♪ emily: he has been dubbed both the "cowboy of the nsa" and "spy king." a retired four-star general who served multiple tours, including operation desert storm. in 2005, he was officially sworn in as the director of the national security agency under president george w. bush, a post he held for eight years, the longest of any agency chief during the agency's most challenging. in history, the revelations involving edward snowden and the leak of corporate intelligence. these days, he tackles cybercrime as the founder and ceo of ironnet.

joining me today on studio 1.0, former nsa director general keith alexander. general, so great to have you on the show. general alexander: thanks, emily. great to be here. emily: thank you for joining us. we have to start with the standoff between apple and the fbi. google, facebook -- tech companies have sided with apple. this reopened a divide between washington and silicon valley. how sustainable is it for tech companies to be at odds with their government? general alexander: well, i think everyone has a right to an opinion. i think what we have to do, though, is we have to learn how to get our country back together. and take the best of what we represent and put that on the table. and, you know, when i look at the great capabilities coming out of the tech community, it is phenomenal. tremendous opportunities. you know, look at your kids.

the opportunities you have in education, the opportunities we have for medicine, for communication. but there are tremendous vulnerabilities with it. and we are outpacing the ability for the policy community to keep up. i would not say slow down, but i would say because we have gone so far so fast, how do we help the policy community keep up? and this encryption issue is just such a problem. emily: if communications had been encrypted over the last decade, how would it be different? general alexander: there is a great case. if you encrypt communications and the government cannot read the content, when it is authorized by court order to do so, and if you recall, an al qaeda terrorist in pakistan was contacting someone in colorado. if that was encrypted, all we would know is that they talk to somebody in the united states, but that goes on so often. would not have enough

information to stop that. emily: so an attack on the new york city subway may have happened, as you say, if communications had been encrypted and you would not be able to intercept them. general alexander: that is correct. emily: how can the government and silicon valley work together for the better? general alexander: i would put together a group that addresses that encryption issue and comes up with a middle ground solution that the companies, the government, and the american people can live with. emily: twitter has been shutting down isis accounts. after many years. what is your thoughts on having teams of people from silicon valley and from the government working together in a more official way? general alexander: that is really important. what that represents on the twitter side is accounts that are opened up for isis for

recruiting and things like that. i think that is exactly right. es that clearly are going after creating jihad. i think we have to come up with a solution for that. so i think what twitter is doing is exactly right. you would not put child pornography on there. you would not put, there are all sorts of things we would not allow on the network. so how do we address it with terrorism? emily: so, general, you may go down in history as the guy who was the head of the nsa during the revelations of edward snowden. how do you feel about that? general alexander: it gives snowden too much credit. what he divulged, one, was something that was approved by court order, approved by congress and the executive branch. and what the investigations found was the nsa was doing exactly what it was supposed to. so he revealed a classified program meant to protect our country.

nsa does not get to choose who classifies it. that is the executive branch. and that is a congressional and court decision. nsa's responsibility is to conduct that. and there is legal precedence for doing that. and it was the right thing, when you look at the number of terrorist attacks. so i think what he did was he thought he was better than all three. and the press treated him like that. they treated him as a hero. and here is a guy who will ultimately cause a lot of lives to be lost. that debate was going on in congress at the same time. do you make it public? that is a debate outside of nsa. emily: you think the paris attacks could have been stopped if edward snowden -- general alexander: we would have had more information. for sure. i think terrorists are learning how to bypass intelligence and law enforcement. we said the most likely place to be hit was paris. for all of these reasons.

and it was. and i think you are going to see increased attacks in europe and potentially the united states because of the leaks. the encryption will hurt it going forward. so i think one of the things we need to look at is what was he doing, why did he do it. and i think what the press has not dove into was if he revealed that one page, why did he take over one million documents? emily: so he had a lot more. general alexander: you know it publicly has been revealed he took more than one million documents. what about the other documents he took? emily: so who do you think is behind him? general alexander: well, clearly today, you have to look at russia and the influence by russia. when you look at all the revelations, being a reporter, as good as you are, you would quickly come to the conclusion that all of the stuff revealed showed nsa spying on everybody

but one country -- russia. emily: you think the russian government is behind edward snowden? general alexander: i would not go that far. i think that today, clearly, he is doing something that would have russia keep him there. he would deny it, and russia would deny it, because it is in their interest to do so. emily: for millennials, snowden has become the idea of conscience. he is in exile. in russia. he still talks to audiences in the united states. he can come back and do speeches. are you outraged by this? general alexander: you see, here is the issue. this is where you and others can help. we sensationalized snowden, but we did not explain what the government was doing in the way that people could understand, so the perception was the government is listening to your phone calls and reading your e-mails, and we now know that is not true.

