Chinese and how they are going to cash in on the biggest ipo ever. Im ali velshi, and this is real money. This is real money. You are the most important part of the show, to tell me what on your mind. A decade of war is now ending. The speaker of those words was president obama in january 2013 on the day of his inauguration for the second term in office. They were words that resinated with many americans, tired of the wars in iraq and afghanistan. Wars that cost the country the lives of thousands of american soldiers and more than 1. 5 trillion. The president s plan spelled out in his state of the Union Address was to spending some of the peace dividend to pursue, quote, nation building at home, while sha shrinking the u. S. Military budget. But 20 minutes later, president obama faces a world where russias annexation of crimea has forced nato to confront the worst crisis since the end of the world war. A world that is china flexing his muscle in the sea, this comes as baobama tries to pivoto asia. But the pivot will become increasingly difficult as the rise of the Islamic State becomes the most daunting foreign challenge for the u. S. And its allies. The president this week will explain his strategy to destroy the militant work. First meetings with congress on tuesday, and then to the American People in a speech on wednesday, the day before the anniversary of the 9 11 attacks. Here is Mike Viqueira with more. After a month of mixed messages on the fight with the Islamic State group, coming from the president , the Vice President , and top officials, the president will get everybody on the same page. Well be giving a speech on wednesday to talk about the strategy to take the fight to the Islamic State group. He is making very clear there are a couple of things that will happen and things that will not happen. This could take a while perhaps into the next presidency. It will require a coalition, not only of the traditional American Allies in military expeditions, but also regional nations with the gulf states and other middle Eastern States joining as yet unnamed and unnormed coalition that is still under negotiation. And also the president and his aids have said time and time again, no american troops on the ground. So if the president s goal is to destroy and deare grade the Islamic State group in syria and push them back, who occupies that space . He said syrians themselves and specifically the free syrian army. This is an organization that the United States has covertly arming. But there is concern that any arms that go to this group end up in the hands of the rebels and that equipment has been used against kurdish and iraqi forces. On monday the White House Press briefer is answered this question. We have been engaged in an effort to support them for more than a year at least. Separately, the concern that was expressed by the administration at the time and has been its something that has been often repeated is a concern that we didnt want to provide assistance to every individual who said that they were fighting bashar alassad. And there has been an ongoing concern that arming the socalled moderate vetted rebels in syria is not a good idea because many of those arms end up in the hands of the bad guys. The administration blocked weapons from saudi arabia. Also now the question of will the president consult congress before he expands operations into syria. It is become very clear at this point that he thinks he has the support he needs while he will be consulting with congress, it appears there will be no further votes in congress to authorize the expansion of military within iraq and syria itself. In addition to all of the capital the president has to spending at home and abroad, there is also the question of money, specifically whether congress and the American People will support out lies. Mary snow has that story. Reporter whatever the president s strategy to fight the Islamic State, he has made one clear defeating the grouping wont come quickly. One defense spending expert estimates an air campaign alone could cost the u. S. Between 10 and 15 billion a year. That would be in addition to the 496 billion pentagon budget that begins in october. And its not included in 58. 6 billion called the overseas contingency operations. Money set aside each year for military challenges. The question now is will that money be sufficient in this years Defense Budget came with plans to shrink the number of u. S. Troops to levels not seen since 1940, cuts over the next decade are projected to shrink defense spending to 2. 7 of u. S. Gross domestic product. Those cuts follow 13 years of costly wars in iraq and afghanistan. [ gunfire ] reporter for now that peace dividend appears elusive. It is believed these latest commitments will cost money but will pail in comparison to the cost of iraq and afghanistan. He joins us more from watertown, massachusetts, thank you for being with us. We are committed on two and a half fronts, i would say. We know we have to do something in europe with nato. We are believing we have got to do something in the middle east with Islamic State. And we had submitted to doing stuff in asia, which i imagine is the first thing to give. Yeah, i think thats right. And its important to draw a distention between commitments that are more costly and less costly. I dont see the europeans pouring a ton of money into nato. I think the number is going to go bigger, but not an act of war. I think the pivot to asia is going to move more slowly, so the real issue is the middle east. Were going to spend more, and have a commitment, but were not going to have troops on the ground. Because we think the Islamic State is easier to overcome than the taliban . I think because we already have Ground Forces, the kurder peshmerga, the iraqis, the iraqi army, and others. Isis has done something that virtually no other group has done in human history. It has gotten arab, israeli, muslim, jew, syrian rebels, and syrian