Transcripts For BLOOMBERG Charlie Rose 20150430

Times. And in the studio, david boies. He successfully argued against california pot samesex marriage ban. Set the stage. You saw the advocates make their case. Tell me about it. Adam the room was absolutely packed. Full of samesex couples. Gayrights leaders. I think they left feeling pretty good but not as good as they might have. The questioning was more mixed than they might have liked. Justice kennedy asked questions suggesting may be the court was moving too fast. Maybe it should hesitate to change the definition of marriage, which he says we have had for millennia. In the second half of the argument, he made strong point of the dignity of gay families. The importance to children that their samesex parents have all the benefits of marriage. On the whole, given how much more emphatic he made the second second of points, it is likely Justice Kennedy will continue down that path. The evidence was more mixed than i might have expected. Charlie is that disappointing to you, david . David i dont think so. It would be disappointing if we lost this case. I think what Justice Kennedy was recognizing in the beginning was this is an important case that needs to be decided and has not been. The country has moved considerably. Public opinion has moved. All of us look at equal rights differently than we did when i was born 74 years ago. What Justice Kennedy is doing, was doing, is simply recognizing the magnitude of this decision. The substance of what he says in the second half of the argument is very powerful. Remember, Justice Kennedy two years ago broke the windsor decision. You cannot read that reasoning i believe and come to the conclusion you are not going to have a recognition of equal, Marriage Equality today. I dont see how you can reconcile those. Justice scalia, who i dont always agree with, but who is always perceptive, and almost always right to the point, in his dissent in windsor really late it out every the principles of that decision are those that compel a decision in favor of Marriage Equality. Charlie adam, speak to that. Adam before the argument in the morning, when all we knew was Justice Kennedys reasoning in the windsor decision, there was a lot of reason to think he was prepared to go all the way. He stopped short of saying so today. Will he in june . I agree with david, very likely, yes. His question suggests he knows hes on the brink of a major transformation of American Society and one which would be a ccomplished by Court Rulings and not democracy and that made him a little nervous. Charlie what more did you glean from watching this about the justices beyond kennedy . Adam both cases presented their cases good. They suggested, somehow banning samesex marriage, it would make traditional marriage more secure. Justices kagan, ginsburg, really went after him on that. Not understanding whatever you might say about traditional marriage, it is not clear how banning samesex marriage is going to do any harm to that institution. David i agree. It i thought it was interesting, you saw both in the chief justices comments and Justice Alitos comments, somewhat of a search to see if there was middle ground. One of the questions Justice Alito asked in the second half of the argument, when they were talking about whether states had to recognize other states marriages, even if they did not recognize Marriage Equality in their own state, Justice Alito said, maybe they have enough of an interest to not have them performed in their state but not enough to prevent recognition for faith and credit to other states. He said that is possible. I thought it was interesting, to see Justice Alito, who i think a lot of people would say would be against Marriage Equality, trying to find in the civil rights area some middle ground. Charlie where is the middle ground . David i dont need to suggest he was going to come out here. The middle ground was one between not having a right to marry any particular state, but that state has to recognize your marriage. That was the second question they had for review. When the chief justice asked maybe this is a violation of gender quality, because one man can marry a woman but not another man, that is purely a sexual distinction which has a high bar to be justified. A number of the justices that some people might have thought were going to be almost automatically against the proponents of Marriage Equality, searching to see whether there was a middle ground or way to reach that consistent with what they have said before. Charlie Justice Breyer described marriage as a fundamental liberty. Other justices said, allowing it would do no harm, which is an argument many people make. Would do no harm to the marriages of oppositesex couples. David it is not going to harm marriage. It is only going to make the institution of marriage stronger. It is only going to make children healthier and more stable and more secure. That is one of the points Justice Kennedy was making. This is an institution important for children. Marriage equality is important for two people involved in the marriage, but also important for the children being raised. That is one of the things Justice Kennedy had mentioned two years ago in the windsor arguments. He came back to it again in the second half of the first argument to date. It is very important point grid against those benefits, you dont have anything