>> from our studios in new york city, this is "charlie rose." >> i am sad to report to the people of new jersey that we fell short.

we fell short of the expectations that we created over the last four years for the type of excellence in government that they should expect from this office. >> mark halperin is here, he is senior political analyst for time magazine. he is co-author of two best- selling books. this week's revelations surfaced that new jersey governor chris christie senior staff at closed lanes on the george washington bridge in order to exact revenge on a political opponent. on thursday, the governor held a two-hour press conference in which he apologized repeatedly and held his staff accountable. also heard this week from former defense secretary bob gates, the author of a controversial memoir. he suggest the president did not have faith in his own policies on afghanistan. he declared joe biden wrong on nearly every major national security issue over the past four decades. i'm pleased to have mark

halperin back at this table. first, governor christie. what a performance. does it do him well or does it set him up for bad news? >> this story has a long way to go. governor christie is a huge personality. he was on the cover of time magazine twice last year. he is seen as a front runner for the republican nomination and he is in the media here in new york. he gets a lot of attention as that type personality. >> and he has an outsized personality. >> that performance -- i think people who have said this, he was better off after that press conference than he was before. abject denial that he knew anything about this, fired two people, somewhat apologetic and also did not completely eliminate from his performance the traits that people like about him. he is very articulate, very fluid, very human.

what has been most remarkable to me is the degree to which, in many corners of the media, there is the caveat, he is telling the truth if nothing contradicts what he said. even with rupert murdoch, the articles on friday were laced with clear references to the notion of, assuming is telling the truth, he is lying. if he is not telling the truth, he is dead. from skepticism about the chronology, certain elements of the chronology, it makes people wonder how could that be? how could this small group of relatively junior people take it upon themselves to do such a thing without telling the boss? and secondly because people know chris christie.

he is a tough guy who does things his way. is it impossible that he knew about such a thing? no one thinks it is impossible. but that performance gives him the ability now, if there are no new facts, to say i have shown accountability, i have gotten rid of people close to me because they did something wrong, and try to move on. >> does he say that they lied to him, beyond not disclosing, but they lied to him? >> he said she was asked point blank if she knew anything about it and his answer at the press conference -- she claimed that she had no involvement. >> there is also a question of whether there is a culture out there, not so much generally in new jersey, but specifically in the governor's office. >> the people who are most skeptical that he is telling the truth are reporters and pols who know how this world operates. if you cross christie, you will pay a price.

there are plenty of governors around the country that do that and politicians that do that. but i would say chris christie has a reputation for being particularly aggressive. anyone who spent 20 minutes with the guy -- >> you are saying if he did it, it wouldn't surprise you. if he knew about it, it wouldn't surprise you. >> if he had not denied being involved, it would not surprise me in the least that he knew about or authorized such a thing. >> authorized? look who suffers from this, not the governor of -- i mean, the mayor of fort lee. but the people who were in fury because they were on that bridge for four hours. >> a strange way to exact retribution, if that's what it was. but someone came up with the idea. what i'm saying is that -- my general view is if someone comes

out in public and denies something, i give them the benefit of the doubt. but i'm not the least bit surprised -- and even rupert murdoch in his newspapers, even his newspapers which have been pretty pro-christie, are expressing skepticism, because it is just hard to put that chronology together in a way that makes sense to say that these people acted alone. >> suppose christie had gone out and said let's confuse them with the facts first, and he had gone out and said we did this, what a stupid thing to do. i've never done anything more stupid than this and i apologize, it will never happen again.

we have been able to move beyond it? >> no. he would not be the head of the republican governors association. he certainly would not be seen as the front-runner for the republican nomination. it's possible under the circumstances he could survive as governor of new jersey, but i think after that performance he gave in december, where he mocked the whole notion that he was involved -- people say how could he lie? at this point, he's got no choice. >> he has no choice but to live. >> he has passed the point of no return. but again, it is fascinating to me. touching cable-tv in reading the papers, it is fascinating how much caveat is there. this is the dirty little secret that your viewers are entitled to know. i have not had a private

conversation with any republican strategist or elected official that -- in which they said to me, sort of indignantly, how dare you say that he knew about it? quite the contrary, everyone of them said it would not surprise me, if he wasn't involved, he better hope it never comes out. i prefer to think that he is telling the truth. >> let's assume he is telling the truth. could this be a positive for him in the end? >> it certainly could be. he has a close-knit group of advisers he relies on and would rely on if running for president on including one of the people he got rid of in the last two days, because that guy was going to help him at the republican governors association. he was going to be chairman of the party in new jersey. he clearly probably would have been his campaign manager if you ran for president. losing that guy is a big deal, but he is replaceable. i think, sure, if there are no new facts and the investigations don't tie him up, it is a positive in the way he handled

