.

>> from our studios in new york city, this is "charlie rose." >> the week has been dominated by the release of the cia report on the program.

>> in a limited number of cases, agency officers used interrogation techniques that had not been authorized, were abhorrent and should be repudiated by all. and, we fell short when it came to holdings some officers accountable for their mistakes. >> joining me now is senator john mccain. i know you are receiving a lot of attention about the elegant speech about america's values on the senate floor. >> i know the use of torture compromises that distinction from our enemies, our belief that all people possess basic human rights that are protected by international conventions. the united states not only joined for the most part. >> give the sense of the first reaction to what you said on the

floor, but also how the blowback has come and how you assess that. >> the blowback is interesting in that brendan yesterday made the incredible statement that results of these enhanced interrogation techniques, eits, that the results were unknowable. that is remarkable on its face, because usually when someone is interrogated and we get certain information from it, then you know whether you got information or not. so i will be interested in an elaboration there. i think one of the reasons he made the statement that way is that they basically do not have concrete results that they can

point to. now, they say a number of things but on close examination these results were not gained from eits. the other thing i would like to point out, charlie, is that david petraeus, i respect him as much as anyone that i met in the military, was quoted in "the wall street journal" today. he said "if you want information from a detainee, you become his best friend." and, that is what worked for us with our special operators in iraq and afghanistan. david petraeus will tell you that they were good results and we did not violate the geneva convention as far as the treatment of prisoners is concerned. >> this may be over the long run

the best way to go, we were under enormous pressure at that moment because america have been attacked to find out as much as we can, as much as we could, as fast as we could. >> i understand that, charlie, and i think all americans shared that view at that point. but i think we also have to understand whether or not that was the most effective way. in other words, if you spend time becoming a friend and get valuable and useful information or do you torture somebody, and believe me, waterboarding started with the spanish inquisition, we hung japanese war criminals for waterboarding americans after world war ii, if that will receive concrete results you can use in combating this enemy that attacked america. and i think that is part of the question but the major question is, it is not about interrogation, what they got. it is not about the nature of

our enemy. it is about us and what kind of country we were, what we are, and what we will be. >> mike morrell said to me that the debate that needs to happen is over the morality of doing terrible things to a person versus the morality of doing nothing in the face of great danger. now i would assume what you , would do is say that you need to become the best friend of this person so he is motivated. >> you use that as well as other techniques which i think can also be used. that brings us again, if mr. morrell was so fired up and his people, why are the results unknowable? why are they unknowable, when we have done these two people, one of them died, some of the

techniques are really, you want to turn your head. when you waterboard somebody 183 times, is that a way to get useful information? there are allegations that we found out another evidence that we found out that information about osama bin laden before the employed these eits. some of that may have to be resolved. and by the way, it was known around the world, it was not a secret and this is not revealing a secret that we used these eits. and by the way, i did not see any increased zeal, and a possible increase in zeal on the part of al qaeda and isis to attack the united states whether this information was out there or not. i think they were carrying out orders and there was not a prohibition at that time,

certainly a specific prohibition in american law, although the geneva convention clearly, which is the treatment of prisoners, not prisoners of war on a battlefield but prisoners, that prohibits this. we have this information out there. the debate will go on for a while but i would hope that we would have laws -- which we do, we have the detainee treatment act and other legislation that we enacted. let's move on as a better nation. only in america, could we come clean, give all of the information to our public, and then move forward because that is really the only way we can close the chapter. that is another reason that i

have problems with some of the aspects of this report. it is better to have gotten it out, get it behind us, and move on. we have an enemy that is hell-bent on destroying us. >> what problems do you have with the report? >> i think there should have been a greater effort to interview some individuals. >> including cia directors? >> i think so. the rationale was that there was a justice department investigation and i was not that familiar, i would love to have seen it be bipartisan and that would've avoided a lot of what we are hearing but what you are hearing from them is that nobody in the senate objected, that is not true.

