What's on the horizon for financial markets? At PJIM, it's a question that over 1,400 investment professionals relentlessly research in pursuit of your long-term goals. Specialised across asset classes, but united in collaboration, our teams provide global and local expertise. Our investments shape tomorrow, today. Pursue your tomorrow with PJIM, a leading global asset manager. Support for this program is provided by Chevron. Demand for energy is projected to continue rising in the future. To help keep up, Chevron is increasing their U.S. oil and gas production, and they're innovating to help do it responsibly across their operations, including their Gulf of Mexico facilities, which are some of the world's lowest carbon intensity operations, helping supply energy that's affordable, reliable, and ever cleaner. That's energy in progress. Learn more at chevron.com/meetingdemand. Market moving insight and analysis join Jim Kramer, David Faber and me, Karl Cantonea, on the opening bell hour of CNBC's Squawk on the Street. Good Tuesday morning, welcome to Squawk on the Street. I'm David Faber with Jim Kramer. We're live from post-9 of the New York Stock Exchange. Karl Cantonea is in Paris, of course, at the Olympics. Let's give you a look at futures. We get started with trading one half hour from now. A very different picture this morning than it was 24 hours ago. But, frankly, a bit of a muted rally at this point. Our roadmap does begin, of course, as you might expect, with the markets after that major sell-off yesterday. Stocks are looking to bounce back after their worst days since September, 2022. Caterpillar doing its part to aid the market rebound. Those shares were up sharply on earnings that came in above analyst consensus. Plus, a federal judge rules Google broke antitrust law that it is an illegal monopoly when it talks about online search, the Justice Department's antitrust chief, Jonathan Cantor, is going to join us live in a first on CNBC just a few moments from now. But let's start with the markets. Of course, after that global sell-off turn to Jim. Again, we are looking up. Japan came back dramatically, though not making up for all of the losses. And yet, there still is sort of a sense, I think, of unease, I think. What I'm hearing is there's still a sense of unease amongst investors, as you might expect, given all the crosscurrents we've been hearing lately. Absolutely. In favor of a bottom is the fact I saw a lot of TV trucks out there. That tends to be the local moose has to get it wrong. Against it, and why I think things go lower, is that, frankly, other than the so-called Japan carry trade, there seem to be a lot of hedge funds on the wrong side of things. And yet, the confusion comes from the fact that almost every quarter that's been reported in the last 24 hours is very strong. So, because there's so much confusion, confusion does not rebuy. Confusion reads, sell it. So, I am therefore concerned that we either go back again or that there's, what I would say, a mistrust of certain stocks that have been loved. And a race to the sidelines. A race to the sidelines? Yeah, you think so? I mean, Maggie Kaptek came back during the session yesterday, of course, then powering sort of the broader market off of its lows. We still did end down more than 3% on the S&P. It's the worst day we've seen since '22. Yeah, I mean, David Costa comes out and he says, look, he's called the SACs. Then if you buy, historically, it does work. But also, you understand, we were, I was working with the people from who drew my oscillator, a market edge. And it has not been up three days later when you have this kind of not that oversold and big decline. It has been down. No, it's, we're not done. The sell off. And I could argue that even though the earnings were great for everything that's reported, I think that it's okay to believe that we haven't seen the bottom. Yeah, well, we are going to talk about some of those earnings, whether it be Palantir, Uber, Caterpillar, I mentioned. Those were three great earnings. All strong earnings. And then you could throw in Lumen and you could actually say that Luca got the lifeline. Simon Propriz was very good. There are so much that was good. But David, this is not a micro sell off. Right. All those things mean nothing. This is just about S&P and NASDAQ. Big hedge funds that would never even know the difference between an Uber and an Airbnb. That's what we're stuck with. Although, again, just to come back, I mean, I said this numerous times yesterday in the midst of the worst of the sell off. There's no issues in credit at all. No. Liquidity was fine. Right. These are not the, you know, this is more of a typical kind of a swing. Right now. Frankly, we've seen many, many times in this month. I agree. But everybody tends to look for recession. It's very tiresome, Frank. It's like, wow. We have a recession with seven great companies reporting last night, all doing great things. I mean, Simon Propriz is the largest wall company. Wouldn't they know something? Yes. Here's what they know. Business is stronger than expect. I had a tanger last night. That's the largest outlet more. Business is stronger than expected. We may have some companies that are weak and expected, but I don't want to go against Caterpillar and Caterpillar's