>> from our studios in new york city, this is "charlie rose." >> conflict behind the scenes has been brewing between the cia and congress for some time. it relates to the senate intelligence committees

multiyear investigation of the cia's interrogation program post-9/11. on tuesday the dispute went public. dianne feinstein accused the cia of breaking the law and constitutional principles. she said the agency secretly removed documents, searched computers, and intimidated congressional investigators. >> the recent action i have just laid out makes this a defining moment for the oversight of our intelligence committee. how congress and how this will be resolved will show whether the intelligence committee can be effective in monitoring and investigating our nation's intelligence activities. or whether our works will be thwarted by those we oversee. >> john brennan, director of the cia, fired back later that afternoon. >> as far as the allegations, nothing could be further from the truth. who would do that?

that's just beyond the scope of reason. appropriate authorities right now both inside the cia as well as outside the cia are looking at what cia officers as well as -- i defer to them to determine whether or not there was any violation of law or principle. i referred the matter myself to the cia inspector general to make sure that he was able to look honestly and objectively at cia. when the facts come out on this, a lot of people who are claiming that there has been this tremendous spying and hacking will be proved wrong. >> joining me from washington is mark mazzetti, national security correspondent for "the new york times." i'm pleased to have you on this program. this is a fascinating story for me. you have the director of the cia, the executive branch versus legislative branch.

you have both of them believing that they have been abused. tell me how this story began. >> well, it began at the beginning of the obama administration when president obama ended the cia interrogation program and the senate intelligence committee decided to embark on this -- what turned out to be a year-long project to document the history of the program. it was fraught from the beginning because they tried to get documents from the cia and the cia was not initially forthcoming. then republicans pulled out of the entire effort so it became a purely democratic effort. they finished their report at the end of december 2012, and then another fight began. that was the fight over whether to classify this. so there has been this year of back-and-forth between the cia and the intelligence committee

over whether the report's conclusions were wrong, whether the facts were wrong, culminating in what we have today, which is these accusations that both sides in effect have been spying on each other in a way to gain advantage in this internal debate. which is really extraordinary, it has all blown out into the open. generally the intelligence committee handles these things in-house with intelligence agencies. this is pretty ugly and pretty public. >> so the cia says we will found a facility out in virginia where you members of the intelligence committee can come out and look at our documents and you will have a computer there, and you can find out for yourself what it is that you are looking for. they then claim that they didn't have a search for the documents, that it was a mess for them. it was called a document dump or document drop. then the question of the panetta

review comes. how did the panetta review get there, and then what happened to it, which led to the public fight today? >> it's important to sort of explain what we are talking about with the panetta review. there's this ongoing effort by the senate that culminates in the 6300 page report. separately, the cia conducted an internal review of the documents, which has been called the panetta review. we have not seen it. it has not become public. certain democratic senators say the panetta review is very close to, in its conclusions, what the senate came up with. that's why the senate is making this case that -- senator feinstein is making the case that the cia is challenging our report, but their own internal documents basically come to the same conclusion. how this panetta review got into the document dump that the senate had, and how it was removed and when it was removed, is all a matter of dispute.

senator feinstein has said it was included in the documents they got. they searched them and found the review and then mysteriously, it disappeared. this is still a "he said-she said" right now. it didn't disappear before they made a copy and put it in a safe at the intelligence committee. so they have the document. >> they say they have seen a draft of it. they don't think they've got the full version. this was one of the extraordinary moments of the speech yesterday where senator feinstein said that they took a copy and brought it to the hart senate office building where the committee headquarters is and put it in the safe. the reason why they did that is because they didn't trust the cia not to remove it or destroy it. senator feinstein pointedly referred to the episode in 2005 when the cia destroyed a number of interrogatives showing these methods like waterboarding.

basically she was saying how could we know that they were going to do it again? >> what do we know was in the panetta review? what was there? >> we think it was a series of certain memos that are summarizing the documents. as soon as the cia gave millions of documents over to the senate intelligence committee, then director of the cia leon panetta said as we are given these documents to the committee, we should know what's in them. so there was this effort to document through a series of memos what is in this massive data dump. what the committee has said is that some of what is in the panetta review is not only just summaries but also conclusions, saying that not only it criticized the interrogation methods, but also being critical about the information, or lack thereof, that was gained from these interrogation methods.

