our time on regulatory minutiae.mpliance stuff in terms of dodd-frank, the volcker rule, that they are obsessed. they have to look at this all day. i just wonder how much other business gets cone when you're spend -- gets done when you're worrying about whether your firm complies, are you paying enough attention at a senior management level -- adam: so when you say volcker, you're talking dodd-frank. >> yeah. adam: russian mob, italian mob, i'm going to quote my favorite movie, let's talk italian here. i'm going to use jpmorgan chase. they made $10 billion in net income, $16 billion the year after that, $18 billion the year after that, and $20 billion -- >> after they paid all those fines. adam: right. jay my dimon's told us he's spending 250 million. sounds to me although they've got to comply with dodd-frank, they could spend a little more money to up their security, couldn't they? >> i don't know. i'm a reporter, i'm not inside these banks. when you're spending from a management perspective that much time on, like

i think we started to look less minutia of things. little wackier, a little more in a good sense juvenile. another thing that larry tried to do is he started playing with instead of one story, he would have four distinct stories, one for each character that would brilliantly tail at the end. one or two would dovetail, but not necessarily all four. all good storylines but not necessarily with the same publisher at the end that make us big ou had to have that in order to get that. just as much fun. even though there were many critics that said it is not the same show, the audience for the most part seem to keep saying that they were laughing. >> when you heard the criticism over the past year, did you say they have a point or the critics are out of touch with the audience? >> i think the critics had a point to a certain degree in that they noticed the change of the show. what they went on to say, therefore, it is the worst show, i don't know that i agree. i can tell you, there is not an episode we did where i don't inc. we had some trem

say one other thing that i was speaking with a bank ceo and he said that he spends 80% of 90% of minutia from the dodd-frank and dealing with the ridiculous law. >> did the hacking come up? >> well, they are spending a little bit too much time, and before you laugh, ben, they are spending a little bit too much time on the volcker rule and not enough time on this. >> and it is interesting that it is side tracking them. and what do you make of that? >> well, they are trying to make us feel better saying it happens every single day, and that is not making me feel better. the good news is that we heard about it quickly. if you remember with target, we did not hear about it for weeks and weeks and weeks and of course, the big kahunah#(v is bank. with target, they are going to steal the credit card number and the street address, but the bank, as you showed at the beginning of the show, they are taking money right out of your accounts. >> well, they have progressed than prior hackings, and many have argued, ben, that it is setting up a practice run or dry run for something. and what do you thi

it's about some big things, which i hope will be asked, but you get caught in the minutia and realize that nixon said, oh, my god did he say that and talk to billy graham about the jews controlling the networks? yeah, he did. and it's not astonishing really of anything that comes out, but the basic outline of what it was about and what mattered hasn't changed. i've seen nothing and said, oh, it's all different than what i thought. we have to be careful. >> that's the perfect segue to the way i'd like to structure this. i believe it is an unwritten rule of moderating watergate panels, and it's incumbent upon the moderator to channel the very well known question from howard baker, what did he know and when did he know it? we see that unearthed every time. i'm not going to raise that question, but i'm going to rewrite that question as a way of structuring our discussion. so i want to do it in two parts. what do we now know about watergate and nixon, and why does it matter that we know it? in that regard, i think i'll start with bob and carl. you can bicker about who goes first. you wrote

there's a lot of minutia in the institution. there's the problem of having to keep rates low forever. liz: s&p 500 closing record high at the moment. the number is 1987.98. that's what we need to close at or above. we are above that at the moment. jon, we'll see you, from the "wall street journal," jon hilsenrath. good to see you, david robin, new edge interest strategist. he lives and breathes the curve. >>> the closing bell is ringing in 37 minutes. they are creepy bugs and makes you freak out thinking about it. we're not discussing wall street, but bed bugs! >>> and one of the biggest names on the street has an infestation that charlie gasparino is breaking right now. he's been snipping up the story. exclusive details. next. gross, get it off the screen. >>> and may be the smartest small drone on the planet. lancaster drone has quite the brain. start-up backers include a well-known pioneer in the enterprise software business. if that's where the smart money is going. we're on the story. we speak with ernest earon on "rise of

the thing that we've looked to traditionalcally to protect our rights and local governments, the minutia of local government is something that we often either not quiet--we either ignore or we just don't think of it as being--being involved in our lives directly. whereas whites probably tend to have a very different relationship. local government is something that they can see every day. if you think about the decisions that local governments make about contracts, about what type of curriculum schools uses that's something that whites tend to be more connected to, i guess i would say. >> so that feeling of neglect that you sometimes hear about, there is less ownership? less feeling that city hall really listens to me? >> yes, that's why so the question you asked before the break was really important about time. time just moves on. that's why it's not necessarily about time. it's actually about developing institutions and actually creating kind of a political movement to reorient people, black people in this case, towards local government to make them understand that it matters. wrong we