it. ask bill clinton. ask the guy who got elected president with reverend wright. ask bill clinton, if you want to do the rest of the hour to do that catalog. it all depends on how you handle it. i said a few weeks ago on television that there is something about chris christie that is magical, just like there was something magical about barack obama, george bush, and bill clinton. it is a fact, there are certain politicians who are bigger than life, magical figures. there is almost no one in politics today who could have performed like he did for two hours. >> and his supporters say they are behind our guy. >> not so much.

you see the big fundraiser and the governor ought to have come out -- the financiers often are not the best judge -- she has sort of taken his position, but most people who spent any time with him just know that he doesn't tolerate enemies. >> you saw a real human side of this guy, he apologized, said we have been let down, all of that. can it somehow therefore serve as an advantage for him? >> this is leading the newscast as a topic here, that most >> you saw a real human side of this guy, he apologized, said we have been let down, all of that. can it somehow therefore serve as an advantage for him?

>> this is leading the newscast as a topic here, that most people are not paying attention to it. for insiders, it doesn't help him. he is better off after that press conference, but this thing does not help him with insiders. >> what people want is a nominee who is not going to let them down. one of the things about chris christie, he is volatile. even reporters will tell you he is a volatile guy. >> in some polls he is ahead of secretary clinton as a potential nominee. >> he has the support of people who can raise him a lot of

money. and this rga perch, being able to go around the country and raising money in key states. i think he is one of the top four candidates, without a doubt, before this happened. this thing set him back. he could have emerged as the consensus front-runner, i thought.. the biggest problem for him is this scandal, because it will continue to raise doubts about his volatility and maybe his credibility. i don't think there's a chance now he can become the consensus right runner. >> let me turn to bob gates. >> another big personality. walk down the street of fifth avenue, nobody would know who he

was. >> but respected by both democrats and republicans. >> there's almost no one else in the country who could write a book like this because he is so credible and so respected. this book represents a huge threat to the president and vice president and secretary clinton because of his credibility. they pushed back, but in a pretty tepid way. >> because of his credibility? >> you cannot take him down the way some authors would. >> what he said about joe biden, wrong about everything in four decades on national security issues. everything? >> if you look at the list, and i am a huge fan of the vice president, but he has been wrong about a fair number of things. >> before the so-called surge in

afghanistan, he was saying we should make it counterterrorism issue, not counterinsurgency. that came to be the point of view of many people who thought that was the smart thing to do. >> but clearly he was not wrong about everything. the person who put the list together has been wrong about a number of other things. >> he is saying the president didn't have his heart in this war. it is not a mission he believed in. he had some questions about the commander on the ground that he chose, david petraeus. but he had to find somebody because he had just fired stanley mcchrystal. there is not a word of that

narrative that surprises either one of us or any of the viewers of this show. >> but it is a respected guy in the room whose willingness to render that judgment for history about his commander-in-chief that he served is a huge deal. we can say it, but for a principal player of bob gates's stature to say the president's heart was not in it, in that mission, is a historical judgment that has residents. you have seen some conservatives and some independent analysts saying it's not fair to the troops if you don't believe in the mission. >> and bob gates has always made a big point about his commitment to the troops. he talks about jogging around and looking up at lincoln and all of that. >> very few people have read the book so far, so we are going on that one excerpt from the wall

street journal and news accounts. this is a more nuanced thing. he said positive things about joe biden and the president. >> he is smart, savvy, and politically astute and all that. but i don't think you can minimize the things that are negative. >> you just had a big book, and people picked things out of that book, about chris christie, for example, and going through the vice president's selection process, and it got a lot of attention. does that mean that what happens in the first 48-72 hours of a books public appearance, whether it has been released or not, the finds the book?