strategy. I know. Well, for every positive, I can give you a negative or at least cite you some commentary from a company during earnings that talked about a weakening consumer. Right. Often it can be a catch-all for sort of why we didn't quite hit the number. That said, there's no doubt that we've gotten certain signs that the consumer is weakening. And I'm, you know, we can go through any number of them. But we got a decent number yesterday that typically I send services not something the market cares a lot about, but yesterday it managed to stabilize the market and sent rates back up more or less where we started, you know, the day before. Okay. Let's talk about the market. What the market is. The market is who we're about to speak to, Mr. Canner. I'm Assistant for General. The market is Amazon. The market, which we're going to stand, we trashed today. Yeah, they did. I don't know if I were to get a thoughts about it. Yeah, I might like scratch them from my Christmas party invite. You know? It was really cool. It's funny how they, you know, it takes a while. Fine. They were disappointing the results they say on Amazon and multifaceted. Multifaceted. They were wrong about the slope of retail profit improvements. Big picture. The mixed shift toward lower average selling prices and lower margin items. Combined with a slower than expected ramp and high margin advertising and costs to serve improvements is weighing on profits. Well, I mean, that guy's obviously using Walmart.com now. I mean, when I read that, I don't think he realizes what there is. The artist is strategy. David, if you go after all these toiletries, we bring this guy in all the time. But that's good. Dan Ives is like, where is he? He's in Tokyo. I saw that. He's got to know where Dan Ives is all the time. He better put a better jacket on over there. They dress up. That's what the problem is, David. Let's take that Amazon. Now, Amazon is going after Walgreen and CBS. Those are two of the weakest retailers in the world. If you take them down, they're going to each close a couple thousand stores. Well, then you own the corner store in a lot of different places. And I fell again. If you own the corner store in West Hampton from that Walgreens that came from Rite Aid, well, you know what? Good luck. I really think that Amazon's strategy is brilliant. You can say they backed into it. But if they wipe that a lot of stores, now, obviously, the man we're going to speak to canner, well, they're giving down on it to go to FTC. They'll come after Amazon because it's too good. In the same way, David, they come after Google. Google's too good. Apple's too good. How about this? Nvidia. Real good. And that's the market. Okay? The market's not Caterpillar. Used to be. Used to be T-Mobile. Too mobile. It's good. The women came back to life, Martin Rawlinson, whoever thought that he would resurface and lose it. But against those is the Justice Department, which is a, I have to say, David, that is a downgrade machine. They sit there and they say, you know what? We're going to take Amazon for five to sell. Yeah, beyond that, of course, we've got a very stable ruling. We'll find out. We're going to talk to Canner in a little bit. But let's get back to this. Mr. Cantor. Oh. Okay? Okay. Mr. Cantor. Why don't you show some respect? The answer is why he's taking Nvidia's strong sell. And the chances got 90%. The guys work for his whole life to have a great ship, of which yesterday we heard is too hot, not going to be late. So you're very upset at antitrust enforcement. Well, everybody decided to hate Nvidia. Nvidia is the whipping, it's the piñata of the moment. Okay? Yeah. And I happen to think that it's a great company. But you know what? I'm a loser and a joker. I'm a smoker. I'm a midnight toaker. You know what? I'm breathing the popitus of love by liking Nvidia. There you go. Popitus of love. I've Google popitus many times. You know what? I've got to bing it after what Cantor did. There's Nvidia. Do you buy it today, Jim? What? Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Just answer the question. Answer the question. I was going to come up with something really bad. I'm not going to say it, but it's so good. Oh my God. I've got to tell it to somebody, not you. I do not want to go into that particular lion stand. Okay? I'm not. I'm not. There's a ship. The guy has a ship behind him. Come on, Jensen. No, Joaquin. Jensen isn't on the hot seat for no particular reason other than he has developed. He spent a lifetime developing a chip, which by the way, the misinformation says it's going to be really late. I heard that it burns way too hot that all the things I said about it being ready are wrong and they're just going to sell more H100s in the interim. What's so bad about that? Okay, you, you, you make sense. Why don't you go to the buy side and sell side instead of being whatever, the no side? But you switch to it? I prefer the no side. You're switching very much. Yeah, I try to. Don't be Norway, okay? Norway's amazing. No, no. During that era. Oh, that era. Okay. Because I always marvel at Norway, particularly the winter Olympics. Yeah. Well, this is not one. But now we're dealing with the summer Olympics. Do you watch the power Olympics? Do you watch the power Olympics? How on marks? Do you watch the