emily: so what is the full story? general alexander: exactly what has occurred with the data program, the metadata program. in that program, all of the information goes into a vault, and the government can only look at it when it can prove it is related to al qaeda or a terrorist group. you don't see yours or mine unless you talk to a terrorist. emily: has that data actually stopped attacks? general alexander: it has. i am not just for trampling over anybody's communications and stuff. i am for a reasonable approach. it is interesting that -- jeff stone did not like this program either. i use that, because, remember, i would be on one side, and he would be on the other, theoretically. and what he came to was let's prove the data so it is at the service providers. and when the government goes to look at it, we can audit, as we did, every time the government looks at it.

so those audits were available for the courts, congress, and the administration to look at. which is what the review group looked at, and low and behold, they found out that the only times that nsa looked at it was when it was associated with terrorists, period. and any mistakes nsa did was reported to the courts, congress, and the administration, just as we were responsible for doing. so my question is how did you get from a metadata program to we are listening to phone calls and reading e-mails? emily: how much did 9/11 surprise you? ♪

emily: you were born in syracuse, new york. the third of five children. you were a newspaper delivery boy. you ran track. what kind of kid where you? alexander: probably more on the trouble side. i did good academically, but i was always out testing the limits of authority. i had a great time in high school. emily: yet you ended up at west point. how does this troubled kid end up at west point? general alexander: i did not know anything about the military. my dad was in the marine corps at the end of world war ii. served in the pacific. i got a full scholarship to syracuse and purdue. my mother encouraged me to apply to west point. i did, and i got accepted. i was trying to find out, which one do you want to do, and i found that west point pays you.

i thought that is a good deal. i had no idea. how hard could that be? i said you know, they harass you there. i was there three days, and i called my dad, and i said, these people are crazy, come and get me. but actually, what i found is what a great set of americans they were. i had a good academic background in high school. but i learned the ethics at west point about duty, honor, country. and i think my classmates and all that, we joke about some of the things. but when you look at where those people come from and what they have done for our nation, it is incredible. emily: in fact, there were three other future four-star generals in class with you -- david petraeus, martin dempsey, walter sharp. did you know they would be so powerful? are you friends? general alexander: i knew marty really well.

i knew skip. and they knew me. if you had asked any of us -- i thought i was going to stay for five years. i think everybody thought dave would be. but for me, i am as surprised as they are. emily: and then you went on from west point to rise quickly through the ranks. general alexander: did not feel so quick at the time. emily: if you intended to stay five years, what happened? general alexander: well, actually, as my five years were coming up -- i had a great mentor. at the time, he was a brigadier general, a colonel and then a brigadier general, and that had been at west point that talked about how do we take the future of our army? if we do not keep good people in the army, how do we change our army from where it was in the mid-1970's to where we needed it to be for the first desert storm, and what he convinced me was these are good people.

and you can go out and make money, or you can help these guys. and so we talked about that with my wife and my family. and decided to stay. i got a job offer at 20 years. it was incredible. i would have made three times what i made in the military. i went home and i told my daughters and my wife, and my kids said you need to stay in the army. they gave up, perhaps, better cars for themselves and all that, because they thought it was the right thing to do for the country. and i was really proud of that. because i thought it was the right thing. emily: in 2001, you were ahead of army intelligence and security command. then 9/11 happened. how much did 9/11 surprise you? general alexander: we were -- let me back up a little bit. going into 9/11, when i was at central command, i was there for the east africa embassy bombings. i had been there one week. so we knew terrorism was growing.

i was there for the uss cole. we were concerned about terrorists and raised that to a number of people. so we were concerned our nation was at risk. when people came out of 9/11, the answer was there were gaps. that is why these programs were developed, to address these gaps. how do you help the intelligence community get information to law enforcement to stop an attack? emily: it was in response to 9/11 you started monitoring phone calls? general alexander: no. it was an nsa program. emily: it was in response to 9/11 that the nsa -- general alexander: right. i was not at nsa. emily: you joined the nsa when these programs were already in place. general alexander: that is right. emily: did you have any second thoughts about them? general alexander: the one thing i thought as we were going through it is that they were under the fisa court.