>> it does to a large extent, in my experience. i think those cutting elements in the book and those judgments he has rendered that are more negative will probably be associated with this book, without a doubt, no matter what happens going forward. there will be a lot of people who buy this book and never read it, or give it as a gift. i'm not exactly sure how the new york times and the washington post got the book, but there is no doubt they could have done something to try to skew it in another direction, and they did not. >> how is the president doing? >> i think he is having a better

start to the year than i would have thought. >> after a terrible year in 2013. >> and he came into this without a lot of momentum. what i think is positive for him is, there is some indications that the health care plan is working a little better. more focus, as there should be, on people getting coverage and what that means to their lives. the debate about unemployment insurance and about raising the minimum wage, those are good issues, not just politically. my sense from the reporting i have done is that it is getting a lot of attention internally. make no mistake, i still think unless he has some big breakthrough, he could have four years of getting nothing done. >> is the era of shutting down government over? >> for the next couple of years, and that is to both sides' liking.

neither party wants to have that fight. we still have the debt ceiling fight coming up. i suspect republicans will cave on that. i suspect they will cave on a lot of things, because they want the election to be a referendum on health care and on the president's general competency in leadership. that is what they want. >> take 90% of the democrat you know. what is the single thing they are most disappointed about with this president? is it that on national security he is not where they thought he might be, with respect to these important issues that certainly the left of the democratic party feels is important? or is it that he just hasn't handled the job the way they had hoped he would, when they were so inspired by his rhetoric? >> i'm not sure you get a

consensus, i think you get a variety of answers. there's kind of a dissonance, the disappointment stems from two things that are somewhat seemingly contradictory. one is they wish he would fight harder against conservatives and republican critics, but the other is they wish he could be a more unifying figure and bring the country together more, and get more done. >> his potential to do that -- in other words, the reason he has not done more that is because of his own skills. are you saying that the republican factor was there, but in fact if he had had different experience, different mindset, he might have been able to pull it off? >> i think he could have done in a bipartisan way. >> so why didn't he?

>> in the case of the stimulants, because he wanted to do it fast. he assumed republicans would vote for it. health care, he wanted universal health care and he could not get republicans to come in on that. he said if i don't do it now, it's never going to happen. let's do it now. i think it is clear to me that history is going to report that, if not is his biggest mistake, his most momentous decision terms of uniting the country. the impact of that may be that he gets nothing done this term. both the way he ran for election, trying to make a

referendum on mitt romney on and the health care decision. he faces a choice this year, does he run to try to win back the house, which is a very big longshot, or does he try to work with republicans? i don't see where it leads except maybe having his party do slightly better in the midterms. >> former secretary of state clinton is better off today in terms of her decision to arrive unless she finds a reason not to. whatever it might be. is she in a better position today than she was a year ago? >> the movement of the obama political family to her donors, activists, is extraordinary. the super pack that supported the president may become hillary clinton super pack. the unwillingness of anyone in

the party of any stature to make the case that there is being a rush to judgment, i think the republican field is extraordinarily overrated and weak, and no one is emerging. if you look at the 20 names most mentioned, i don't think any of them had a particularly good last year. >> is there a barack obama within the republicans, someone not well known who can come forward? >> as early as 2004 -- >> he made a speech in 2004 that brought him to attention. >> there is a guy who someday might be president and had political gifts. i don't see anyone with special

political gifts of that caliber. chris christie is among the strongest. >> do you believe someone can become president of the united states who has not had political experience? >> sure, i think it is possible. i don't see anyone like that. it's just too complicated. it would take a really special person in a year when that's what the country wanted. >> a proven record of performance. you just said the opposition was week within the republican party. >> i don't think you can put it all together. there may be somebody like that, i just don't see it. but i don't rule it out. it would take a specific person in the republican party who could deal with the establishment. as i said before, right now, the party wants a safe choice, someone who is not going to

explode or collapse, and someone who has never run before. george bush in 1988 was a relatively safe choice. bush 43 was a safe choice. they were both safe choices. becks thank you, mark halperin. back in a moment. stay with us. ♪

>> people are very willing to pay for helpful information. lots of trade publications are doing incredibly well. subscriptions are absolutely real, and a big promising opportunity. i would suggest that there is a big enough market for advertising supported journalism. >> henry blodget is here. he is editor-in-chief and cofounder of business insider, the online publication created in 2007.

it has grown into a top destination for millions of visitors each month in pursuit of the internet's most compelling content. business insider represents a second act for henry blodget. in 2003 he was fined by the fcc and given a lifetime suspension and working on wall street. 10 years later, he is considering an effort for reinstatement. i am pleased to have them at this table for the first time. >> it is a privilege to be here, charlie. >> go back on that history and talk about what happened to you and the lesson learned, and how does one go through that lifetime suspension and say, i'm going to take an assessment of myself, i'm going to learn from what has happened to me, both in terms of factors beyond me and to me, and rebuild? >> they always say you learn more from mistakes and tough times than from success is.

