was and i knew how i wanted to play him. i knew from what i had read, what kind of a guy i thought he is. then i read about him, and i had never seen the play. i read at university, but then i looked into it, and i realized he has played one way, but i
read something a little bit different. and thought, i like to have a go at that. charlie: you describe this as a slow-motion car crash. the place we understand why it is a slow-motion car crash. you are a guy who works on the docks in the 1940's or early 1950's. mark: he is a longshoreman. he is married and has his wife's sister's daughter, who he has been bringing up since she was a baby. her knees. and they live together in a tiny apartment and it has all been going pretty well. when we meet them, the girl is now 17 and on the cusp of womanhood. two sicilian immigrants, cousins of his wife have been invited to come and stay in the house because they've been brought in by the syndicate to work on the docks, legally. one of the young men, and the girl, fall in love with each other and all hell breaks loose. charlie: because he thinks, somehow, that she simply -- that
he wants to marry her because he wants to get entry into the united states. mark: it is incredibly complicated. that is why miller's writing is so brilliant. there are number of things going on. eddie's reason for not liking him is that he is just after his papers. some people interpreted the fact that he is jealous of the guy, that he is interested in the girl, inappropriately. charlie: they suggest that he is gay, and all that. mark: there are so many different kind of levels in which you can play this. what is fascinating about our production is that it releases it. it releases it from history. a releases arthur miller from testing a playwright we all think we know. with convenient place about the 1950's all done in a 1950's style. it is a very, bear, start production. american friends of mine has said is the clearest version that they have ever seen. charlie: i agree. it is stage an interesting way, too. the stages there. a trademark of this director. the audiences on either side, on
the stage. and you sit there in just a square. you are all barefoot. what is that about? mark: we did not start barefoot. we had shoes. in aten the director came the end of the first week and said, i want you all to get rid of your shoes. we cannot understand why that was. in retrospect, looking at it, it is something about the space that he created for us to perform in, a very pristine space. the floor is white. what goes on in that space is revealed by a huge, monolithic stone edifice there's peering at the beginning so that you reveal these people and the same thing comes in at the end. it means that the arena, or petri dish or boxing ring or whatever it is that he is created on that stage is where we perform and enact this play. shoes means having it can access to the grounds, it makes the thing more special. it also doesn't think very
special which is, it stops the need for the play to be real, we are not try to persuade everybody that what they are seeing israel. you can see the audience on the stage, you can see that we do not have shoes. it is about the words, the narrative, the characters, not about the need to persuade everybody that what they are seeing israel. charlie: the other interesting whog is there is a lawyer, is in a sense, our guide. he tells us from the beginning -- he is essential to the play. mark: that is the omission car crash that you are talking about. mud that -- we are set on that course by the lawyer who appears and says, here is the story. here's what is going to happen. and you watch it happen. essentially, that is the kind of ingredient of tragedy that you know, that a central character will have displease the gods. you watch what happens in order
to make that kind of cataclysmic events take place at the end of the play. charlie: in which there is life and death. you also ponder the question as to whether your character, eddie carbone, has something beyond just being a father. it is partly physical. because of the way that she comes and jumps up into his -- on top of his legs. it is clearly, she's very affectionate with him. mark: it has been played that way. various sexual interest in the girl. firstly, i think she is with her. infatuated by her. she is 17 years old. i think that he does not have the emotional ability to articulate how he feels are what he feels the way he does. he just loves cuddling her. he has been doing it since she was a baby. i have sons rather than daughters, and i asked a number of fathers of daughters, is there a point, your daughter's life recently become aware of her sexually?
they can to glaze over at that point and is a very difficult question to answer. but it is in that arena. charlie: yet to define what that means. mark: quite. it is that arena where there is a grown man in the house was a young girl on the cusp of womanhood -- she loves cuddling him, she is practicing her sexuality and a safe environment and he is stroking her leg. everybody in the theater, including his wife -- charlie: including his wife is an important point. you can see people in the whole building that do not realize -- you have to bear in mind it was originally called an attorney of tragedy. mark: the idea that he wants respect, that he needs his name at the end of the play, which a lot of miller's protagonists do, but more important, that he is a returning catholic. he says that he is responding -- that he is going to take care of her. into their lives come this boy that he cannot quantify.