it is all the details and minutia. it's all part of it, it all fits in. i was walking into walmart -- that is a great compliment. detail has been lovely and interesting to have. the more detailed you are in your work, the more universal it is. the behavior and all those little things that people -- people have come up to me and say i love your shoes. no, i mean in the movie. they like the squeakiness. that is a great thing. >> you have to put brakes on an instinct to improvise? >> no, we talked in the beginning where i would have moments -- if i got method, mark had to say, you were getting too into it. they would go, slow it up. veryback and be very free, calm. there is a residual energy, which was great. think there is a lot of tension that is created because we know robin williams from talk shows and comedies and stand up, so we know that he has got this volcanic amount of energy. when he is playing this very repressed character we know he is repressing a volcano. that creates a lot of tension. keep that going -- you are charged up. you have the freedo

we've gone into the minutiae about the fec violations of having pacs do senatorial work, and there's a lot more stuff that's coming out. so if you want to help, i can also pay you to help me -- >> okay, we have one more question from the back. >> yeah, yeah. sorry about that. >> avery. >> hi, hannah stevens from michigan. i was just wondering, you said that you're just not registered to vote, but you're so deeply involved in politics, why do you not exercise your right to vote -- >> i totally agree with you. my wife is an immigrant. she votes, and she likes to vote. i worked as a precinct worker in boston before i moved to fresno, california. you can come out and join me. we can go, you know, do that kind of thing. it's a very serious question. i would just basically put it this way: i love my country, i'm involved in the political process. one of the reasons i don't want vote is i've had a number of death threat saying people would literally cut my head off, like literally, like, you know? [laughter] and i was told by a law enforcement contact when i did some work with the fbi that

it's all the detailed, the minutia. it sets, it is all part of it. saas someone said, one day i was walking in the walmart and i disappeared. that is a great complement. also, they didn't see sy. he disappeared and became part of it. that type of detail has been really lovely. it is the thing that you said, the more detailed you are in your work the more universal it is in the behavior and all those little things. people have come up to me and said, i love your shoes. thank you. in the movie. i love when they are walking, the squeaking is -- the sounds, the images. that is a great thing. >> do you have to put brakes on instincts to improvised? >> no. i would have moments that just blow the doors off. if i got method. mark would say, you are getting to tense. he'd go, blow it out for a moment. i would come back and be very free and calm. there is a residual energy that existed afterwards. >> there is a lot of tension that is created because we know robin williams from talk showsa and, these and stand-up. so we know he has this volcanic amount of energ

you understand the details and minutia of all this. you spent a lot of o time in the middle east. no surprise iran is support ham mass. >> no. what i think we're seeing is a re-establishn't of longstanding support they even had for hamas. there was a big bit of a fracture because iran wanted hamas to support its continues efforts so there was something of a mini divorce for a period of time but now they're coming back together and the iranian supreme leader said it's the duty to arm the hamas official. others say not only do we have this duty, we were part of this process of getting hamas the rockets they need to conduct this offensive against israel. >> how much of this is a proxy war beyond just hamas at this point with iran on one side, u.s. clearly allied with israel. how much of it is a bigger argument about who controls it? >> a lot of it. there's the diplomatic side of it which i think has been very illuminating to see who is helpful in the region and who is not. what we're seeing is the egyptian government, the saudi government, they recognize the danger. so they're trying

it is sort of the minutia of how bureaucratic things get finished off, right? in 1906, it did become part of the national park. the state of california kind of dragged its heels on signing off those final papers. i think people were having a bit of regret at doing that, but it was too late really. >> thank you. >> thanks for your question. more questions? awesome. hi. and you are? ern.y name is b a couple of things. i want to focus on concessions. i have studied it a little bit. there was a book several years ago by a national park service ranger about the history of concessions in yellowstone. back in the day, it was hideous. my first question is, do you know comparatively how much acreage or percentage of the total budget if you were to work it out that way is going to concessions now compared to say 100 years ago? >> i don't know comparatively it was 100 years ago, really a different animal, right? the amount of acreage in the national parks today compared to then, it is hard to do that. one thing i can tell you is a cross the national park service, the aver