which is the same conclusion that the senate committee had. that is why senator feinstein said this is such an important document. it really bolsters their own conclusions. >> what is the reason the cia does not want the senate report or the panetta review made public? >> first of all, they are saying that when we agreed back in the day to do this review, we were only going to give you documents from a certain time, from the beginning of the program in 2001-2002 to five or six years later when the detainees were moved to guantánamo bay. the panetta review was to be done in 2009 and that was outside the scope of the agreement. that is one reason. the second reason is that they say the cia doesn't have to give them to you because it all is sort of covered under executive privilege considerations. they are draft documents, and we don't have to give them to the legislative branch because they are not final cia documents.

they are only intended for internal review. those are the two arguments the cia is making. >> is the cia worried about full disclosure of what it did during so-called interrogative enhancement? >> that's really what the fight is about. who captures the history of this incredibly controversial program and period. this report is going to be considered the most definitive history, at least at this point. that is one of the reasons why the cia seems to be pushing back so hard. they know this will be the bible for the time being about this program. it's really about who gets to write the history. >> is it clear that the cia removed documents from the files, from the computers operated by the committee somewhere in virginia, perhaps close to langley? >> senator feinstein said the

cia removed hundreds of documents. the cia has not countered that charge. the one thing both agree on is that the cia did do a search of committee computers late last year, in part to find out how the committee may have gotten hold of this panetta review. so right now the charge of removal of documents comes from senator feinstein, but they do agree that the cia did take this step to monitor what the committee had been doing on the cia computers. >> is there a suggestion that the president knew about this? >> not at this point. we know that the president knew after the fact of the search of the committee computers, because in a letter last week from senator udall to the president, he makes a statement in the letter saying that as you are aware, the cia conducted this act. we don't really know at this

point about president obama and what he ordered or what he knew and when he knew it and those things. >> there is also this. senator feinstein suggests that the cia was trying to intimidate, harass senate staffers who were part of this investigation, and even referred to the justice department to look at whether there had been some criminal violation. what is that about? >> the cia office of general counsel referred a criminal charge to the justice department, alleging that the committee staff had possibly broken the law by getting access to the panetta review in an unauthorized manner. what is interesting is that lawyer that referred it, the acting general counsel, is someone who is mentioned 1600 times in the report, a lawyer who had been at the cia for

quite some time and had been involved in a number of somewhat controversial decisions, including destruction of the cia tapes in 2005. josé rodriguez was the person who actually gave the order, but he had gotten clearance from a couple of cia lawyers to do it. >> including the one who is now general counsel. so where are we? the question is, who put the panetta review in the computer files of the senate committee? >> we still don't know how it got into the files. if we take senator feinstein at her word, they were in the documents given to the committee today, found them through a regular search, but how they got put in those documents, we don't know whether it was on purpose or an accident. that's one of the key questions we are still looking into.

>> did the cia have to go behind the firewall set up by the senate committee in order to do whatever it did, for whatever was looking for? >> they say they didn't. they say they have always been on their side of the firewall, because they were given all the documents. the documents included the panetta review. they vigorously dispute the charge that they were crossing into the other side of the firewall in places where they shouldn't be going. >> how significant a clash is this about senate congressional overview of the cia? >> it's really significant, i think. first of all, that it's so public, but also you have a committee that's been very supportive of a lot of what the intelligence agencies have been doing, including the very controversial surveillance programs. to have senator feinstein, who has been a bulwark for the

agency on a number of issues, be in this open dispute with the cia director, that is certainly troublesome for the cia. that is why this is a pretty big deal. >> how damaging could it be if the senate report and the panetta review are released to the reputation of the cia? >> clearly that is something the cia is concerned about. they are concerned about, even years after this program has ended, they are concerned about how it is framed and that their own internal documents might dispute what the agency has said in its rebuttal to senator feinstein. so certainly that is why there's such a forceful fight over the panetta review. >> will the senate review come out? >> i think it will all come out at some point. i think the senate review, at least executive summary, will come out at some point, whether we will ever see the 6300 pages

in its entirety without redaction, that could be years and years. >> what has leon panetta said about all this? >> he has said very little. he did downplay the fact that it is being called the panetta review. he downplayed what this was and said it was a sort of cursory look at documents that he never saw the final version of it. i think he is trying to stay out of it as much as possible. >> is it likely the senate will call on the director for hearings of some kind? >> yes, certainly. whether it is open or behind closed doors, certainly brennan will be up to talk to the committee about this, you can bet on it, probably a few times. >> has the president said anything about it? >> the president did speak about it this afternoon. he talked about how -- basically

saying the report needs to be declassified, and the sooner, the better. >> that's a good place to stop. thank you, mark. great to have you here.

