>> from our studios in new york, this is "charlie rose." >> we began with the ferguson grand jury decision not to indict police officer darren wilson in the shooting death of the unarmed teenager michael brown.

robert mcculloch spoke at a press conference last night. >> after the review of the evidence the grand jury deliberated over 2 days making their decision. they determined no probable cause exists to file charge against officer wilson, and no true bill on each of the five indictments. >> after the indictment president obama made an unusual statement from the white house briefing room. >> this is not just an issue for ferguson. this is an issue for america. we have made enormous progress in race relations. i have witnessed that in my own life. to deny that progress, is to deny america's capacity for change. but what is also true is there

are still problems. communities of color are not making this up. separating that from this decision, there are issues in which the law too often feels as if it is being applied in a discriminatory fashion. i don't think that is the norm. i don't think that is true for the majority of communities or the vast majority of law enforcement. these are real issues. we have to lift them up and not deny them, or tempt them down. we need to understand them and make more progress. that can be done. the call for calm fell on deaf ears. demonstrators clashed overnight exchanging gunfire. more than 80 people were arrested as cars and businesses were set ablaze.

michael brown's parents stood alongside al sharpton wherein he spoke. >> michael brown has lit a new image for police accountability. i remember when rodney king happened. our hearts were broken when we went and watched a trial jury acquitted those police. there was violence after that. the federal government came in and those policemen were convicted. before you think this is over, remember. [applause] remember what happened in rodney king. we went from there to the front of role government. this will not end in the valley here. >> darren wilson spoke with george stephanopoulos.

>> is there anything you could have done differently that would have prevented that killing? >> no. >> nothing. you are convinced when you look through your heart and mind, that if michael brown were white, this would have gone down exactly the same way? >> yes. >> no question. what is your dream going forward? >> a normal life. that is it. >> i guess it is hard to have a normal life after someone is lying dead. something that will always hot you? >> i don't think it is a haunting. it is going to be something that happened. >> you have a clear conscience. >> i know i did my job right. >> joining me is michelle miller of cbs news.

describe for me the scene on the ground today. >> there is a peaceful protest. people out in force have been here over the last 100 days are continuing their efforts to get the message out beyond the decision made by the grand jury yesterday. they say people still need to talk about the issues at hand. they are cleaning out. you see the two stores. one of them a black-owned business. they have cleaned up the rubble outside of their building to try to put things back in order. from the community standpoint that is how they are trying to recover. the police, a different response from sets of factions. the head of the highway patrol said last night was a disaster.

his words. he mentions the fact that he hopes to never see that kind of response again, and certainly not tonight. the mayor of ferguson has said that the national guard troops who have been activated by governor jay nixon, the deployment here was willful. he expected far more national guardsmen to be out in force. the governor said 700 were in fact in and around the ferguson community. he plans to deploy 2200 on the ground tonight. people across the board depending on where you sit certainly are trying to react, and trying to move forward and make sure this sort of thing doesn't happen again tonight. >> the question is how do we move forward? what do you expect to see? >> that is a big question. it is a question a lot of people

are having. i think each one of these interests is taking one step forward. business owners are getting property assessed by insurance companies. you have law enforcement trying to figure out and re-strategize. where they went right. keep in mind no one was killed last night as far as has been reported by various police departments. there were 18 injuries reported. keeping this in perspective, in comparison to other riots in our past. the last one that comes to mind is one that i was witnessing in los angeles, 63 people died there. that is the silver lining of this. property damage is a big deal for people here who wanted to move forward, move beyond what

protesters, what agitators here had done to them. not the protesters. they are simply trying to see what the next that is. what is interesting about this building is that it was hit 3.5 years ago by a tornado. this business came back three years ago. now they have to go and start all over all again. it is a good question. tonight, a lot of people are asking themselves how do i take the next step forward? ♪ >> joining us now is jeffrey toobin. tell me about this case from the legal perspective and the prosecuting attorney approach. >> he did something very unusual for the state of missouri, and

for most state prosecutions. instead of simply bringing charges against officer wilson shortly after he killed michael brown, he took the case to a grand jury. grand juries are unusual in the first ways. he did something more unusual than that. he announced he was point present every single piece of evidence to the grand jury and let the grand jury make up its mind about whether to bring charges. not only is unusual to go to the grand jury at all, instead of simply acting like a prosecutor and presenting the evidence he wanted the grand jury to use to bring charges, he threw up his hands, did a document dr. the grand jury, and let them make up their own mind, which turned out to be no indictment. >> why? >> i think the answer is it