to balance. The state doesnt have any interest in preventing Marriage Equality. It is not going to harm heterosexual marriages. That is a silly argument at this point. If there is no harm in it, how can the state have an interest in preventing something that increases happiness and security . Charlie the solicitor general said, it is a decision based on equal protection which would have more practical muscle in other areas of the law, but it would be a symbolic blow to gay couples. David what he is saying is, if you have an equal protection argument, that means you have to treat people equal regardless of their Sexual Orientation. On the other hand, one of the things, one of the reasons we are interested in seeing a due process rationale as well, that demonstrates the state cannot deprive people based on Sexual Orientation of these important fundamental rights. Remember, loving against virginia, 1967, when the Supreme Court destroy the ban on interracial marriage, was on both grounds. Due process and equal protection. Charlie the solicitor general differed from some of the arguments made by the plaintiffs attorneys. David he was making a narrower, more focused argument which is not unusual for the solicitor general. In the perry case, when he came in on our side, he made a narrower argument. The important thing is going to be the result. The important thing is to get recognition. Marriage equality nationwide. Want that to be based on a broad jurisprudence that says you are putting this chapter of discrimination behind us. We are moving on, just as we are trying to move on, not entirely successfully, from the time of racial discrimination. We need to move on from the time of discrimination against people based on Sexual Orientation. Charlie have you seen the country change on such a significant issue . David it has been terrific. Just to watch the change in the country. One of the things that has been most gratifying is the fact that the american people, when they focus on an issue and understand it, come out in favor of our basic principles of liberty and equality. The thing that has happened is people had the opportunity to think about this question. Look at it. Consider their gay or lesbian friend, neighbor, dr. , teacher student. Father, child. Say, these people deserve equality just like everybody else. They are no different than i am. They deserve no less. They do not deserve to have their own state discrete against them and say, you are not equal. You are not worthy. Charlie chief Justice John Roberts had a question about the political power of samesex couples. Did that come up . Adam it sure did. It falls on davids point, society is moving fast. In court, that may cut both ways. If this issue can be resolved democratically, at the polls and through ballot measures, the Supreme Court could be a little wary of stepping in and putting an end to what chief Justice Roberts called a fastmoving debate. He referred to Public Opinion polls. He said, this is getting settled on the ground. Is it really for us nine unelected justices, unrelated to the ballot box, to step in and tell the American Public what they have to decide, what each state has to decide . That point was echoed by a liberal justice. The enormous societal shift, which is without precedent, is a sign the court is likely to rule in favor of samesex marriage. It does give rise to an argument that cuts the opposite way as well. David there is something have to focus on. Although Public Opinion has moved tremendously, there are a handful of states in which realistically we are not going to get Marriage Equality for a long time. In the absence of a recognition of a constitutional right. That was the situation and 1967, loving against virginia. It is basically the same states. The same states that had to have a constitutional decision from the Supreme Court to say, you have to recognize racial equality in terms of marriage. They are the same states that have to be told, constitutionally, you have to recognize Marriage Equality based on Sexual Orientation. This is one constitution. We are one country. We have one set of rights. People dont have less rights in alabama or georgia than they do in massachusetts or california. The constitution is written in the court is there to enforce it for all the citizens of the u. S. To matter where they live. Charlie adam, there is this. The liberal wing of the Supreme Court. We know who they are. They have played their cards brilliantly. How so . Adam as recently as october, 19 states allowed samesex states. Marriages. We are up to 3637. That is entirely a consequence of actions taken by the Supreme Court not reviewing lower court decisions. That means the map has expended to the point where it looks very much like it did when the courts struck down bans on interracial marriage. You have about 15 states left, that is when the court tends to act. It looks like brown versus board of education when 15 states still had segregated schools. It looks like lawrence against texas when some states still banned sexual conducts. And staying out of the way long enough, for the map to expand, the court brought itself into line with historic practices. Should it decide to establish a right to samesex marriage, and will be more easily accepted as a result of the recent actions. Charlie having said that, are you writing it would be easier for the congress and the