which is covfefe. i think the president should own it and say it was a told covfefe. i think it is going to come like the world smurf, going to mean everything. so covfee for watching "power lunch" everybody. let's go get some covfefe. >> hi, everybody. welcome to "closing bell" on this wednesday. i'm kelly evans at the new york stock exchange. >> i'm mike santoli in for bill griffeth today. is everybody afraid of amazon? seems like it. telling cnbc amazon is scary right now. find out why coming up. >> cole is saying it is the most more -- anyway, we'll talk about it. hillary clinton will be interviewed in just a few minutes at the same conference out in california.

we'll take you through live for her comments. she will be asked about some of the biggest issues facing business and tech and i imagine some politics, too. >> you would imagine so, yes. this is the final hour of trading for the month of may, so your last chance to sell in may if you were so inclined. the nasdaq, of course, has been the big out performer. discuss whether it is time to sell some of the high flying tech names. >> we'll see where the market on close number is. as we head into a traditional -- i don't like to talk about the traditional. >> hasn't work that great. >> we'll talk more about them, don't worry. begin with netflix ceo making headlines at the conference a few hours ago. our julia boorstin is on the scene with more. julia. >> reporter: hey, kelly. that's right. netflix ceo reed hatings tells me he is scared of amazon, really scared as amazon ramps up its investment in original content. but he says he is going to

broaden the library and grow the subscriber base. >> if we try to out amazon amazon, that's a losing battle. we have to be a special play. we're trying to be starbuck's, they're trying to be wal marlt. what they do is incredible so, no, we wouldn't focus on those things. we would focus on how to be the embodiment of entertainment and joy in tv shows. >> as netflix growth starts to slow in the u.s., hastings pointed to markets with the biggest potential. >> have done awfully well in latin america, europe and in north american. we have a lot of room to grow in asia. >> what about china? you are licensed in china but are you still trying to launch there or is it off the table? >> i think it is off the table for next cup many of years. >> reporter: when i spoke to hastings, he said the show he was most looking forward to was the crown. this time i asked what show he's

most excited about and also what show he says will have the biggest impact on the company? we don't have our sound bite there, but he said it was a show called "the glow," also from the creator is "orange is the new black." and it launches on netflix june 23rd. more on the interview with hastings on cnbc.com. >> what is "glow?" >> it is a new show. >> a period piece about women wrestling in the '70s. >> that's what he's most excited about? >> apparently it is sort of a spoof but not entirely a spoof, i think is the way he characterized it, right, julia? >> reporter: yeah, that's right. wrestling in the '70s, by the creator of "orange is the new black." it sounds intriguing so i for one will check it out. >> julia, found about china interesting. he seemed curt when you asked about it. how big a deal is it for netflix

not to have access to the market? sfloo he >> reporter: here is the thing. they have access in that they're licensing to other distributors in china. but it is not worth it to keep fighting to figure out how to put their regular service in the country. they're in 190 countries around the world, but sounds like the amount of money they would get out of china sounds like licensing is a better bet for them. >> julia boorstin, thanks very much. the federal reserve's beige book showing signs of uncertainty about the trump administration's policy. steve liesman has that report. >> michael, good afternoon. saying the economy continues to grow modestly, but some signs of weakness in consumer spending but also worry about economic policy in washington with several fed banks saying their context report is affecting business. here are example also. in boston they say manufacturers

say policy uncertainty is holding back spending among consumers. dallas says some firms see uncertainty about trade policy affecting business. san francisco, immigration policy changes, in fact farmer high school to throw away some parts of the harvest because they couldn't get workers. in st. louis, hospitals lay-offs citing. it remains to be seen how much economic impact this amounts to. fed officials said more uncertainty about the direction of taxes or more uncertainty and other fiscal policy changes could help clear up the outlook, guys. we will ask these questions and more in the exclusive interview we have with fed governor jay powell at 10:00 a.m. tomorrow, guys. >> in spite of that was the overall tone of the report, talking about moderate activity, broadly speaking, anything like that? >> it sounded like a 2% economy, plus or minus. a little bit on the softer side.

some concerned about autos. one dealer, i guess in cleveland, said the inventory were at the highest levels in a long time. the line about consumer spending being soft was worrisome, kelly. chicago, new york and boston didn't report the best economic outlook. overall they kept to the phrasing of modest to moderately. if you want the bottom line, i say it is still good enough for a june rate hike at this point. >> all right. of course wile 'have more with jay powell in the morning. look forward to that. thank you. >> as we close out the month, the nasdaq is on top as the best performing market, up 2% follow by the dow and the s&p and the russell is the worst performing index. it has gone exactly tots way, down 2%. >> how or should investors prepare portfolios in june. we have andy capra from post nine and news in the at lan times-union, steve grasso and rick santelli at the cme. thanks, guy, to all of you.

andy, actually the full year has not necessarily ee involved the way a lot of people were positioned for it, right? you have bonds rallying the last few months, bank stops performing. where does it leave you in terms of going into june? >> think there's been a real dichotomy between expectations and result. we talked about the russell being worst performing index this month. actually one of the worst performing, everything to do with expectation. everybody talked about small-caps in u.s. seeing the next train. get real. we haven't had any reality in washington and we haven't had any progress on earnings from these small companies. where all of the action is, is in large tech companies, large multi-nationals. >> we should also mention, hillary clinton will begin speaking any moment, we will dip into that as soon as it happens, but what do you think about the russells? >> i think andy hit it on the held. everyone thought who would be

most to game if we had tax policy shifts and that's where everyone was leaning towards the smaller companies, smaller cap companies. if we don't see any of that we will continue with the horse oddest to the dance here. if we look at oil, if we slip below $40, it is very ugly. i have been saying for a while it is an over supply. doesn't matter if you cut production, extend the cuts out nine months or a year, there's a problem with a glut of oil. what does it mean to the overall market? the market has been able to fight it of off. but we get down to low 40s and that's where i think we're going, that's going to have a real effect on the s&p. >> it already is. >> the s&p is around the high. if you see the s&p start to really crater here due to an oil change, think that will catch the attention much a lot of investors. >> certainly having an effects -- i mean energy stocks are all over the 52 week low list. financials for a large part of that, of course, rick santelli, is this continued compression of

the treasury yield curve. i know you have been monitoring the ten-year yields kind of toward the lower end of its recent range. on the other hand, people saying maybe it has become a crowded trade again. is this bottom of the range going to hold is probably the question. >> well, you know, anything can happen. i personally think we might violate it. but i think i go to my stopwatch theory. it is not whether you trade below the current yield for the year established in april of this year of 2.17. it is how long you stay down there. to me that's the issue. i think we can violate it. as a matter of fact, when you look at all of the dynamics, especially the weak dollar, i think it is almost unavoidable at some point there will be a bias of a disappointment and the logistics of the trade are important. but i think when it comes to logistics of the trade, we almost saw that in reverse. there were many, many that were long that reversed out when we had that sort of fake-out about

a month ago that moved us back into the 230s, almost to the 240 level. the thing with treasuries right now is that you have a fed that continues to stick to this kind of philips curve strategy, even though as branarld said there's basically the relationship between low inemployment and we can question its accuracy and what's going on with pricing. when you put it together and look towards europe, i don't see there's an impetus to expect any resurgence of selling in treasuries. if you are looking to stay under 2% for a long time, i don't think that's the trade we ultimately will look at. >> andy, you have a couple of these. you have morgan stanley, the financials you like. how in the energy space and apple. but talk about morgan and total and in a period where the market is not favoring these players. >> let's take it in reverse order. total is a french super major. i love them for the current oil

environment. the only support to it is the deal between saudi arabia and russia, two strange bed fellows that will have a hard time cooperating and getting the deal together. i doubt it will last. i think $50 is here to stay. super majors are the first to return to profitability and they're stable at this range. morgan stanley another good example of a financial different from other major banks. their biggest earnings driver is fee-based wealth management, which is different. you are not depending on getting a new client in the door and trading every day. you're trying to get assets in the door and managing a client's wealth and that's an important business. >> we'll see if they like the fed rate hike. thanks very much for your time today. >> about 50 minutes until the

close here. dow is down 43 points. pretty consistent. feels like just sitting down 40 points. >> a little flurry of activity in the morning and sort of settle it in for the rest of the day so far. >> we'll see if closing the month makes a different. nasdaq down 19, russell down about 5. >> deal making in d. president trump and vietnam's prime minister expected to sign trade agreements with billion also of dollars for u.s. companies. we'll go to the white house for details. >> hillary clinton is set to begin speaking at any moment out at the conference in california. we'll bring it to you live when it begins. stay with us. >> the bond report is sponsored by -- what's team spirit worth? (cheers) what's it worth to talk to your mom? what's the value of a walk in the woods? the value of capital is to create, not just wealth, but things that matter.