>> pope francis became head of the roman catholic church one year ago. he has led a bold and ambitious agenda. his modest, nonjudgmental style is viewed as a departure from his more traditional predecessors. it has gone a long way in changing the institutions image. he has taken steps to reform the vatican's bureaucracy. joining me now is a distinguished group, father john jenkins is president of the university of notre dame. father james marcus, editor of the national catholic magazine. joining us from dayton ohio is the former u.s. ambassador and professor of faith and culture at the university of dayton. i'm pleased to have each of them here as we mark this year, and i say with a great sense of pride that i happened to be there for

the conclave in rome. it seemed to me what has spread out is an ideal that this is a new and different and a unique human being. >> certainly true. from the moment he made his first public appearance, he had a remarkable ability to communicate. i was in rome, i had the opportunity to meet him. here is this man who can communicate wonderful warmth and kindness in a remarkable way, even though i don't speak italian and he doesn't speak english. at the end of the session, there was a picture to be taken. he had his chair in front of our group. he is a 77-year-old man. he pushed his chair in line with the group, almost as if to say, i want to be one with you. i felt like that was expressive of who he is.

>> you talk about when america magazine did this great interview. you read it, you heard it, and you thought, is he saying what i am saying? >> the editor of the italian jesuit magazine interviewed him. when we got the translation and we read it, i said, he can't possibly be saying this. then we sent it away to our italian-english translator and it came back and, indeed, he was saying that. it was incredible. part of the appeal of this man is that he speaks in such an inviting and accessible way. pope john paul was a philosopher and benedict was a theologian. this pope speaks like a pastor, like your heritage priest. he is focusing on the basics. that is something he said in the

america magazine interview. he is focused on the gospel, mercy, compassion, and love. >> making the point that some of the most divisive issues should not overwhelm the role of the church. >> he says we cannot be obsessed with just a few issues, and he named them. abortion, same-sex marriage, contraception, things like that. he said we are too focused on those things. not to say they are not important, but we need to broaden what we are looking at. >> what was your impression? >> he has shifted the conversation from a clash of cultures to really amazing cultural encounters. it has to do with the whole notion of encountering god in all things. it has shifted the conversation to focus on the poor, the marginalized, the destitute.

by taking the name of francis, he has taken on a new meaning when he comes into religious engagement, when it comes to care of the earth. the poor and the search for peace. all around, he gets high marks from me. it really is a new and refreshing moment for the church. >> is this part of what life in latin america did for him? >> that's part of it. he is associated with social justice as a jesuit and a member of a religious order. he has taken a vow of poverty and has lived with the poor. he brings that with him to the vatican. >> in fact he said, to depict a pope as a kind of superman or a star -- the pope is a man who laughs, cries, and has friends

like everyone, a normal person. >> his first line in that interview from the jesuit publication was almost to move back from the aloofness of the papacy and to say i'm like you, and we are in this together. i think that is what resonates with people. he shares the burdens and struggles that we share. >> what is the pope francis effect? >> he certainly captured the imagination not only of catholics, but of the world. i have non-catholics -- my question is, he has been an inspiring, provocative, wonderful presents. the question is, will his papacy be transformative? i think it has the potential to be transformative. >> what has to happen for it to be transformative? >> he is working to reform the

bureaucracy that works around him. as miguel knows better than anyone, it is somewhat archaic and needs reform. he needs to appoint bishops who embrace his vision. he is one bishop among many. he talks about having women have a role in decision-making in the church. >> but not as priests? >> that's right. but also about being a more consultative agency. that would be a transformation. >> the whole principle of solidarity and collegiality. this is a wonderful moment for him to really put this into practice. this is part of the division of the second vatican council. it takes a leader to begin to

really shift things and a point person to share that vision. but do we know what he wants to change? >> i think he has been very clear about what he wants to change. the cardinals who elected him knew that this was someone -- >> they knew what they were getting. >> i don't think they knew exactly what they were getting. [laughter] i think they forgot they were electing this particular man. a friend of mine told me that we knew we were getting someone who could change things and changed things quickly. another friend said he is not afraid of anything. he is not afraid of ruffling feathers, and we are seeing that. >> he probably knows he doesn't have that long to do it. >> he is someone who is trying to emulate jesus in the gospels and trying his best to be christlike.