Supreme Court . Adam that is not for me to say, but that is the view expressed by several justices and not just on the conservative side. Justice breyer expressed some hesitation about being one of nine unelected justices making a transformational change. From a room in washington rather than let people out in the land. Charlie what do you think about that, david . David the reason we have nine unelected justices is to enforce the guarantees of our constitution. If we were prepared to leave basic human and civil rights to a majority vote in state legislatures or the congress, we would not need a written constitution. The reason our founders insisted on a bill of rights, insisted on rights for all people, all americans, and insisted on courts to enforce rights was that certain rights, freedom of speech, religion, the right to marry the person you love, they are so fundamental and basic, we are not going to leave those to any majority vote. That is what the court is there to do. It is nine unelected justices that decided to end segregation and decide the bans on interracial marriage were wrong. They have led the way on the freedom of beach, press, the rights we hold so dear as americans. The fact that the constitution has given the court this responsibility, and it is in the awful responsibility, is something every justice feels. They may come out differently, but i dont think any justice will shrink from the duty to enforce the cut decision because they say, let somebody else do it. Charlie javad jarif is here. He served as the ambassador to the u. N. From iran. He is here for the nonproliferation summit. He met with john kerry yesterday to discuss nuclear negotiations. I am pleased to welcome mr. Jarif back to the table. Im pleased to have you back. Mr. Jarif good to be back. Charlie i am looking forward to having a full conversation about various issues. You met with secretary. Give us a report. Mr. Jarif we have made significant progress. People two years ago could not imagine we could come this far. That did not work. Sanctions, all sorts of sanctions. They were imposed on iran. I believe they did not achieve their objective and that is why people opted for negotiations. We have made significant progress. After we agree to it, a lot of people believed we would never implement it. But we did. The International Atomic Energy Agency and even president obama has said we have complied fully for the past 1. 5 years. We are now almost ready to go for a longterm agreement. Which will ensure irans program will always remain peaceful. From our perspective, that is not much. We have never had any of the attentions. It will provide the possibility for iran to engage with the west in a more normal fashion. Im not saying the International Community, because yesterday i spoke to a conference on behalf of a significant portion. Charlie the nonproliferation treaty conference. Mr. Jarif i was the first person to speak to the committee. Charlie iran is a signatory. Mr. Jarif we are a signatory and a chairman of the movement. Which brings together 120 countries. All of them have views very similar to iran about nuclear nonproliferation. We believe we should rid the world of nuclear arms. We dont want more people owning these dangerous weapons. Charlie what happens if these negotiations fail . Mr. Jarif it will not be a disaster but it would be an important missed opportunity. It is unique. The people went to the polls a year and a half ago and chose a president who was calling for engagement based on mutual respect. Now we have this opportunity that has been given both to us in the iranian government as well as the International Community to engage. If our people see engagement will not produce the necessary reciprocal respect we expect this would be an important missed opportunity that will not only prevent us from resolving this issue, which in our view is a nonissue because as i told you, we did not have a program to develop Nuclear Weapons. We consider them a rational and immoral. As charlie why should the u. S. Believe you are the key five plus one countries believe you . Mr. Jarif it is a problem of this trust, confounded this trust. Compounded mutual mistrust. We dont expect anybody to believe the other side. We do not have the possibility of putting confidence and trust to the u. S. Or others members. Certainly not the western members. There is a history of problems grievances, going back to the time they overthrew our democratically elected government. All the way to recent times. I assume that the u. S. And other countries have created reasons not to trust us. We dont leave they are founded. What we need to do is have a serious program. A serious agreement that would enable every side to build this trust. The important thing is this process should build confidence, not destroy confidence. Unfortunately what we see. The debate is not productive. Mr. Jarif that is for a foreign government. We dont looking to the domestic politics because that makes International Life impossible. If you had to decide how to deal with congress, the judiciary the executive branch, it would make it impossible. We deal with the government of the u. S. We need rhetoric that helps build confidence. Charlie i noticed after he returned, you are given a heros welcome. Unusual for a foreign minister. What was that about . Is there, on the part of the average citizen, somehow they want