minister and coalition would collapse. >> yeah, and this is kamala, joe biden is really frustrated with netanyahu it also he is not going to change course significantly in his policy. he has been doing this for 10 months, he is got 52s six months left he is trying to do the best he can within the constraints of a policy where you don't fundamentally have a break from the is really prime minister. withholding on the floor of arms. but the presidency out the window to reassess that. and going to send a signal about what the priorities are going to be. israel's security, yes, also palestinian dignity and security, as well. and that is what i think people will be watching for, what tone is she setting? >> all right, ben rhodes, thank you, appreciate it. >> thanks, chris. that is all in on this thursday night.

alex wagner tonight starts right now. right now. netanyahu has said so. these things used to be monumental. but as ben says every times it happens, itit fizzles out in a couple days, so let's keep our fingers crossed. >> yeah, when i saw that headline i put it in the team slack. i was like i feel like i read this headline ten times in six months. but we'll see. >> middle east negotiators always say this is not a game for people who lose hope. we've got to keep on trying. thanks, buddy. i appreciate it. every day since president biden dropped out of the re-election race and endorsed vice president kamala harris to be top of the tickete donald trump has had me and more reason to be nervous. polling averages conducted by nate silver shows since harris dropped out trump being down 4

points and up by 2. among likely voters harris is up by 9 points. now, that could be an anomaly, but it is pointing out that things are changing, and polling's not the only thing looking good for kamala harris. her fund-raising is off the charts, her crowd sizes are massive, and people are volunteering to work for a her campaign in t droves. she's got enthusiasm on her side right now. she's got momentum. "the washington post" reports that in the face of harris' new momentum trump has, quote, grown increasingly upset about harris' surging poll numbers and media coverage since replacing biding on the ticket, end quote. five people close to the campaign told "the post" trump is, quote, complaining relentless and asking how he is performing. so today donald trump invited member of the press down to his florida beach club, mar-a-lago, where he held a press conference of sorts to try to take back control of the news cycle. >> they n talk about, oh, the

enthusiasm. let me tell you, we have the enthusiasm. the republican party andve me aa candidate, but the republican party has the enthusiasm. >> when you have to tell people you've got the enthusiasm, that's an issue. clearly nervous about harris' 12,000 and 15,000 person crowds in wisconsin and michigan yesterday, trump spent a disproportionately part of his press conference hyperfocused on -- you guessed it -- crowd size. first he claimed he had 88,000 people come out to see him in south carolina. 88,000 people.na that's a very, very, very big crowd. turns out the 88,000 people weren't there to see him. the event he was talking about was not a trump rally. it was the state's biggest college football game of the year, the palmetto bowl.pa and trump didn't even make any remarks at the game. he just smiled and wave. by that logic i should ask the

msnbc pr to talk about how big of a crowd i pulled in when i wept to a game. the most outrageous claim that he made wasn't even comparing one of his rallies with any of harris' rallies. it was trump comparing the crowd at his speech before the attack on our capitol on january 6th to, well, roll the tape. >> nobody's spoken to crowds bigger than me. if you look at martin luther king when he did his speech, his great speech and you look at ours, same real estate, same everything, same number of people. if not, we had more. and they said he had a million people, but i had 25,000 people. but when you look at the exact same picture and everything was the same because it was the fountains, the whole thing, all the way back from lincoln to washington. and you look at fit, and you lk at the picture of his crowd, my

crowd, we actually had more people. >> martin luther king. now, not only do estimates put the crowd at martin luther king jr.'s i have a dream speech during the 1963 march on washington at about five times bigger than trump's january 6th crowd, but the crowds were there for very different reasons, and i think that is pretty important context mchb the other thing trump tried to do to the news cycle today. you might remember trump originally agreed with two debates with president biden. one is the debate moderated by cnn earlier this summer, which ultimately led to biden dropping out of the race. the other debate was still on the horizon. it was set to be moderated by abc news on september 10th. but once vice president kamala harris took biden's spot at the top ofs democratic ticket, tru tried to renege on the whole thing. he tried to back out of the abc

debate saying abc was fake news and biased. his pitch was that the debate should be held on fox news instead, but harris didn't take the arbait. she said she would see trump as the campaigns had previously agreed on september 10th on abco so last week trump doubled down saying he would either debate harris on fox news or not at all. again, harris did not take the bait. so today trump came out with yet another alternative pitch. >> it's very important to have debates, and we agreed with fox on the date of september 4th. we've agreed with nbc, fairly full agreements subject to them, and we've agreed with abc on september 25th. >> yeah, don't put anything in your diary just yet because you've got trump -- he got abc and nbc backwards and mixed up.