i met with the vice president at length and general hayden at length in a secret and secure room where i voiced my very strong objections to it at the time. and then we moved forward it later on with legislation to prohibit it. >> tell me what you said to general hayden at that time. >> i told him, he went through this routine that these were mild ways of getting information and we needed to get. what you might expect. and i said, look, general, i sympathize with you and your job. i know what it is, there are threats to america. but i cannot countenance waterboarding. i cannot countenance it. it is something that fits all of the description of torture. and so i said the same thing to

the vice president. the vice president came to a republican lunch to argue against legislation that we were about to pass on the detainee treatment act and he and i had a debate and the vote was overwhelming, 90 something to six. >> when you look at this debate and you see the conflict that is expressed in the dialogue, how do you characterize these former cia directors who say it was fully informed at congress, we were working under legal authority. these are honorable men and women, were they not? >> they were saying yesterday that it is unknowable. david petraeus was also cia director thought that the best way to do it was what he said about if you want information, become his best friend. >> george tenet, who was cia director, said that we can tell you specifically how we got

information that led to the attempt to either rescue -- to capture or kill osama bin laden. >> i keep hearing that but there is argument on the other side of the information that they got, the useful information that they got was before they inflicted the eits. so there is a debate out there as to whether that technique was indeed successful or not. if that was indeed the case, why did mr. brennan yesterday say that the results were unknowable? you either know or you don't know. >> i hear you. there is also, as you pointed out, this major point in terms of the reaction around the world. how does this country, assuming it does have the impact, go about repairing the damage?

is it important to acknowledge mistakes? >> i think acknowledging our mistakes is the right step. we did that after the abuses at abu ghraib and were able to put that behind us. there was an investigation and people were responsible and the information is out there and we can tell the world, we are not perfect, america's far from perfect, but we are the only nation in the world that can acknowledge our mistakes. the russians and chinese are supposedly critical. let's have the russians talk to us about the treatment of their detainees and the chinese, their treatment of tibet.

never. that is what makes america proud. we make mistakes, admit mistakes, and move on. that is what i believe we are. it is really, this particular situation, as i keep repeating, is what america is all about. >> tell us, if you will, even though you spoke of this a thousand times. what is it that torture does to a person? >> the infliction of pain is really something that fits the description of torture. and what it does is that if there is enough pain inflicted, that person who was having that on them, sooner or later, will say anything to make the pain stop that he thinks the interrogator wants to hear. that is why you get a wealth of misinformation. there were numerous times in north vietnam where our captors inflicted pain on people. we did not tell them the truth when it came time. we told them whatever we thought

was necessary to make the pain stop. that is certainly what you might expect. and so you not only got if you inflicted enough pain that they said something, but was it good information or bad information? we do not know. general petraus is talking about developing a relationship. that is the good cop/bad cop routine, when they interrogate people. it is not an unusual technique. >> as you know, your former best friend jon stewart has taken

[laughter] your speech on the senate floor and set it to music and you cheering crowds and he is saying john is back. >> john mccain forever. >> my favorite was his line where he says, don't ever leave me again. [laughter] >> thank you, senator. >> diane von furstenberg is here. she is my friend, a former princess, and a grandmother. one of her most iconic designs is the wrap dress which celebrates its 40th anniversary this year. she has written a memoir called "the woman i wanted to be." >> this season on house of dds.

>> this is not a delusion. >> it is a big deal for them to go into the company. >> every minute to is costing thousands of dollars. i am right here, i promise. >> they will learn about the pr and the design. >> i have made a mistake. x i know i have what it takes. >> i do not know how you would be a brand ambassador when you are not likable. >> you cannot decide who is the brand ambassador, i am deciding. >> they're going to have a crash course and they better put their seatbelts on. >> i am happy to have you back at the table. welcome. >> thank you. >> has it been a good year? >> it has been a busy year. aged 30 years in

one year. but a big year because i finished this memoir and i never went into therapy and this is like therapy. quick see you have never had a moment in therapy of all of your life? >> yes. >> this means what to you? >> i started this book because i wanted to tell my mother's story. i wanted to tell my mother's story, who at the age of 22, she was a prisoner of war, she was in auschwitz. she came back and she weighed 49 pounds. she came back to belgium, she met my father, they got married, and the doctors said that you cannot have a child for three years because you will not be able to handle it and the child will not be normal. well, you know i was born nine , months later and i was normal. >> there is some question about that. [laughter] but it was 18 months after she was in auschwitz. eight team months.