i thought that is the right thing, so we pushed hard to get that done. emily: you did not think this could trample on civil liberties at all? general alexander: you could see both sides of it. the issue is if i make a public we are doing a, we are concerned about another 9/11, we see all these actions going on. and the courts looked at this and said, "here's how you ensure both." so it is not only do you collect this information, but to ensure civil liberties and privacy under the fourth amendment, here is how you now access that data. here is how you record it. and here is how you will be overseen. and so there were tremendous measures put on nsa to ensure that. that part is not well articulated to the public. but if they saw that, they would say, wow, that is amazing. so you mean to look at that data, you have to show the court

what you are looking at, document each step, then have courts, congress, and the administration look at it each time you did that -- yes. and so it was not just nsa going in there and running around. this was a very deliberate program for a specific need. emily: the prism program was also in place. right? this was a program to secretly collect information from u.s. technology companies. general alexander: under 702, under fisa. prism allowed us to see the new york city subway. that was the first part. emily: was it a backdoor? general alexander: no, it was a court order. so, is a wiretap a backdoor? the answer is no. prism was the modern-day wiretap. emily: you maintain the tech companies did know about this, even though they claimed they did not. general alexander: they were served with court orders. right? that is what the verizon orders and all the others that are public now, show. they were, by law, required to do that.

emily: so when tim cook or mark zuckerberg or larry page says we had no idea this was happening, we are outraged -- general alexander: i think the issue is not that. i think the issue is a little bit more nuanced. the issue is what does nsa collect to conduct this foreign intelligence mission and the perception is nsa is into their servers and stuff. remember there was -- that is not true. emily: what is true? general alexander: nsa is not in any of the servers, to my knowledge. apple was not under my watch. apple, google, any of those. nsa is authorized to collect communications with those companies under the fisa amendment act. and what it has to do is serve a court order to do that. and only in certain conditions can it do it. emily: what keeps you up at night? what worries you most? ♪

emily: your first day in the private sector, what was that like? general alexander: my first day. it was april fools. 1 april. knowing me and what are my guess what my friends are like, i was betting somebody would call me and say, your retirement has been pushed back. my first day, i got on a plane to go to a conference in las vegas. i was not sure what i would do. i had several job offers. i did not know if i wanted to work for somebody. i was not looking forward to wog with somebody. in i talked to some financial institutions at other companies. they said with what you know about cyber security, why not start a cyber security company? to solve some of these problems, and the more we got onto it, i talked to some of the guys, and i said, hey, would you be interested in doing this, and in six weeks, we said, we can start a company. emily: you have a cyber security firm, and you are going through.

-- you are going to do a big public rollout. you said you are developing breakthrough technology. what is that? general alexander: breakthrough. [laughter] emily: what can you tell us about the technology? general alexander: like donald trump -- breakthrough. it's really good you will love , it. it's going to make everyone safer. emily: winning? general alexander: winning. actually, when you look at cyber security for a company, a bank, a health-care company, what are the problems you see and how do we address those? what we are trying to address head-on the problems that could not stop the sony or other attacks. we trying to address that, and that is through behavioral analysis, the ability to see the entire network flows, flows at network speed, and be able to respond and give people much faster capabilities in terms of doing analysis to find the fault and fix that. emily: what do you think of the clinton server issues, given

your experience with cyber security and servers? general alexander: at the end of the day, what the courts and the fbi need to look at is did she do anything wrong, was it her fault, or did somebody else do it? and i think this is where comey is really good. i think comey will call it straight, and that is what our nation needs. people who can do that. and i think what he finds he will put on the table. emily: in may 2014, you told the "new yorker," "i am really concerned something bad is going to happen." that "people need to know we are at greater risk." do you still believe this? general alexander: in cyber and in terrorism. i believe it in both. emily: what is coming? general alexander: in cyber, when you look at what has happened from 2007 to 2014 and then now, you see an increased set of exploits and attacks against countries. you see it going from financial institutions now to energy institutions, and in the asian

countries, you are seeing something called "duststorm." in europe and the u.s., you see "havocs." you saw the ukrainian power grid taken down in december and january. those kinds of things are, i think, an indication of things to come. and so it really makes it important that we up-gun our cyber security capability. emily: what worries you most? general alexander: i think i am worried about our nation, cyber security, and terrorism. we have lost a lot of capability there. and i do not think, as good as we were in the decade following 9/11, i do not think this next decade we will be anywhere close. emily: really? general alexander: because we have lost that much capability. emily: could 9/11 happen again? general alexander: we could see significant terrorist attacks. if i were to predict, it is more