but regardless of trump's flubs it's easy to see what he's doing here. he's still trying to make that fox news debate, a debate on the friendliest terms for him happen and happen first. once again kamala harris didn't take the bait. >> i'm glad he's finally agreed to a debate on september 10th. i'm looking forward to it and hope he shows up. >> are you h open to more debat? >> i'm happy to have that conversation about an additional debate after september 10th. like i said happy to have that conversation. >> can you comment on some of his other criticisms? he made a whole litany of them today. >> i was too busy talking to voters. i didn't hear him. >> i was too busy talking to voters, something trump is doing with decreasing frequency. while vice president harris and her new running mate continue to barnstorm through swing states,

tomorrow donald trump holds his first rally since last weekend. he's going to the reliably red state of montana. joining us now is philip bump, "the washington post" columnist, and charlie sykes, msnbc contributor and columnist. good evening to you both. thank you for being here. don't know where to start. that the that was quite an adventure with donald trump today. sort of a press conference, mostly the rambling mess he has become. >> after it was over, after that hourlong ramble i thought to myself what did we just watch here? what just happened? is he okay? clearly something and apparently debilitating case of crowd envy. but once again i'm struck by the asymmetry of our politics because if joe biden or kamala harris had come out and given a performance like that there would be serious discussion about do we need to make a change at the top of the ticket,

do we need an intervention. it really was interesting watch this lows energy rambling shrunken donald trump. this is what donald trump looks like when he is losing. the contrast and split screen with kamala harris and tim walz, it is inescapable because there was no joy in mar-a-lago today. >> philip, let's talk about, you know, charlie said it's low energy. it's rambling. all his rallies are rambling now. it's kind of weird. he goes from sharks to batteries to whatever he wants to talk about. but you published a piece in which you say trump is not campaigning as hard as he used to. he's not keeping up the pace. now, some will argue it's because he thinks he had this thing wrapped up. >> we don't really know. to paraphrase the vice president, it's hard to read trump's mind most of the time. so it's not really clear. i wept back and looked what he

did in 2016 and 2020. 2016 he had a battery of rallies in august, multiple rallies. in 2020 even with the covid restrictions he's still doing telephone rallies and all the presidential things going to south dakota on july 4th and doing a huge event there. there were all these manifestations of him as a candidate who we simply don't see now. and it's not the same thing. he insisted during that press conference today he was waiting for the democrats, but that's what he said so we'll see if it picks up once the convention is on the way. no, there's no obvious explanation for it. it's not like he has a job. he should be out there campaigning, yet for some reason he isn't. >> the crowd size thing is interesting, charlie, because it's a go-to thing for him. people forget the first press conference he ever game was

about g alternative facts and crowdou sizes. he's talking about enthusiasm. you have to tell people you have enthusiasm than they have, you're getting yourself into trouble. initially with the enthusiasm behind kamala harris, some conservative critics said it's manufactured. turns out it's a lot more organic than people thought. that said, we're still some distance away from the election. what has to happen now? there's the enthusiasm, there seems to be the enthusiasm bump with tim walz. there's going to be the convention. that will be a natural bump or steadying force. what happens after that in. >> you know, then they have to execute. then we'll see whether it translates into the ground game and at this point nobody knows whether we're talking about a sugar high or talking about a reset of this campaign. but i can't help thinking again and again about what it was like here in milwaukee just three weeks ago, the mood that the

republicans had, the optimism. they were absolutely certain that they had this thing. they were riding high, donald trump seemed today been in an absolute dominant position. and he'som clearly having a ver difficult time coping with this change of fortune. and really with the departure of joe biden, he's lost a foil that he was counting on because with joe biden in the race he can run a low energy campaign like this and play the what aboutism card. i think a lot of people were looking at today reis, okay, whs the old guy in the race now? the 78-year-old man who is rambling, and you can't say what about joe biden. you're watching somebody who clearly has lost the fast ball if he ever had a fast ball. certainly a very different candidate than he was in 2016, even in 2020. and yet once again now the focus because joe biden is not the