government, and alqaeda as a number one enemy. So we can add to that. What about the fact we have a nonresponsive congress and we went through something called the sequester that military leaders told us over and over and over again, you had better be used to a smaller military that can handle one major engagement at a time. Yeah, and the sequester is a terrible idea. But i think that budget is coming down nonetheless. It will be air strikes, drones, special operations, the sort of pointy tip of the sphere. And you will see army and personnel forces going down. Why . Its the center of gravity. So the numbers serving in the army, thats going toment come down. Are you ruling out real Ground Forces . Not to say the people on the ground the 800 advisors are not real, but are we ruling out sending in groundoffensive forces . Yeah, and i think thats the right distinction to make, right. Folks with rifles who fight battles, thats not going to happen. Were going to have drones, intel operations. Trainers, air strikes. Not boots on the grounds as we would think of it. Can we do this with air strikes and drones . We have a 21st century military. Were very hightech, but this was our problem against the taliban, these guys are somewhat low tech. Islamic state. They somehow i dont know how they manage to drive these tanks into things they are capturing, but they are a little bit low tech . Yeah, i agree. And air power is great for some things. It is terrible at other things. It depends on your adversary, and what you have to bring to the table. In iraq and these other places we already have Ground Forces. We have others willing to do to the fighting on the ground. Thats why the last few weeks isis has taken it on the chin. Why . We soften them up with air support, and the other Ground Forces lead the battle on the ground. Thats a different situation in afghanistan. Our gosh josh . Erbil is saying there are the shiites, fighting alongside kurdish, and the Islamic State is on the other side of the line. You do seem to have tom confidence in this iraqi army. No, but they seem to be doing better. And i think the key was malky had to go. Clearly the u. S. Wasnt going to lift a finger until he was gone. They seem to be reconstituting, but i agree thats a process, its tenuous. We have to wait and see. But strategically you are absolutely right. Alqaeda groups, these groups, very strong ideology, but strategically, stupid. They have picked a fight with everyone all at the same time. Even im not that stupid. Jim walsh, always a pleasure to see you. Coming up, Americans Energy boom has meant 8 billion ta day. But at the same time we are not exporting. Ill tell you why next. You are watching real money. The European Union has approved a new round of economic sanctions against russia, but they tonight with go into effect yet. Because e. U. Members wanted to give a recent ceasefire a chance to work. The new sanctions would expand the number of russia businesses barred from raising money in European Union financial markets. They would effect three energy companies. Now lets look at the Energy Industry here in this country. The u. S. Is pumping more than 8 billion barrels of crude oil a day, and we are consuming a lot less than we used to. But because of a law that dates back to the 1970s america cannot export abundance of oil. David explains. Reporter a new battle is shaping up on capitol hill with front lines that stretch far beyond the mar bell halls of congress. In lobby offices, analysts say Americans Oil producers and refinders are preparing for a major Midterm Election clash. The ban was put in place during the 1973 Arab Oil Embargo against countries that supported israel. But with a shale boom that has made the u. S. A leading crude oil producer. Industry adz vo indicates say americas four decade old ban on exports restricts economic growth. Some people in the industry are worried as we reach the utter most limits, that we could see dramatic downward pressure on prices even to the point where some of this oil were finding might become far less economic to produce. As the fracing boom ramps up, america will need to start exporting. If they cant, they will lose incentives to stop producing. But refinders say the crude they buy in the u. S. Is discounting precisely because america is producing more oil than it can use. Exporting that would drive up prices, but put a crimp in the profits. It really comes down to some of the big refinders versus the big producers, and there will be winners and losers, theres no doubt about that. Reporter at least ten Oil Companies have reportedly started organizing their lobbying efforts to pressure officials to get rid of the ban. President obama even took an initial step this year when he allowed an ultra light oil to be exported. But the deal breaker could be how it effects prices at the pump. Domestic gasoline prices we believe will fall. Reporter thats because adding more fuel to the Global Market would increase supply, and perceptions about shortages formed in 1973 still holds sway eye among american voters. Many remember waiting in long lines to fill their tanks. Jay webster is a senior director of global oil markets. He says that politicians may be about to weak up to see that refineries cant handle the amount of oil being produced here in the United States. Jam jamie great to have you here. There are a lot of people who think there is an economic and political benefit to exporting oil from the United States, but there is nobody who argues that the exporting of oil or natural gas isnt going to be felt by the u. S. Consumer in forms of Higher Energy costs . Well, i would disagree actually on the gasoline side. I would argue that if you exported oil, you would end up producing more oil in this count try, because producers would be getting full value for their oil. So we would expect you would see 1. 