depends how cynical you are. if you are on cynical, you might say, this is a difficult case. it is a close case. why not give all of the grand jury all of the available evidence and let them make up their minds from the most informed perspective? if you're cynical you will say this is a prosecutor who wanted to exonerate officer wilson, so he simply buried the grand jury in evidence, confuse them with lots of stuff that wouldn't even be admissible at trial, and then reached the result that he wanted all along, which was no true bill. >> is there evidence that ties into that position, that there would not be an indictment? >> certainly the family of michael brown and civil rights leaders have been very skeptical of bob mcauliffe for a long time. it is a contentious relationship. many people know by now his

father was murdered. he was a crime victim. he is someone who works very closely with the police as most prosecutors do. a lot of people were suspicious that he was never interested in bringing this case at all. >> talk about inside the grand jury and what they looked at and my have led them to believe the decision they did. >> one of the things that is good is that all of the evidence is out. all of us can look and see whether we think about the evidence. what he did was he presented 2 incidents that took place in a very short time. maybe as little as 90 seconds. there was a confrontation at the

car between michael brown and officer wilson. it does seem quite clear from dna evidence michael brown reached in and had a confrontation that led to offer so wilson's gun going off twice in the car. at that point, things get murkier. officer wilson came out of the car, and there he had a confrontation with michael brown that ended with brown's death. initially, a lot of witnesses in public said michael brown had his hands up. some said he was shot in the back. what we know from the grand jury is that clearly he was not shot in the back. there were several new witnesses who said with their and degrees of certainty that michael brown was coming at officer wilson.

was making threatening movements towards him, thereby justifying wilson's use of lethal force. i think those witnesses, who said there was movement from brown towards wilson were the key witnesses in leading to no indictment. >> is this a reasonable decision looking at this evidence that they saw and heard? >> i think so. i think other prosecutors another grand jury's might well have come out differently. my well have pursued the case in a different way. do i think this grand jury made an irrational choice based on the evidence? no. i think they made a reasonable conclusion. >> would it have been better with hindsight that some of these witnesses and what they had to say, and some of the evidence had been released

early? >> that is a good question. probably. it is hard to know how that would have worked. if the prosecutor had simply outlined his reasons for not bringing the case on his own, he might have disclosed this evidence on his own. it is certainly good that the public can see this evidence for itself, and at least understand if not agree with what the jury decided. >> what options are there now? what can eric holder do if he wants to take action? >> there are two options left. one is the federal investigation. it has two parts. one is a criminal investigation of officer darren wilson in the way that being officers who attacked rodney king in los

angeles were prosecuted after they were acquitted of state charges. i think that is very unlikely to yield anything. those cases are hard to make. as a criminal matter darren is pretty much in the clear. there is a simple investigation by the justice department of patterns and practices of the ferguson police department. almost certainly there will be changes ordered in ferguson as a result of the investigation at a policy level. i think that is a good thing. in addition to those federal investigations, there will almost certainly be live -- civil lawsuits by michael brown's family against the ferguson police and other law enforcement entities. i would be willing to bet those cases will be settled.

they will be a substantial amount of money changed hands. it is not going to do michael brown's parents much good given what they have gone through. >> thank you. jeffrey toobin from the new yorker magazine. joining me now from st. louis, jelani cobb of the new yorker magazine. thank you for doing this. i know what a busy day it has been. >> thank you for having me. >> let me read from what you wrote in the new yorker. what transpired in ferguson was entirely predictable. widely anticipated. yet seemingly inevitable. tell me more about how you see this circumstance that has transfixed the nation? >> almost from the outset it seemed as if things were following, a manual for creating

a negative outcome, it seems this situation would have followed it to the letter. beginning with the incident that transpired between mr. wilson and mr. brown. it culminated in mr. brown losing his life. then the fact that he was left in the street for 4.5 hours while people in the community solve this and became more and more incensed. to a litany of interaction that left a decreasing amount of credibility for the official structures on the part of the people in the community. by the time we reached this outcome, people were widely predicting he would not be indicted despite the idea that grand jury's will typically indict when the prosecutor wishes them to. it was the perception the entire

affair was effectively rigged so there was no people could trust the system for justice. when people don't have the ability to trust the system of justice it makes it more likely things like what happened last night will transpire. it seemed almost as if everyone knew that it would culminate in this but no one was capable of doing anything. >> beyond the history of race in america, what else might have been done within the context of these series of events to have avoided it? >> one thing that worth noting, a couple of weeks before michael brown's death, robert mcculloch won a contentious election against an african-american opponent. he has had a terse relationship with african-americans in the community.