>> that is right. and that is really nothing. and so, after my mother passed away 14 years ago i did a lot of research in the holocaust museum. she used to tell me that when she got arrested in the truck she wrote a note and threw it in the streets for my parents. i do not think she knew that that note had been kept by her sister. after she died and her sister died, i found the note and when i found this little note in my hands and i was in her house and i found this note and she said, "my dear parents, i do not know where i am going but i want you to know i am meeting it with a smile." i said, this is who i am.

i am the daughter of someone who went to the camp with a smile. she did not go with a smile but she said she did. she wanted people to think she went with a smile. that explains so much about me. so by telling my mother's story, it explains so much who i am. she used to say that god saved me so that i could give you life. you are my torture freedom. and by giving you life you brought my life back. this is where this little girl, this little belgian girl with curly hair, that was the thing she was told, you are my freedom. that explains -- you know me well -- doesn't that explain? >> that and more. she died in 19? >> 2001. >> she lived to see you come to new york to become the woman who became? >> she met two of my

grandchildren. she took care of my children and she was a part of my life. you knew her, too. >> she was a tiger mom, you say. meaning? >> what i was afraid of the dark she locked me in the closet. she could be arrested today for doing something like that. but i am so thankful she was a tiger mom. >> if she was sitting here, you would say to her? >> thank you. thank you. thank you. >> i would say thank you to her and she would say thank you to me because in many ways i was her vengeance. >> you say this book was written with my blood. >> yes. i opened my heart and i opened my soul and i said the truth.

and it is very funny because i say so much about me, this book is almost like i went to the gynecologist and yet i am very reserved. i do not really like to talk to mice -- at about to myself to the people close to me. but, if you are going to do this kind of exercise, the four point is to inspire others, and all, women of all ages, will identify with some of them. as we are all the same. we're all strong and insecure. i think that the point of writing a memoir is for people to identify with it. >> this is the woman you wanted to be. who was the woman who did not want to be? >> i did not want to be a slave housewife. [laughter] i mean i did not want to be , somebody not in control of her life. >> what was the famous cover

story in "the new yorker" magazine that caused you to get divorced? >> oh, that is when i was married. it was 1973, that cover, and i already knew you. it was the couple that has everything. is it enough? that was the cover. it was beautiful, we were the it andit was beautiful, we were the it, couple and we were glamorous and handsome. but i realized i had no control , over the couple and i could no longer be the couple, i had to be me. and therefore, i could no longer be the couple. and so we separated but we i had to be me. stayed good friends. but younow you did, went to him and said it is not for me? >> something like that. >> you said the most important relationship you have is with yourself. >> that is the one advice i tell every person in the world.

the most important relationship in life is the one you have with yourself. once you have that every other relationship is a plus and not a minus. -- not a must. >> you know i agree with that. >> i know you do, more than anyone. you met me, i was maybe 25 years old. how was i? >> you know what i thought. >> but how was i? what is the difference between the girl and -- >> i thought you were cocky but you had a reason to have confidence, much more worldly than i was. i was a country boy from north carolina that came to the city and a few people thought i had potential. >> i am so proud of you. >> likewise. >> i go to sleep walking you and i wake up watching you and i am very, very proud.

>> let me talk about the monumental things that happened. just tell me about the wrap dress. >> this italian manufacturer asked me to intern for him and he taught me everything about the printing. he taught me about jersey fabric. then i came to america and i thought, i should make samples and try to sell them in america. and then i did. there was a little wrap top that came with a skirt and i turned it into a dress. i had no idea that this would become -- there had never been a dress that has covered so many generations. so when i designed this dress, i was not even thinking of making a fashion statement. i was just making something nice so i could sell so i could be independent.

>> that is the key word, so you could be independent. >> that was a whole point. i did not know what i wanted to do, but i knew the woman i wanted to be. >> you did not want to be dependent. not a husband, not anybody. so you made this dress and you learn that these skills and take a look at this. >> 40 years ago. >> this is what the ad said. 1974. with clothes that are your everyday, a dress with the most flattering skirt you could wear, flat and smooth across your hips. a top that wraps around you. >> you make it sound so hot. >> she looks divine and so will

you. >> i remember. we hads because forgotten to get a model, then a someoneic, and then said, i don't it? -- i did this ad because we had forgotten to get a model or she looked sick and he said, why don't you do it? >> with that you bought all of the things that you wanted to begin with. then what happened? >> we saturated the market. >> did you learn a lesson there? >> i learned so many lessons. i went into cosmetics and i sold the company and i thought it was finished. i thought i had lost my identity and i started again 15 years ago. >> with the wrap dress? what made you think you could

bring them back. >> i saw young women buying them in vintage shops. >> empty you said, this has a life. and you said, this has a life. what has your company become? >> it is global, it is a lifestyle company with stalls all over the world including china. but what i tried to say in this book is even when you are successful and you get successful, you still make mistakes. i talked about two or three years ago, i went off brand and i had to go back on brand. the first part is about the woman i am and the other is the business of fashion. i think that in the business of fashion, i did therapy by really analyzing all of the things. because i am an entrepreneur, not a ceo.