morgan stanley i am benedict arnold, the infamous traitor. and i know a thing or two about trading. so i trade with e*trade, where true traders trade on a trademarked trade platform that has all the... get off the computer traitor! i won't. (cannon sound) mobility is very important to me. that's why i use e*trade mobile. it's on all my mobile devices, so it suits my mobile lifestyle and it keeps my investments fully mobile... even when i'm on the move. sign up at etrade.com and get up to six hundred dollars. what if we could bring you by having better values? at blue apron, we work directly with more than a hundred family farms. so instead of spending on costly middlemen and supermarkets, we can invest in the things that matter most: making farmland healthier. cutting down on food waste. and bringing you higher quality, fresher ingredients for less than you pay at the store. because food is better when you start from scratch. get $30 off at blueapron.com/cook

did you know slow internet can actually hold your business back? say goodbye to slow downloads, slow backups, slow everything. comcast business offers blazing fast and reliable internet that's over 6 times faster

than slow internet from the phone company. say hello to internet speeds up to 250 mbps. and add phone and tv for only $34.90 more a month. call today. comcast business. built for business. . welcome back. take it over to meg tirrell for a quick market flash. >> hey, mike. looking at senator chuck grassley putting out a statement saying that the department of health and human services office of inspector general says taxpayers may have overpaid for the epipen by as much as $1.27 billion between 2006 and 2016. it is far more than a settlement of $465 million with the department of justice mylan announced last fall. more recently we hadn't heard

that settlement had been finalized. we reach out to mylan for comment yet. they are going to get back to us soon. in this state grassley saying it looks like mylan over charged the taxpayers for years with the knowledge they were over classified. you can see it down about 1% on this, guys. we will bring you more updates. back to you. >> thank you. the pension fund is upset about the comp paying out. president trump meeting with seat no, ma'am usa prime minister at the white house. we will go to the white house for the results of that exchange. under scores the key role vietnam is playing in asia. >> that's right. since tpp was thrown out by president trump asian countries are trying to strike trade deals with the united states. that's what vietnamese prime minister is attempting to do in his meeting. ge announced it has secured deals with vietnam for aircraft engines and other services

totaling $5.58 billion. the largest sale with a country in ge's history. questions of how the u.s. will bring down the $32 billion trade deficit with vietnam which trade representative expected word over last night. on the defense, as china's influence grows in the broader region, the two countries share an interest in containing beijing, and in the disputed south china sea waters where vietnam's western coast is located. started to help vietnam in policing the waters. we have seen japan and india strike security agreements with vietnam. this highlighting the important role they play in asia. the prime minister of vietnam have to tread careful as china remains vietnam's biggest trading partner. >> i find it hard to believe vietnam can throw its weight around very much. it is a communist country, not all that wealthy.

to what degree do we think they can step up and be a lead player? if they cannot be part of choin ah's sphere of influence, their independence -- >> more ways they can reduce their reliance on china, the more clout they will especially when it comes to foreign policy matters and south china see, which of course is a huge shipping carrier area for vietnam. but as to your point, it is a hot, emerging market. the stock market is up about 10% year-to-date. it has been growing annually by 6% over the past five years, but a big part is exports. we will have to see if that can continue. >> that $32 billion trade imbalance answer with vietnam and the u.s. it is bigger to vietnam's economy than to the u.s. i wonder what kind of terms we might be talking about, about a bilateral trade agreement. >> that's the details we're hoping to get from this meeting with trump's meeting with the prime minister of vietnam, how exactly they'll bring down the trade deficit. it is the sixth largest deficit

with vietnam with $32 billion, something to keep in mind, especially when you have a lot of big multi-nationals like nike with a lot of factories in vietnam, samsung, united air among others. they rely with vietnam's manufacturing capabilities. >> it was a big deal with starbuck's opened their first location in vietnam, correct? there's so much potential there and people look to it as an emerging south eastern market but it still has a way to go. >> yes. it is an elegant dance, trying to find the economic ways, to try to cooperate on the economic front but also trying to maintain the type of balance on defense. because that's beige growing concern, is with tpp off the table can these asian countries, including india by the way, we're expecting prime minister mody to meet trump in washington in the coming months, will they be able to show cooperation on defense but also work on these trade deals. >> we're going to california

now. thank you. hillary clinton is speaking live at the conference with executive editor kara swisher who will be interviewing former secretary of state and she is expected to weigh in not only on politics as she has been doing. here is president trump meeting with prime minister of vietnam. >> he has done a spectacular job in vietnam. we're going to be discussing trade. we're going to be discussing many things that we have to talk about. we look forward to being together. thank you very much. [speaking foreign language].

>> translator: i thank you, mr. president, for this official visit to the united states. i look forward to briefings, to each and every american and [ inaudible ]. >> translator: in the united states have undergone significant upheavals but today we have been able to become partners. [speaking foreign language].

>> translator: i have had the great pleasure of having a phone conversation with the president, and also in the exchange of letters. i was very impressed by the openness of the president and i'm confident that our meeting today will be equally candid and open and will be fruitful to set out major directions for our u.s./vietnam cooperation on the basis of mutual respect in the interest of peace and development in the asia pacific and the world. [speaking foreign language]. >> translator: we very much look forward to working with you, mr. president, to attend the

economic interest meeting as well as pay an official visit to vietnam in november of this year. >> thank you very much. thank you, everybody. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> hearing from a lot of people, both ways. >> [ inaudible ] sir. >> a lot of people, both ways. >> [ inaudible ]. >> thank you, everybody. thank you very much. >> [ inaudible ]. >> all right.

president trump there saying soon, very soon when asked when he would come to a decision on the paris climate agreement after meeting with vietnam's prime minister. let's go back to the code conference with kara swisher and walt mossberg are interviewing hillary clinton. >> so obviously turn the clock back. but what was done and i think it was interesting. i know you had dean bacay from the "new york times" yesterday and they covered it like it was pearl harbor. and then in their endorsement of they they said, the female thing, it is like a help desk issue. so it was always a hard issue to put to bed but we put it to bed in july and then it rose up again. >> okay. i want to do one more of these misjudgment things and then we're going to go on. goldman sachs. >> yeah. >> you knew you were going to run for president or you thought you might or probably, you were thinking about it. you had to be thinking about it as a possibility.

why did you do those? i don't -- >> why do you have goldman sachs here? >> because they pay us. >> they paid me. >> yeah, but there's a -- >> you know, look, again, i -- >> i know they paid you and they paid you a lot. >> yes, yes. >> but you didn't -- >> yes. >> you're not somebody who needed that money for next week's shopping and you might have -- you knew you might have run, so why do it? >> okay. well, i gave speeches to many, many groups. i spoke to camp counsellors, i spoke to health care executives, i spoke to, you know, just a wide range of groups, and not just in the united states but particularly in canada and a few other places. and i was a senator from new york. i knew these people and i knew what they did for the economy and i knew what they did to the economy, and that i think, you know, speaking to them, raising questions which i did in 2008

and in 2009, you know, people have no reason to know this, but in the 2008 campaign before the iowa caucus i actually ran an ad about the looming mortgage crisis. so i have to say, walt, i never thought that anybody would throw out my entire career of standing up and speaking out and voting against and voting in favor of what i thought are good policies because i made a couple of speeches. when you are the secretary of state, people want to hear what you talked about. the most common thing i talked about in all of those speeches bass, y was, you know, one of the central missions i felt from the time the towers fell on 9/11 as a senator from new york, and to be part of that, to be one of the very few people advising the president on that, you know, it was a fascinating issue. i thought i could tell that to a lot of different people. you know, men got paid for the

speeches they made, i got paid for the speeches i made. it was used and i thought it was unfairly used and all of that, but it was part of the background music. >> but it was used. i think we've discussed this, you and i have discussed this, this idea -- how many years ago did you talk about the vast right wing conspiracy? >> about -- let's see, it was probably '98. >> right. at the time people thought you were -- >> a little crazy. >> right. >> what is it like now? how do you look at it now? because you're someone that has to know a target is on your back almost every -- you know, right now every bot in russia is working your way with the last 20 second of things that you said. >> yes, right. well, i hope we get into this because, look, i take responsibility for every decision i made but that's not why i lost. so i think it is important that we learn the real lessons from this last campaign because the forces that we are up against

are not just interested in influencing our elections and our politics, they're going after our economy and they're going after our unity as a nation. so yes, back in '98 -- look, i have been watching this and been, you know, obviously the target for a number of years. what is hard for people to really accept, although now after the election there's greater understanding, is that there are forces in our country -- put the russians to one side -- who have been fighting rear guard actions for as long as i've been alive because my life coincided with the civil rights movement, with the women's rights movement, with anti-war protesting, with the impeachment -- or not -- you know, the driving out of office because he was about to be impeached of a president.