he had been part of another campaign who was unseated in his primary as well. he was the highest ranking local african-american political figure. he was unseated in the primary in which the prosecutor endorsed his opponent and then there was an advertisement people thought had racial elements to it. this really was a tinderbox before mr. wilson and mr. brown encountered each other. i think that is one thing that could have been done differently. when people requested that bob mcculloch step aside, i think that would have gone a long way to giving people some modicum of faith the situation could be reasonably resolved.

the bigger picture, there are all sorts of things that go into this. one is deemed demographic factors, only three african-american police officers on the police department. in a community that is more than 60% black. that is one factor. there is probably a cold troll issue in terms of how people perceive the job of policing. this is not simply in ferguson. this is a national problem. do our people perceive the community that is served? those are different approaches to handling your job. those things are important in terms of preventing the situation like this from taking root. >> we have jeffrey toobin and others that said it was a reasonable decision for that grand jury to make about the indictments. how does that sound to you?

>> what i think in this community, when you look at the bigger picture, the consistency with which african-americans have these encounters, and the lived experience, people can't attest having interactions that are downright fatal. the consistency with which no offense is committed on the part -- this really doesn't matter in this micro case. in the macro picture it is the pattern that says african-american lives do not matter to the same degree that white lives matter. or that if we are willing to tolerate the policing of black people in ways that are fundamentally different and less to make radek than we would be willing to tolerate for other parts of the society.

whether this isolated case really should have been decided as it was doesn't allow us to get past bigger issue of how these issues are going to be handled in the future, and how they have been handled for a long time. >> where do we go from here? >> that is a difficult question. this afternoon at the press conference, the attorney for the family said they were hoping that what would come out of this would be policies that would enhance the number of body cameras, that are given to police officers. as we saw earlier, the issue around stop and frisk in new york city. there was a request police officers have body cameras in order to diminish the possibility of situations like this occurring. i think that is one thing that may help address this.

in a bigger since this ties into lots of other things. in the community of ferguson we solve the way that traffic stops and the people who tickets were issued to were being used as a means of fundraising on the backs of people who were economically disadvantaged already. they were bearing the brunt of financing the county make budget. this touches upon so many things. i don't think we can have one simple answer for moving forward. >> here is what you said about president obama today. in his statement after the decision, obama took pains to point out there is never an excuse for violence, a man who once said there was no black america or no white america, but only on the united states of america. it seems contradictory the deaths of auster grant and trayvon martin, john ford and

michael brown, shot by men who faced no sanctions, came during the first black presidency. or the message is that american democracy have reached the limits of its elasticity. that comes from where within you? >> it was a deep place of despair. i saw the keening wail that michael brown's mother admitted when she saw or heard darren wilson had not been indicted. we have been exposed to that despair consistently. it does something. it becomes difficult to maintain a sense of optimism about the ability of issues like this to be addressed.

not long ago we were dealing with a situation with trayvon martin and his death. not long after that we were dealing with a situation with jordan davis and a circumstance under which he died. habitually revisiting these situations where we see african-americans who are almost always posthumously put on trial and deemed to have done something to cause their own death. it becomes, it wears on you. you say, perhaps this is the best we can hope for. 13% of the population in a country where very many people are in different if not hostile to your aspirations. i hope that is not the case. i hope that is not the case. looking at situations like the one we saw yesterday it is certainly tempting to believe

that it might be. >> i share your hope that it turns not to be true and that we can learn and perhaps at long last go forward. i thank you for joining us. >> thank you. >> we will be right back. ♪

>> tom donilon is here. he served as the national security advisory until 2009. -- his consolidating gain even though the president has ramped up u.s. troops to 3000. the united states and iran failed to reach an agreement related extend talks through 2015. afghanistan is back in headlines as reports emerged that obama has approved an expanded u.s. mission to support aliban resurgence. -- to suppress taliban

resurgence. i am pleased to have tom donilon back at this table. he knows about all of those things. we want to talk about it. let's talk about the resignation of chuck hagel. i interviewed him last week and then he resigned. >> was there a relationship between that? [applause] >> it has been suggested to me. he had it on his mind, the resignation. it happened between that interview and the moment he felt compelled to resign. help us understand it. >> it is difficult to do from the outside. secretary hagel have a long-term and close relationship from the senate. were close as senators. they traveled together. secretary hagel had an impact on senator obama's thinking.