i learned a huge amount from that. it felt unfair at the time, but i wanted to get through it, and ultimately wanted to come back from it. the moment it happened, i had this reputation that i had developed, somewhat unfairly, and ignited, and people knew me all around the world. i had millions of people listening from me. i went from that, which was a little bit ridiculous, to being hated by the allegations and what came out. as soon as it happened, i wanted to get through that and rebuild and regain the trust that i had lost. >> how do you get through that? is it time, or what? >> at the time, i felt like my professional life was over. something that was incredibly important to me was being straight with people. suddenly i was accused of not

being straight with people am in fact thomas not telling about the risk and the stocks and things like that. i wanted to simply do what i could do to regain that trust. afterwards, i couldn't work in the securities industry anymore. i had been a journalist before. there were a couple of people in the journalism industry who said this person has been through a lot, maybe he has something to say. at was when martha stewart got in trouble. i had a sense of what she was going through, maybe i can add something to this. one publication was kind enough to give me a shot. the whole allegations you brought up were started by eliot spitzer. after him knocking me down, he then got knocked down himself. eliot spitzer and i have had this weird relationship ever since then. one thing somebody said to me at the beginning of the process

that i was going through is, don't lose yourself in the moment. life is long, just continue to move forward. eliot spitzer and i have sort of become friends, 10 to 15 years later. it has been amazing to see that. quick so you started business insider, and where is it today? how has it evolved? >> when we started, there were three people on the loading dock of another start up. the first day, 2000 readers came to the site. we were overjoyed him and the next week it dwindled down to 1300. now we have 35 million people a month reading the content, including lots of very loyal users who are coming every day. we have about 65 people in the newsroom. it has evolved into a thriving, growing journalism business, which is wonderful to see in an era when a lot of news

organizations -- >> what is your ambition? what is the plan, the vision? >> stepping back, what is happening in digital media and journalism in particular is we are seeing a replay of what the cable news network's went through. cnn was born and you had a network just devoted to news 24 hours. 10 years later, cnn is a household name. there will be some brands built, hopefully business insider is one of them, that last 20, 30, 40, 50 years, and really becomes the new brand of journalism. >> so what is arianna creating at huffington post? politico just opened in new york. what is the direction here?

>> every time a new medium has come along, it has gradually evolved its own native form of storytelling. when tv came along, initially it was to be just like a newspaper. then you begin to see power, images and having people on site him and the live broadcast. it became incredibly different. the same thing is happening in digital. in the last 10 years we have had a lot of innovation. initially people thought it would just be like a newspaper or tv station. the whole editorial approach is very different. it is incredibly versatile for each medium. buzz feed, huffington post, you can be very diverse. you can have reporters who do long new yorker-like articles on the folks who have do very short pieces, all built into the same site that combines all of that. what is evolving is really a new form of journalism. it is tremendously powerful.

it has taken a while to get the scale necessary, but over the next 10 years, you will be amazed by -- you can do anything in digital. what ever the best mode of telling a particular story, if it is a 45 minute interview with you, we can do that, we can post it. if you just need a single photograph with a quote, we can post that. if it is a 3000 word investigation or a 7000 word piece, weekend do that. you can send someone to fly over the tar sands and take 75 pictures of that. look what is actually happening up here. you can tell stories in a way that you just cannot in other media. it is very flexible. it's not going to replace print or television, which still have incredible storytelling capability, but it is a new medium. ask how do normal consumers make sure that what they are reading is not just opinion or not just

supposition, but has some authority or credibility? >> brands matter. it is the same, cbs, bloomberg, these brands mean things. the same thing is happening online. those brands are developing. i think consumers are very smart. there is this idea that someone tweeted it and it is not true, how will everyone know? a fact it's introduced on twitter and it immediately gets dissected and debated. in minutes we have often narrowed down to the truth. consumers are adults. they can figure that out. they know what that is. overall, brands matter and credibility matters. our goal is to get better every day. >> it is argued that aol offered you a million dollars for your business.