to rejoin the world . Calling the u. S. The great satan and all of that. Mr. Jarif the iranian people are rational. They resist pressure intimidation. I said on the show some time ago they are allergic to pressure. Whenever there is pressure, the iranians react and react strongly. You have seen what the pressure has brought. Maybe from 200 centrifuges when we last spoke on this show to 20,000 now. What is important is the iranian people did not like that. They were prepared to go and resist it but did not like it. That was not our preference. The preference was for dialogue. Because the people witnessed that there were representatives were being dealt with through a process of negotiations, they were happy. But the same people would resist if they see the agreement is not respectful of their rights their dignity. They would prefer pressure rather than to accept a bad agreement. Charlie there is a believe in america that sanctions brought you to the negotiating table. That is the reason you are there. Mr. Jarif i think they are wrong. What brought us to the table is the belief that this government has, and this was the platform that was chosen by the iranian people. There were six candidates. Some were much better than the current in dealing with economic problems. He chose a candidate who believed in respect and engagement. That is why we are at the negotiating table. The proposals that we have. The possibilities and options we present are the same as we presented to the International Community eight years ago or 10 years ago. They fail to recognize the significance and regretted the missed opportunity. They have another opportunity. It is not because of sanctions it is because of a choice we have made to engage. If that does not succeed, we have other avenues open. Charlie let me make sure i understand. This agreement has nothing to say about the future conduct of iran beyond the Nuclear Issue. It is not about iranian support of any other group. It is not about iran supporting hezbollah or anybody else. It is only about the Nuclear Issue. Do i hear you say that if there is an agreement, that then the u. S. And iran can build a relationship that will have to do with a wide variety of issues and have a respect for iran . And an awareness of irans history and influence in the region . Mr. Jarif im not precluding that, but im not saying we can guarantee it. We want to engage with the west based on mutual respect. We do not want to have animosity with the west. We want to be able to enjoy the benefits of interaction. We insist on our dignity, on being able to engage based on mutual respect. That is important for us. Charlie as soon as you say that, many believe that the Supreme Leader has, had for a long time a negative opinion to say it graciously of the u. S. Believes that the United States, and in fact has benefited from his rhetoric. At the same time, the u. S. President has reached out and sent letters to the supreme letter. Mr. Jarif which he replied to. The point is, the iranian public. It is not just the Supreme Leader. The general public are skeptical of u. S. Intentions. This is unfortunate but a reality. The reality is the general public are very mindful. They remember the United States overthrowing a government. Charlie as you know, the u. S. Remembers the taking of american hostages. Mr. Jarif there is a bad history, which has led to mistrust. We dont want to debate what happened to first, who was responsible. We should understand, we should realize, the historical background. See whether, through cooperation to resolve the issue, we can dent the wall of mistrust that exists between the u. S. And iran and see whether that provides us with an opportunity to move forward. The Supreme Leader has been clear he does not trust the u. S. , like most iranians. Charlie does he want to see a better relationship . Mr. Jarif he made it clear, if this goes well, it may open the possibility for talks in other areas. We need to see how this works out. Whether the u. S. Is prepared to deal with the iranian people based on respect. Charlie do you have any doubt that the president of the u. S. Does not respect that iranian people . Mr. Jarif if you want to have an agreement and keep putting pressure on the people, that does not signify to me a respectful approach. If the president is prepared, it requires leadership. It requires a great deal of courage, for iran to accept and take measures we are negotiating. Charlie after 18 months, is it better . Is there more respect because you spent time with secretary kerry . You spoke to the Supreme Leader and i assume you briefed him on the details you were involved with. It is said to you especially have his ear. You would not be where you are without his approval. Mr. Jarif it is not the way you put. The iranian system is based on the will of the people. The people have chosen this government. The leader has always throughout his tenure as the leader, he has always supported the choice of the iranian people. Because he the leader respects the choice of the people. We have been talking. I have been reporting from it over the last 18 months, the United States can look at iran and say, iran complied with the obligations. Unfortunately, on our side their u. S. Hasnt tangled itself in such a web of sanctions. Even if they wanted to, it would be difficult to get out of it. Charlie you would acknowledge they have