the issue is not to be caught up in the minutia.hey're only going to have an effect on short-term sentiment. when they move and pass, you'll be left right where you were before. >> scott, very quickly, next week, where do you think the market is going? higher? lower? >> i think mandy we'll probably test lower. we're through the 50-day moving around. the 200-day is not too far away. from a technical standpoint, somewhere in that 1860, 70 level it will be tested. but we're going to tell our clients to do, is we want them buys on this pullback, putting sideline cash to work. discretionary, industrials, technology, that's where they want to be. next week on a pullback or even from here, we're going to be buying stocks. >> dan and scott, great to have you with us, enjoy your weekend. we did find one big bright spot in the u.s. economy today. we're going to tell you what it is ahead. >>> but first hawaii on the edge. one storm hitting, another one behind it, which has grown more dangero dangerous. being a keen observer of the world has go

it's about once again, all the details, the minutia, everything in the sets is all part of it. someone said another thing one day i was walk, in a wal-mart and i disappeared. that's a great complement. it means -- >> they didn't see robin. >> but also they didn't see sy. he disappeared and became part of it. and that type of detail has been really lovely and interesting to have. and it's the thing that you seed-- the more detailed you are, the more universal it is. and the behavior and all those little things that people-- people have come up to me after and said, "i love your shoes." and i went, "thank you." and they said, "no, i mean in the movie." kind of the jeekiness. that's a great thing. >> rose: do you have to put brakes on an instinct to improvise? >> no, like we talked in the beginning, i would have moments to just blow the doors off. if i got method -- and sometimes mark would say you're being too tense. and he'd go, "just ploa it up for a moment." and i'd blow it up and come back and be free and be kind of calm. there was a riswriddual energy afterwards which was gr

it's not the franklin fault but you also indicated it's minutia. here we are at 6:00 on your sunday and people are still experiencing aftershocks. last time we talked to you, you said there had been 15. i've heard that number has greatly increased since. what have you seen regarding aftershocks? >> well, the aftershocks are beginning to define sort of a nor north-northwest trending zone and that will give us information about the structure that produced it. there's an analysis that there's a 54% probability that there could be a magnitude 5 aftershock. that's something that has developed here in the last couple of hours. >> do you want to repeat that one for time? what is the probability? >> 54% in the next seven days that we could have a magnitude 5 aftershock. >> okay. would that set you on edge? what sort of things would you tell people, if that's the case, to be ready for, how to prepare themselves, literally, for that type of an event? >> well, a magnitude 5 is going to produce strong shaking. it's not going to be as strong as the 6 but if thi

he began to understand, mark, the minutia, the tiny details. when we are talking about gross isestic product, for me it the fluctuation data, the consumer price index. one is the reality, the reality of a slowdown. >> the economy is barely growing. >> stagnation, in other words. and you have the policy data, the cpi. spain, fourth consecutive quarter of growth improving. >> it will outgrow germany for the first time in more than five years. i do say stark contrast between south and northern europe. >> it is, but they still have 25% unemployment. put this in context, it is an improvement. german factory orders are down. poland, the contagion effect is not in the european numbers, but poland will slow down more than 15%. in the next 30 minutes we get france. we saw some of the cpi data, the for your note, unemployment. -- the four-year note. >> does this play into the doves on the ecb who will be willing for the central bank to implement further monetary measures rather than waiting for these targeted, long-term refinancing operations to kick int

a certain amount of minutia has to ship. -- has to shift. there are a lot of incentives that line up around the system continuing to stay the way it is, even though it doesn't quite make sense anymore. is becoming more obvious that it doesn't make sense which makes it more likely that our campaign in 2012 was very different. we still put a couple hundred million dollars worth of ads on tv. >> you were talking about this moment ago, and that is money and resources. you to talk each of about how you use technology in the most original, most effective, most digital way to raise the most dollars. using like the square application, we had people making a donation when they were buying. we did over a million dollars of sales in just four days. we were a year and a half ahead of that. requirements make it like a risk lash restriction for use in commercial applications. using square was an important example. using data to find out more and and golook-alike models after people who have not been asked before. that's a huge part of technology on the di

being very caught in the minutia, and nixon, did he say that? did he talk to billy graham about controlling the network? yes, he did. the basic outline of what it was about and what mattered has not changed. i have seen nothing that said, that is different than what we thought. >> that is the perfect segue to the way i would like to structure this discussion. i believe it is an unwritten rule moderating watergate panels that it is incumbent upon the moderator to channel the well-known question from howard baker, what did he know and when did he know it? ioit was unearthed every time. i will rewrite that question as a way of structuring our discussion. i want to do it in two parts. what do we now know about watergate and nixon? why does it matter that we know it? in that regard, i think i'll start with bob and carl. you guys can bicker about who goes first. you wrote a few years ago an afterward to the book. the watergate we wrote about in "the washington post" -- watergate as we know it today. it was only a glimpse of something far worse. by the