they became close friends and remain close friends. it is difficult to penetrate those conversations. they go both ways. >> what is interesting is, one argument put forward is the president wanted different kind of voice from his secretary of defense because events had changed. there was a different emphasis. does that had residents with you? >> it is difficult to penetrate. the circumstances have changed quite a bit during the course of the second term. you have an unexpected fight in iraq and syria with respect to isis, which came on the scene as a major security challenge over the last year. you have renewed security challenges in europe with the brushes incursion into the ukraine.

and you have as a result of all that, pressures on the defense budget. my own judgment, instead of looking at the coyotes, we will look at increases. you had a changed landscape. >> it is said, there was a memo sent to susan rice in which he said we did not have with regard to iraq and syria a holistic approach. >> we've got a problem here. these are different challenges are they not? in iraq and in syria. we have the iraq he army and we have the kurds. we do not have either in syria. >> that is true. the challenges are related in terms of threat. what you have is an organization taking over a large swath of land that includes parts of syria and iraq. a swath of land that is around the size of jordan. it is a well-funded organization. it has unified leadership.

it aspires to be the successor to al qaeda. >> it has the pushback from the saudi's and others who said this is too serious for you to do that. i realize the iraqi government under previous leadership was very sectarian. i urge you not to support isil. and the emirates and the saudi's have basically tried to make an appeal to those tribes not to form a relationship with isis, or be acquiescent in their advancement. >> that is part of it in iraq. the other part is these. forming iraqi government that is multi-sectarian. that is critical to going to get any sort of support from sunnis. second is a stand stable government that requires the united states to engage in leading a coalition, carrying

out airstrikes against isis. that has stopped their progress in terms of their threat to baghdad and stability of the iraqi state. building a coalition, including arab countries. building up iraqi security forces. and working with the sunni tribes, building a national guard there. local operations to protect them. this is a huge task. it is going to be expensive. it is going to take a long time. it is going to be frustrating because it is not going to be a precise point in time where we can declare victory. given the resources we can bring to bear, we can be successful with respect to stopping and shrinking isis. >> the aforementioned interview about isil. here it is.

>> the sophistication. we've never seen an organization like isis that is so well organized, so well-funded. so strategic, so brutal. so completely ruthless. we've never seen anything quite like that in one institution. they blend in ideology which will eventually lose. we get that. and social media. the sophistication is something we've never seen. you blend that together, that is an incredibly powerful threat. we are adjusting to this, and we can't do it alone. it has to be with coalitions. we can't go in our will on any country. >> he says how sophisticated isis is. >> they are a combination of organizations. they are an army. they have taken and hold

territory. they are an insurgent organization battling against the government of iraq. >> and syria. >> and, they are a terrorist organization. the terrorist organization will at some point turn it serious focus beyond the confines of iraq. >> this in fact airstrikes and other things do damage against iso-, does that not a sod? >> you need to do several things. we need to in the first instance deal with isis. >> what does that mean to do about assad? >> let's go through it. you had an urgent problem with respect to the isis threat to the government of iraq. >> advancing on baghdad. that was a first-class challenge that needed to be addressed.

the united states took action in terms of airstrikes and stopped that and began to work with the kurdish forces which had been overrun. to stop their advancement pushback and begin planning to retake territory. that is going to take time. i think it's going to take months. you had some progress north of baghdad. >> to go on the offensive. >> yes. >> but to have a major offensive is going to take months. >> and it will be mosul. >> we also have made progress but there has been pushed back. there is a major assault and ramadi.