surfing? No, I don't watch surfing. It's in Tahiti, man. I know. Yeah, I know. Go, Gann. Can I from Norway won the Decathlon? Go, Gann. I don't know. He did. You know who it was? No. Yes. Carl Cantonier would know. The whole thing was in Norway. The whole thing was in Norway. It was not the same way. It was not the same way. You're a jeopardy, David. I'm not answering more questions from you live on air. Come on, Carl. You kind of know who won the Decathlon. I watched that guy win. I'm pretty sure it's at Norway. If I were in that shirt when I'd be as good looking, just a question. A whole Norway did win. Yes. Guys, great discussion. Obviously, a lot of moving pieces today. We'll keep you honest on the markets, but I'll tell you what's going to heat up today is a sport that you guys both enjoy quite a bit, and that's basketball. Team USA men's tonight going to kick off the knockout rounds versus Brazil. They did go 3-0 in group play, and they won all of their group play matches by 17 points or four. Team Brazil, by the way, does have di Santos who plays with Steph Curry at Golden State. U.S. of course, four-time defending gold medal champs. Two leading scorers, by the way, in group play were Anthony Edwards of the Timber Wolves and Kevin Durant of the Suns. If they win versus Brazil, they move on to the semis on Thursday and try to keep their dominance going. Speaking of dominance, take a look at the metal board as the U.S. continues to be way ahead on the race with China does remain quite tight. Maybe later on today, we'll talk some beach volleyball, as Jim mentioned, track and field, a women's soccer, in addition to everything going on with the markets today, guys, whether that's Caterpillar or Uber or Palantir. Carl, the Justice Department is going after, I think, all a big cap tech. How many of the CEOs are there right now? The CEO account was definitely higher in week one. I think some of that has moved out. But, yeah, I don't know. I think, certainly given the action yesterday, Jim, the focus in corporate America has tilted back to the markets, even as we try to keep an eye on the competition. I have to tell you, Carl, I think it's going right back to you. I think that, yes, they have this Japan carry trade, which no one understands, including the people who are doing it. But these events, I was one of this peacock, my daughter set up peacock gold, whatever, the Olympic gold. The country's transfixed, Carl. And as soon as the market closed, we're watching Tahiti. We're watching people go through some sort of barrel, whatever the heck that is. And I got to tell you, all we want to watch is tracking field. We want the four by 100. We want everything. Give us everything. It is a nice respite, especially from just the energy we expended watching Japan yesterday, but as David pointed out, and you point out the cost to note today, we're discussion about yield stability. You saw your Denny sticking with one cut for the rest of the year. In Ed's words, this too will pass. I thought that Ed was very right. He represents a calming influence when we have what David was describing as a regular seller of Carl. I actually just feel that this was something not one and done because we still don't know where everything falls. But I think that's a lot of people really don't understand that it was a Japan problem. Because all our earnings that came out are good. And everyone wants to blame the Fed for missing one cut. Your dean only says that there's going to be one cut. I don't know Carl. I'm not being sanguine. I'm just saying that you can watch the Olympics now. It is not going to fall apart. Okay. That's good to hear from this side of the pond. Yeah, Carl will be coming back to your course. And I agree the Olympics are awesome. You get home, you want to watch them. Or if you're lucky enough to be home early enough, you can even watch them watch. I'm in the kickboard competition. Great. The senior kickboard competition. That's one of my favorite events. We've got three more inflation reports, by the way, between now and that Fed meeting in the middle of September. All right. We've got some breaking news though right now in Washington, D.C. And for that we will get to Megan Bicella Megan. Hey, good morning, David. We have just learned NBC News has one source reporting that Vice President Kamala Harris has chosen Minnesota Governor Tim Walz to be her running mate. He will be the VP's VP. This caps off just about a 16 day sprint to both secure the nomination for Harris and to choose her a running mate with this pick. She's really going with someone who campaigned as a moderate and comes off like a moderate but has governed like a progressive in Minnesota. He passed a billion dollars for affordable housing. He passed a tax credit for low income, low income parents. He's really been in supporting these progressive policies. He campaigned as a moderate though. He's also a hunter and a gun owner. So with this pick, he's someone who has sort of taken hold of the youth vote, gotten really popular on the internet. We know that Harris was going with someone who she was hoping would bring her a real electoral bump. With Minnesota, she's not quite getting that. Minnesota has been a reliably blue state since 1972, but he can likely appeal to these Midwest voters who might look at