i am not good as a ceo at all. i am an entrepreneur. so i always work with passion and making things happen. but it is not just that. you still have to run a company. >> where do you want to take it? >> i have three parts. the first part was american dream, the second era was come back, and now it is legacy. isyou have -- you know, that the good thing about aging is you have a past. if you have a past, you are a part of america. people know you. the grandmothers, the mothers. then you have a legacy. and my legacy, what does the brand stand for? it is solution driven, it is the friend in your closet, it is

a love brand. hopefully it can continue after me. >> there was a time when you did not like to think about yourself as a designer. >> it is not that i didn't like it, it is that i didn't dare. because i did not go to design school. at the beginning, i did not dare call myself a designer. but i do know. >> yes you do. [laughter] >> i have proven it. >> yes you have. respect means a lot to you. you want people to respect you. >> respect means a lot to get from people. but i also respect others. respect is a lot, yes, yes. it is funny you say that. it is very important. >> why is it funny i say that? >> i have never been told that before and it is nice that you can do an interview.

and you have something that has never been told to you. >> what has barry met for you? -- meant for you? >> barry is the mountain. i took him for granted. i fell madly in love with him 35 years ago and we were together for five years and i went on. and then i took him for granted. but, i know that he knows and i know and we both knew that somehow we would end up together. we knew that. >> through the other affairs and relationships, you thought you would end up with barry? >> deep down, yes. very early in the relationship we were coming back from the country and barry was driving fast and he slowed down to let an old couple cross the street. the old man was helping his wife and they were walking.

both barry and i had the same vision at the same time, that we would be that couple. barry is definitely the most important man in my life. it was a luxury. but i think it has a lot to do also with i have a lot of love from my father. therefore i took love from men for granted so i was never needy. that is not good for a woman to be needy. >> is it good to take a man for granted? >> no, but it is better than being needy. >> why did you want to do the reality tv show? >>'s people wanted me to do television shows because you get closer to the new generation and

people came to me with horrible ideas. tacky ideas. and then one day, alexander, my son, says to me that all you need is hot girls going around the world wearing your clothes and doing social media. and i thought, maybe we will have brand ambassadors and that should be the tv show. 8 girls come into the company and learn about everything. they are competing. 10 will become the brand ambassador for one year. -- one will become the brand ambassador for one year. i love to be with young girls. i love the beginning of people's lives when all the doors are there. i love that. even though i am an old grandmother and all of that i still relate to that moment in life when you push your first door.

>> women's issues are important. >> i wanted to empower myself. i empowered myself. having done that, it is my duty and my privilege, whatever, to try to empower women. i do it through my work. i give them sexy clothes that make them look and feel confident. i do it as a mentor. i give speeches at universities and things like that. and i do it through philanthropy. i am lucky because everything i do is connected to the same thing. women's, defend the cause. >> what haven't you done that you wanted to do? >> i have never written a play. i would never be able to write a play. >> will you write another book? >> i don't know. >> you said you've never had therapy, never seen a shrink for anything. not once.

>> i did go once but i never went back. >> why was that? >> because i thought, how could i begin to tell her? she was a woman, mildred. [laughter] but i wrote my diary and i think that was therapy. i wrote in my diary all my life. it was very boring. if you read my diaries, wherever you are at you are at a turning point. so i think all i did in my life was turning. >> do you really have no skeletons? >> i do not think anybody can to blackmail me. >> because there is nothing that you have done -- >> that i will not stand for.

>> there are things that you have not told us. >> there is plenty that i have not told. i talk about the things that were important, that made me the woman i wanted to be. some things did not make the cut. >> the things that made you the woman you wanted to be, your mother and the drive that she gave you -- >> my work and my children. >> how important is your work to you? >> oh my god. oh my god, it is everything because it gave me an identity. i could pay for my bills and my children's education. it made me famous. and, you know, everything. how important is your work? we are two little capricorn goats. what else are we going to do? we are engaged.

>> we are both in love with the broader world. >> we are curious. you allow the voice of others. you bring the most interesting people around the table and give them a voice. that is major. that becomes history. >> you knew me when this was a dream. remember? >> i know. i know. i knew you and you were adorable, you were the same and you were adorable. that is why i feel very proud. [laughter] >> you think, look in the mirror, you see -- a proud woman. >> complicity with myself. >> complicity? >> i am very much my best friend. i see my best friend. that is where i get my strength. >> your mother gave you that? >> i think so. she forced me to be strong. never allowed me to be afraid.

afraid? afraid of what? to this day when i have little , moments, i am scared for a minute, i close my eyes and i think of my mother. >> well, she came out of the worst kind of suffering you can come out of. did she talk to you about it? >> she did and she didn't. a lot of people that know i am the daughter of a holocaust survivor, and talk to me and there are fascinating stories and we have a bond in common but a lot of them have the weight. my mother did not give me the weight. she did not tell me the world was evil at all. she only talked to me about the positive. she always said in the dark, you , have to look for the light and build around the light. she did not tell me people were evil. even though she witnessed evil but she refused to see it. >> you have done well. >> i love you.

>> i love you. diane von furstenberg, she is on television. "the house of dvf." in all of that the remarkable the friend of mine is that she is taking a deep, deep glass of the fullness of life. it is constantly exciting and makes her more interesting as a friend. and what a glorious thing to , have, good friends. back in a moment. stay with us. ♪

>> tim kaine has been a governor and a senator. a member of the armed services committee, he was the driving force behind authorizing the war with the islamic state. senator kaine, it is nice to have you here. 10-8 votes, that is not a ringing endorsement. >> it was not what i was hoping for. in a sense, i have been trying for months to get there to be a

vote. we're now at month five. 1500 advisors on the ground growing to 3000, 3 americans have been killed. and congress had not had a discussion or a committee hearing or a vote until we did it. and we have done it and i do , believe that it is the will of both bodies and both parties. we have to authorize the war. >> you thought it was essential. >> i am disappointed we did not get to it quicker but the fact of the authorization, that will be the default version when we get to it eventually. >> a republican takes over the committee in january. when you pick it up again then, what modifications would you expect? >> the guts were the mission that the president presented. battling isil.

we put a sunset provision on it, within three years. i do not think that will be controversial with the new senate. the one point of controversy is what we put in which was a limitation on ground troops. the president said five different times, this will not be an exercise where we put american ground troops into combat missions in iraq or syria. we wrote the authorization to say that. it is not only a good idea because the president said it, it is a good idea because people like secretary gates says that putting people into missions is a big mistake. >> you created some exceptions. if it was necessary to protect personnel or operations on a limited basis. >> the other exception is since we are doing airstrikes, ground troops to spot. to minimize civilian casualties. there are some limited exceptions but there are those on the other side that wanted it to be a more robust possibility

of including ground operations. >> is that what secretary kerry wanted? >> it is close. we looked at the exceptions and said it would be covered by that exception so they are clearly worried about contingencies. there are going to be contingencies that we do but we think we have crafted exceptions that are significant enough that if the president decides, contrary to what i said, this is a measure that requires the use of ground troops, we want be president to have to come back and make the case to the congress.

>> the administration has no input. five months after the declaration of war against the islamic state, why can't the white house produce a plan or a strategy or language? >> this upsets me. i said you cannot do this without congress. the president has said that he would welcome congressional involvement after the election. i think it is important to work on an authorization. unlike other instances, the

white house did not send over a draft authorization that described the mission. usually, that is how this starts. the president would give a speech like he did on september 10. the president would send over a draft proposal and we would debate that. we had to draft one ourselves. i do not know if it reflects ambivalence or concern based on previous expenses that what they send to congress is what they will not do. they may have been reluctant to hand something in to congress that they would oppose. regardless of whether the article two branch does what it is supposed to do or not, the article one branch has a responsibility. the constitution states that you cannot start a war without congress and there are good reasons. >> we have been doing that for years. >> presidents overreach and it may be good to not do something that is not popular. that is not fair to the men and women who serve. if we are going to ask them to risk their lives, we ought to at least debate and say that the mission is in the national interest. if we ask that, we can ask that sacrifice. >> this measure would repeal the 2002 authority or resolution for the war against iraq but not the

2001. is that correct? >> very important point. the one challenge is that you have these authorizations, the al qaeda authorizations and the iraq authorizations that are still out there. they have never been repealed. the question is that it can create a confusing pattern of is this authorized or double authorized or unauthorized? our authorization against isil, we did two things. with the iraq authorization, we repealed that. the administration testified that we ought to repeal the 02

authorization. with the 01 authorization to go after al qaeda, we do not repeal that but we say this will have a three-year sunset. we should work with the administration to find, is there a version of the authorization that we need going forward to fight terrorist groups wherever they are but is not so open-ended geographically and in time. it has led to a perpetual war of 13 years. we put a three-year sunset on the 01 authorization so we can work with the white house to craft more refined language. >> do you think republicans like senator corker and senator paul are with you on this? >> senator corker actually has done very good work with the white house on dialogue on how you can take the 2001 authorization and narrow it down. there does not seem to be opposition within the body about repealing the authorization. what we did in this package is authorized the war against isil, repeal the old authorization, and start the process to come up with a better version of the 2001 al qaeda authorization to

go after terrorist groups but in a more limited and careful way. >> senator, you are a member of the foreign relations and armed services committees. how is the war going? >> not only am i a member, but in october, i went with senator king. we went to cutter where the combined air campaign is being operated. it is a room like this with big screens on the wall. andwalk out on the floor did there are u.s., canadian, dutch, coeteries working together to look at targets in iraq in syria and make decisions. it was extremely impressive. the scope of the coalition, very impressive. the work that secretary kerry has done to help the government go from the maliki government that kicked sunnis and kurds around to a more inclusive government, that has been impressive. i would say we are winning. on the iraq side, we are making

real progress. the part that is the tough part is in syria because the civil the atrocities, the fragmented nature of the opposition is making progress very difficult. the way i look at the war against isil, when we went to world war ii, we did not just invade germany. we went to north africa and italy and eventually germany. this war is going to have a a phase to it. the first phase will be to stabilize the border between syria and other nations and iraq. in syria, the provision of humanitarian aid -- we are the largest provider of aid in the world. we will look for a moment to end the civil war there. that is going to be the toughest

piece, that is going to be vp's where progress is the very slowest, sadly. but it is like other wars, where challenges take more time. >> you voted against harry reid. is there a moment to tap younger leaders? >> i do not want to put words in mark's mouth. he had slightly different reasons but that was a part of my thinking and i will say this. i voted against the leadership and we had a big loss. i was not willing to confirm the existing team until we had a strategic discussion, we are going from majority to minority, what are we going to do in the minority to do the country's business and do it the right way? the only minority we have seen is that minority trying to obstruct the president. well, we do not want to be obstructionist. we want to be productive to draw a clear contrast. that is why i voted.

i will say this about the leadership. your point about asking more young people to come in, harry reid and others decided that should be the case, so they brought in mark warner and elizabeth warren. and others. their firstcrats in or second in have now come into leadership in a way that i think will create new ideas and this newas we tackle challenge of being a minority party, but doing it to the right to way for the country. >> what should those new ideas and thoughts be? >> it was a disastrous november. >> the map was bad, but i reject the thoughts that we do not have anything to feel bad about. you have to look in the mirror about what we did wrong that we could do better. we need to be on the floor more, pushing more legislation and having more votes.

up or down, we win them or lose them, but you do that -- i saw that once we got the hard work done on workplace fairness, immigration reform, the budget, some of those things would go to the house and there would be no response. and that took the steam out of, why do we want to push legislation? i have been told i will vote on a hard bill to get something passed, i will vote on a hard bill if it will be voted down. but i do not want to vote on a bill that they will not vote on. we need to get better at that. >> give me two or three policies you would like democrats to do better. >> one area is infrastructure. when you see the u.s. chamber of

commerce and organized labor say, let's do an infrastructure package, whenever the economy, take advantage of low interest rates, there is no reason we should not be able to find common ground on infrastructure package legislation. you will see significant efforts on the republican side to knock the epa over and not tackle climate. we have to do it the right way but we should fight tooth and nail to stop anybody from pushing over the epa. >> you endorsed the probable candidacy of hillary clinton. >> i hope probable. >> you endorsed obama eight years ago.

since that time, jim webb, your predecessor, a virginia democrat, has indicated that he might seek the nomination. would you stick with hillary? >> i am going to stick with hillary. i thought hard before i decided to support senator clinton. i think she is the person. not to take something away from jim webb or other people. i think she will run but my intuition says that that is true. >> tim kaine of virginia, thank you for being with us. ♪

>> from pier 3 in san francisco, welcome to "bloomberg west." i'm cory johnson, in for emily chang. u.s. equity markets selling off with the nasdaq hit hardest. this comes as oil prices dropped again. accelerating after the hostage situation at a chocolate shop in sydney. riverbed technology is going to be acquired. the company is being sold for