the iraqis were working with them to repel. >> that is really a continued offensive. >> they launched an offensive. we have continued pressure. it is going to be an extended effort here. as i said earlier there will be some frustrations. >> what is the in game? to destroy them or keep them under control? >> it has to be to stop their threat to the stability of the iraqi government. then to put tremendous pressure on them and start to shrink the areas they control. and over the long term to deteriorate. >> this has nothing to do with [indiscernible] >> we've had an effort underway to defeat al qaeda in south asia. for over a decade. these are long-term efforts. they must be done. it is important to reflect on

this. why are we doing this? you have the threat to the stability of these important governments and nations in the region. the iraqi government. second, there are lessons to be taken from 9/11, pre-9/11. when an organization like this is given an pressured space to plot, plan, raise money, launch operations, that is >> that is a threat to the united states. we have an additional threat which you referenced earlier, the foreign fighter threat. we have 12-15,000 foreign fighters fighting here, attracted from around the world. several thousands are from the west. including europe and the united states. >> explained to me what you're going to do about isis in syria. you have other groups were different from them. you have a moderate force that has not been very effective and did not get the support it wanted from the united states. there are some promises of support but not lethal weapons.

>> in the first instance, you have to stop the progress of isis and start the pushback. at the same time there needs to be support for a syrian moderate group. that is what it takes some time. >> does iso-continue to gain space and do well? >> i don't think so. as we build up the iraqi security forces and get more intelligence with respect to where they are and what they do, which we will over time. we are very good at this. we will develop good intelligence on where they are and what they do every day, which will enable us to have more effective airstrikes, advise the iraqi security forces in a better way. we will push them. we know how to do this. we will shrink the territory they contain.

syria, we have to look at syria from a number of perspectives. one as a supply and safe haven for isis and iraq. secondly, isis as a threat in syria. we do need to build out a syrian force that can do two things. be a force against isis but also does assad regime. that's going to require a long-term efforts, to do direct action with respect to no-fly and safe zones. i think at some point it is going to be something that is de facto. it is not that difficult indicate to the syrians these are areas we are going to operate. if you fly, if you use it you lose it. it can be just a practical side

of communications. >> is it possible as isis becomes this force that it has with some appeal to people who have anti-west feelings, that they will have access to weapons we've never seen a terrorist organization have? >> it is both an army. a lot of weapons. >> they will try to take everything that they can. they have money. as is a well-funded organization. they will try to buy on the black market additional weaponry. which is why the united states is correct and leaving this effort to stop them, and destroy

them. >> there is this perception as isis came on strong the president had moved from being a reluctant warrior to commander in chief. there had been in his own thought process a very different frame of mind. >> the threat had changed. it was against the states. the threat was ultimately against the united states. in terms of allowing to plot and plan, and be a source of inspiration, and be the leading attractive force for jihadist. the situation is not here with respect ice. they may not be the most threatening jihadi force or terrorist organization. there are several levels to this. we have a higher threat level from terrorism i would go through several lists. you have isis. you have al qaeda in the arabian peninsula. based in yemen. yemen is in a chaotic state, a civil war.

it is an organization that shows the intention and has tried several times to attack the west, including aviation. you have the other groups in syria, al qaeda associated groups with intention to attack the west. various groups in west africa. and have individuals and smaller groups inspired by these groups. my judgment, the terrorist threat is not necessarily the kind of complex 9/11 threat to the united states. but the threat of multiple smaller groups or individual groups against the united states. >> do you have reason to believe that with respect to what is happening in iran now, and the negotiation's in successful? >> we've extended until the end of june. >> the fact they extended means they fail to come to an

agreement. a significant division between them. is there reason to believe they will bridge those disagreements? >> number one, netanyahu said the same thing. the extension is probably a sound way to go right now. it freezes the iranian program continues its rollback, and allows inspection, is a decent platform. >> what president netanyahu says is that any thing that allows them have centrifuges is a bad deal. that there should be no lessening of the sanctions until the removed the centrifuges. >> we will have to see the elements of the deal at the end of the day.

>> that is his position. >> this is a decent platform to have a negotiation. it is much better than the situation prior to the times these negotiations began with the program was moving along. that is the first point. it is not perfect. it does freeze the program. it rolls back aspects of it. it gives modest sanctions relief. it is a modest sanctions relief. you will always have to be worried though about covert programs they may have. the two programs we discovered were covert programs. i was blowing the whistle in 2009. you have to keep a close eye. we don't have any reason to believe that at this point. it is something we have to pay attention to.

we have a solid basis to go forward. the iranians have not responded, and my judgment from this distance, in a serious way to this point with respect to the key issues. there are gaps. >> why not? >> i think a couple of things. the decision rests with the supreme leader. he doesn't feel he wants to move. they are under pressure. i would have some confidence from the united states and these fights. -- and these sides. they are under pressure. they are under pressure not just from sanctions but from the fact oil prices over last few months have dropped. >> that effects russia as well. >> pressure on russia, pressure on iran.