it suggests that you think you can build this thing into something bigger and bigger. what is the plan, other than to be one of the principal players, in terms of the aggregate development, creation of that storytelling? >> we compete in the business. there are many very established publications. we are the only digital native company coming up and competing against the wall street journal and others. my hope over time am a because we are so focused on that, we will ultimately be the biggest and best in digital. >> is that a transition from aggregation to individual

reporting? >> when we were three of us, -- that is what twitter is, you are constantly sifting through and pick things out, telling stories. just the way on tv, cnn is consistently reading the headlines that reuters has produced and others. they always work and build on other people's stories. the larger we get, the more we have the ability to have reporters who do nothing but research and write terry long stories. earlier this year one of our team wrote a 20,000 word biography of marissa mayer, the ceo of yahoo! you could not do that in a magazine. the longest magazine stories are about 10,000. but we can devote six months to come up with it. when we see the opportunity, we do that. >> she just made a speech at the

consumer electronics show. she said basically, we are a place that provides entertainment. is john becoming something it was not, or simply learning how to do what it always intended? >> i have worked for yahoo!, so i am her employee. i will say, she brought a wonderful new excitement and energy to the company. just watching her from afar without talking to her about strategy, she focused on technology first, and she is gradually moving into media. yahoo! has an audience of 700 million people worldwide. media is going to be a big part of what they do. i think that is now the new focus. >> has apple passed through the transition from steve jobs to

tim cook and proved that it has the capacity to continue as it has been? >> apple has demonstrated it can continue to iterate the products that were developed under steve's watch. >> but not proven that it has the ability to create new products that go in another direction. >> that is what everybody is waiting for. people think it might be tv, it might be the next smart watch. one of those is already reduced by samsung. people are very focused on that. you could see them going in a lot of other directions. samsung has been incredibly successful at taking -- they were number one in television. they spotted the phone opportunity relatively early. there is now a sort of legendary story about how they focus the

company on that one opportunity, and they have had remarkable success. taking advantage of google android, building a range of products. samsung makes a high-end phone and then make the full range. >> apple has always bet on the high-end. >> there is always pressure to commoditize and drive prices ounce. that is what it's happening to smart phones and tablets. that is where amazon spotted an opportunity, saying apple has a tremendously huge half it margin because they charge so much for the product. that see if we can come in at a much lower price point. they are trying to come in underneath and disrupt that profit margin.

that is going to be a challenge for apple going forward. i think it's going to take longer than jeff bezos might be suggesting. amazon is a tremendous company. one thing that is not appreciated about jeff bezos enough, the way he has run amazon, he has really a model for the new view of capitalism. in the u.s., capital has the potential of going too far to saying the purpose of companies to create profit for their owners, it's all about cash flow. we have gone way too far in that and unfortunately forgotten that another purpose in founding these great companies is to pay the people who work for them well so they can have good lives and so forth. people love to dump on amazon for not being particularly profitable. he has reinvested every dollar he has that the company has generated in the future, and hiring more people. that is wonderful for the economy, in addition to

customers. you are cycling all that cash back into the economy, as opposed to letting mounds of cash pile up on balance sheets. i think that elon musk, the founder of tesla, is becoming that way. he is one of those people who has a remarkable ability. there are lots of incredibly smart people out there. there are relatively few or national are incredibly smart and can make things happen. what elon musk made happen is remarkable, and it is so inspiring to people. a crowd of 50 people came up and asked him questions for an hour and a half. it is so inspiring what he is doing.

steve obviously had the same impact. elon is carrying that mantle. >> when you look at the future, there was a.com crash, which you remember. what could cause it again? >> people talk a lot about a tech bubble. there are always a couple of companies in the middle of that that are held up with the example. if you look across tech, valuations are nothing like they were in 1999-2000. there is definitely a boom going on that will bust at some point. tech is always cyclical. the idea that we're going to have a repeat of the dot-com bubble, there are very profound changes happening. look at apple, google, amazon. there is cash flow to support the evaluations of these companies. >> back to you, was it important i can find quotes where people said i don't trust him.

a lot of people suffered loss of jobs because of some the things he has done. he wants attention. trust is important. how hard is it to regain that, and how do you regain that? >> it's hard, obviously. even the allegations, and just to be clear, the allegations were ultimately with eliot spitzer, that research analysts were working with investment bankers to keep companies public, and that was absolutely true. that was just part of the job. there was a conflict there, but the idea there was you would manage that conflict, you would sift true all the bad companies and say these are the companies i like, we would take them public, but you would not be

taking them public if you didn't like them. eliot spitzer looked at all this and said this is terrible, the whole system is corrupt. i respect what he was trying to do, and there were a lot of conflicts and so forth in that. but ultimately what he said is, here are some e-mails where i made some comments in the e-mail that seemed to be different from what i was saying. we categorically denied the allegation, but i wrote the e- mails that were incredibly scandalous. i had no idea what the e-mails would look like. from my perspective it is like people on the sidelines at a football game chattering back and forth. that was our take on that. i felt myself that i never wrote a word in a research report that i did not go through. i felt like i had gone out of my