that has struck a chord with people. >> are you suggesting that the pastoral role and the image he has and this remarkable presence that he has, he also knows that that will help him as he changes the church? >> i think he is a smart guy. he was archbishop of buenos aires. he is very savvy. he knows what his actions and his words together are doing to people. he knows that when he reaches out to people or when he hugged someone with the disfiguring skin condition, he knows the message that will send out. >> this will sound odd, but ronald reagan was called the great communicator. part of his power was he expressed a message that was acceptable to people and that people could be inspired by.

he was a likable person. in some ways i feel this pope is a great communicator. the gestures he did, they inspire people and in a way that has a power to change. >> the man who came to him who had that skin condition, he just showed up in a crowd and he just spontaneously hugged him. in the gospels, they say jesus's words in formed his deeds and his deeds informed his words. >> how important is the fact that he is a jesuit? >> very important. i am a little biased, since i am a jesuit. you see the emphasis on poverty and social justice. even when he is speaking in homilies about ways of praying, it is a very jesuit way of speaking.

i think it pervades all that he does. that is what the cardinals may have been forgetting. they elected a jesuit, and i think that surprised them. >> do you believe that the church understood it needed to change? >> i think that's true. i think he was certainly an agent of change. the change you're going to get is not always predictable. i think there was a great sense that there needs to be reformed, there needs to be a new vitality. >> also from a diplomatic respective, they appointed a great diplomat as secretary of state. he had a great reputation in terms of diplomacy. this is not just because he is both head of state as well as head of the church. his way of going about doing things has a profound impact in terms of diplomatic relations

and in terms of relating to not only catholics and not only christians, but to nations and leaders throughout the world. this is a refreshing way to build bridges at a time when they are deeply needed. at a time when they are deeply needed. to tackle the world's challenges in terms of war. climate change. human rights. if he continues to name the kinds of persons that share the vision of engagement, hospitality, we are in for more surprises. >> what kind of change will he bring? >> this was alluded to earlier. he is already trying to -- from the beginning, he has brought up

the issue that governance is one of the things that has to change. one of the things we have spoken about is the need for greater -- the appointment of competent leaders, both men and women who can help lead the church. a greater role for women in vatican offices. this will bode well for an institution that needs updating. i think that this is the man who can really pay attention to what is needed and empower the gifts throughout the church for the common good of catholics, christians, and the human family. >> a lot of traffic in new york. she is here. >> as the university president, i think bureaucracy around the

world -- they try to preserve their power and prestige. this is not to discourage this. to change the bureaucracy, you have to interview it with a vision. get the people that embrace that vision. the danger of bureaucracy as it will be the leader. the leader needs to say, no, i am the leader. i think he has made changes. there is serious ruffling of feathers -- >> i said, is there a lot of persistence? he said it is coming from people

who are entrenched. he said in the end, it is either resistible what he is doing. it is the gospel. that is irrestible. >> what struck me is how different this is from the last one. the first thing i remember about the last pope was he would clear homosexuality out of the seminaries. in the word of poverty and war, those are interesting priorities. this pope not only gave up the red prada shoes -- >> and the apartment. >> and inviting gustavo, who founded liberation theology, to the vatican.

>> which was an incredible change. this person being invited to give a talk and writing a book with a high vatican official. as father jenkins was saying, the small gestures are important. >> what about the relationship with the former pope? >> this is new. it is interesting to see -- to the credit of pope benedict, he has stepped aside. he did a wonderful gesture of stepping down and opening up this new possibility in terms of the modern papacy. we all have to give a lot of credit to pope benedict precisely for what he did. the relationship there has been very cordial. given the fact that we have the pope emeritus and pope francis

living close to each other, i think it has been a very interesting but wonderful experiment in terms of modern history. >> speak to that. a lot of people said, we have a former pope living that close. that might present problems. it doesn't seem to have presented problems, partially because pope francis has had both a sense of humility and power. >> it must be said for pope benedict, he has been saying nothing and appearing nowhere. a word here and there could undermine the current pope. he has not done that. it does seems like they have a relationship that is genuine. despite the differences in personality, they have a remarkable relationship. >> they say the rosary together, a friend told me. pope francis will go to pope

benedict and they will pray. he has been very retiring, and i admire his humility. >> help me understand the difference between doctrinal issues and -- whether it is contraception or divorce or birth control. these are issues that have been so debated. are those all doctrinal issues? >> in some respect they are. there is a hierarchy of truths. the center of the hierarchy is god created us. that is his focus. he is worried about a series of moral norms or directives being separated from that central reality and becoming a bludgeon to hit people over the head with. or to fight culture wars with. or to serve ideology.

