we are not going to equivocate or make any concessions and he has to realize that, especially after the poor job he did in protecting the mesh embasso september 11. >> eric: congressman, peter king, thank you. >> thank you. >> eric: i am sorry that terrorism personally touched you through this. we'll be right back. what are you doing? nothing. are you stealing our daughter's school supplies and taking them to work? no, i was just looking for my stapler and my... this thing. i save money by using fedex ground and buy my own supplies. that's a great idea. i'm going to go... we got clients in today. [ male announcer ] save on ground shipping at fedex office. >> jamie: welcome wack. every few weeks, we are hearing of another possible cyber-starks being and international hackers have their sights set on a new target, that's private american companies. we go live to the los angeles bureau for more. can they help and protect themselves? >> reporter: they can to some extent. the fbi has the executive order to leave -- lead the defense against cyber-terrorism, they keep it a close secret. so com

it's equivocal at best. it sometimes ends up being aggravating, but so far it hasn't panned out. why hasn't it panned out? in part because science isn't quite there yet in that we're able to see some things at a group level, but being able to talk bay single individual to look at their brain and to understand the extent to which their brain differences contribute to their behavior is very challenging. there just isn't enough data for that yet. you can say things at a groupwide level, though. and so kent mentioned earlier the case out of florida in the sue presume court graham in which the court said the juvenile should be treated differently with respect to life without the possibility of parole. the same happened in simmons where the court has treated juveniles differently. it may be the case we can start to do that. we can start to categorize people. we categorized a group of individuals in virginia and said those people who have mental retardation have lesser couple ability for a whole host of reasons, they're more likely to follow people. they're more likely to be subject to

it's equivocal at best. it sometimes ends up being aggravating, but so far it hasn't panned out. why hasn't it panned out? in part because science isn't quite there yet in that we're able to see some things at a group level, but being able to talk bay single individual to look at their brain and to understand the extent to which their brain differences contribute to their behavior is very challenging. there just isn't enough data for that yet. you can say things at a groupwide level, though. and so kent mentioned earlier the case out of florida in the

mccain is equivocal, he has been critical but he hasn't committed himself. comes out in favor of hagel in the end, he will also be. if schumer and mccain oppose him, he could be defeated. >> bret: one-word answers. will one of the nominees go down? >> if it was it would be hagel. but give him a 3 to 1 advantage. >> no. >> maybe. >> bret: stay tune to the washington latest solution to the nation's debt problem. e pro. but, dad, you've got... [ voice of dennis ] allstate. with accident forgiveness, they guarantee your rates won't go up just because of an accident. smart kid. [ voice of dennis ] indeed. are you in good hands? helps provide many with, day and night relief [ voice of dennis ] indeed. of heartburn symptoms caused by acid reflux disease. there is risk of bone fracture, and low magnesium levels. side effects may include headache, abdominal pain, and diarrhea. call your doctor right away if you have persistent diarrhea. other serious stomach conditions may exist. don't take nexium if you take clopidogrel. ask your doctor if nexium, the purple pill, i

did this, i mean, you really have to question how the republicans even took this long to start equivocating on what they're going to do. >> i think everything that you've played so far and joan's comments are convincing that the leadership is wavering. and when politicians begin to waver, that usually means they're not holding as firm as they suggest. but i will say this. there's not one monolithic republican out there. there's really two. there's the leadership that's been shown when pushed against the wall particularly by some of their financial sponsors, if you will, to compromise. and then there's this base of radicals who i think probably would default if they believed it gave them the leverage to start hacking away at things like the social safety net or the social insurance programs. remember, these are folks whose goal is to very aggressively redistribute income upward. they're the ones who wouldn't vote for a tax increase on people above a million dollars. yet we're happy in the paul ryan budget to cut trillions of dollars out of the safety net and social insurance. so if the leade

. >> he gave sort of an equivocal acceptance of hegel's apology where he said, he suggested stronglyt was out of political expedience but said he hopes the remarks are genuine and that he really has come around. it has been a mixed bag for hegel with a lot of the gay groups. there was an ambassador guest, another clinton ambassador in the late 1990's, rodent, but today in "politico" another openly gay ambassador, said he worked with check a goal and did not take great issue with him. these are progressive concerns with hagel's records that should be addressed in the confirmation hearing. there's the issue of a quality, which does bear on personnel issues in the military because now there is open service there and also lgbt family rise for service members. also, other issues like hagel's opposition to abortion. he previously opposed a bill that ended up passing that allows women service members to obtain abortions on base hospitals, even paying out of their own pocket. hagel oppose that. he should be vigorously question on those matters. another would be climate change. he sort of dou

. >> i'm not one of those who believe we need to abandon, moderate, equivocate or otherwise change ourrinciples. now, i know this observation badly disappoints many of our friends and liberals in the national media, of course. >> jindal is exactly wrong. republicans' resistance to progress is what allowed rnc chairman reince priebus to be reelected today. that's right, the man who presided over 2012's shellacking of the gop is back for another round. and priebus is pushing the same empty rebranding effort. >> we can stand by our timeless principles and articulate them in ways that are modern, relevant to our time, and relatable to the majority of voters. and that i believe is how we will achieve republican renewal. and that's how we'll grow. that's how we'll win. >> all right. truth tellers, now. the policies embodied by the republican, like bobby jindal and all reince priebus are what damaged the brand in the first place. as long as they keep selling the same old policies and keep pushing the same priorities, they're just putting lipstick on a pig. i am joined tonight by karen finney,