he works on the docks with guys who do not really speak to each other. his friend, luis, system at one point, i mean, what the hell, you know? that is how men talk to each other on the docks. they do not come talking about buying records and jackets and motorcycles. all the plans of this young boy has. are you ok, i'm ok. charlie: see you later. the witha released each other. and this articulate boy arrives in their house, has an interest in the girl and all that he knows -- charlie: he is an illegal immigrant. and you are giving refuge to him. to keep them from anybody knowing. mark: he thinks that this guy is not right. not right for the girl. not what he promised her dying mother. that she would end up with the kind of guy. he cannot -- you might as will be a martian, the sky. charlie: so, he could have. it could be that he very well --
he never felt that kind of sexual attraction. and he just simply want to take care and be protective of her. or it could be, secondly, that he does feel it, but he knows it is a bridge too far. he knows that he cannot do that and be faithful to the dime promise that he made. -- dying promise that he made. mark: or he feels a bit cannot articulate or understand it. what is interesting is i do not play, in my mind, and the actor has to make the choice i think, how you're going to plant, whether you are interested in her or not, it properly, the choice i have made for myself, he is aware that she is interesting to other men. he said, i do not like the looks that they give you in the store. this high heels on the sidewalk. he is aware that others are looking. but he is not looking. what he is seeing is their response. i generally think, again, coming to that thing of fathers and daughters, i think a father can
the another male's interest in his daughter, but not necessarily feel that particular feeling himself. and that is where -- that is the arena that i think eddie occupies. charlie: what is it that you want your performance to achieve? is at the ambivalence? miller's writing has the ambivalence. my job is to play my own truth. so, what want to achieve with my performance is playing the truth of eddie carbone as i see him. so, -- charlie: how are the roles of a playwright and actor? mark: there is a difference. i play a particular way, but friends of mine have come to see the play has said to me, you are interested in her, aren't you? and i say, no i'm not. they're perceiving something that i'm not playing. so, there is a level that exists, which is the writing, which is miller. asking you as an audience to see
what you think about the situation. but there is a level -- charlie: he is actually asking the audience, everyone knowing, that there will be anyway, what you think of this? mark: that in a nutshell, i think, is the purpose of theater. when i was lucky enough to wendy olivier award, i have not prepared speech. i have been nominated for things and i've never won anything. i was just happy to be there. i cannot think of it in those terms. when my name came up, i collected the award and i not thought about what to say. a week before, a 12 euro boy -- charlie: kind of like a tony award, i assume? mark: yes. a young boy came with his mother to the stage door and lots of people came to the stage door to talk about the play. and this boy was obviously very involved with his mother and he said, what is the point of theater? i cannot answer him. i went away and thought about it and i think that that is another the lights off, watching a bunch of people pretending to be other people,
live, and still coming way talking about it. what we need from life, experiences, is the ability to sit there and judge ourselves against what we are seeing, so people are going, would i be able -- would i be like eddie? does he make the right choice? what is she doing? in doing that, we are asking ourselves, what it means to be human. charlie: you said there is a purpose to theater. it is been around for a couple of thousand of years. it is because it has value. and the value as it makes you think. and feel. and ask yourself questions. about what you just saw. mark: absolutely. and the purpose of arts, or creativity, really, is not to take us out of our everyday lives, to stop is worrying about e-mails and bills and the staff of life, the rat race, just survival. arts and painting, music, novel, everything, is to take a summer also make us think about something. charlie: is your role in terms of an individual character to understood? to help us
understand the way that you portray them, we know who eddie carbone is. we know what drives him. if we are listening and watching carefully. mark: absolutely. villains,yed a lot of that is an interesting dilemma because, villains are not supposed to be likable. charlie: every actor who plays villains says they try to find something about them that is interesting. mark: you have to make them understood. if you can understand the motivation of a bad guy, he becomes a little bit more accessible than somebody who is downright evil. and eddie, arthur miller said about eddie, you should with no tears for eddie. which is ironic, because a lot of people have been in tears at the end of the play. they find it really moving. i asked if they were selling for catherine and her loss or for eddie and his mistakes? they said both. it is incredibly emotional, this
journey that you go on. the fact that at the end there are people who are incredibly moved by -- charlie: this is two hours without intermission. you are almost in every scene. how hard is it to do that? mark: once you are in it, it grabs you by the throat. every single night, every single performance. performance has a point where i think, we are in the middle of it again. charlie: have all of your aspirations for acting been fulfilled? mark: not yet. charlie: characters or just professional achievement? mark: with every new play and every new job and every new group of actors and new
director, you learn something new. you know how think to do it, you challenge yourself with something else. charlie: you did television and then you said no more television. mark: what happens in the u .k., once you are in the theater, people offer you other place. -- plays. that is kind of what happened to me. i spent 10 years doing theater and about 10 years doing television and the movies came calling. i was suddenly in the movie club. you don't tend to move very much in the beginning. after this, i would love to do a movie, and then i would love to do another play. i see myself as a character
actor. what i love about theater is the transformation. getting as far away for myself as i can. anything that moves me away from myself. when i started acting, those were the parts i gravitated to, something that would make you different. i do not know how i would play myself and be a hero and a lover. the u.k. and america have very different attitudes. you revere the guy who can throw a punch, kiss the girl, when the day. -- win the day. our tradition is not so focused on the hero or the leading man. charlie: tell me the best lesson you ever got about acting. been the thing you have held onto that made you as good as you are? mark: that is a lovely
complement. i see that my job is to believe, create truth. when you watch people and you believe they are connected to what they are doing and you believe what they are doing, it is fascinating. think of documentaries when people are interviewed about real-life events, it is riveting. if you can create that infection and make it believable -- in fiction and make it believable, that is the best thing. there are a lot of practical things as well. in drama school, we had a teacher who said, imagine yourself at the front of the stage, don't look here. you need to be looking out there. charlie: in this role, how did you prepare for this? mark: i felt him instinctively.