him, a former high school teacher as well, as someone who they can relate to. So we are still learning more about this, but that is one source confirming that Minnesota Governor Tim Walls will be the running mate, David Bakker, over to you guys. Okay. And not, you know, it's funny, not bringing quite as much youth to the ticket perhaps as a Josh Shapiro would have as well. That's right. And I think that's sort of what they were looking for here. You know, Harris herself does not have a long resume in governing experience. She was only in the Senate for one term before she became the vice president. So I think they were looking for someone here who has a lot of executive experience, who is a little bit older, who has been in politics for a long time. She also spent six terms in the House of Representatives and then became a two term governor, also has that military veteran experience and that school teacher experience that he says has sort of made him this sort of entertaining, plain spoken, folks he presents. He had to sort of keep the attention of high schoolers for so long. So he has that breadth of experience that I think they were looking for to sort of balance out this ticket just a little bit. Okay. Megan, thank you. Megan Cassella in Washington, D.C., obviously important development. And the election is going to take up more and more of our time and certainly more headspace, so to speak, and that of investment. We have to dig into his view on business. That's where I'm focused on, obviously. And we know that he did cut taxes and we think that when it comes to corporate taxes, they'll go up. If Ms. Harris wins. Yeah. All right. Let's bring in the guest of the day for the network. Landmark decision, federal judges will Google file it in antitrust law by illingly maintaining a monopoly over Internet search. Jonathan Canner, assistant attorney general for the justice department's anti-trust division, joins us first on CNBC. And first, Mr. Canner, congratulations on what I think is a very, very big win. Thank you, Jim. It's great to be with you again. Well, let me ask you. When a judge rules that someone is a monopolist, which means exclusive agreements have reduced incentive and innovation, what could possibly be the remedy? Because how do you break the exclusive agreement? How do you get incentives and innovation started again? Sure. This is a familiar problem. So these kinds of exclusive agreements were at the center of the USB Microsoft case. And the court observed there, as I would observe here, that there are remedies for all things but death. And at the end of the day, what's most important is that we meet the market where it is. We reflect market realities as they exist today. And we look ahead with the next inflection points coming down the pipe bar in terms of competition and protect them from anti-competitive conduct. Well, Mr. Canner, while Google won, it would seem that there's an unintended consequence here. Apple, which is who's involved in getting the payments, they lose the payments. It's most likely, as the judge says over and over again, that Google's predominance won't change because it has a superior product. So isn't the loser Apple not Google? Well, the losers were competition during the conduct, the anti-competitive scheme that Google perpetrated. But the loser, the decision is Google, right? Google is a monopolist that illegally obtained its monopoly power. Now we need a remedy to make sure that we sufficiently address the anti-competitive conduct and provide opportunities for new innovators to reach market. There'll be a process, an orderly process that the court will put in place. I want to respect that process that's going to happen. The court has ordered a conference in September, and we'll talk about remedies. But like I said before, in a market that involves technology and dynamic products, it's important that remedies actually meet the moment in all of our cases and that they meet the market where it is right now. Well, it's just in terms of, you just said it. You have to take care of watching what the changes are, the dynamic. I have here in my hand a July 25th search GPT prototype that Microsoft, using co-pilot and search GPT, wants to put together and will do a search engine. Now there's 200 pages devoted to the fact that there's no competitor to search. So therefore you have to do this. Could you not be overridden by the events of July 25th, 2024 search GPT prototype? These are factual questions. The court addressed the number of these questions in its lengthy opinion. That was extremely rigorous. Detail oriented relied on expert testimony as well as documents and data. The fact of the matter is competition often matters most when there are new inflection points that emerge in the market. And monopolies have the greatest incentive during those inflection points to cycle competition before it has the opportunity to take hold. So right now is perhaps the most critical inflection point we've seen in the search market in 15 years and making sure that it has the opportunity that competitors have the opportunity to compete on the merits, benefit of their own innovations, and win or lose based on the merits of their products is the most important thing right now. Mr. Kenner, just a couple of questions on process so investors