way to try to represent the risk in the stock. i felt like an absolute idiot that i missed the top, all the way up. i was saying i will get it right before the top, and i will be a hero in doing that. i missed it, and it was such a classic mistake. as i write about the markets now, stocks are looking expensive -- >> help me unpack some frequent headlines from your recent blog post. all you folks snickering about the idea of a stock market crash should read this. >> exactly. after the allegations, i cannot describe it any other way, i felt the physical weight of public disapproval and hatred, so much money we had lost. i felt like, i don't want to go hide, i want to come back and earn one percent at a time of

the trust that i lost. i understand that's not going to be everybody, but if people will give me that chance to do it, i will try to do that. i'm just so grateful to so many people who have given me that chance. this particular point about stocks, there are many, many valuation measures that have been valid for a century or more, suggesting that stocks are very overvalued right now. it doesn't mean the market is going to crash necessarily, but we have only been in this position a couple of times in history. 1999-2 thousand, and 1929. in terms of valuation of stocks, using long-term valuations, not this year's earnings.

profit margins are very high. if you look at long-term, that's where we are. the position i'm in now, i can at least discuss that. i'm going to be out there this time. everyone is making money, including those who are invested in the stock market. >> december 30, anyone who thinks we need a catalyst for a market crash should brush up on their history. >> exactly. that's one of the arguments. people say, what is the catalyst? everything is great. the economy is getting better. one thing i learned in 2000, at some point there is going to be a light that turns from green to red, and i'm going to see it and downgrade and that. that was a fiction that i told myself, and a lot of other people believe did as well. it wasn't just me. there were a lot of people much smarter than i was who got burned on both sides.

it's very difficult to do it. the idea was, there would be a sign. i don't think there is a sign until after the fact. nothing changes, and six months later it is very obvious what it was. >> this was on december 24, i would not be surprised if stocks crash next year, and you should me, either. these are provocative. is there a similarity here? you have to find a way to define the question so that it grabs attention. and is there any risk in that? >> we have to tell stories that grabs attention. and is there any risk in that? >> we have to tell stories that people want to hear. there is no question about that. but there are many, many people out there who are not in the

media business who look at all the valuation measures that say exactly the same thing. i remember this very clearly in 1999, especially, there was so much anger directed at anybody who said anything cautionary. if we said anything the slightest bit not enthusiastic about a stock, hate mail would pour in. everybody wanted the party to continue on. i look back and say i wish i just had the [beep] -- >> how much of this is just covering your bases? donald rumsfeld once showed me a memo he had written at the time of the invasion of iraq, and it simply listed all the things that could go wrong. he could always say look, i pointed out things that could go

wrong. but he wasn't waving that. right now, you're putting it on the headlines. >> absolutely. nobody knows what's going to happen. be aware of it. be comfortable with that as a stock market investor, that stocks go down. i am in the stock market, i hope it continues to go up, but i will be not -- i will not be surprised if it goes down. >> what has become more important, facebook or twitter? >> there is room for both. twitter is real-time. it is about news, following celebrities, very real-time. facebook is a much more mass- market. twitter is a relatively small sliver of the population. facebook is very mass-market. it is very much -- pinterest is very much dominated by women.

linkedin -- there are a lot of companies that are very large. >> how many people follow you on twitter? >> i think about 100,000 now. >> when you get up in the morning -- what time do you get up? >> i get up at about 5:30. >> what is the first thing you do? >> i get my caffeine, i go online, i immediately load our site. we have a wonderful executive editor who is up at 4:00. he already has a lot of stuff already up. then i go right to twitter, find out what people are saying in europe, and go from there. i am on twitter all day long. >> what else in forms you? >> everything. the great thing about twitter, it is just a buffet all day long

that you go through. you see things pop up in real time. i get e-mail links all the time. i will visit other websites. >> people saying, take a look at this. what follows the internet? >> it is the internet of things. it is everything in your house, in your life, is online and available to you through your smart phone. it is still the internet connecting everything, like electricity. it is information flowing, you being able to control everything, devices talking to each other. >> thank you for coming. >> thank you for having me. >> thank you for joining us. see you next time. ♪

>> live from pier 3 in san francisco and new york, welcome to the late edition of "bloomberg west," where we cover the global technology and media companies that are reshaping our world. i'm emily chang. our focus is on innovation, technology, and the future of business. let's get straight to the run house. a service designed by the guy who helped to make the ipod. now he is selling nest labs to google for more than $3 billion. charter makes its move, offering to buy its major rival, time warner cable, for a massive sum,