i went down to red hook and had a look. amazing. it is wonderful to look back to manhattan. play -- a line in the charlie: he wanted her to be a secretary. hook andent to red looked and there are the buildings and it brought into focus. charlie: thank you for coming, pleasure to have you. a view from the bridge will be on until how long? february 23. charlie: you heard it here, another five weeks. ♪
charlie: king charles the third is a history play from mike bartlett. his abilities as a ruler are challenged i parliament and his own family as he attempts to assert more power than his predecessor. in brantley calls the play -- ben brantley calls the play flat-out brilliant. .unning me now, the stars, i am pleased to have them here at the stable for the first time. -- at this table. everyone is talking about this.
what is it about the royal family? i do a morning television show. fascinated by every generation. what is it? why do we like royalty? >> it is increasingly unreal in the modern world. if you are in london and you happen to see the horse guards, it is like a fairy show. it is fantastic. charlie: the drama and what has happened to the royal family is so fascinating. the diana saga was lived out in public. i feel this is terribly
sensitive because it came to such a desperate end. but you could not have made that story up. charlie: you play such an interesting figure. how would you describe her relationship to her husband? >> devoted. in the play, she is clearly a wife who loves her husband and -- i am sure that is true in real life. maybe allengine for the unraveling of the charles-diana marriage. that love affair, that began between charles and camilla when they were young into word her separate marriage, his separate marriage.
idc white people are fascinated by the royal family. -- i do see why people are ascinated by the royal family. what you have in the royals is a family like and unlike your own. it is the main of blended family. epitome of blended family. it is interesting to watch that playing itself out on a big public stage, a big magazine and the social media outlets. was charles perceived differently in america? there is not a great sense of him here.
>> that is kind of what i feel. charlie: no sense of the role he plays. influential in terms of drawing in england. i think he does three things the day. charlie: what is it about him? >> i only met him once. is a man who knows how to talk to actors. people tell me he has been arabicg russian or because he feels the access of power -- axis of power in the world is changing. moment: he spends a every day of his life thinking, how will i prepare for the moment when it comes to me?
we have to talk about the queen. it seems everybody -- does she have anybody who does not like her? think anyone could begrudge the way she has undertaken her duties over such an extended period of time. if you disagree with her position or some of her views, she has undertaken her duties with such consistent dignity and devotion. over such a considerable period of time. feels she is god's anointed representative. the world was annexed ordinarily different place -- extraordinarily different placement and elizabeth became the queen.
homosexuality was illegal. the trade union movement was huge. modern life has changed so extra narrowly under her -- extraordinarily under her ring. she has been such a firm fixture. go, ite does finally will be interesting to see what will happen because the next monarch will be the first of a new age. charlie: prime minister's, and go, parties, and go, but -- prime ministers come and go, parties come and go, but the queen stays. >> the royal family was important to the country, gave them a sense of support and dignity and they visited the areas that had been blitzed and tried to become involved.
she was like one of our family. queen and the monarch, they have to be a figurehead for the entire nation. times change underneath them. they have to represent the country. the queen very rarely expresses opinions. monarch has to represent her country when homosexuality is illegal. and she has to represent her country when homosexuality is legal. if she had expressed her opinion at one point, she would have tied yourself in a not. -- in a knot.
diana wanted to enlarge that notion into the queen of hearts thing. that is a big area i would be interested in what william does -- the real prince william. not you, i am looking at you. you are his representative. the fact he chose his mother's engagement ring. the fact he reveres and loves his mother. it would be very interesting to see what he does introduce because yes, she is an icon, diana, but very airbrushed out of recent history. very much the queen, the tight royal family on the balcony. i would say she was the joker in the pack for them in terms of wanting the continuity.