there is no equivocation when it comes to placating the washington establishment. he is doing what he wants, regardless -- there is no gates, no hillary. everything else the first four years was about keeping washington in check. not this time. >> presidents have a way of getting re-elected and deciding how about i do what i want to do. how about i choose who i'm comfortable with. and they have extra confidence that they can do that. and they should be able to do it. and -- >> there is sort of -- you know, it's -- by the way, it's also why they've had this diversity issue a little bit, not thinking about that. >> it doesn't explain why he didn't stand behind susan rice. if that was really his view. he's choosing the fight over hagel, in part i'm sure because he gave up on susan rice. why didn't he do it for her? >> it's possible he never was for susan the way others were. there really was a split in that white house. >> it looked like it had touched a personal cord with him when she was being criticized. may be separate from whether he wanted her for the job. i thi

and other research has also been equivocal.nded to support a link in past cases including california's law struck down by the supreme court looked at mostly college students taking psych 101 doing little lab experiment that is measured pretty much competitiveness. and then some people would make a leap between that and real world violence. i personally don't agree with that. >> so then i want to pick up on that. let's use a common sense approach here. do you believe that if we didn't have as many violent video games there might not be as many of these violent acts in the public domain? >> well, that's a tough question. because from what i understand, across the years school shootings have not gone up. they have been bigger. but it's stayed pretty consistent. and we know that since the mid 1990s as access to violent games has gone way up if you have a kid you know that. youth violence has gone down. so it means they are such rare events. what's really gone up is the coverage of the events. one of the things that i talked about i

around the edges of corrupts us i'm not one of those who believe we need to abandon moderate come equivocater change principles. i know it's badly disappoints many friends in the media force. the change means supporting abortion on demand without apology, abandoning traditional marriage between one man and one woman pay for them from real changes embracing government grows as the key to american success. agree to higher taxes and real change means endorsing the enlightened policies of european socialists. that's a real change looks like in "the new york times" editorial. but that's crazy talk. america has one liberal party. she doesn't need another one. [applause] government spending still does not grow our economies. american weakness on the world stage still does not lead to peace. i am about you, but i believe higher taxes so they'll create prosperity for all and more government still has to grow jobs. if you happen to believe in higher taxes and more government and if you believe in taking guns with law-abiding citizens, first and i suggest you probably at the wrong dinner tonight. [laug

i will not equivocate. goldman sachs reporting $5.60 a share above $3.80 estimates.ate, revenues were essentially in line and a report of mistakes by executives who played a role in the so-called london whale. it blames dimon, drew, brawnstibraw braun diseasestine and zubrow, tying more closely to the board. the cio is the main focus of the report. zubrow bears the main responsibility for failures of the cio risk organization including infrastructure and personnel shortcomings and inadequacies of its limits and controls on the synthetic credit portfolio. they cut jamie dimon in half to $11 million. not bad if you can get it. >> only a 1.5 in cash and 10 is restricted stock. >> sounds pretty good. i'll sound on for that, wouldn't you? $10 million, restricted stock. you can live on $1.5. >> and wait three years to get the restricted stock. >> i'll be okay with that. you? you wouldn't. >> no. >> that's the thing. he's not kidding. >> i have high expenses. >> higher than jamie dimon. >> i have high expenses. >> we'll talk more in a few minutes. one thing we talked about,

. >> some equivocating. i think it gets back to a couple things, joe.ere ruined. just say you're sorry and then move on. >> but the deal that he -- >> right. >> -- denied things. maybe that's -- maybe if you think you have a better chance of convincing people if you're a total asshole about it? maybe that's the way he did it. because he was a -- you know, he was miserable in the way that he defended himself. >> right. >> and now we know all along ishs -- we knew it then though. but that's just so annoying. >> do you think there's any chance of redemption for him? in the world of sport? in the world of sponsors? livestrong came out with a statement last night. i didn't think it was the nicest statement, either. i thought maybe they would, because he's been so close to them, say this guy's awful. and i don't think they really did that. >> well, you have the question of, you know, why is he doing it now? and is it for truly virtuous reasons. he said he did not dope in 2009 and 2010 when he came back. and some people say that's because he wants to make sure

i have never equivocated from bat line. i have said this in my book. absolutely we will continue to do that. >> thank you very much. >> we are going to have a five- minute second round. and if we need a third round, which will house a third round. -- we will have a third round. i will try to take less than five minutes, so i can yield a couple of minutes if i still have them to center in off. earlier today, one of my colleagues made a statement i you had not responded to requests for copies of all of your speeches and to a request about contributions to certain organizations, i believe, the u.s. either served or spoken to. you did not have the opportunity -- that you either serve or spoken to. you did not have the opportunity to respond to that time. if you wish, you may respond for the record. >> mr. chairman, thank you. i will respond for the record. as far as i know, and i asked again at the brainport -- at the break of our counsel, we have responded to all requests, or are in the process of responding to every single request. some of these requests

on social issues, most of us do not equivocate on that. that is just what i believe. that is where i am. to say you are going to sign pledges on monetary issues or fiscal issues when you do not know what the world looks like in 2010, you do not know where we are going to be, i think is irresponsible. it is judgment. it is tough decisions making the hard choices. >> the prescription drug bill is nothing but a campaign promise? >> i would not say that. some of my colleagues felt strongly about it. there are only two colleagues who voted against the motion to proceed, and there were some other republicans who voted against the bill, but that did not count because of the straight majority vote. john mckenna -- john mccain and i were the only two. we were the only two republicans who voted to stop the bill because we thought it was irresponsible. i think there was a campaign dynamic, and i have no question in my mind there was a political dynamic to that. some of my colleagues felt strongly about that. i do not think the broad based approach worked. >> is there anything co