pressure on venezuela. >> three countries that don't love america. >> but who are one trick ponies with respect to their economy. big benefit for the united states, china, and europe. >> if we can use it. whether, for example, is vladimir putin feeling pressure is on economy that he will be less aggressive in eastern ukraine? there is no evidence of that so far. right? >> he has not backed off his goals or activities. he has had troops in eastern ukraine. what he has done, he has not changed his goals. >> invading a sovereign area of

another country. >> i couldn't agree with you more. it is an issue. it is an invasion. it is the taking of the territory of another state. >> so was crimea. >> it was not a situation where a military action was available. it's a very interesting episode. essentially it was a covert operation. it was deniable. the russians denied it. it had the elements of a covert operation. a big thing he is into is propaganda. to do a number of things. to feel support for the russians in those areas they've taken over. more importantly, propaganda efforts in russia to support this nationalist events.

if you lived in moscow the propaganda you would see each night on state tv would be like nothing you had seen since the soviet union. you would be convinced i think or told there wasn't a single russian troop in the ukraine. despite the fact that our body bags with russian troops. that russian speakers, russian ethics are under great pressure and assault, and attack by fascists. i think a couple of things. i don't think we are right. his goals remain to have a weekend ukraine. ukraine. weakened it is not stable. as a path towards ensuring ukraine cannot be a formal member in nato or the european union. that is his goal. he will continue to press on this, to achieve that goal. he has paid a high price for this.

as you said earlier, the truth is he has not backed off. he has gotten more aggressive since last august. even in the wake of image 17. -- in the wake of mh-17/ . we had an incursion in august by the separatists supported by putin and armed by putin with respect to the weaponry that shot the plane down. 300 souls were lost. putin has not backed off on this. he has paid a high price. there is triple pressure on russia right now. you have the sanctions, but as we were talking about with iran, low oil prices have tremendous pressure on russia. and the uncertainty around his economy has met a lot of capital flight. >> do you think it is likely that i run will have an anthat iran will have

opportunity, will be in range of a nuclear weapon before the end of the obama administration? >> i hope not. we have been through negotiations and been able to freeze the program. >> they're not any closer than they were? >> that is right. they are further away. it was rollback to 20% enriched uranium. >> have they increased missile capacity? >> i don't know the answer to that. delivery capacity is outside the scope. it is something we have been paying attention to. >> there are reports they have been increasing. the israelis say it's not just a question they can reach. they can reach israel. can they reach into western europe? >> we have a full range of other issues with respect to iranian behavior. >> the interesting thing is that are those who like to believe there is a sliver of a chance if

they had an agreement it could somehow lead to a stronger position within iran to be a better, for further acceptance in the world, which would benefit iran for economic potential when you look at how much energy resources they have in that country, and that it might lead to some relationships that will be productive in the fight against the terrorist groups we been mentioning. none of them are friends of the iranians. >> that is true. >> even though they support hamas. >> in all manner of terrorist groups around the region. i say this. there is pressure inside iran to resolve the economic issues, which can only be done through a nuclear resolution. we haven't seen the willingness

of the government to make the compromise it would need to make the give the international community the confidence it needs that we can put in place and deal here, that indicate they weren't seeking a nuclear weapon. or if they did that the world community would have some time to do something about it. >> one question about china. are you optimistic, because they are able to reach some agreement on climate? >> i think the president had a good trip to china. i'm optimistic with respect the u.s. china relationship across 3-4 dimensions. the agreement we reached on climate, we had an important agreement on information technology that will boost information-technology agreements, and something i have been working on with the chinese, a set of arrangements

we put in place with our military, where we will notify each other of exercises, and have rules of the road on naval and air activity. my fear here has been for a long time we would have an accident or miscalculation that could do damage to the relationships. that is the positive side. this has elements of competition and cooperation. i think this was a fairly good set of steps by the united states. >> thank you. ♪

>> live from pier three in san francisco, welcome to "bloomberg west," where we cover innovation, technology, and the future of business. i'm emily chang. is there trouble ahead for the u.s. economy? first-time jobless claims in the u.s. rose to 313,000 last week, the highest number since early september. october new home sales came in lower than estimates, and orders for capital goods posted an unexpected drop. a french food giant may sell its 20% stake in japanese dairy maker yakult. a person familiar with the