charlie: a lot of this is about the king. king charles. how do we imagine that? what has the playwright done for us? bunch of taken a whole very commonly held perceptions of who these people are and created a situation of making charles king and when you read the play to begin with, you think, this is quite amusing and clever for about 10 minutes. that is when you think something needs to happen and that is when charles has the first scene with the prime minister and you find out charles is interested in defending the freedom of the press. and then you think, this is not just -- this is a play. charlie: american theater audiences have an appreciation
because of what happened on broadway with helen mirren. it is a fascinating relationship. i remember tony blair talking about when he first came in to see queen elizabeth. how good a father was prince to prince william? when i was chatting to them on the phone yesterday -- [applause] [laughter] surprised to discover, because it is not a popular view in the press, i do not think it is media friendly, the two boys have a terrific relationship
with their father. people like to imagine they were their mother's children and their mother was cruelly ripped from them and their father is this cold and attached bumbling guy who cares more about architecture that his family. i do not think that is true. from all the impressions i've got, they are a super close family. charles has been a terrifically supportive and loving father. they love and adore him. charlie: he is the only person they really have. oliver: the drama belongs on the stage and in the tabloids. the reality is, they love him and he loves them and they are in a unique position. i am british, i was brought up
anyish and i do not know other way. they do not know anything else. charlie: what influence does camilla have on him today? i don't know about influence so much as i always think of her as an enabler, a source of confidence for him. i always feel, and when i look at the interaction between charles and his own parents, there is a little boy who has never felt quite adored by his dad. quitek he was never mothered in the way that little boys need to be. camilla is a great -- a mothering figure in the way that
a maternal thing -- men can be maternal. putting him first. the unconditional love thing, that is what i mean. he is not judged. >> i think she was pretty good for his relationship with the boys. margot: i think the play is very accurate -- i do not think she could influence him as far as his interests or policy. the play takes the issue of conflict being the press. i think charles will have difficulty. the environment is a huge thing for him. writes, racking --ights come up.
--would find it very hard side -- could a be tricky. margot: i do not think she would have the first clue. camilla aree and two outsiders to the family from very different backgrounds but invested in getting things their own way. kate has a very middle-class story and her grandmother had almost a replica buggy to replicate the ones in the paper. they grew up with a fantasy.
the memorabilia and all of that. what thevested in queen means to the common people. ,hen things start to get shaky i was picture -- i picture a curtain with a 50th anniversary memorabilia plate and what that means to england. appearances, she has done a terrific job. appearances is the best -- by all appearances is the best way to say it. charlie: how would king charles the different from queen elizabeth? brilliant what is
about the play. it moves into that wedge. he says he wants to be hands-on. we have the black spider letters. he writes a lot of letters lobbying for his position. this has caused some stress. as the prime minister says to me in the play, you are not elected. you cannot do this. i think he will want to be involved. if he has come to see the play, he might be careful about how he does that. charlie: has he seen it? tim: i think it would be a horrible evening for the monarch. it would be an uncomfortable evening. has had plenty of chances to see it. charlie: in terms of somebody
videotaping and? tim: i don't know. what is your -- what do you want us to come away with? tim: he is pictured as a man of principle. ambition denied or delayed? tim: my life has been a lingering for the throne. just hanging around waiting. he could be in his 80's by the time he comes to be king, charlie. charlie: would you have liked -- can you imagine, would you have found any satisfaction in that kind of life?
lydia: to me, it seems like a nightmare. , if youon instagram played kate long enough, with squatters rights kick in? my friend said, you get to come home in three weeks and kate never gets to come home. charlie: i think that would be -- my sense is that william, he can do a lot of things. oliver: i have huge admiration for him. developed a huge sense of respect for the monarchy. and for william, particularly. you are 14 or 15 years old and
your mother dies in this horrific by section. the grace with which he , he was a rescue and aire pilots ambulance in norfolk. i do not know anyone else who i would want to represent me as my monarch. i cannot imagine a better person. i will happily stand behind that guy. charlie: don't you want to see this now? here is the playbook. thank you. great to have you here. thank you for joining us. see you next time.
mark: i'm mark halperin. john: and i'm john heilemann. "with all due respect" both to mother nature and barry manilow -- ♪ looks like we made it john: happy week before the iowa caucuses. a big hawkeye state hello from our new home for the next week. the bloomberg politics "with all due respect" studio at the des moines downtown marriott. there are only seven days until democrats and republicans kick off election season with the iowa caucuses. we will be following every second of the closing arguments, th