can get an understanding. What happens? You mentioned you're going to be in September. You're going to be talking about remedies with the judge. Google, I would assume, has an opportunity to be a part of that as well. Can you just give our viewers a sense as to what happens from here, both that, the remedies, and then what's going to be an obvious appeal and how that all plays out and whether remedies take place in the interim or wait for the appeal to actually take place as well? Yes, so that will have to play out in the court process and I want to respect that. So I can't really comment other than to say that the court will order a path forward. In the past, there are cases where courts have effectively conducted a remedies trial. There are other cases where different outcomes and different processes were put in place. That will be up to the court. We look forward to being there and we look forward to making the arguments we need to make in order to protect competition. Are you going, you won't share in any way what you would like to see in terms of a remedy or are you willing to do that? I think it's pretty mature for us to talk about that right now. We look forward to engaging with the court throughout that process. But for today, we're really thrilled with the outcome. I'm really proud of our team, which fought day in and day out against a formidable adversary to bring the facts forward and we have a decisive victory in hand. Mr. Turner, what is wrong with Google paying up? We covered this in our case. It's one thing to companies to engage in legitimate commercial interactions. It's another thing to pay somebody in exchange for exclusivity. It's another thing to pay somebody with a requirement that they don't work with arrival. Those are the kinds of issues that when you have massive amounts of monopoly power can violate the law. The law is pretty clear here and we brought those facts. We explained why it was a problem. We explained why it harmed competition. And ultimately we succeeded in convincing a court. We have a very lengthy detailed opinion that explains all this. No, I've read the opinion. I'm just concerned about the possibility that a company with a superior product paying Apple to someone. This is valuable real estate. You can't just ask Apple to give the real estate to whoever wants. Again, the case focus is not on the fact that there were payments that companies are engaging in commercial contracts. The case focus is on the conditions that accompany those payments. I think that's a really important aspect of the opinion. Again, these kinds of exclusive arrangements are not new to antitrust law. They've been discussed for generations. And so the concepts that we brought forward here are well within the mainstream of antitrust enforcement. Okay, I'm watching a piece that the New York Times wrote not that long ago about regulators closing in vidious scrambles for a response. And I read this and I said to myself, is it possible not unlike when Bobby Kennedy was the attorney general that there was a get-huff of squad there? I wonder, honestly, whether there is a get-big-tech squad within the Justice Department. I can assure you that no such thing exists. We follow the facts and the law. We're about rule of law. But I think it's important to kind of dispel this notion. We want companies to compete. We want companies to succeed. We don't bring very many antitrust actions every year. It's a small handful. And we only do so when the facts and the law support it. I spent about two weeks ago, I was out in the Bay Area and I spent time with VCs, founders from across the technology industry. And what I heard was that they overwhelmingly support our tech cases. Why? Because they want to build and invest in businesses that have the opportunity to succeed and become durable and thrive on the competitive stage. That's exactly what we want to promote. And that's exactly why antitrust enforcement exists in the first place, we're not interested in necessarily regulating companies. We are interested in making sure that the competitive market works so that the market can pick winners and losers not the government or anyone else or a monopolist for that matter. Well, the government picked intel as a winner in a different branch in commerce. That's not working out very well. I mean, maybe the government shouldn't be picking anybody. I'm talking about our antitrust laws and I'm talking about marketplaces. I understand. I understand. Now, in terms of going back to Nvidia, Nvidia has a very large market share, grown over 20 years of a superior product. Can you just say, you know what, with that level market share, we have to look into it because that's not right? So, market share alone does not necessitate or require us to look into a company or do an antitrust investigation. What we care about is whether a company that has a degree of market power is using that market power to squash out rivals. So, one of the common themes in a lot of our cases is not the monopolist making changes to its own product. It's the monopolist telling others what they can and can't do in the market. The monopolist essentially functioning as a regulator for how other companies behave. That's the kind of stuff we care about. And a lot of our investigations and a lot of our cases, whether