he loves the minutia of the legislative process. however, he has had some health problems.e had a mini stroke about eight or nine years ago. his wife has had a lot of health problems. they moved closer to their grandchildren and kids which leads some people to believe he might not run. i know harry reid well enough, even if he decided not to run, nobody would know. he would wait until the last possible moment because he wouldn't make himself a lame duck. he knows chuck shuker is right behind him, maybe with his knife coming out of the sheath should something happen in november. i think he's running. unlike some people, i wouldn't bet everything i have on him. >> sandoval, the popular republican governor, you're saying you don't think he's going to run in 2016. that will break the hearts of some republicans. why are you saying you don't think he'll run? >> sandoval loves being governor as much as anyone i have known in the governor's seat, steve. he add doors every part of the position. he has essentially told people he's not interested in being a u.s. senator. he's much mor

you get caught in the minutia and realize that nixon said, oh, my god did he say that and talk to billym about the jews controlling the networks? yeah, he did. and it's not astonishing really of anything that comes out, but the basic outline of what it was about and what happened hasn't changed. actually nothing that says, it was all different than i thought. we have to be careful. >> that's the perfect segue to the way i'd like to structure this. i believe it is an unwritten rule of moderating watergate panels and it's incumbent upon the moderator to channel the very well known question from howard baker, what did he know n when did he know it? we see that unearthed every time. i'm not going to raise that question, but i'm going to rewrite that question as a way of structuring our discussion. so i want to do it in two parts. what do we now know about watergate and nixon, and why does it matter that we know it? in that regard, i think i'll meet with bob and carl. you can bicker about who goes first. you wrote a few years ago, the watergate we wrote about. i have this type that says 1972

i can give you more of my overall view of it versus the sort of minutia on the earnings, if you wantl dig into gap and the other retailers in just a few moments as well. but let's get some thoughts on gap specifically while we can here just to reiterate what they just reported. 75 cents diluted earnings per share. they've increased the full-year earnings per share guidance range to $2.95 to $3, including a gain on an asset sale, net sales were 3% in the second quarter. old navy just going down through some of the line items, comp sales of 4% in the second quarter on top of last year's positive 6%. athletic continues to open stores, et cetera, et cetera. tim seymour, is this a name that you like? >> i do. i like it on a combination of value and the fact that they're getting their operational store costs under control. the international growth opportunity is very interesting. old navy will open 20 new stores in japan, five in china, one in the philippines. you talked about the gap in india. it is a very positive free cash flow yield company, 7.5%. 13 1/2 times 2015. this company i thin

you get caught in the minutia and realize that nixon said, oh, my god did he say that and talk to billy graham about the jews controlling the networks? yeah, he did. and it's not astonishing really of anything that comes out, but the basic outline of what it was about and what happened hasn't changed. actually nothing that says, it was all different than i thought. we have to be careful. >> that's the perfect segue to the way i'd like to structure this. i believe it is an unwritten rule of moderating watergate panels and it's incumbent upon the moderator to channel the very well known question from howard baker, what did he know n when did he know it? we see that unearthed every time. i'm not going to raise that question, but i'm going to rewrite that question as a way of structuring our discussion. so i want to do it in two parts. what do we now know about watergate and nixon, and why does it matter that we know it? in that regard, i think i'll meet with bob and carl. you can bicker about who goes first. you wrote a few years ago, the watergate we wrote about. i have this type that say

he knows better that that, nobody tries any case with all of the evidence, you'll be buried in minutia. you select the evidence you think most appropriate to your case. you don't try it with all of the evidence. the special prosecutor has mountains -- >> who determines how much evidence a prosecutor needs? only the prosecutor. >> that's correct. that's correct. not the court. and in fact, if that evidence constitutes presidential confidential communications, i suggest, if your honor, please, the president determines that. >> -- the prosecutor has too much evidence? >> i suggest that's probably the fact here. when my brother says i doesn't need this evidence to win cases in my opinion but i need them so present all of the evidence -- i've been trying cases long enough to know so has he. >> that's not what he's -- [ inaudible ]. >> i was wondering, where do you see the burden here is on the prosecution? the burden on the 17-c is clearly on the prosecution and the burden is clear on the prosecution on any other aspect. >> how much is enough for the phrase you've been kicking around? >> i