2 Million Barrels a day out of the United States ever year on average from 2016 to 2030, more oil on the market means less gasoline prices for consumers all other things being equal. Natural gas, though, thats a different story. Our price is lower in the United States than lets say europe. They have a shortage here, we have excess here, we start shipping ours out, were likely to see an increase in that . Absolutely. And natural gas is largely a regional fuel, but oil is a global fuel. So when you export the gnat really gas, you are expected to see a slight increase in prices. When you look at the reason why we cant export oil from this country, it was about Energy Security back in the 1970s. How do you maintain that balance where we let some oil get exported but not so much that we get into another Energy Security problem here in the United States. Prices will solve that quite well. Also if you allow the export of oil, youll end up increasing how much production we have here in the United States, and i think policy makers are going to start to turn towards the idea in the future, that a barrel of oil produced anywhere increases oil security everywhere, so having those export barrels out on the market globally, you are going to push down prices and that is going to end up helping consumers around the world not just in the United States. There are people who argue that if you push down prices, you dont get more oil produced. We hear this from the oil sands all the time. That the cheap oil is not as available as it used to be. And now its harder and more expensive to get it. So how much can you push prices down and still say it is going to result in greater production. Theres two elements. One, you are increasing oil prices within the United States, but that doesnt flow to the consumer. And that is because if you allow the export of oil out of the United States, that means u. S. Oil ends up moving in line with global prices. So that brings more economic benefits back to the producers, but there is no negative impact to consumers because that extra oil then ends up increasing total global supply, which then brings down the price of gasoline. So if you allow the export of oil you get an economic benefit because producers are able to produce more, hire more, and since theres more oil out on the market, prices go slightly lower. What ends up happening if you dont allow export, is u. S. Producers are going to have to slow down, because they are not receiving full value for their oil, so you have lower production, lower total supply, and then you end up having prices go up higher, globally and in the u. S. On a gasoline basis. Jamie thank you so much. Well, they say that age is just a number, but a new study says a rising number of old folks in the United States could drive the next housing crisis. Ill explain why Industry Experts are worried about aging baby boomers and your longer lifeline. Be part of my group. Fault lines, Al Jazeera Americas hard hitting. There blocking the door. Ground breaking. Truth seeking. We have to get out of here. Award winning investigative documentary series. No refuge children at the border only on Al Jazeera America on tech know, imagine getting the chance to view the world. The brain is relearning how it sees again after decades in the dark, i couldnt get around on my own a miraculous bionic eye. Im seeing flashes great tech know, every saturday go where science meets humanity. This is some of the best driving ive every done, even though i cant see. Tech know. Were here in the vortex. Only on Al Jazeera America. President obama is facing fierce criticism on many fronts for his decision not to work around a negligent donothing congress and take executive action on Immigration Reform until after the Midterm Elections. Its a change from an earlier pledge he made to act by summers end. Libby casey joins us now from the white house, if she is over the shock of yet another deadline has been missed in washington. Ali, it was not a big shocker to those watching the Midterm Elections very closely. It is going to be a squeaker. Who is going to control the senate is truly a toss up. Democrats are in danger of losing it. This was a shock to the Immigration Reform advocates who have been Holding Meetings over the past week. They have been told by the white house, action is coming, dont lose faith, we are hearing you. So they have reacted with outrage. Republicans are having their own reaction. Some are criticizing the president and saying his comments over the weekend that he will be acting on Immigration Reform fly in the face of what the legislative branch wants. They say he shouldnt even be talk about using executive action. Now its no secret a lot of republicans were hoping the president might announce some kind of big Immigration Reform executive action plan, because that might have inspired their voters to go to the polls. So this is largely, it does seem to be a political decision, although the white house is saying were not pushing it off because of midterms, were not afraid of the political fallout, but we are concerned that this could get swept up in a lot of political rhetoric that just wont be productive and could any Immigration Reform process. What is your sense that this terrorism agenda has really swept the immigration agenda off of washingtons table . It really has become the pressing focus, but this could have been a way for the president to put a real feather in his cap in terms of the domestic priorities, and the white house says he wants more time. He said yesterday that he wants more time to explain to americans why he wants to act on immigration. Now notice that the president is giving a speech this weak, looking at Foreign Policy and the Islamic State group, so hes not believing that the American Public needs weeks and weeks to get that one under their hats, but he wants immigration to have some time to breathe. There democrats are reminding americans that republicans were the ones who decided not to move forward on Immigration Reform over the summer. House Speaker John Boehner said were just not going to do it. So the white house is trying to remind people, they are the ones that got us in this holding pattern, so complain to them, and we will get something done before we are done with this term. Libby casey thank you so much. There is another potential housing crisis on the way. The study says that the u. S. Faces a lack of affordable and accessible homes for the evergrowing number of older americans. By 2030, there will be 132 million adults in the u. S. Age 50 and older, that is 70 higher than the number of adults in that age group in the year 2000. The reasons include the aging of the baby boom generation, and the fact that we are simply living longer. This man says there are huge implications in this demographic shift and addressing them is vital to everyones standard of living. The oldest of the baby boomers hit 65 a few years ago. They are over all less financially secure than previous generations have been, and you are saying this is going to play out in housing. Why . The baby boomers in their mid60s and late 50s are the ones that really took the biggest hit in the recession, so as we see the baby boomers continue to age, now turning 65 over the next decade, 10,000 every day, they say, that group is going to face in particular financial challenges in trying to maintain housing that is affordable for them. As then looking out into the future, in 2026 the first baby boomers are going to turn 80, and at that point the need for housing is really going to increase and put a strain on the amount of housing that we have that allows them to do that. I have got that on my screen now for our viewers. 2010, the third block, you see the bigger increase. Why are you worried about the cohort of americans 80 and over . Thats the age at which most of the challenges become severe. By the time people are 80 and over, the share of people dealing with cognitive issues, issues of limitations in their self care, with issues of living denthly denthly denthly independently, and they need housing that meets those physical challenges and allows them to connect them to their communities, because they are less able to drive and maintain those social components that allow them to remain healthy and happy. The type of Housing Stock necessary we dont have enough of, that side strikes me as nothing but pure opportunity to be able to build the Housing Stock necessary. The part that stands out to me is what i want to show you, the total health of owners versus renters in america. You have broken it down. Households 50plus. The net wealth of an owner, the median, the point at which half are above and half are below, is 267,000, the median wealth of the renter is 6,100. From the perspective of needing care or assisted living, this is very serious. It is very serious. You know, that nest egg that people have in terms of homeownership is an incredibly important resource to be able to draw on late in life. Homeowners have that, and they have a lot of liquid wealth they can draw on. So look at what it would cost to get assisted living and these are 2,500, 3,500 a month. If you are a homeowner, you can get those services you need to stay in your home for many months. But the median renter has 6,000 in wealth, they cant afford to cover those costs for very long, so we need assisted housing that brings in those longterm supports and services that are needed for renters to stay in their communities, rather than noise premature institutionalization. Chris thanks so much. Well here comes the worlds biggest ipo from the economy said to be the Worlds Largest. But despite chinas size why is the u. S. Still safely in the lead when it comes to the future . Real answers just two minutes away. A new poll showing more people in scotland favor independence than oppose it rattled some investors. The british pound fell as much as 1. 4 against the dollar before recovering ground. The news also sent shares of british banks sharply lower. The polls showed that 47 of scotts favor against from the u. K. This is the first poll showing independence leading the vote. Meanwhile japan suffered its sharpest contraction since its 2007 earthquake. This is raising Big Questions about the governments economic policy. The fall is blamed in part on a new consumer sales tax, introduced in april with another one planned for 2015. Japan is the worlds Third Largest economy. And china is set to become the Worlds Largest economy in the next decade, according to a new report by ihs. It says chinese sdon Consumer Spending will almost quadruple. By 2025 china will play an even bigger role as a key driver of world trade. This week the chinese ecommerce giant begins its road show right here in new york city. The company is taking over 100 investor presentations in more than ten cities worldwide. Many investors are excited for alley bob bah. But there are concerns with the socalled princelinks. The sons and daughters of political leaders in china. Now these princelings are often crucial in doing business in china. The ceo of this company has distances himself from these princelings. Reporter he is clear, he has never hired are relatives of the socalled princelings. Jack wrote on the companys social networking app, any company that relies on princelings are doomed. When they will explode is just a matter of time. They may not have any princelings on the payroll, but has ties to some of them. Several chinese equity firms gave thimbles to buy back part of its stock from yahoo. At the head of these officials sons and grand sons of chinese leaders. These firms now have stakes in the company, stakes that stand to make these princeli ngs a lot richer this week. Lets take a look at some. We have the grandson of the normer chinese president and head of the communist party. He cofounded a Capitol Company that owns more than half of a percent of the company, which means it may have a billion dollars stake in it when it goes public. Part of chinasstate