>> let's be specific. >> yes, let's be very specific as if people didn't understand what i was saying. and let's talk about, you know, watergate and all of the things that we lived there, and we were on a real roll as a country despite assassinations, despite setbacks. you know, opening the doors of opportunity, expanding rights to people who never had them in any country was, frankly, thrilling. i believed then and i believe now that we're never done with this work. and so part of the challenge is to maintain the energy and focus to keep going forward, but you have to recognize the other side is never, never tired either. they're always looking to push back. what we saw was in this election particularly -- and i appreciate what walt said -- the first time that you had the tech revolution

weaponized politically, before it was a way to reach voters, collect fundraising, do things to help the candidate behind the messaging. that changed this time and it changed for a number of reasons we should talk about. you had citizens united come to its full fruition. so unaccountable money flowing in against me, against other kms democrats in a way we hadn't seen and then attached to this weaponized information war. you had effective suppression of votes. i mean those of us who can remember the voting rights act, the expansion of the franchise and then i was in the senate when we voted 98-0 under a republican president, george w. bush, to extend the voting rights act. and the supreme court said, oh, we don't need it anymore, throws it out and republican governors

and legislatures began doing everything they could to suppress the vote. that was before we get to the russians or anything of the outside, and there were lots of factors at work. yeah, it was aimed at me, but it is a much deeper, more persistent effort to try to turn the clock back on so much of what we have achieved as a country. >> talk about the weaponizing. one of the things that's interesting, now you recently and we talked about the uses of facebook, we can get doo donald trump's twitter thing in a second because that could be a whole conference. but how do you look at -- how do you see how it was weaponized? let me -- it begs the question, why weren't you weaponizing it? why is the right wing so good at it -- >> not just you, but the

democrats. >> here is how i see it and i hope others will jump into this debate in the months ahead because there's a lot we have to understand if we're going to avoid this continuing assault on our sources of information. here is how i think about it. you know, i was very proud of my data and analytics team. they were largely veterans of the obama campaigns, ache, 12, and then we brought in a lot of new people and brought in a lot of new expertise to build sort of the next generation, and we had a lot of help from some people in silicon valley as well. and what we thought we were doing -- here is the arena we were playing in -- was going to like obama 3.0, you know, better targeting, better messaging, and the ability to both turn out our voters as we identified them and

to communicate more brodly with voters. here is what the other side was doing and they were in a different arena. through content forms, through an enormous investment in self hoods, fake news, call it what you will. >> how about lies? >> lies? that's a good work, too. the other side was using content that was just flatout false and delivering it in a very personalized way. you know, both sort of above the radar screen and below. and, you know, i'm not a tech expert by any stretch of the imagination. that really fluenced the information that people were relying on, and there have been some studies done since the election that you if you look -- let's say you look at facebook,

the vast majority of the news items posted were fake. they were connected to as we now know the 1,000 russian agents who were involved in delivering those messages. they were connected to the bots that are just out of control. we see now this new information about trump's twitter account being populated by millions of bots. it was such a new experience. i understand why people on their facebook pages would think, oh, hillary clinton did that? i did not know that. well, that's going to affect my opinion about her. and we were -- we did not engage in false content. we may have tried to put every piece of information in best possible light and explanation, but we weren't in the same category as the other side. >> so you weren't going to lie. >> right. >> good for you. >> well -- well --

>> you're rethinking that? >> i'm not rethinking it but everybody else better rethink it because we have to figure out how to combat that. >> that's my point. the left, the dems, the liberals, whatever you want to call them, including bernie sanders' follows and everybody on the democratic side which at one time was about 12, 15 years ago was ahead. it is way behind now, and it is not just -- there's a way to weaponize tech that doesn't involve lying or doing -- or having russians help you. >> right. >> but just it is a political weapon. it is a fact of life now. >> but how do we do it? >> let me do a comparison for you. i set up my campaign and we have our own data operation. i get the nomination so i'm now

the nominee of the democratic party. i inherit nothing from the democratic party. >> what do you mean nothing? >> i mean it was bankrupt. it was on the verge of insolvency. it's data was immediate yok-- mediocre, poor, wrong. i had to inject money into it. >> this is the dnc? >> dnc. donald trump did nothing about setting up any kind of data operation. inherits an rnc data foundation that after the republicans lost to 2012 and they thought they had a very good operation with the set up that romney did called orca, they thought it was really state of the art. they lose. so they raised, best estimates, $100 million. they brought in main vendors who

said we will never been behind the democrats again and they invested to build this data foundation. they beta tested it. they ran it -- somebody was able to determine 227,000 surveys to double check, triple check, d quadruple check. so trump becomes the nominee and he is basically handed tried and true and effective. and you can believe the hype on how great they were or the hype on how they weren't, but the fact is they added something. i think we bet err understand all of that money for their own anewsment. we know they played in "brexit" and they came to jared crushner and said, we will marry our operation -- which was more as it's been described psycho

graphic sentiment, a lot of the harvesting of facebook information, we will marry that with the rnc on two conditions. you pick steve bannon and you kick kellyanne conway. trump says fine, who cares. bannon who had been running the brightbart operation, supplying a lot of the untrue, false stories -- yeah, we know -- so they marry content with delivery and data and it was a component. the question is where and how did the russians get into this. i think it is a very important question. i assume a lot of the people here may have, or if you haven't i hope you will, reed tad the

declassified report that came out in early february. 17 agencies concluded with high confidence that the russians ran an extensive information war campaign against my campaign to influence voters in the election. they did it through paid advertising. they did it through false news sites, they did it through these thousand agents. they did it through machine learning which kept spewing out this stuff over and over again, theal go rhyt al gogorithms. that happened and i think it is fair to ask how did that actually influence the campaign, and how did they know what messages to deliver. >> who told them? >> who told them.

>> yeah. >> who were they coordinating with or colluding with. because the russians historically in the last couple of decade, you know, are launching cyberattacks and stealing vast amounts of information and a lot of the information they've stolen they used for internal purposes, to affect markets. so this was different because they went public and they were conveying this weaponized information and the content of it and they were running -- you know, there's all of these stories about guys over macedonia running these fake news site. i have seen them now and it looks like a sort of low level cnn organization. >> or a fake newspaper. >> or a fake newspaper. so the russians in my opinion and intel, counter intel, people i have talked to, could not have

known how best the weaponize the information unless they were guided. >> guided by americans? >> guided by americans and guided by people who had polling and data information. >> who is that -- >> let me just finish because this is the second and third step. so we know that they did that, we understand it best example. within one hour of the "access hollywood" tapes being leaked, within one hours -- let's say wikileaks, the same thing -- dumped the john podesta e-mails. if you have ever read the john podesta e-mails, their antidigm to boredom. >> we had him here once. >> yes. forgive him for what he said about you. they were run of the mill e-mails.

should we do this, what should she say, the stuff that is so common, basic. within one hour they dumped them and they began to weaponize them. they began to have some of their ally also within the internet world like info glnchwars take pieces and begin to say the most out landish and absurd lies you can imagine. so they had to be ready for that, they had to have a plan for that and they had to be given the go ahead. okay, this could be the end of the trump campaign, dumb it now, and then let's do everything we can to weaponize it. we know it hurt us because as i explain in my book, you know, the comey letter which was -- now we know partly based on a false memo from the russians.

it was a classic piece of russian disinformation. i can't speculate, i can't look in the guy's mind, but he dumps that on october 28th and i immediately start falling. what is really interesting because the mainstream media covered that, as i say, front pages, every where, et cetera. all of the trump people can go and screaming "lock her up, lock her up" and all of that. statement the biggest google searches were not for kocomey because it was lying out there, it was for wikileaks. so voters who are being targeted with all of this wals information are trying to make up their minds. what does it mean. we know that google searches were particularly high in places like wisconsin and pennsylvania.

>> a couple of questions. fascinating, actually. >> yeah. >> who was directing them from your perspective and do you believe -- and i'm going to use facebook because that's where a lot of this was done, especially around the fake news which was the pope was voting for trump. there was one i got in an argument with people about, you being a lizard that was going around, they kept arguing about the gray area and i was saying, she's not a lizard. >> thank you, sara, thank you. >> it is actually a kind thing from kara. >> i'm very touched. >> but do you blame -- >> i don't know if you're a lizard or not, but the fact of the matter is -- but who do you think directed it and do you blame facebook or any of these platforms for doing nothing? what should they have done? >> let me separate out the

questions. >> okay. >> first, we are getting more information about all of the contacts between trump campaign officials and trump associates with russians before, during and after the election. so i hope that we'll get enough information to be able to answer that question. >> meaning trump. >> yes, yes, i'm meaning trump. i think it is pretty hard not to. i think that the marriage of the domestic fake news operations, the domestic rnc, republican allied data combined with the very effective capabilities that the russians brought, you know, basically the group running this who was the gru, the military intelligence arm of the russian military neighbor.

very sophisticated, in bed with wikileaks, in bed with guccifer, and they were dropping this stuff on me and they haven't done anything since early january. so their job was done. they got their job done. so we're going to i hope be able to connect up a lot of the dots and it is really important because, you know, when comey did testify before being fired this last couple of weeks he was asked are the russians still involved? he goes yes, they are. why wouldn't they be? it worked for them. it is important that americans and particularly people in tech and business understand, you know, putin wants to bring us down. he is an old kgb agent. i had obviously run-ins with him because that in large measure prompted his animous toward me

and his willingness to help trump. back to the platforms. i'm not sure what conclusions we should draw, but here is what i believe. i believe what was happening to me was unprecedented and we were scrambling. we went and told everybody we could find in the milling of the summthe -- in the middle of the summer the russians were messing with the election and we were shooed away. oh, there she goes with a conspiracy, it is a vast russian conspiracy. well, we were right. we could track it and we could not get the press to follow it and we never got confirmation. remember, comey was more than happy to talk about my e-mails but he wouldn't talk about investigation into the russians. so people went to vote on november 8th having no idea that there was an active counterintelligence investigation going on of the trump campaign. so if i put myself in position

of running a platform like facebook, first of all, they have to get back to try to curate it more effectively. put me out of the equation, they have to help prevent fake news from vetting a new reality that does influence how people think of themselves, see the word, the skigss that they make. i don't know enough about what they could have done in real-time. it wasn't like we were not having conversations with them because a lot of the people on my team were. i also think i was the victim of a very broad assumption i was going to win. it doesn't matter what you do to her. >> thought you were going to win. >> yeah. >> nate silver, 88%, 89%. >> yeah, you know, i never believed that. i thought it would be a close election because our elections are always close. if you have an r next to your name or d next to your name you often end up falling in line to vote for your canned. we will get to that after the

election, we wornt worn't worry it right now and that turned out to be a mistake. >> what about the financial element that they made money? >> well, look, the networks made more money than they made in years and we have lots of network executives saying, you know, he may not be good for the country but he's good for business. there was that and putting him on all the time, calling in, you know, wherever he was from. here is a really telling statistic that has been validated. i had this old fashion idea it really mattered what i would do as president so i laid out very specific plans and i costed them out because i also think it is important to be fiscally responsible. a number of people in the audience were helpful to me and i thank you. we had really good -- we had a great tech program. we had a really good set of

policies. okay. in 2008, which was the last time you had a contested election -- not somebody already in the white house -- the policies put forth by president obama, senator mccain got 222 minutes of air time. okay. in 2016 despite my best efforts in giving endless speeches and putting out all kinds of stuff, we got 22 minutes. >> total? >> total. >> did you find that you need to think about campaign -- are you running again, by way? >> no. >> but you need to campaign differently, you know, because you were saying policy doesn't matter, politics did and donald trump -- a lot of people say he was a great campaigner, a bad president. you were a terrible campaigner, you would have been a great president kind of thing. >> well, yeah. >> but you have to --

>> well, let's put the campaigning stuff on the table. >> but don't change. >> i'm not. i won three million more votes than the other guy. [ applause ] i had a very, very close contest with president obama. basically our votes were neck and neck. he ended up with more delegates and, you know, depended upon how you counted i was slightly ahead, slightly behind. so we were absolutely on par when it came to actually getting votes. i won two senate races in new york. so i never said i was a perfect canned a candidate and i certainly never said i ran perfect campaigns, but i don't know who is or did. at some point it sort of bleeds over into misogyny. let's just be honest, you know, people who have a -- [ applause ] >> -- a set of expectations about who should be president and what a president looks like, you know, they're going to be

much more skeptical and critical of somebody who doesn't look like and talk like and sound like everybody else who has been president. you know, president obama broke that, you know, that racial barrier but, you know, he is a very attractive, good-looking man with lots of -- >> he's likable enough. >> he's likable enough, absolutely. more than. more than. so the campaign -- look, were there things we could have done differently? you could say it about any campaign. >> but i want to follow up on something, bleeding over into this misogyny thing. it comes from the recent "new yorker" magazine profile of you. i thought it was fascinating. the part they left off the page for me as a reader was where you and some of your staff folks were quoted in there as saying, okay, bernie sanders could get

angry on the -- at the podium about the fate of the people who were trapped in this globalization automation thing. trump certainly did that, over simplifying, getting angry. you couldn't do that because you were a woman. if a woman does that it just backfires on her. it made me think, were you never going to be able to have a woman in politics who can use that technique, which is an effective technique, which shows i'm emotionally kind of with you just by over simplifying and getting angry. is that you true? do you feel you couldn't do that? >> well, let me say this. you know, i have been on many speaking platforms with many men who are in office or running for office. >> right. >> and the crowd gets you going and you get up there and i watch my male counterpart and they beat the podium and they yell and the crowd loves it. a few times i've tried that and

it's been less than successful, let me just say that. it is a little maddening because i'm as angry about what is going on as anybody because i've seen us go backwards, as i said in the very beginning, about so many things, economic opportunity, advancements in human rights, civil rights and the rest. >> health care. >> health care. i mean i care deeply about this, and i remember when i was doing health care back in the day, '93, '94, and we were trying to move an agenda forward. i went to the american academy of pediatrics. i have always been particularly concerned about what happens to kids who don't get the health care they need. >> right. >> and i gave a really hot speech and i got hammered for it repeatedly, because i don't know what the way forward will be for others, walt, but for me trying

to convey my commitment, my lifelong commitment -- and not only that, what i have done. i would put up against anybody who ran or thought of running what i've already accomplished compared to what they have on behalf of people. it just is very difficult to go from intensity, passion, emotions to anger. so, yeah, try to -- try to stay on the other side of that line. >> so spinning it forward, how do you think -- how do you staff the current democratic scene? also, what will happen with the russia investigation? >> well, i'm not going to speculate on who might end up running. we have to first win elections in new jersey and virginia in 2017. we have to take the house back and keep our incumbents in and maybe make progress in the senate. everything will change if we win in 2018. >> do you really believe --

>> yes, i do. >> say we, i'm retiring soon, we. we can take the house back. >> yes, yes. >> we can. >> yes. >> we have 20 something senate seats that we have to defend. seriously, come on. we're -- let's be really smart about this. >> let's look at the house. we have to flip 24 seats. >> yeah. >> i won 23 districts that have a republican congress member. seven of them are in california, darrell issa being one. if we can flip those, if we can then go deeper into where i did well, where we can get good candidates i think flipping the house is certainly realistic. it is a goal we can set for ours. >> is the party organized to do that? >> well, we are working on it. i'm working on it. >> don't have a lot of time. >> well, you know, but you've got two very good political strategists running the senate and the house for democrats,

nancy pelosi and chuck schumer. they know how to win elections. they're incredibly focused, tireless and effective. honestly, i am hopeful about the house and i'm working on it. a new organization call onward together and i'm helping some of the new groups that sprouted up on line to recruit candidates, run candidates, help candidates, go to town halls, expose republican members for their hypocrisy and the like. so we are working hard on this. >> what about the senate? >> i think the senate is hard to make progress, but i think it is possible to hold our own. all of this depends upon what we're talking about. so if the republicans continue to make progress as they are in going into the next generation of personalization, message delivery, phoney stories -- go to netflix and say you want to see a political documentary. eight of the top ten last time i

checked a few weeks ago were screams against president obama or me or both of us. now, i love netflix. we're not making the documentaries that we're going to get into netflix. >> is it because hollywood is not liberal enough? >> no, it is because democrats are not putting their money there. there's a classic line. democrats give money to candidates. they want a personal connection. >> right. >> so the classic line is democrats like to fall in love, republicans just fall in line. republicans build institutions. republicans invest in those institutions. republicans are much more willing to push and cross the line, and democrats -- you know, i have talked to dozens of donors since my election experience and i said, look, i'm all for you trying to figure out who you're going to support in 2020, but what about 2017 and what about 2018, and what about helping the dnc try to leap frog

over its horrible data deficit? how about supporting some of these new groups and see what they can do to generate some activity? we are not good historically at building institutions, and we have to get a lot better and that includes content. we have a great story to tell. you know, i found when i started the campaign that i had to say in practically every one of my speeches, barack obama save willed the economy and he doesn't get the credit he deserves. i had to say that because people had been told differently. they didn't feel it yet. you know, income didn't really start inching up until later 2015. so i was swimming against an historic tide. it is difficult historically to succeed a two-term president of our own party because we're itchy people, we like change in america so i get it. but there was that and he had done a good job. it was comparable -- i think back to what my harbour town

inherited which at that time seemed to be an exploding deficit and the debt of the country what dquadruple willed the previous years. he did a lot of cleanup work, lost the congress in '94, had to fight back for getting re-elected and we all know what happen in the second term, which was blood sport of the worst kind. then the supreme court, despite al gore winning 500,000 more votes, rules for bush. so bush comes in and i worked closely with him on 9/11. but, honestly, the financial crisis, the morass in iraq and a lot of the other decisions that were made were very damaging. so then we elect president obama. he comes in. he inherits the worst economy since the great depression and he has to do a lot of things that are not easy to get it back and moving. it was like, okay, thank you very much. let's get excited about somebody who's going to really stir us up

as opposed to do the job that needs to be done now. >> can i -- great analysis on the congressional at the national level. [ applause ] >> let's move down ballot for a second. >> yeah. >> one of the things that just depresses me all the time is where are the democrats running -- you know, they're mad. every democrat, liberal, lots of moderate, moderate republicans are scared and angry about trump. i don't see them running for school board. i don't see them running for city council. i don't see them running for state legislature. >> that's starting to change, walt, it really s i have every finger and toe cross. among the groups i'm supporting is a group called "run for something." it was started by a young woman that worked for me in my campaign. they've had thousands of people go on the website to try to figure out what does it mean to run and then put in information, here is what i'm thinking of, and they're beginning to win

races. another group that's been around called "emerge america" supports women who run. their grassroots operations invested in women in nevada, we flipped both houses. i won nevada, we won the house and senate of nevada. they're playing catch up and trying to be more progressive and smart about their policies. you're absolutely right. we leave so many races uncontested and we're not going to do it anymore. >> when you think about that, republicans own local television stations, they own radio, they're better at the internet, they got that cable going although there are issues they have at fox news these days. what do you do then? where do you -- because obviously the internet is the best way to leapfrog that. there's a progressive media. most people think of the media

as progressive. you don't. you think it is not. >> right, right. >> the "new york times" right now. >> the false equivalency. >> the false ee giquivalency, r. >> i sense that's changing. that memo has been received. >> i hope so. >> where is it techno logically? >> this goes back to the statue because the media forces on the media side are entrenched and effective. you have obviously fox but you also have st. claire buying 140 plus local stations, and they're beginning to call the shots on those local stations. >> montana we talked about. >> montana, those of you who saw the now newly elected member of congress literally beating uhm, body slamming, pushing around a young reporter, you know it happened. you know that it had, you know,

really a terrible look to it. the guy never should have been doing that. i don't know what enraged him so much, being asked about health care, which is sort of a strange trigger. so the nbc affiliate in montana -- i can't remember which city, miss sooula, billin they had been bought by st. claire. so the mother ship calls this station and says, can you send us the footage of what happened? they said no, because that reporter was from a liberal paper and we don't think it is a story we want to be part of. now, i find that terrifying because local news -- yeah, there is the internet, and how important it is and everybody who gets their news off the internet, but local tv is still incredibly powerful. >> what are we going to do about it? i got some time now. >> well, you would be a great

adviser to one or more of our tech billionaires who want to buy some media. well, we will have to find other people who will compete against what is a considerable advantage on the other side. >> what do you think about jeff basos owning "the washington post"? >> i think he saved "the washington post." i think his purchasing "the washington post," which i think a lot of his peers and friends said, why would you call this ancient medium called a newspaper, but newspapers like "the post" "the journal," "the times," a few others, still drives news. drives news online, drives news on tv. what they've done, as walt and i were talking about backstage,

he's interested in making it a good investment, but he basically said get out there and do investigations and they're doing some of the best investigations going on about the white house now. so i think it was a very good use of his financial resources because now we have a very good newspaper again operating in washington and driving news elsewhere and doing, you know, kind of white water level investigations. >> i don't think we can get into it right now, it is a long thing. >> thank you so much for that, that will be on our site in about five seconds. so there's a lot of calls. one of the things i'm struck by is a lot of the articles are like you've got to stop, you have to move on, you've got to sunset yourself and go away. i'm offend by it, but what do you think?

you seem mad as ever, which i love. you know what i mean? >> look, i'm not going anywhere. i have a big stake in what happens in this country. you know, i am very, you know, unbowed and unbroken about what happened because i don't want it to happen to anybody else. i don't want it to happen to the values and the institutions i care about in america, and i think we're at a really pivotal point. therefore i'm going to, you know, keep writing and keep talking and keep supporting people who are on the front lines of the resistance. >> terrific. questions for hillary clinton? >> start over here. >> hey. guy horowitz. i'm from israel. so if it is any comfort, we also had an election decided by an election day weaponized social media case. i don't think it is comforting at all. >> no, it is not.

it is worse. >> also had like a very questionable hairdo but we survived. so my question to you is given -- you know, in this world we look at everything that is happening outside of the u.s. and what donald trump is saying and doing, from the paris, you know, climate thing and everything else that's happening. it looks like it is a clear and present danger to the world, and we are all talking here, which is good, but i don't feel like we're doing enough maybe in the u.s., definitely in the world right now to eliminate this clear and present danger. >> and the question? >> and the question is what can we do right now? >> the question and answer portion is under way so we're going to dip back out of this. for the last almost hour we've been listening to hillary clinton on stage at the coat conference in california, interviewed by kara swisher and walt moss glnchts berg.

let's bring in carl quintinila. pras the most revealing comment was from the former secretary of state saying she is not going anywhere. >> yes, making news, she's not running again and talking about the prospect of the democrats flipping the house next year. a couple of narratives going on. on one hand she appears intent on relitigating the 2016 loss. whether you like her or don't like her doing that is your own opinion. we sort of got the ongoing role that politics and techs will have together, whether it is russian influence, wikileaks, cyber security, polling data. she had some choice words for facebook, especially accusing them of running the majority of their news pertaining to her being fake, saying they require better curation, read human curation. her comments to add audience, by the way, kelly, stacked with

data analysts, venture capitalists. >> eye ron tickally, stacked as you hear the cheers from clinton's supporters. it is an odd nexus, because the people she is claiming helped her lose the lelections are the people cheering her on. she did have praise for jeff bezos saying he save willed "the washington post." she said a lot of the political documentaries on netflix are something that the democratic party needs to aspire to that level of content creation if it wants its own message out there. >> it is interesting how she is critical of facebook curation, critical of the netflix algorithm also that suggest knelt fliks for you, but thsayi

that jeff bezos saved the washington. i think that's what she is hoping will stick, this notion can we take to the bank that information that we once too at face value is now being used for political purpose by players both domestic, i think she is arguing, and international. >> i think it will definitely echo. a lot of what came out of that interview. karl, if you would, stay with us. we're going to bring in john horowitz from washington with more thoughts. we have heard from hillary clinton recently. would you say this is her most outspoken yet? >> yes, i would. you were correct, kelly, a few minutes ago to point out the significance of her comment at the end which was "i'm not going anywhere." and she was there with a little bit of spunk and a little bit of candor. i thought one of the most interesting exchanges was when our friend walt mossberg said, why did you give the golden sax speeches? she came back baand said, why d

you have goldman sachs here? and walt said, they paid us, and she came back and said, well, they paid me. yes, she could get paid and take the money but it hurt her politically. it showed her spunk and was kind of interesting. >> yes, for sure. let's go back to some more of what hillary clinton had to say just now. she is still speaking in the q and a section but here is what she had to say to cara swisher and walt mossberg. >> let's look at the house. we have to flip 24 seats. i won 23 districts that have a republican congress member, seven of them are in california, darrell issa being one. if we can flip those, if we can then go deeper into where i did well, where we can get good candidates, i think flipping the house is certainly realistic. it is a goal we can set for

ourselves. >> we should add, john, as we point out before that stra teague ah has in the past couple of weeks been making this point, saying the same data they saw in 2009 suggesting the gop would sweep after president obama was inaugurated they see now the democrats sweeping after president trump. so it is not unusual for this to happen. in fact, you could argue some of the seats the democrats narrowly loss are seats they might be able to take from the gop. >> that's right. what is different about the current environment is there's been a considerable amount of belief in the political community that the way districts are drawn and the number of competitive seats so small democrats might have to wait until after the 2020 redistricting to have a realistic shot. however, the political climate has changed rather dramatically. if you look at donald trump's poll numbers, the number of people viewing him strongly unfavorably is much, much higher than his strong supporters.

that means the democratic base is likely to be energized. we've seen better democratic performance in some red states although they haven't won special election yet. georgia will be a big test in a couple of weeks. no, hillary clinton is correct. it could happen, but it is se l certainly not going to be easy and no democrat should take it for grant. >> by the way, georgia being one example where outside money is flowing into the democrats, and the republicans, too. that was one of the things hillary clinton was quite upset about among others. john mentioned a second ago her answer about goldman sachs was not great politics. it seems there is a lot that wasn't great politics, but this sounds like hillary clinton unplugged and kind of vending. what do you think? >> yeah, i think unshackled might be clear. if she's not rubbing again and has less to lose can be a little more candid.

as we were talking she has made comments about the paris accord, the idea that if the president were not to join it we would throw in our lot with nicaraugua and syria. also, kelly, we talk about 2018 being a u.s. story. don't ferkt the german's have their own elections coming up and she did say some of the lessons she learned in 2016 give merkel a bit of a play book, at least as it relates to dealing with outside influence from foreign conditioning. so maybe in her words others will learn from her mistakes. >> interesting. we'll see what that looks like. let's get more reaction from conservative radio host hugh hewett. i thought the outrage would be your call to hike the gas tax, but i imagine you feel very differently. what dow think of what we heard from former presidential candidate hillary clinton? >> i think it was the most interesting secretary kliclinto has been in years. i couldn't stop watching it.

among the many interesting things she said, kelly, is a near naked assertion that donald trump guided the russians in the after math of the "access hollywood" tapes to dump the podesta e-mails through wikileaks. she basically said this and i agree with this. it is understated she was the victim of a broad assumption she would win, which i agree with, by the way. she had a false positive of being widely believed to have won three debates. she had the false positive of obama 3.0 as she referenced. but in a stunner she blast the democratic national and she dumped on debbie wasserman. and she praise willd reince pri for having the best get out to vote data system. it is a rather cynical view of

the election and i understand why she has it, but she genuinely believes the american people were defraulded ded in t campaign as opposed to simply chose donald trump over hillary clinton. she genuinely put it over this afternoon. >> to that point, as this was going on those criticisms that came back that said was she asked why she didn't go to michigan, for example, or some of the states that were a core part of the campaign, in fact she had a line where she was referring to the incident in one of the special elections and she said missoula, billings, i can't remember which, you know, this was -- this was hillary clinton all along. she is simply not in touch with the people. >> well, there is that. she has clearly got a lot of anger at james comey. she has clearly got a theory of the case of what happened to her. it is not consistent with the book "shattered" by amy parns and john. they came up with a different theory of the kay which was tom

down mismanagement at every level and miss allocation of resources as well as coconning. but today she was as relaxed and direct -- i don't think i have ever seen her this way. >> kelly. >> for those who missed it, i hope they catch the replay. >> john. >> kelly, i was just going to add on your point about being in touch with the people, it is really in our politics today the question of which people you're talking about. hillary clinton did, after all, get more votes than donald trump but she was under performing among some of the democratic base in states that were decisive and donald trump had an exceptionally strong appeal with a certain slice of the lek orel ort, most notely non-college educated white voters, mostly older ones and that was enough to beat her.

democrats need to reach out to or do they want to try to get out more of the people already with them? it is not as easy as saying, yes, with the people or no, not with them. it is which ones we're talking about. >> john, i those it was interesting as carl was saying as well she was talking about the tech revolution being repponized right now and talked at great length goes how the gop won that battle. what do you expect from the democrats as they've emphasize willed how important that is. >> i'm not sure what the meaning of that phrase is. information is always the point in politics. but you could say john kennedy weaponized television by beating richard nixon in debate and richard nix one weaponized television by beating humphrey. it is true that information is disseminated more quickly and

easily now to a broader set of people than it has in the past and she was on the short side of that, and she was hurt by some factors all i agree with you, she was wasn't -- the american people were not defrauded in the selection. she had some flaws. the ways in which she was attacked took advantage of those flaws, attack not only but republicans but programs by the ru russians as well. and because of her inability to arouse the critical base in the right places she wasn't able to win the electorate. >> hugh, a final question to you going back to one of her final interview's lines, hillary clinton saying i'm not going anywhere. is that an asset to the democratic party or to some extent is she a liability to the wing that would have perhaps preferred bernie sanders all along? >> i believe hillary clinton unplugged is a great asset.

i believe those contesting seats in 2018 would love to have her come raise money for her. i think she has to get better explaining the san andreas fault of politics. she is not talking to those voters that john just referenced and she wasn't doing so today in the comfy confines of code con on the left coast among a friendly audience. this is a democratic party challenge and she has to talk to those vo those voters. >> and to that point she is talking to those out in the valley. >> we will have more from that code conference. we have an owner's word to get to. how did the company do? >> box reporting a lot of 13 cents versus expectations for loss of 14 cent. revenue up 30% to 117.2 million.

the expectation 114.7 million. deferred revenue 224.3 million. billings of 99.6 million. that's better than expected, kelly. as for q 2 guide, loss of 12 to 13 cents on revenue of 121 to 122 million. full year guide, loss of 44 to 48 cents on revenue, 502 to 506, basically in line. i caught up with box ceo aaron levy. talked to him about the quarter. remember, we have reports drop box could be making a debut this year. telling me we are the leading in cloud content, we have the most sophisticated management for data. that's why 64% of companies have chosen us for managing their comments. i talked to levy about his comments with regard to president trump. i asked if he was concerned some of the kmebcomments could upset

clients. then we have to stand up for those things. kelly, back to you. >> all right. box shares up 2%. josh, thank you. how about hewlett-packard enterprise? those results are out at well. deed raw bosa has that run down. >> harks kellie. vettors are bracing themselves for another quarter of weakening revenue, however the company beat the street's expectation. revenue in the quarter up 1% year over year. $9.9 billion versus 9.64 billion expect. ets was in the line. this is adjusted eps, 35 cent versus 35 krerts forecost. however, shares lower by 2 1/2% in after hoirs and it may have something to do with company's fiscal q 3 adjusted guidance setting between 24 and 26 cents. previously in the range of 34 to

35 cents. meeting whitman saying they have work to do but these results give confidence efforts are deliver for customers. remember, hpe is delivering with questions about corporate spending. that call will be under way shortly. we have ceo meg whitman on squawk on the street tomorrow morning. don't miss that one. >> good stuff. shares down about 2 1/2%. finally palo alto network, those results out too and courtney has those for us. >> yes, palo alto network, six cents above what wall street was looking for for profit, 61 cents a share on better than expected revenues. current quarter earnings and revenue guidance above street expectations. company says they have the highest number of new customers in company history. shares up almost 11% for palo alto after hours. back to you. >> thank you. they're always a big movie, palo

alto, they're up, they're down. >> they are. the stock has been depressed for a little while so there's a lot of relief in this 10% move. definitely it is one of the names that people play it, play a huge trend. so it is a little more than operation. >> trading at 131 for palo alto network. coming up, we will hand to the code conference. jim breyer is going to join us and talk about where he sees the biggest opportunities in tech now. some of the trends coming out of silicon valley. stay with us. so you miss the big city?

i don't miss much... definitely not the traffic. excuse me, doctor... the genomic data came in. thank you. you can do that kind of analysis? yeah, watson. i can quickly analyze millions of clinical and scientific reports to help you tailor treatment options for the patient's genomic profile. you can do that? even way out here? yes. even way out here. [ eerie musthe mummy...t ] has returned. you wish to see... what i have seen? you will... when... i... kill you. [ explosions ] [ intense music ] the mummy. rated pg-13.

welcome back, just closed down last trading day of the month. big orders, i think in the range of a billion and a half. in nikkei, that helped the dow decline about 20 points off the lows of the session, but still closing above 21,000, 21,008. the s&p was down 2411. the russell down a point. the nasdaq has been out performing. get more reaction from senior markets commentator michael santoli on the panel today. he's in sanford, sam vegas as we like to call it. so, mike, first of all, the

markets, some interesting bifurcation. we talked about how well tech has done, semi conductors was up big. >> retail, biotech kind of in lick which days. energy extremely weak. banks not able to get off the mat. with all of that, an extremely gentle pull back on the final day of the month. hard to make too much of. >> financials went negative for the year on the close today, joining telecom and energy as the only sectors there. where does it leave you as we head into june. >> becoming more and more convinces this concentration at the top we've been seeing has a lot to do with the impending dol rule. >> the fiduciary rule? >> yes. because so many assets are moving into asset management accounts, iras in particular, about $2.3 trillion of assets, lots is moving into managed accounts. that means they have to drop the small-cap. if you look at small-cap returns year-to-date it is half a

percent. if you look at s&p it is 7.6%. >> russell was going to be the one that benefits, the u.s. economy, you think actually that change in how people are investing is one of the reasons it is all of a sudden come to a stop? >> it is government driven. it is because of the deal that should take place in june but we're going to push to next year. moved $4890 billion last quarter, $30 billion moved to sea based accounts at bank of america. >> for you guys then, the sector still big up this year include obviously technology, even utilities by the way been at record highs lately which is a little strange to see those bed fellows there. but you look at what interest rates have done and it helps to explain it. how do you guys read the signal through here? >> i think there's -- these top five stocks accounted for large percentage of the gains, but the key is because they're a large

percentage of the index. if you look at 495 other stocks on the s&p 500 they're up average of 6 1/2% this year. there's 85 stocks up over 20% this year versus 27 down over 20% this year. i don't know necessarily it is just five stocks dragging the market here. there's a lot of strength underneath the surface. like you said yu tilts are doing well this year. they're not mega caps by any stretch of the imagination but doing well this year. the s&p 500 equal weight index within 1% of a new high. so i think to say that the rally is thin, it is -- i think it is a little bit -- not quite correct. we're nowhere near -- >> you're not very good at insults, are you? you're searching. >> no, no, but they have accounted for a large percentage of the gains but it is a function of because of their size that is a -- it is only going into one group of stocks. >> it is a great nugget. great equal weight nugget.

>> top 1% of earners get a tremendously huge percentage of the gain. if overall earnings levels are going up, does it matter or not? >> i thought he was going to give a baseball analogy or something like that. >> i know. that's what we need. >> yeah, i'll work on it. have it for the next break. >> danny and paul, thank you for joining us. appreciate it. venture capitalist mary meager making headlines at code conference with her internet trends which i love looking at. i'm a tenth of a way through at this point, but joining us is to discuss this with jim breyer from breyer capital. thank you for being here. >> kelly, great to be back. >> can i ask, were you in the audience during hillary clinton's talk and did you take anything away from that? >> i was in the audience, and as a venture capitalist investor i tend to focus on venture capital investing and try to remove myself from politics back and forth. but i enjoyed being in the audience, enjoyed some of the things which she said, but i

would love to see a little less finger pointing from both sides of the aisle. >> all right. fair enough. let's keep it then on your bread and butter, jim, because it is what we want to talk about. going back a year and a half or so you were saying this d.c. bubble is over, it is kaput and we've seen a lot of air out of the balloon since 2015. it almost seems like maybe now all of the excitement is not in the private markets anymore, it is in the big cap publicly traded names, isn't it? >> it certainly is a bar bell, kelly. it is the top ten internet companies in the world are getting better and better, they are driven by founders such as mark zuckerberg, of course, and jeff bezos. the chinese internet companies are exceptional, but artificial intelligence in the world of start-ups right now is foundational. it is not a fad. it is a buzz word but it is so foundational that long-term

investments, artificial intelligence applied to cancer, to health care, to financial services is an extraordinary ten-year opportunity from the private market side. >> so let me ask you about one of the things we found interesting. were saying 20% of all internet searches are voice now. yeah, so 20% now. >> mobile internet searches. >> of mobile internet searches are now voiced, which seems like a huge number. also there's reports today that apple is looking to come out with a kind of siri home product. is that the kind of ai you're talking about or at least when it comes to voice-led technology, is that where you can expect to see a lot of investment? >> i think on the voice side, it is the very large cap companies, whether it is google, whether it is amazon, whether it is apple. they are investing hundreds of millions if not billions of dollars. what is most fascinating for me, if we just look at something like health care, cancer

research and applying ai, 20 years ago computing helped us add more quickly, multiply more quickly. there were quantitative applications that matter. today ai is leading doctors to apply better judgment in cases like cancer outcomes, leukemia outcomes, across the board around health care outcomes. that's what is particularly exciting for me and which leads to great optimism long-term. applying machine learning, health care, ai to help doctors make better decisions and improve patient outcomes is just one significant but explosive area where you can do good and along the way over the next decade i believe create enormous companies. >> jim, what you're describing here as pervasive, maybe transformational as it might be, it is interesting because it seems to be more of a business

to business kind of changing of various processes behind the scenes as opposed to what we got used to programs in the last huge explosive cycle which was putting the internet in our pocket and all of the things that -- that that kind of changed about consumer behavior. is that one of the reasons you think it is a little bit less visible for a lot of people to see the next big thing? >> it is an excellent point. yes, one of the reasons it is less visible when we're trying to break down silos between hospitals, medical centers, doctor's offices, medical records, we all experience those silos firsthand. it takes time to break down those silos, but consumers as examples again of medical outcomes, meld cdical research, getting better diagnosis from doctors and hospital, we'll see breakthroughs, but silos take time to break down.

large companies such as facebook and what mark and cheryl are doing as well as start-ups are breaking down those silos. >> final question, jim. you mentioned how important this whole smart health movement is. does that mean a company like ibm which has been doing a lot in that space, but very specifically who are the companies that you are investing in that the public should know about that are going to change the world here in that regard? >> well, there are a couple of wonderful large public cap companies. i was fortunate to invest in facebook in 2005 at 5 cents a chair versus today's 140 plus. i'm trying to find the next mark sucker berg's and sheryl sandbergs. there are a range of companies that are private, but there are some spectacular large cap companies such as google and ten cent, facebook, amazon, that perhaps could dial back a little from a valuation standpoint. it wouldn't be a problem in the

short term but i would bet a lot on their prospects where they're founder driven in the long run. >> all right. five cents a share. you should make a hat with it on it. jim, thanks for joining us. thanks. >> thanks so much. >> that's jim breyer joining us from the code conference. coming up, kara swisher will join us off her interview with former candidate hillary clinton. ohio is taking aim at drugmakers over the opioid addiction. that coming up. new business friendly environment. new lower taxes. and new university partnerships to grow the businesses of tomorrow today. learn more at esd.ny.gov

welcome back. some new details emerging on the house probe into russia. we'll have those details when we come right back. fees? what did you have in mind? i don't know. $4.95 per trade? uhhh. and i was wondering if your brokerage offers some sort of guarantee? guarantee? where we can get our fees and commissions back if we're not happy. so can you offer me what schwab is offering? what's with all the questions? ask your broker if they're offering $4.95 online equity trades and a satisfaction guarantee. if you don't like their answer, ask again at schwab. i count on my dell small for tech advice. with one phone call, i get products that suit my needs and i get back to business. ♪ ♪

welcome to holiday inn! ♪ ♪ whether for big meetings or little getaways, there are always smiles ahead at holiday inn.