likely in europe than the u.s., because it is easier for terrorists to get there. i think the travel programs have helped a great deal. i do not think that is sufficient. i think we're going to see a lot of jihadists and lone wolf-type things, and i think that will bring us back to the discussion on civil liberties and privacy and security. so why do i say stop that? right now, we have the opportunity to do this in a nonemotional manner. we should take that opportunity and solve these problems to the best of our ability. it will not be perfect. but get reasonable people to the table. and i would say for the google, apple, facebook, and the government -- show them what is going on. and then say how do we do this? and i think you can do both, and i think our country and government should help those come up with an international solution that does not

disadvantage our industry. emily: you have four kids, 16 grandkids. general alexander: i do. emily: what do you want your legacy to be? general alexander: i want to make sure -- take warren buffett's discussion. this is great advice. we want them to have a great life. we want them to be secure. be able to leverage all of this technology. to solve things like cancer. and to have a full and happy life. i think that means involving what we are seeing and all of these other discussions. and where i would solicit the support you and other media outlets is help tell the whole story. help us tell the whole story. there are some things you cannot tell. but there is a lot more out there that is not in talked -- being talked about that gives the rest of the story. so what should we do? so i think we should have these debates. but i think they have to put all of the information on the table.

and it starts with that whole snowden thing to today. emily: general keith alexander, thank you for joining us here today on "studio 1.0." general alexander: thank you, emily. emily: great to have you. ♪

david: you have been in that job when there has been tragedies, huge tragedies in this country. what can we do to avoid this going forward? mr. clinton: first of all, we need more help with intelligence work with federal and local law enforcement, with people who may be lone wolf's. like those people let san at san grant --

bernardino, they were converted to their ideology over the internet. today, we still do not know all we will eventually learn about the man who killed all the people in orlando. there are all kinds of crazy theories floating around now but it does seem pretty clear that some of the people who were in touch with him before hand, perhaps even in his own family, knew he was going to do something, whether they knew this or not. we got to get better at that. our fellow citizens need to help us. because you have to take it seriously. it is also true in other areas. a lot of people miss clear signs in suicide, and this is something new that sort of --

you can go down to your friendly store and get an ar-15 and wipe out a bunch of people. we need tighter security on that. and i think that the other things that hillary said in her speech yesterday are accurate. things we can do to harden our efforts around the world to defeat isis and other radical groups. i kept thinking over and over the more i hear about this, i was glad to hear the fbi director was constantly asking themselves, is there something more we should have done? that is what every american should ask. we have just got to all be on a higher alert. we cannot ignore someone we think is ranting and raving. they may be serious. david: you mentioned what secretary clinton, one of the presumptive candidates said. we also have the other

presumptive candidate come out and say things, saying we should exclude people from muslim countries coming in because some of them have this ideology and number two, if we had more people with guns in that nightclub it would not have been that much of a tragedy. what is your reaction? mr. clinton: did you see how dark it was? david: in the club? mr. clinton: i think it is likely that more people would have been killed. all i know is this -- we had a 10 year ban on assault weapons. that w passed when i was president. i signed it and we pushed hard for it. no small number of members of congress lost their jobs because they voted for that. and for what was then a comprehensive background check law. we had a 33 year low in the gun death rate and a 46 year low in total illegal deaths by gun homicide. in other words, it worked really well. and then, when it was allowed to

expire, for a while we did not seem to have an uptick in crime. if you look at what happened with these big weapons at sandy hook and aurora, colorado, and most recently in orlando and san bernardino, it is pretty clear that if you are firing a lot of weapons -- a lot of ammunition in a short amount of time with a weapon that is designed only to kill, more people will die than if you are stuck with a pistol. if a guy had just had a pistol in that nightclub i do not believes he could kill 49 people. that is my response. i tell people all the time, notwithstanding that terrible incident in orlando, we are last

less racist, sexist, and homophobic than we used to be. we just are. we are becoming a more inclusive society. one remaining bigotry as we do not want to be around anyone who disagrees with us. either actually, or virtually. if you get into a silo like that, you are prone to believe anything that your preconceived prejudice would allow. that is not good for us. that is one of the reasons i like all of these cgi events , because people here come from every political perspective and they make a living different ways. their whole experience is different and they find it quite stimulating to be with people who are different from them, they find that what we know -- which is that diverse groups make better decisions than lone geniuses, let alone a group of totally like thinking people.