owned bank owns part of the company. And it was lead by the son of chinese top propaganda official. Another prince is the son of a retired highranking official in the communist party. They also own a billion dollars stake in the company. The New York Times originally reported on this story in july. They didnt include the game of these investors in its filings. It denies any wrongdoing, even though it hasnt amended its sec filing with this information. When real money reached out to the company, it confirmed that these firms do own stakes in the company and how much of a stake. They bought on the same price and terms as other investors in the 2012 financing round, and stressed that none of them have any role in the companys management whatsoever. A spokesperson added that soft bank, yahoo, and ceo jack ma are the principal shareholders. Its decision to do business with princelingss was a strategically smart thing to do, that is believed by this man. He joins me now from harvard. Warren good to see you. Tell me why you say having these princelings around were the right thing to do. I think the important thing to do is understand the chinese political system is quite different from ours. The party runs from really the top of the economy to the bottom of the economy, and its really absolutely critical to be able to have the legitimacy to be able to operate as an ann going company. Unlike the other Chinese Companies this one has grown from scratch in 1999 to its current position, and it has been incumbent on them to be tied into the overall Financial System of china. Being tied into the overall Financial System in america is going to bring them into some conflict having these princelings around having these authorities around has not been associated with innovate tiff business, it has been more associated with corruption. Is that going to change . I think that this is one of the most exciting offerings as far as the chinese are concerned, because this is a Home Grown Technology company in a country where we wonder are they going to able to do innovation. Lead by an absolutely arias mattic leader. They have achieved dominate position in china and come to the United States with a great deal of enthusiasm. There is enormous angst hong kong about the fact that they chose to go to the u. S. And the reason they went to the u. S. Is because jack ma wanted to maintain control. And they have a class a, class b structure, and bitterness that they are coming out on the u. S. As opposed to the hong kong exchange. Were showing periodically pictures of him on stage. It is reminiscent of steve jobs. You said he is charismatic, are we going to see a lot more of this kind of innovation in china . Because i have heard people say, not really. Everything that is happening with this company is contrary to Everything Else in china. I was very fortunate to do my first case study on him in 2000. I didnt even know if the company was going to live. As soon as he stood in front of a classroom, there was the same steve jobs magnatism. He simply is an absolutely charismatic, visionary who has the ability to bring together a strong team around him. This is a very deep, very powerful organization, and it has grown because of his innovation. It is some the counter example to the Stateowned Enterprises were used to thinking about. It is very different than other Chinese Companies, because it comes from not having been a stateowned enterprise. Warren well be covering this a lot in the coming days. Thank you for your incites. Welcoming up, you see them here on this show, every night, discussing the most important issues of the day. Im talking about experts from the nations most prestigious think tanks, and now an report from the New York Times says many of these experts might be feeling compromised by foreign money. Want to know more . I do. Well talk about that when we return. Okay. I want to speak to you candidly about some of the people we feature every day on this show, the experts. These experts who often belong to prestigious think tanks help us to have intelligent discussions about a full range of topics from peace in the middle east to the price of shale oil in north dakota. But a new report claims that some of the premier think tanks have quietly been getting millions of dollars from Foreign Governments. Some of the think tanks have names that will be familiar to our viewers, the brookings institution, the atlantic council, to name a few. And some of the countries who have been making large contributions are familiar too, norway, the united arab emrates, and qatar. They say the money has compromised these think tanks so much they can no longer be relied upon. Thats big news. We have a reporter from the New York Times who coauthored the story yesterday. His report claims that some scholars are saying that, quote, they have been pressured to reach conclusions friendly to the government financing the research, unquote. He joins me now. Eric, i think most people if they thought about it for a little while would figure out that these think tanks get their funding from some where. But your research seems to the surprising part in your research is this idea that people feel they have had to draw confusions favorable to the go. How persuasive is that situation . The Foreign Governments through their donation clearly see this as a way to attempt to influence United StatesForeign Policy. They think by making these donations they can get greater access to Decision Makers and perhaps get reports written that will echo positions they hold, and may help move their agenda in washington. As to whether or not this means that the individual scholars are changing their views, i mean thats a harder question. To me the focus of the story was how how think tanks are recipients of major donations with an attempt to influence u. S. Foereign policy. So is the bigger problem that the think tanking take money or that this can influence Foreign Policy. It raises