for years, centurylink has been promising fast internet to small businesses. but for many businesses, it's out of reach. why promise something you can't deliver? comcast business is different. ♪ ♪ we deliver super-fast internet with speeds of 250 megabits per second across our entire network, to more companies, in more locations, than centurylink. we do business where you do business. ♪ ♪

welcome back. we do have a news alert on the house probe into russia. eamon javers has the details. >> reporter: hi, kelly. looks like some more are flying here in washington d. frrmt, this time from the house intelligence committee to a number of folks around town. reuters reporting within the past few minutes that the intelligence committee is expected to issue subpoenas for former trump national security adviser michael flynn, trump lawyer michael cohen, separately dow jones has a story that just posted in which they're saying that the house intelligence committee has issued seven subpoenas. of those subpoenas, the committee has issued four subpoenas related to the russia investigation, three subpoenas are relate willed to questions about the so-called unmasking which is how intelligence officials or white house officials under the obama administration would have revealed the names of people close to trump who would have been involved in any surveillance activities done by

u.s. intelligence. the dow jones reports says the subpoenas are for the intelligence agency about russia and also for unmasking. who knew what and who did what about the investigation in the tail end of the obama administration, kelly. >> all of this separate from robert mueller's probe, correct? >> that's right. you have a number of different probes to keep track of. you have mueller, special counsel, the former fbi director. you have the house intelligence committee, senate intelligence committedy and others on capitol hill interested in this. that is going to throw off headlines as they all do their work and try to get to the bottom of this. all of the people at the sent ever of the investigation will be asked a lot of questions by these panels. sean spicer in an off camera briefing with reporter said it is no longer going to answer

questions about russia, they're going to refer all of the questions to the president's outside attorney on this. they say that policy will be in place until further guidance. >> eamon, thank you. eamon javers with the latest there. an assault on information. that's what former democratic presidential nominee hillary clinton said at the code conference which is still under way. we will hear more about her thoughts on tuck and talk to kara swisher next. patient. spital must ce stay with me, mr. parker. the at&t network is helping first responders connect with medical teams in near real time... stay with me, mr. parker. ...saving time when it matters most. stay with me, mrs. parker. that's the power of and.

welcome back.

time now for today's super fast take. first up, ohio is suing five drug forms for fuelling the opioid crisis, they include purdue, jansen, part of j & j, and allergan, mike. i'm wondering if we are looking at the next tobacco mega settlement. >> i think the pressure will stay on because of allegations they weren't clear about how addictive some of the drugs were and also the prescription guidance and practice of the doctors. the difference to me with tobacco is cigarettes, if used as directed and intended -- >> kill. >> so it is not exactly the same situation. >> good point. jp morguen says trading revenue down 15% so far in the second trade. banks trade poorly off the back of that. jpm saying this is low volatility hitting home. i don't know what you do about that if you are a trading business but it goes back to prior -- >> you don't do anything about it. but it is surprising it would come as a surprise to the

market. we are all looking at the same metrics that go into how much trading opportunity there's been, but to have them say it -- also i think, running 15% below a year ago in trading revenue, at least at this point, that's a little bit of an eye opener. >> as negative. j.p. morgan was down 2%. hillary clinton just took the stage at the cove conferencech here's what she had to say about the role facebook played in the election. >> if i put myself in the position of running a platform like facebook, first of all, they got to get back to trying to curate it more effectively, put me out of the equation. they have to prevent fake news from creating a new reality. it does influence how people think of themself, see the world, the decisions that they make. >> joiningb us now one of the interviewees, the executive ed car kara swisher. >> thank you for your time. i know it's been a busy day, do you think they will take to heart facebook, in particular, what hillary clinton just said?

>> reporter: >> i think so. obviously, mark zuckerberg talked about this insure quite extensively. i think they're acknowledging their part in this election. i they i say it's not unlike spam in advertising. it's so much worse, it eats at the heart of our democracy, our experience, our social fabric. so i think because these companies have become so important with the way we communicate with each other, they have a responsibility and their social platforms are as benign as they thought they were. they have to protect them from very bad actors. i think that's a great message. i think secretary flynn articulated it sensibly, kinder than i have been about that issue, given the impact on her. you know what i mean. i'm a lot nicer than kara, i'm not as nice about this. i think they have to think hard about their platforms and what

they mean. i don't want to use the word police, to censor, it's all voices are we heard, they're truthful voices, not manipulated by bots or macedonia or russia, whoever doesn't have god intentions for our country. >> so i have to imagine this means a lot more hiring for facebook in thesal go rhythms, perhaps a news editorial structure, right? >> well, i don't know, this is new territory. i don't think they have to have reams of editors, mark zuckerberg talked about this quite articulately. the issue is they have to have a commitment to it and say this matter, that is ruining our business, too. you know i'm fusingifies r facebook, i don't want to pick on it necessarily. it was seen as safe suburbs, everyone was enjoying thing. when you see glass on the

sidewalk and maybe a few more break-ins and things like that they got to think about their business. is it a place i want to spend my time? it's a voluminous amount of crap. that's what happened to twitter. it's made it their business. they got to clean it up in a way that's fair for people to share and at the same time doesn't let us get captive. it shouldn't be determining what's happening in our social media. >> i also wonder what you thought about hillary clinton's tone there. we are seeing who are kind of surprised how try dent isst she was and how many different places she was willing to go. >> right. >> what was that like sitting there and hearing it all? >>ing o. i'm going to take issue with the word try dent, you always take that with women, not men. she's angry. >> i don't know that's true. >> it is absolutely true. anyway, in any case, she has --

>> people only say strident? she basically said, people didn't vote for me because there are some people, it was misogyny. >> that's not what she said. she talked about the issue. >> i think -- she talked about the issues -- >>, of course not. i'm not going to engage if cable talk back and forth on a really important issue t. issue is that she identified misogyny, which i think you could probably say, the smallest amount was an issue in this election. she was pointing out. a lot of women talked about there was documented everyday that, in fact, cheryl sandberg put up that men become more likable as they get more powerful, women less likable. it's not like you can argue over the point. there is actual science, evidence of this happening. it's like what do we want to do in our society to create a situation where hillary clinton can be as mad as she wants and it's okay.

whatever. i'd rather use terms like she was firm about it. she's angry about it. she has issues with it. and she's articulating them strongly and i would say -- >> a man does that, too. i was going to say, however you want to describe it. i think you had it right. we asked him afterwards, is this good or bad for the democratic party she is coming out so strongly, he basically said, it's probably really good. this is probably hillary clinton is now interestingly enough going to energize and galvanize people. i think we saw the gloves come off today. thank you for joining us. i won't ever call you try try de stridebt, i promise. if you eat lunch at your deck the industry is taking notice. we'll have more on that coming up. also ahead, former palo alto ceo lane bes joins "fast money".

they just reported those earnings, too, we'll have more closing bell right after this.

>> welcome back. is it the end of the restaurant lunch? "wall street journal" says americans made 433 fewer lunchtime trips to restaurants last year. apple apple applebybees have terrible comps. >> people don't want to take away from screens and when the social aspect isn't something necessarily you are looking for arc sit-down lunch goes away.

>> one is the only option, we'll go out, now it feels like some are getting it delivered him some are bringing it. in other words, it's a whole kind of segment is stretching and bifurcateing. that's like if you are a chain like ruby tuesday or one of these guys. >> you have the grab-n-go modem, too. it's becoming much more popular. right, if you are ruby tuesday, you want to be a casual daneing chain, the issue for these chains if i don't go out, there is no pent-up demand. it's kind of like we will get you out in 20 minutes, we will make a value pact. it's tough. are you kind of fighting the scrum. >> the end of the restaurant lunch at least for. >> you know, in a place like mid-to midtown manhattan, certain places, it's an institution. less than it used to be. >> in the remaining second set we have here, we closed out the month, now we entered june, is

there anything to suggest what we seen play out this year. >> i think the tone remains the tone, it's very calm. we have a couple things, pay rolls coming up. we will have some congressional testimony next week. i don't know if people think that will cause flutters in the market. i think it's basically stable. the s&p 500, 8% year-to-date. >> michael, thank you very much. >> that does it for "closing bell" today "fast money" begins right now. >> "fast money" starts right now! like from the nasdaq markets site overlooking new york city time's square, i'm mellissa lee. tim seymour, nathan seymour, is the bromance over? elon musk might be taking a step to distance himself from president trump. what is causing the beef and what it could mean for the stock. palo alto soaring after hours t. current shareholder cyber security fund has a bone to pick. you won't want to miss this. late