it's technology or concert tickets, deal with monopolist imposing requirements and restrictions on how others conduct business. Mr. Kanar, the case you won yesterday was actually begun under the Trump administration, but you have a number of other important cases, the ad tech won against Google, the FTC as well that are ongoing. I wonder if there is a change in administration. What are your expectations in terms of the fate of those ongoing cases? I'm focused on today. I'm a sitting government official. I can't talk about elections or prognosticate about outcomes. What I can say is that there's broad support for the work we do. And that broad support is because we are delivering results not just for consumers and for workers, but for other businesses. We hear it all the time, whether it's in healthcare and small healthcare providers who are concerned about the role of big insurance companies or in agriculture, farmers, small business owners, who are concerned about the role of me packers or seed producers, whether it's in airlines and smaller airlines or consumers are worried about the skyrocketing cost of aviation. Media companies are worried about the ability to have return on investment from advertising or subscription services. Across industry, we're hearing that businesses care about antitrust enforcement because they want to compete on the merits. Okay, Mr. Assistant Attorney General, does it play any role in the Justice Department that these are our finest companies, the companies that have competed on a world stage, the companies that can rival China, if not beat China, or is that never considered? Is the worldwide need for strength with our companies ever considered as a factor with the Justice Department? Let's be very clear here. Our system in the United States is based on free and open markets. Open markets require opportunities to compete. Our great companies become great because they have to compete, because they have to win business from consumers day in and day out. We want those competitive forces, those juices, to make our companies better, and that's the basis of our system. That's why it's so amazing. But if we have a small number of national champions that are the only representatives of the United States on the world stage, then that is antithetical to our free open market system. We want the new innovators, whether they're in California, Iowa, Ohio, Pennsylvania, or New York, bringing anywhere else in between, bringing new products and services to market day in and day out. Once again, Mr. Assistant Attorney General Kenner, congratulations on a very big win for you in the Justice Department. Thank you for coming on Squawk Mystery. Thank you for having me. Great to be with you. Good day to have him. Interesting conversation, Jim. Let's get back to the markets because we start trading two minutes from now. You can take a look at futures if you want. Of course, we are expecting a higher open, a bit of a reversal from yesterday's significant downdraft. That said, you can see nothing like the numbers we saw in reverse at this time yesterday, although again, it can't be stated enough. We did come well off the lows of the session. I want to see the banks do better. That's the epicenter of the recession. There will be credit problems, but none of us has seen this yet. No. People are just saying, they're presuming it. I'd like to see the banks go up and I'd like to see the safety stocks go down, but I don't have that. For instance, this morning, Kenview reported. It's a good quarter. That's a pure safety stock, and that is going up much more than I thought. Celsius, which reported a good number, barely going up. So we have to keep track of what's going up and what's not, and of course, we do actually strange than one interest rates to go higher. Bonds go lower, signifying that there's no real crisis. Right, and to your point, the banks, again, came off the lows yesterday, but have acted badly for quite some time. It seems a bit early, perhaps, to be worried about credit concerns. I'd also point out Bank of America upgrades Apollo. I'd point it to that a number of times because it's such a leader in five credit. It was down 21% in three days that stock. I did point to it a number of times, Apollo, but again, to your point, the banks and the alternative asset managers, particularly those with a very important place in private credit, seemed to be suffering from a concern about a deterioration in credit quality and what that could mean. Too early to be worrying about things like that? I think too early. We had Starwood say good numbers and give you two dividends. Give you more than just declaring one and clear two. We have Simon properties. These are commercial properties. Isn't that supposed to be the killiest hill? They're both very, very strong. Now, David, I will come back and say, wow, Mr. Tanner, that's worrisome if you're an investor in that. Well, you said there is no debt tech squad in squawk debt by you. I think that there's a considerable number of people who are not venture capitalists who are saying that justice and the FDC have it in for big tap. And if Johnson Long has 80% of the market, there must be something wrong. He said that's not true, but that's the rebellion. ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪
