in new yorkstudios city, this is "charlie rose." >> an internal cia investigation has concluded that the agency acted in properly.

to theennan apologized senate intelligence committee. the admission followed a long public feud between the cia in the senate. was accused of tampering. the apology was not enough. says he is concerned is about mr. brennan's ability to find flaws within the agency he leads. joining me from washington, david ignatius of the "washington post." let me begin with this. and whathat they did the investigation concluded about the cia, and why was it so important that john brennan had to apologize to the senate. that the ciassue inspector general was looking at is how cia employees learned that the senate committee preparing a been

report on cia interrogation of the factearned that staffers had a document that was known as the penn that the review document. it was not provided formerly. it was not part of more than a million documents given to the investigators. when the cia made a request about where the document came from, the senate investigators were inquiring about, a real standoff between the committee chairman dianne feinstein and cia director john brennan began. it led to bitter exchanges between the two of them. counsel madeneral activityl for criminal by senate staffers in obtaining this document. that is really what the inspector general today was

describing as improper actions. let's will likely lead to john brennan's resignation -- >> will likely lead to john brennan's resignation? they said this has not damage them. i think we will have to see how this plays out. in particular, we will have to see what senator feinstein, the leader of the senate committee amateurs is to do, how far she takes this, how angry she is. part of why this got so hot is that feinstein and john brennan clashed. there was rare public criticism of the head of his senate oversight committee, in which he questioned i am feinstein's decision to go forward, in effect made accusations against her staff. that made this all the more personal and bitter. end, the in the end, there is a lot

of pushback. the scenes and explain to us exactly what might come out of this question mark --? study0 pages, a massive of cia read addition -- rendition, interrogation, afters during the decade september 11, 2011. has been awaiting declassification. -- beyond the ethical and moral outrage, i think everybody views interrogation policy as having the -- one of them was utility in the information that was gained from these horrific practices. throughte report goes

20 specific examples of information that was gleaned from interrogations. in each of these 20 cases, the information could have been obtained through some other means. this horrible, use of torture was unnecessary for intelligence purposes. and inority report -- think the cia rejoinder as well will say that any and you have to be agnostic about that. it is kind of 20/20 hindsight. will try to leave this question -- at least in his horrible terms -- unanswered where dennis -- senator feinstein was emphatic that it was immoral and useless. >> this came during the bush administration, i assume? >> it was entirely during the bush administration.

the issues that president obama -- it should be noted that one of the first things he did in 2009 when he took office was to ciaally in the policy of interrogation, the use of harsh interrogation methods that had already been banned, but that emotion -- obama administration took an entirely different approach. in a sense, these issues were dealt with more than five years ago. that anfeinstein felt honest history, a real accounting was essential to make sure that the u.s. government never again did anything like what was done in the years after 9/11. >> among our friends and enemies around the world, would they be surprised about anything in this report. that includes people like you.

would they be surprised about what's in your? i have not read the report. i have talked to people who have read every one of those pages. they say there is some details that will surface, as much as about the horrors of interrogation, waterboarding, other techniques. out, this has come will still be disturbing to people. it will put particular pressure on the countries that hosted the so-called black sites, where this interrogation was done. x with respect to report, with the release to the public. ? >> with respect to report, will it be released to the republic? >> that is one of the questions that the administration is trying to resolve. the classified version could be available for release back to the senate, which then has to decide what to do with it as it

is a week from now. decideate is trying to whether to release it in august or wait until september. pages,y of those 6000 how much of the specific detail will be released, we don't know. i expect to the cia and the senate computers -- is it an argument the cia will try to make that this is not what it sounds like. argumenta will make an , that brennan is party made, and providing senate investigators access to secret cia facility in northern virginia to these million plus documents, the cia was trying to be as open as it could. the issue that troubles cia when senates that investigators saw this document, , theycross this document

became concerned that it might be taken back. they made a copy of it, which under the rules of their inquiry they were not supposed to do. they took that copy with them out of the facility in northern virginia. that is what led to the cia general counsel to make a liminal referral to the justice department, accusing senate staffers of having done something terribly wrong. today, the inspector general says the improper actions whereby the cia staffers in looking into the senate investigators computers and finding out they had this document. story or iincredible am credibly naïve. >> what senator feinstein would it is essential for a country's future to tell this story in every gruesome detail

so that we don't ever repeated. -- repeat it. this is pretty amazing. >> thank you. >> thank you, charlie. ♪ mall -- mark lyall grant is here. he takes on the rotating's presidency of the security council in august. the conflict in gaza remains front and center. there is deep concern about continued violence in eastern ukraine and threats posed in iraq and syria. i am pleased to have mark lyall grant back at this table. welcome. >> thank you. >> what can you tell me about what might be going on in negotiations with respect to 2:00 onwe take this at thursday? >> it is a fascinating

situation. there are intense negotiations going on behind the scenes. they may be coming to fruition. we do hope there will be agreement by both sides, a mass israel.l -- hamas and the trick is to use that humanitarian pause to try and develop a more sustainable peace. we have to address the underlying causes. it will happen again if we just go back to the status quo. we are trying to develop a little bit of space to relieve the humanitarian suffering, which is terrible. we want to use that space to develop more sustainable cease-fire to which in turn could lead to a bridge for some status negotiations. discussions any

about whether the israelis can continue to close the tunnels during the humanitarian cease-fire? clearly want to and need to close the tunnels. they believe they have done 60% or 70% of the work. it might be possible to complete that work. that does give the opportunity for a humanitarian pause. you can have the pause, but allow israel to work, but not to continue shelling. there is a number of combinations. i don't know exactly how it will turn out. >> driven by whom? >> egypt is front and center. they are the ones that have the ability to negotiate between hamas with israel. there are many others involved, cutter. there are a number of players involved in these issues.

>> will these negotiations lead to serious conversations about things hamas talks about, the sea, the border, being able to open the border. all the things that are on their list of complaints? >> that is what we want to do. we want to have a sustainable cease-fire. you have to tackle some of the underlying concerns. and thosesrael's side on hamas's side. to not have rockets raining down. threatening their children and schools and hospitals. at the same time, the ordinary people have a right to live in peace in their own state. to mesh those underlying concerns together will not be easy. it will need to involve things like monitoring and verification. openingneed to involve up the blockade, line more economic activity. the palestinian

authority back into gaza. there are a number of relevance in the next when we try to move from what would be a short-term humanitarian pause we have over the next two days into a more sustainable pause. >> all of the items that might play a role? about the palestinian authority? are they involved? >> yes. -- hamas and mass the palestinian authority have joined together. in theory, the palestinian are the overarching authorities in gaza. in practice, that has not been the case. hamas has been controlling gaza for several years now. this discussion will be how to bring the palestinian authority back into gaza, and to have some control over what happens in gaza. even hamas does not appear to have complete control over the more radical islamic groups.

the palestinian authority need to be owed to control hamas. what is interesting is whether there is -- because it's so visible, in terms of the pictures coming out, hospitals, children, civilians -- is that having an impact in terms of ? at you since world wide >> yes. attitudes in my country come united kingdom are being in fact it by the scenes we are seeing. about 1500 people killed on the palestinian side. are civilians. more than 300 children have been killed. there has been a terrible attack just a couple days ago on a school run by the united nations. you cannot sustain that stored -- that sort of conflict without public opinion.

, we areds of israel saying to the israelis that this conflict must come to an end. you must bring the conflict to an end. support is draining fast. >> whether the israelis say? >> may understand that. they have legitimate concerns, which we understand. stop until we are confident that there are no more rocket attacks. >> today have a timeline for that? >> they did not give a specific timetable. we have the impression that they are making progress, particularly against the tunnels. the rockets have been a problem for many years. the tunnels are a new problem. -- the think the right israelis were aware of that. >> they have a knowledge that. >> they have a knowledge that. the fact that these tunnels, starting in gaza and going underneath the border into are clearly designed to

commit terrorist offenses and israel. they have to make sure that that not will be -- will not be resumed when they stop the fighting. >> let me turn to ukraine. theind the concern about level of aggressiveness by russia in the ukraine. >> we are deeply concerned about russia's behavior. they eagerly and next crimea. we must not forget that. deliberatelyorces went in and took over crimea. they said crimea will be part of russia. then they had a referendum. >> cannot be undone? >> certainly, it can be undone. no one in united stationers has recognized it. -- united nations has recognized it. said were 100 votes that this was completely illegal and unacceptable. there were only 11 votes in favor of russia. the others abstained.

there is a clear majority will not accept it. russia says that it is a fact of life. we will not recognize crimea as part of russia at all. then we have a problem of eastern ukraine. what is happening eastern ukraine is that russia has supported these pro-russian separatist who want their own referendum. they want to attach themselves to the russian federation like crimea did. russia is arming them. russia is supporting them. they are supporting them militarily by shelling across the border. that is totally unacceptable. we had used all the tools we can . russia has a veto. equally, what we're trying to do arrangement between

key of authorities and these groups, who has a legitimate concerns. we should not underestimate the fact that they do feel alienated , and they want to continue to speak russian, their children to go to school in russian, speak russian. all that, the new president has said he is willing to do, but there needs to be a dialogue. what he cannot accept, and what we cannot accept, is that they pursue those demands by military means. >> what will sanctions accomplish? the president announced this week that europe and the united states were ratcheting up sanctions. >> sanctions are designed to achieve is a change of policy on the part of president putin. there is no desire to punish russia. bring about ato

change of policy. we are saying that if you continue to support these armed separatists in eastern ukraine, if you continue to flout the international world order in this way, then we will increase the pressure on you and your cronies, and on your economy until you recognize the need to change her behavior. if russia decides that it will stop supporting separatists, if they say to the armed separatist , lay down your weapons and we will help you pursue your legitimate concerns diplomatically, then we would not pursue sanctions. has it in his hands to be able to stop the separatists in eastern ukraine -- ukraine from doing the things they are doing. >> there is no question about it. if they were not supporting the separatist they were not given to sustain this campaign. >> why do you think vladimir

putin does this? >> i think he takes a very zero-sum view of the world, particularly in his own backyard. president putin said that the the 20thtragedy of century was the breakup of the soviet union. byhink he feels discomfort the events that have happened and what he considers to be the near abroad, the ex soviet space. he feels that he ought to be able to dictate, whether it is , these exre kiev soviet state. we cannot accept that. ukraine is an independent country. they have a new government. they clearly want to realign themselves more closely to the west. they should be allowed to do so. ukraine should be allowed to choose for themselves. >> do we have a believe that sanctions will work? >> they have worked in the past. i don't think we've gone down this road. any ron and south africa it has worked.

in the balkans you can argue that it has worked. there are many cases where it has not worked. >> putin is a different kind of character. >> he may be more difficult to change his mind. he does not want bad relations with the europeans. russia is much more dependent on europe and europe is dependent on russia. we have to make clear that it cannot be business as usual. >> has this conflict in eastern ukraine impacted operation that cooperation with russia trying to negotiate a deal about syria? >> there were wide differences of view between russia and the west in the first place. >> and you got the chemical deal done. >> we didn't get that. that was a specific issue.

was close interests between russia and the west. him not tonot trust use these chemical weapons. when he did attack his own people, the russians recognized the best thing to do was to take them away. >> to make a deal in which the united states would not strike if russia and the united states could make a deal with bashar al-assad to eliminate the chemical weapons from within syria? russia,s initiated by because they saw as a way of preventing a military strike. came up with it. the americans responded. everyone else supported it. specific confluence of interests.

we have seen the un security council, russia and china have vetoed for resolutions. they have protected syria from its own people, from international isolation, from sanctions, from greater pressure . we believe that could have changed the size mind. -- bashar al-assad's mind. we have not used all the tools that we could have done to in the suffering. let's not forget, 180,000 people killed. >> the question also becomes is there any effort to bring together the parties to try to create support for the non-jihadists in syria? is there a movement in that area to bring saudi arabia, turkey, britain, france, united states rebels who are not

jihadists? >> we're willing to work with everyone. anyone who is prepared to help bring about a diesel political transition. al-assadment, bashar is not interested in a transition. he has been reelected for seven years. he thinks he is winning on the ground. russia is supporting them with weapons and finance. himss his allies say to that the game is up, i think this conflict could go on for some time. >> for a number of years? in there a moment early on which the west, including united states, had agreed to do more, they had bashar al-assad on the run? >> i am not sure. history will show that if we had

been able to use all the tools, which included sanctions, russia prevented that, we could have stopped this led shed when their was less than 10,000 people killed. not 180,000 people but there are. given russian support for bashar al-assad, through military means or other means to change that dynamic, i think it is very difficult. iran and hezbollah have supported him. there are still several thousand hezbollah fighters. it is not clear whether they do now. ?t's where are we with iran what is the point that needs to be overcome?

>> basically, the key point is can iran give us an assurance the they will not use legitimate right to have some form of nuclear energy for the purposes of creating mass destruction. that is the key. all that comes down to enrichment. what sort of enrichment do they need? they are claiming that for peaceful purposes they need a huge number of centrifuges. we say that that is ridiculous. the only purpose that you would need this number of centrifuges for is to create nuclear weapons. that is unacceptable. that is the heart of the problem. there are many technical details, reactors, how many centrifuges, what happens to

verifications. that is the heart of the problem. deadline ofded november that some form of agreement can be reached. it will not be easy. i would not put a percentage on it. i think there is a reasonable chance. negotiations have gone quite well. there are clearly divisions within the rainy and system. that is a complicated factor. the good news is that on the western side -- not the western side, the international side -- they are united on this issue. this is an issue where we have corporate closely with russia and china, where our interests are similar. --s it between iran is a very interesting country.

it is not a monolithic political structure. you do have different views between the clergy, leaders, president, between the republican guard. >> is clear they have a where iraniew of should go.

.

>> the new york times editorial board has called for the end to the federal ban on marijuana. there has been a profound cultural shift on the issue over the last decade. a majority of americans now support legalization. the board has written, it has been 40 years since congress passed the current ban on marijuana. i am pleased to have my guest andrew rosenthal here. >> thank you very much.

>> tell me how the board did this. >> i personally have had this view from the time i was 17. there were a couple of members of our staff, particularly a young woman, who has been pushing this for a year. she found our position to be illogical. all the states were doing this. state after state legalizing it for medicinal purposes. some things just allow one pill. colorado comes along and washington. we suddenly found ourselves increasingly, this year, writing in a positive way about these developments. we had a long time ago said medicinal is fine, the government should leave it alone. then colorado comes along. we are thinking, what is our position? you should take a position.

we had a discussion. there was zero dissent on the board. there was some discussion about it. nobody said it should be even legal forever and destroys young minds and turns you into a saxophone player. we had three possibilities. one was let's go ahead. we dismissed that. what if the federal government decides not to let it happen? we had a documentary a year or so ago. we have a thing called op-docs. this was a guy growing medicinal marijuana. the dea decided to rate him. he had rifles in his truck because he was going hunting. he got a sentence of 80 years.

they burned down his business and sent him to prison for following the laws of his state. holder had said, we are going to let this happen. >> the reality is that could happen today. you can be in adherence to state law and violating federal law. >> they are violating federal law. everyone in colorado is violating federal law. the governor is licensing marijuana in violation of federal law. >> is anything happening in congress? >> there is a bill that is relatively serious that would remove a requirement -- there is a requirement that every time there was a call for legalization of any controlled substance, the federal government has to denounce it.

which is why the white house issued a statement saying, we were wrong. >> why did they say you are wrong? is it all politics? >> they are required to by law. there is a bill that would remove that requirement. others that say, don't enforce the law. but nothing serious to remove it. what has to happen is the federal law has to be changed. >> is it a winning vote with the public? >> 52% of the people say so. i think it would be winning for the federal government to say, we are getting out of the business and leaving it to states. >> didn't people like bill buckley come out for the legalization years ago? >> partly on the states rights,

libertarian, communities should decide kind of thing. people reject the alcohol model and it is different. the philosophy behind the repeal of prohibition was, let the states decide. that is where we are. then the argument becomes -- we believe it at the new york times editorial board that getting married to the people you want to marry is an actual right. we don't believe smoking pot is a right. but something has to happen at the federal level. we had the discussion about, should it be decriminalization? nobody could figure out what that means. the cleanest and simplest thing is to say, repeal the federal law. that is it. >> take that law off the books. states can do whatever they want. >> the classification of

marijuana, delete it. there are other things that have to happen. >> there was no descent. did you have to get past any hurdles? people i know and respect have argued, it leads to addiction to other drugs. >> the first thing i did was make sure my boss was ok with it. i work for him. the publisher arthur sulzberger -- i do have to care. in terms of what stories he wants to cover. i represent him. >> you write what the publisher thinks, supposedly. >> we generally agree on the big things. >> if there is an argument, does he say i disagree with you but go ahead.

>> yes. you have to be willing as a publisher, if you want to have an independent editor, to do what he says. you have to have confidence in that person. it is never anything huge. >> is he involved in these conversations? or presented with what you have to say? >> it depends. on ones like this, i talked to him. i see him all the time. something like this, i said, i think i'm going to go there. what do you think? he said, fine. >> is that how you handle that? >> it is not like we never talked about it. i kind of know where he is politically.

something like a presidential endorsement,. i talked to him first. i have not had a situation where he disagreed. >> he might go to your board and say, this is where the publisher is? >> i don't tell them what he thinks. not in a circumstance like that. when we are doing an endorsement, it is the only thing i take a vote on. other times we have a conversation. i don't vote. i'm afraid i will meet somebody who wants to suck up to me. >> back to marijuana. was there an issue about this notion that it leads you to other drugs? you get you on an addiction path?

>> the first thing we had to do. we had to satisfy ourselves on the science. we spent a fair amount of time led by our science and medicine guy, a guy who has been doing this a long time, looking at that issue. we satisfied ourselves that the available data, and it is really squirrely data, is it is low on the addiction level. the definition is different than for heroin. nicotine is right at the top. >> as an addictive drug. the gateway drugs are nicotine and alcohol. according to the best medical advice we could get, for an otherwise healthy adult, smoking

moderate amounts of marijuana -- you can define the different ways -- poses no significant health risk at all. it does not lead to cancer. there is a claim that it causes schizophrenia. >> that is the medical -- >> that is based on doing studies. x number of schizophrenics smoked marijuana. we don't even know what causes schizophrenia. we don't even know what it is. >> i have done -- we have looked into that. they are making some serious progress. >> they are. as soon as they figure out what causes it, they can figure out whether marijuana contributes. we felt like there are reasonable concerns and arguments.

we don't think young children should smoke pot. adolescence or middle school kids should smoke pot. >> did you go around the table and ask how many of you have smoked pot? >> i did not. that held a little intrusive. >> i was asked that on the show. have you ever used -- >> i was asked the other day. i said, i went to college in colorado in the 1970's. you figure it out. >> in colorado. >> which is a line i stole from my son. >> we know where you are. >> my life was not a failure so far. >> nor are you addicted to heroin. >> i'm no schizophrenic as far as i know.

although i did smoke cigarettes for a long time, which was a stupid thing to do. >> then there is david brooks. who writes a column. quote, laws profoundly mold culture. what sort of community do we want our laws to nurture? that from david brooks. >> he is one of the country's leading liberals. >> no, he is not. >> david was on tv. i said, excuse me. you actually think federal law should exist? he said, no. >> he is with the editorial board. the federal government should not ban marijuana. there are subsidiary questions.

you believe it should be available to 18-year-olds? if you ask david, he would say i don't think any state should legalize recreational use. he is talking about government encouraging or discouraging the lower pleasures. >> lesser pleasures. >> what is your example of a lesser pleasure other than being stoned?

>> i don't know. >> what has been the response? >> on our website, nytimes.com -- we have had about 13,000 people who have commented total on the articles we have run. out of those, maybe 900 are against legalization. there are a bunch of people who say they are unsure. most of them actually have our position, which is the federal government should not be, but i am worried about -- we are not saying legalize it in the sense that every state has to have or allow recreational use.

we are saying don't keep it as a criminal offense. interestingly, the letters to the editor, which we still get and publish, are more tilted on the no side. >> people who take the trouble to write a letter. >> they come by e-mail. but they are signed. it is a real person. they are people. they tend to be in more official positions. we have a letter tomorrow from the guy who ran the dea in the 1970's. >> what did he say? >> he thinks marijuana is a terrible thing. >> or does he think is a terrible thing? >> he was arresting pot smokers

in 1975. >> some reference factor in his own life. >> a lot of officials do not oppose it. i would say the majority of the people who write letters to the editor are against what we are calling for. >> is this going to open the door to anything? now that marijuana is ok, are we going to see other kinds of things that have been verboten changed? >> i hope not. >> is it a slippery slope? >> it is a concern. there are people that say we should legalize all narcotics and maybe have prescriptions or something. >> the hypocrisy of drug laws --

people are going to prison because they did one thing in their life for 50 years. >> that is probably be biggest reason we decided to do this and do it now. for us, it is a social justice and civil rights issue. the prosecution is heavily weighted toward black people. african-americans four times as likely to be arrested for possession and 10 times as likely to go to prison for possession. right now, somebody is getting arrested for pot possession. that kid's life is going to be ruined.

even if they get a second ticket. now they are in trouble. >> it influences you, being in prison. >> not to mention the violence in prison. so many things. that is going to be a tricky thing. what do you do about those people? do you let them out? >> there are marijuana edibles. maureen dowd works for you. she wrote about her experience with pot cookies. >> candy bars. >> she took more bites than she was supposed to. what could go wrong with a bite or two? everything. i barely made it from the desk to the bed.

where i lay curled up for eight hours. i was thirsty but could not move to get water. i was panting and paranoid. that is when the room service waiter knocked and i couldn't answer. [laughter] i became convinced i had died and nobody was telling me. it took all night until it wore off, distressingly slowly. >> i love her. she is wonderful. >> is that what marijuana does to you? >> not to me. if i had ever had it, which of course i did not inhale. it was great. she was huge. she wrote two columns. she was writing about edibles.

her experience aside, which apparently was very negative, edibles are a problem. multiple ways. in one is because the marijuana is refined to its strongest and the most potent substance. it is not like when some of us were in college and we put the leaves in the brownies. this is oil. you don't know what you are getting. they have to be very careful about distribution. dosage. colorado is learning about these issues. it is a big deal. there is going to have to be an acceptance -- they are going to have to accept labeling. otherwise they're going to get

in trouble. some sort of understanding of what a doses for a human being. you have to give credit to the governor, who has been trying his best to make this work. they are still working on the regulatory question. they are trying to refine what their sense of a dose is. how they make sure when you eat a quarter of a candy bar -- maybe those edibles should only come in one dose. it is a big issue. the effect can be more intense. >> and perhaps this will start a serious dialogue. >> we should be talking about this. in the context of what the real issues are and not because the government is required by law to denounce everybody that calls for legalization, which is our current position.

if you look back at the lies told about marijuana, it is shocking. it is unbelievable. the hearings they held. they had people come in and say it turns you into a sexually violent saxophone player. ridiculous. >> this is when elvis was helping with the war on drugs? >> while he was eating pills. my father was a huge opponent. we used to argue a lot. >> andrew rosenthal of the new york times. thank you for joining us. see you next time. ♪

>> live from pier three in san francisco, this is "bloomberg west," were recovered innovation, technology, and the future of business. i am jon erlichman, in for emily chang. tesla is looking to wrap up sales with a new lithium-ion battery. taz land panasonic our partners on the project. ground has been broken in nevada, but there is still possibility it could be moved to another state. the los angeles dodgers are in first place, but if you live in l.a. you might not know it because of a standup tree and time warner cable and various pay-tv providers that has resulted in gains being blacked