question about the intellectual pressure. They assert very firmly that the independence of their scholars is extremely important. But we did hear of some situations where donations were eliminated and in fact suspended when in one situation involving turkey and the brookings institution, and also from the land take council where a complaint came from a major donor that was supporting a program doing research in the middle east. And we heard from qatar, one of the scholars told us he felt pressure to not be critical of the government there. So there are some concerns that emerge from these 10s of millions of dollars that are going to the think tanks about whether or not they are as independent as they should be. When you say pressure, is the pressure coming from their high hierarchy, or pressure from the donor countries . Both things are happening. First the donor countries call and complain about certain things the scholars write, and the scholars hear about the complaints. But the world comes through that the complaints have been received and and theres a certain theres a certain effect that it has in terms of self sensorship. In some of these places the donations they get are essential to their livelihood. And if those donations disappear, their incomes disappear. If you look at the countries that donate money, and the conclusions, for the most part their conclusions are consistent with the policies of the countries that are donating money. So is that a coincidence or does it relate to the fact they are supporting them financially. What is the danger, i know they end up on shows like mine, im not sure how that ends up influencing u. S. Public policy, but how else do these think tanks influence Foreign Policy. One of the objectives of the government is they dont think going on a show like yours is going to change Foreign Policy, but one of the things is the echo chamber effect, a lot of what lobbying is about is getting people to repeat things over and over again until it becomes convention wisdom. So if you are sending money to think tanks, and you have lobbyists who are encouraging them to say a country is a important strategic ally of the United States. And that was one of their objectives, and the government is also donated money to at least one think tank, and that statement emerged from that same think tank, and its not that single statement that is going to make a difference. Its the echo chamber effect. Let me ask you journ ailes, to journalist, your colleague wrote about this whole new world were in, whereas a newspaper writer, you are being influenced by the number of clicks an article gets. How different is that from what you are talking about here . I mean, i think the thing that is important is when a report goes over to capitol hill or the white house if a Foreign Government has funded that scholarship, then the white house and congress should know it. It should be in the report that this government actually helped pay forthis work, just so everyone knows that that is the reality, and one of the questions we raised is when these think tanks are receiving money from a Foreign Government, when they are acting at the request of the Foreign Government and when they are also helping introduce these Foreign Government officials to members of the federal government, are they in fact then becoming foreign age engineers, thats a question we have raised, and some of the lawyers have raised. Where is the line where they are simply scholars to doing independent research that is financially supportive of Foreign Governments to the point where they are actually a foreign agent. Thats a very interesting line. Congratulations again. Young, smart, beautiful family and what should be a beautiful life. So what is matthew martoma, and why is he headed to jail . Ill get real. My final thoughts are just two minutes away. A firsthand look at the ongoing battle against the isis threat. Bombs are cracking off in the distance. This is a booby trap in the Islamic State. A sniper around the corner here. From the front lines, josh rushing reports, on Al Jazeera America before i believe you tonight i have one question, what is the matter with Mathew Martoma . In case you have forgotten, he is the former sac capital portfolio manager, convicted in the most Profitable Trading scheme in history. He was sentenced to nine years in prison. Federal jurors found him guilty of conspiracy and two counts of fraud after a trial during which he declined to testify. He was charged with illegally obtaining disappointing tests on an experimental alzheimers test back in 2008. And then set in motion a selloff of stock oldings. He refused a deal and now he is going to jail for a long time. He is young. He is arguably one of the smartest guys out there. Sure, he seems to be used his smarts for the wrong reason. Here is the thing that gets me, he had a chance. He didnt cut a deal to stay out of jail or at least spend less time in jail than he is now going to, even though he had ever reason to do the right thing. A beautiful life, three children who now wont know him as a free man during the next nine years. He rolled the dice hoping like his boss he would evade conviction. What is the matter with a man who would choose jail over conviction . Why would he choose not to tell authorities what he knew about his boss. What pot at the end of the rainbow lays ahead for him . What is wrong with Mathew Martoma . I dont think. Thats our show for today. Im ali velshi. Thank you for joining us. Hi, everyone, this is Al Jazeera America. Im John Siegenthaler in new york. On the offensive, president obama set to outline his strategy for defeating the socalled Islamic State. Act of violence, what happened after an nfl star went into the elevator with his fiance, and why it has taken so long for his team to respond. Rare illness, more than a thousand American Children hospitalized. What is causing it . And why it is spreading so fast. Well take you inside the