we have to be super sensitive and keep looking for ways to break out of our silos, because fundamentally people are pretty decent. >> unfortunately, if you are not in the boat you do not get lifted. >> we have a real structure a -- structural problem with insufficient access to the capital for a lot of different underserved populations. ♪

david: we are a few years past the 2008 financial crisis. employment has come up. there are some green shoots, i think it is fair to say, though not as much growth as we would

like. so the question is, where do we go from here? how do we take the world -- bob, i want to speak with you -- start with you. as you look at the challenges we face, are you more concerned about wealth and income disparity, or overall economic growth? bob: i come at a lot of the broad economic issues and local economic issues from the standpoint of its impact on minority americans and particularly african-americans. if we look at the data that the pew research has put out, the wealth gap between african-americans even prior to the recession had grown to about $70,000 less than that of white americans. if you would take the median net worth of an african-american household, it is $13,000 compared to $130,000 for a white household. that is principally because of lack of investment, lack of home

ownership, and obviously the impact of loss of jobs from the recession, and the historic fact that african-american unemployment has been double that of white. if you look at that in a global economy, with competition on a global scale, it is very hard to see how you integrate economic growth in the african-american community without some expansion of capital access, some change in government policy that increases opportunities for african-americans, and corporate policy for that matter in job creation and job access as well as education. so to me, anything that happens in this country going forward has to address the fact that minority americans are going to be the largest population group. unless you put that population group to work in some way of creating wealth and being productive, you are going to have to pay for them and you get this need of transfer payment.

one of the biggest crisis of this country, people say why are we paying to support people who are not productive? the people don't want to be not productive they want to be , productive but the necessary ingredients -- access to capital, jobs, retirement savings are just not there to bring a level playing field. that is my primary concern. david: if we had gdp growth in this country of 4% rather than sub 2%, how much would take care of it self? how much do we need innovation? -- intervention? bob: that sounds a little bit like a trickle down. or a rising tide lifts all boats. unfortunately, if you are not in the boat, you do not get lifted. that is the problem with african-americans.

you go to the department of labor and statistics -- for the past 50 years, african-american unemployment has been double that of white unemployment. there is something else there that needs to happen to create more opportunity, and it is a change in -- education, i cannot they enough about it but we spend more money on education for minority americans than ever but still has not moved the needle. as a business person, i think it is access to capital. we have got to put more capital into the communities where african-americans live, give african-american entrepreneurs more access to capital. that comes in the lending from the banking institutions and others. those are the kind of things from a business standpoint. social programs and policies work to give the so-called safety net, but if you want productivity, it is an economic model. david: steve, he took us right to your doorstep.

you are a banker. what is your experience in california? steve: the issues bob is talking about are pervasive in california. it is not just african-americans, it is small business owners and latinos. we have seen the evaporation of tens of billions of dollars of lending and capital access for small businesses, consumers, and entrepreneurs. if you look at california today, the fastest growing entrepreneur starting new businesses and creating new jobs are latinos and female businesses. they are starting from the ground up with small businesses. the problem is the traditional sources of banking a lot of them , cratered during the financial recession and the capital dried up so we have a real structural problem today with insufficient access to capital for a lot of underserved populations.

it is not just ethnic populations but entrepreneurial populations. david: how much of that is a regulatory problem? one thing we hear from time to time is that because of regulation in washington, it is much harder to venture forward, to take risk in making loans. steve: you are seeing a secular shift in the banking industry where those large banks used to be the drivers of economic growth, are now more confined with a lot of the regulatory actions that keep them constrained, and a lot of the policy guidance. there is an emergence of those regional banks and the community banks that have the ability to fill that gap and that are in fact filling the gap. when you look at growth in lending to small businesses, for consumers, most of that is

coming from this new class of banks that are not subject to the same too big to fail limitations but can still access the community and serve those underserved populations. i think one of the big drivers is really refocusing the conversation on, how do you let the regional banks that do not have the same political considerations and too big to fail considerations -- how do you unleash them to be able to continue their growth in their lending to the most underserved communities. david: you have been serving underserved communities. when it comes to growth versus income disparity, what are the problems we are facing? >> as a media company the most important thing we trade in is information. you are talking about access to opportunities and capital. for us, it is access to information. there are whole neighborhoods, communities, groups of people that do not have access to just