that is what he wants to fight against. he has been careful to say, don't expect us to change these. but the centrality of this -- >> is making people feel more welcome. people who might not agree with some of the pronouncements of catholic bishops -- they are not hearing as much from the pope and more about love and compassion and mercy. they are feeling more included and less excluded. >> i'm thinking of two particular issues, abortion and contraception. speaking for myself, i would say abortion is a consultative moral issue. it it involves killing. contraception, i don't see in

that way. at least in myself. i think those are quite separate. >> i think they are separate. one thing i do think -- the emphasis on pastoral -- it is not are you with us or not, but how can we understand your struggles and help you know the love of god? less of a kind of moral checklist approach. >> what you think his ultimate ambition is? >> the humanization of the institution is probably -- has to be on top. to bring a new pastoral face these images that call for -- the church as a field hospital. it is a refreshing image. it is bringing us to the core of christianity. love your god and neighbor. this is the essential dimension of what it means to be

christian. why we do this as christians -- for the sake of not only other christians but for the sake of the human family. if he can achieve a greater humanization of the church, i think he will receive a lot of credit from catholics, christians, and all people of good will. >> miguel, thank you for joining us. how does he see his challenge as the holy father? >> primarily be role of the pope is to spread the gospel. he is doing that well. he realizes he came into a situation where the vatican curator for example was a mess. he needed to address that. he needs to put bishops who have the quote smell of the sheep in our -- archdiocese.

it is pre-to be gospel, but also a bureaucratic thing. >> that includes corruption in the banking system. >> careerism. he has been unrelenting in criticizing people who are interested in the next job opportunity. >> jesuits have a vow to not strive for high offices. this is a man who took about not to strive. careerism is a horror to him. >> where is he and what will he do? the issue of sexual predators? >> he has spoken to it, but not as much as some would like. he has set up a high-level commission. he is aware of it. there are a lot of people that would hope he would be as strong as he is in other areas, like

poverty -- they hope they are that -- he is that strong. >> he has been in for a year. i hope he turns his attention more forcefully to those issues. >> he was recently interviewed and appeared defensive about the church. the church has lost its credibility and has to earn it back. i know he knows he needs to work on that. >> -- it is a bit defensive. >> and overstated. >> what are the other issues that -- i am wondering if in fact this whole sense of his personality and presence, his sense of commitment to the role of pastor has caught the

country. time magazine's person of the year. talk of the nobel prize. whether he sees this in terms of -- this was creating traction to change the church. now we need to move to these other important issues. i want to know what the issues are. >> he sees himself as an international leader. he is talking a lot about world poverty. >> i'm glad you brought that up, that is a crucial voice and the question of income inequity. >> he is using words that were not appreciated in some political circles. >> he has traveled the world. going to israel. coming here in 2015. >> 2015, he is coming to philadelphia.

>> other cities are vying for him. new york, washington, and boston. >> he's going to israel. he talked about his relationship with the president of china. >> going to south korea. >> as catholics, do you feel pride? a sense that this has given a jolt to the church that it needed? >> it has been a tough few decades. i think this is a kind of positive sense. that is part of his power. he inspires. he elevates. the kind of service to the poor, in need, that is that the sender what he does. >> i had lunch with an episcopal bishop today.

we were talking about this. that is not highest on his list. the issues of poverty and others are primary. >> i think going to israel -- with the orthodox patriarch. he wants to reach out. he wants to connect. we'll see a continuation of that emphasis on ecumenism and interfaith dialogue. >> he wants to make these gestures. >> was that bartholomew? >> i think so. >> i interviewed him, that is why. >> thank you. >> go notre dame. i want to mention this book. "jesus: a pilgrimage" is your

book. honored to have your here. zubin mehta is here. he was named director of the los angeles philharmonic at 24. he is currently embarking on a u.s. tour with the israeli philharmonic orchestra. this has been one illustrious career. >> no. i don't guest conduct too much. staying with one orchestra for a long time. in new york, 13 years. los angeles. now israel is 45 years. i think i broke a record in philadelphia.