caused terrible damage. Mr. Jarif but sanctions, if they were dissolved they did not change the mind of the iranian government. The government went ahead with building more centrifuges the United States is not want to treat them well. The United States is trying to prevent them from buying medicine with their own money from abroad. If you go to a bank and tell them charlie no one doubts these are successful sanctions. If you want to feel the pressure of a series of governments around the world trying to influence the government to talk about the Nuclear Issue because they dont want to see you, even though you say you dont want one, have a nuclear capability. Mr. Jarif the point is, if you want to antagonize the iranian people, if the u. S. Government wants to antagonize the iranian people, and create feelings and misgivings about the u. S. , then the sanctions have succeeded. If the intention was to bring iran to the negotiating table, that it is not what they achieved. Charlie you are at the negotiating table. Mr. Jarif we are because we were there even before the sanctions. We were always at the negotiating table. We were there earlier. President rouhani and myself were negotiating. Then our successors continued to negotiate. It is now the u. S. That has invented that idea of zero enrichment. If they had accepted the right for enrichment 10 years ago, we would not have had all this nonsense. Charlie the u. S. Sees, as long as there are caps, it is ok. Mr. Jarif that would have been possible. There were proposals, before a single United Nations sanction was put in place, that would have provided a better option. But the u. S. Decided to torpedo. The bush administration, john bolton, decided to torpedo. The agreement being reached with the europeans at the time. Now they lived to regret it. Now they understand sanctions do not produce results. Negotiations produce results. Charlie i want to talk about several things. Many americans, such as jim baker and henry kissinger, have raised caution about the agreement. They question sanctions, and inspection. The u. S. Has said the sanctions should be phased out on the basis of good conduct and respect for the agreement. The Supreme Leader and you, this team leader said this publicly we have to have the elimination of all sanctions at the time the final agreement is signed. All sanctions, gone. Mr. Jarif we are talking about economic and financial sanctions. The parameters we reached our very clear. Once we start implement in the first steps, the number of centrifuges, the stockpile and what will happen to the redesign and rebuilding of a heavy water reactor, these are all parameters of the agreement. Charlie you say at the beginning. The Supreme Leader says, now. Mr. Jarif sanctions must be lifted as soon as iran implements its agreed part. We have an agreement. That agreement provides for the lifting of sanctions. Economic and financial sanctions. Those sections are lifted. The logic is clear. If you want an agreement, you have two options. You cannot mix them. It is as if iran once to keep some part charlie will you grant me this . What the Supreme Leader said and john kerry said is different. Mr. Jarif what i can say is what we have agreed upon. Charlie doesnt agree with what secretary kerry said . Mr. Jarif i allow him to say what he wants to say and defined the agreement. What i say, is what will be at the agreement if there is one at the end of the day. It must be based on this logic. Very clear. You cannot have two bank opposing tracks running at the same time. Charlie what are the opposing tracks . Mr. Jarif one is to have an agreement and the other is to impose pressure. The counterpart to pressure would be iran building more centrifuges. Charlie someone suggested to me today, if the agreement is signed, there will be some date in the future at which time the parties will have had an opportunity to see how they handle this. At that time, perhaps they could get to that and examine inspections and see if they were as everybody hoped they would be, that the aie i had the opportunity to do the things they insist they be able to do. He would have the opportunity to evaluate whether the u. S. Was living by the terms of the deal. They would have the chance, all the countries involved, to see if you had lived by the deal. Is that the way you are going to work out of this . Have you thought about that idea . Mr. Jarif no. We will have, hopefully, an agreement by june 30. If we have an agreement by june 30, it would set a procedure in motion. That procedure will start with iran taking preparatory measures. The u. S. And eu taking preparatory measures. All of them endorsed beforehand by the Security Council. In a resolution that will be binding on everybody including the u. S. The u. S. Is a permanent member of the Security Council. Nonetheless, all the decisions of the Security Council are binding on the u. S. There will be a resolution of the Security Council. The two sides will start implement in the agreement. We will take measures, the u. S. Will take measures. It is not a trial and error time where we will test each other. Weve had an opportunity to test each other. We have tested an agreement we signed in november, 2013, four 18 months. Now is the time to put in place very concrete measures. The measures iran will put in place are clear. We will reduce the number of centrifuges. The stockpile of