the basics, computers, internet. one of the things -- as the rest of the industry has been trying to scale one of the things we , focused on a couple of years ago was called connect to compete, where we offered low-cost internet to underserved neighborhoods as a partnership with the government. carlos slim was involved but we launched it in california and it has been very popular. kids that could not internet -- could not have internet have a reliable internet connection that they can use. sadly, a lot of the ipads that are donated to these neighborhoods gets old very quickly, so we need the hardware but we try to provide the connection and information. david: bob, how do you feel about that? as a specific initiative to address the issues you're concerned about. bob: anything that corporate america can do to have a triple bottom-line effect is going to change the impact of wealth disparity within minority

communities. but it has to be done in a way that is going to be sustained. we go back the war on poverty, we go back to all kinds of other programs, that if they are not sustained or if we do not consider them to be a compelling national interest, they tend to wayne after -- wane after, sometimes administration, sometimes philosophy. mr. clinton: if you get groups of people with diverse experience and expertise, who just want to get a job done, more often than not you find a better way to do it at low cost. ♪

david: take us through that initiative having to do with mortgages and housing in detroit and how it worked. mr. clinton: i had a real interest in detroit and wanted to help. we just got a lot of people together for two or three days, some of whom were physically located close to each other and some were out of town. they put their heads together and came up with this idea of how a second mortgage could be

issued that would enable the homeowner to make the home habitable and that the repayment could be restructured in a way that would not cripple them financially. that is what we did. it will put 1000 people in more homes. i think it will be the beginning of something that may well have application in other areas in the united states. and i hope so. we figured out how to basically close a gap in the fabric of our housing market. and that is really what i was trying to do when i set up my foundation 15 years ago. i just wanted to figure out how to solve problems better, faster, and at lower cost. i saw this a lot. there is a great deal of difference between passing law and changing lives.

there is a great deal of difference between appropriating money and changing lives. you have to know how to do things and i think that the more complex and interdependent our society gets, the more premium we will put on people who find a way to answer the how question, and we find and have for years that if you get groups of people with diverse experience and expertise who just want to get a job done, and do not really care about what their politics are, they are just trying to get a job done, more often than not will find a way to do it faster, better, and at lower cost. david: as you say, you have a track record and a body of work. what have you learned about what sorts of problems can be addressed, solved by this sort of cooperative effort and which ones do not fit so well?

clinton: let's start with the second category. there are some things that require a threshold level of investment from the private sector or government, without which you can't do what you would like to do. let me give you an example. you told me you are from flint. flint is not the only city were have elevatedren levels of lead in their blood. we have done what we could to help flint but it would take a national commitment to a real serious infrastructure program to take up all the rusty pipes in america and give all of our kids a healthy future. it would be a very good investment. interest rates are lower than inflation now and it would create a lot of jobs and have good income. there would still be particular problems in particular places we could help, but that is a

threshold thing. we can now, because solar and wind power are relatively cheaper, dramatically cheaper than they were years ago, we can help put together coalitions to accelerate the income benefits as well as the climate benefit of solar and wind power in many places. but if for example you want to help the poorest americans who are still native americans living on indian lands without casinos, a lot of them could be making a fortune out of this but they cannot afford the transmission lines to carry the power from where they are to any place that is strong enough to receive it. those are the things that you can do. the things you can do largely involve getting people to rethink what they are doing and

see if they can be faithful to their responsibilities with their assets, and do it in a way with more social benefit. david: what happens to your initiative if your wife is president? mr. clinton: i think right now i just want to say what hillary did -- we have to cross that bridge when we get to it. if she wins, we want to think about it. clearly politics is different from what i do. i just try to get partners together and make something good happen. the government should do more of that and the president is trying to involve more people from the private sector in a lot of his decision-making. but you have to be careful to avoid actual potential conflicts of interest. david: that is the issue. people have raised that. even donald trump raised that, and things like that. lots of things get raised. it gets dicier if your wife is president. mr. clinton: we will think very

clearly about it and we will do the right thing. and explain it to the american people, but i will have to wait. first, i do not believe in counting your chickens before they hatch. david: i will resist the temptation to ask you who you are going to vote for for president. ladies and gentlemen president , william jefferson clinton, thank you very much. [applause] mr. clinton: thank you so much. ♪

>> coming up, the stories that shaped the week in the business world. disney opens the gates on a whole new world and shanghai, delicateal banks weigh decisions. >> lower for longer -- i repeat -- a for longer, everybody. shery: oil prices sink again, but as the market tottering towards balance? with a brexit vote days away, the financial vote --