i think. >> he was in philadelphia maybe 40 years? >> i would have to find out. >> i can't think of anybody that is up there. why? >> it has become my family. there's not a single member of the orchestra that i have not engaged personally. always discussions and arguments. there are people that we have chosen together. we have molded them. we have played over 3000 concerts with them. during the 1970's and 80's, when the soviet union started allowing emigration, we had a huge injection of culture. >> very fine musicians. what has been the biggest

challenge in terms of what you have done with the israel philharmonic? >> the challenge is in front of us. we have not played in an arab country. this is a challenge. we should have played in 1978. the historic handshake. i asked him in 1978, send us to cairo as a gesture. we don't even need hotel rooms. we can play and come back. it is a half hour flight. you know what he said? he said, i have to think about my settlements first. that was the first time i heard the word settlement. i didn't know what he meant. >> you are against settlements. >> i think it is completely counterproductive. you don't have to force me to say that. i think releasing 400 prisoners is wonderful. announcing you are building apartments is taking everything back. until this is resolved, and

until the u.s., europe, everybody insists -- i am tired of them saying we are the greatest friend israel has. my love for this country is undiminished to read but because it is a democracy, i have to say they are going in the wrong direction. i cannot listen to anymore that we have to think of security first. i know how strong they are. they can wipe everybody out in two days. >> you wish everybody could see what is happening in lands that are occupied, because they would change their opinion. >> they are not allowed to go. i go to ramallah. from my hotel, i see a settlement across the valley. where the settlers have flowers. they are watering their flowers. in ramallah, every house has a

black cylinder where the collect water from rain or rationing. the rage that they feel looking at jewish settlers watering her plants, and they have to scrounge for water. this rage has to stop. >> are you hopeful? >> i am a positive thinker. i think it can be worked out. but it must go with goodwill on both sides. they are people on both sides that do not want it. people on the arab side also that one the status quo to continue. >> if your musical career, for whatever reason you have said you have done everything you can -- what would be the thing that you would be most proud of in your musical life? >> taking the israel philharmonic to my countries. since the six day war, india had

cut off diplomatic relations. in 1994, we finally went there. we played free of charge. my colleagues too. >> didn't you play in kashmir? >> recently. i took a german orchestra. we should never underestimate that power. i took the munich opera orchestra who gave up two weeks of vacation and pay to go and play in kashmir which is probably dangerous. the government was terrific in organizing the concert. the german embassy was very instrumental in getting money together from germany.

my friends in india helped. we played beethoven and tchaikovsky for an hour and a half. i feel there was peace. it is a naïve way of talking of course. what hindus and muslims have been living in a state of crisis for over 50 years. >> where are you in terms of wagner? >> i think we should play it. we should wait. there are still people with numbers on their arms. we don't want to insult them. music transports them back to the time of terror. this we cannot argue emotionally. and wagner does take them back, although they might not have heard it in their camps, some of them are still survivors of the camps. >> what else do you want to do? >> there are still wagner operas

i have not conducted. >> really? >> i have done 90% of wagner. one has not presented itself. i was going to do it in florence in may, but we ran out of funds. >> zubin mehta ran out of funds. >> we are doing a borrowed production. with good singers. i did not say no. >> what are you doing in new york? >> i have a concert with the bnf philharmonic on the 16th. >> good orchestra? >> wonderful. with the israeli philharmonic on the 20th. it is wonderful to have two orchestras where you only discuss every point of view with musicians. >> anything you would do different at your life and career? which has provided you with such

a remarkable life? did you wish for something you did not do? >> there is a lot of music. there are still a lot of music. i have not stopped studying. when will the studying stop? it does not stop. >> studying what composers might have met? >> new scores. new scores, of course. you can't do strauss without doing the corresponding -- you have to do so much homework. it goes with every opera you do. >> you didn't set out to be a musician. he said up to be a doctor? >> you set out to be a doctor? >> we come from an upper-middle-class parsi family. our families have professions that are decided.

>> you left for music early on. >> i had a cousin in new york. i'm sorry, in vienna. my parents had enough courage to send me to vienna. it went on from there. >> and continues. >> i had no difficulties, really. no problems being an india in vienna. i learned what anti-semitism is for the first time. we did not know that in india. we had heard about it. i studied at a jesuit school with seven religions in one class. >> india has one of the largest muslim populations in the world.

>> 150 million. more than pakistan. >> thank you, it is great to have you here. ♪

>> live from pier three in san francisco, welcome to "bloomberg west." we cover innovation, technology, and the future of business. i'm emily chang. easy target after the investigation into the massive data breach that exposed 40 million credit and debit card numbers. target security systems quickly detected the hack attack but executives did nothing. we spend the next half hour diving deep into the story, looking at what went wrong and when, and the secret black