enriched uranium. Charlie what is the time . Mr. Jarif that which we have discussed and negotiated, 10 years. That is a very clear understanding. Charlie they dont say that herein they dont think you can eliminate everything at the beginning and then follow through. Mr. Jarif you cannot have the cake and eat it, too. You have to make a decision. Whether you want to have an agreement or continue the path of pressure and resistance on the part of iran. They are mutually exclusive. We have a good deal. I believe we have the parameters of a good deal, which builds confidence and does not make anybody trust the other side. We are not prepared to trust anybody. Charlie the u. S. Should not either. Mr. Jarif obviously. We dont expect any side, after such a long time of compounded mistrust, we need to have an opportunity to build that confidence. It doesnt mean that i will take a part of the agreement that i am supposed to implement hostage for that trust to be built. We will implement our part of the deal. Immediately. Charlie what will you do immediately . Charlie we will agree to the set of parameters iran will have to implement immediately. The amount of centrifuges, stock, what will happen to our heavywater reactor. We have all agreed the heavywater reactor will be redesigned. It will not produce plutonium that will be capable of building a nuclear weapon. We never wanted this to build Nuclear Weapons. This is a medical Isotope Research reactor. It will do the same job. Charlie you say you never wanted to build a nuclear weapon. Even though the decision has not made, you do what the capacity if you make the decision to build them to be accessible as if you had them. Mr. Jarif people in the u. S. See Nuclear Weapons as a panacea. They have not what anybody any security. We are more rational. We have a deep history. We have been around for millennia. Charlie americans respect that. Mr. Jarif they should look at our history. In the last 250 years, we have not invaded any country. Charlie you have not invaded any country, but you have people at your support engaged in warfare in other countries. Mr. Jarif my friend, who did we support . Charlie the iranians are supporting military action in yemen. Am i wrong . Mr. Jarif you are wrong about where you start your history. Can we say the u. S. Supported the taliban . Saddam hussein in iraq . Charlie they supported Saddam Hussein in their war against iran, which we did not iranians have not forgotten. Mr. Jarif we will not forget that our people were targeted by a chemical weapons and nobody raised an eyebrow. These are parts of history nobody will forget. The u. S. Should not forget that it supported the wrong people in our part of the world. And continues to. We always resisted extremism in our region. We are the only country that is standing up against this group this bunch of terrorists. Charlie you are the only Group Standing against dash . Mr. Jarif who is doing it other than iran and the people of syria . Charlie in iraq, when militia supported by iran and iran advises on the front line according to an interview i did with the iraqi prime minister, they have advisers on the front line, americans were engaged in airstrikes with the same objective. The taking of tikrit. Is that true . Mr. Jarif it is a bit too late. For four years, because of geopolitical considerations, against syria and iran, a group has developed. Has been nourished and armed. 1000 people every month are infiltrating through some of our neighbors borders into iraq and syria. Coming from 82 countries to join this very dangerous Extremist Group to kill the syrian people. Charlie essentially sunni. Mr. Jarif it is not the issue of sunni shia. They have killed more sunnis. You remember the jordanian pilot . He was a sunni. Most victims of this group are sunnis. Charlie that was because he had been a pilot. Mr. Jarif this is not a sectarian issue. Charlie it is in part a sectarian issue. Are you saying mr. Jarif people want to give it a sectarian flavor and it is dangerous if you give it a sectarian flavor. Maybe people see shortterm benefits giving it a sectarian flavor. You have to be clear this is an enemy of everybody. It is an enemy of saudi arabia as much as iran. Charlie should the u. S. And iran be working together to defeat daesh . Mr. Jarif we are working to defeat them. We believe it is a regional issue first and global issue later. There should be international corporation. Is not the u. S. And iran. The world is not composed of only the u. S. And iran. A lot of other countries. We are engaged in this fight. In a very serious way. We believe Everybody Needs to be engaged. Charlie including the u. S. The threat of isil is a very high priority threat on the part of the u. S. Mr. Jarif i am happy to see it is becoming one. But before it started its operation against iraq, it was not the case because people were tolerating it when it was attacking the syrian government. That is unfortunate. History started some time ago. It did not start today. It did not start with daesh moving into iraq and occupying mosul. Charlie this is where we end part one of the twopart conversation with mr. Jarif. Thank you for joining us. See you tomorrow. the apple watch mimics the sensation of being tapped on the wrist. The companys ceo says they are working hard to catch up with demand. Gdp slowed to a near halt in the first quarter, partly reflecting