foil the focus is what's going on with donald trump? is he unwell? does it get any better than this? and i wonder how many americans were watching if they were in fact watching because a lot of the media coverage doesn't capture how genuinely strange it is are asking themselves do we really want four more years of this? do we really want an 82-year-old donald trump with control of the nuclear button, because this was not an impressive performance by any means. >> philip, as people said he said is don't want a world in which i have to worry about hannabil lector and i have to worry about being eaten by a shark. but we got a while. the old attitude nobody watches the news and nobody latches onto the campaigns until the

conventions and not until labor day. i think the calculus has changed. out there in america there are still people not dialled into the story just yet, which gives the trump-vance campaign a little bit of time to recalibrate. can they in your opinion? >> yeah, they certainly can from the standpoint of all things being equal and objective assessment of what they're capable of doing. and people have a genuine sense of kamala harris, although we've seen particularly on the left that'sse changed since she beca a candidate and her status among democrats has improved dramatically. and of course alzheimer has been totally -- not many people have a strong opinion of him. that gives the trump-vance team strength as well. what we're seeing is a reflection of the broader feel that people have about this hi campaign, which is this very

doomsday, end of the world harris is the worst, walz is going to unleash hell on earth, from trump and harris and walz being let's make things better. that dynamic, that's what they need toyn change. if people go to the polls and they feel like that's the choice, i don't see how donald trump is able to be successful. >> harris and walz are putting forward a very sunny view what america can be. and as a good son of the midwest, there's certainly some appeal, right, to walz's sort of hokey charm. i'm going to ask you the same question i askedou phil. but for the harris-walz campaign when they have to hit the ground running -- they've started, but post convention when more eyes are on them, what has to change? what has to happen to keep the momentum up? >> well, one of the key moments is going to be, and obviously the republicans have hammering away on this, is that she's going to have to have press conferences, going to have to

sit down for long form interviews, and i think republicans are thinking she might fumble those. we don't know. she certainly has exceeded expectations so far. and i think what we've already seen, though, is a recalibration. this campaign is recalibrated on so many different levels and we can talk about the organic growth on social media, the small donors and all this. but also somebody sitting on the upper midwest, this focus on the uppercu midwest on the populist themes, the very clear messaging to the whitee working class th have been drifting away from the democrats has been very, very pointed. i still haveha a little bit of ptsd thinking about 2016. we all remember hillary clinton never visited wisconsin. she's already visited wisconsin twice, and she brought with her one of our neighbors who is going to relate to wisconsin voters in a very, very different way. he's become one of the coastal letes. he's a guy we recognized from

the hardware store. and this focus on -- this focus on places like minnesota, michigan, wisconsin, pennsylvania, but also the message they are crafting kind of this upbeat, let's talk about the future, let's work together it really is a completely different vibe. the only campaign i can think of that had the same feel was obama in 2008, and republicans remember what that wave was like. there was nothing john mccain was going to do or say that could change once that wave began. and i think that's theat fear dn in mar-a-lago. >> well, this has become a very exciting campaign one way or another. thanks for kicking us off tonight philip bump and charlie sykes. what happens when one a billionaire owner of one of the largest social media companies in the world spreads misinformation online. 1.2 billion people are at risk of believing it.

but first -- >> everyone's voice matters, but i am speaking now. i am speaking now. >> kamala harris faced gaza protesters last night. what can we learn from previous presidential campaigns about what happens when protesters confront candidates who are willing to listen. that's next. e willing to listen. that's next.

lyles will need a good leg here. can he deliver? here comes the pass! look at this kid! coming in tight on the line. team usa, what a run! it's gold for team usa. noah lyles with another gold medal. in case there was any doubt, who was the breakout star of these world championships.

the last time democrats were seeking to hold onto the white house after four years in power was 2012. then president barack obama was running against a republican candidate, mitt romney. romney was not the most conservative candidate in the republican party even back then, but he had staked out an aggressively hard line position on the issue of immigration, running on a platform of self-deportation, making life so hard for immigrants in this country that they would have no choice but to leave. and given that, it probably surprised a lot of people that young, undocumented immigrants had chosen to spend their time and energy protesting president obama. they held mass demonstrations outside the white house where many of them were arrested. they showed up at his campaign offices in california with signs like this one that reads "obama stop deporting dreamers." even held a hunger strike sit in at obama's campaign offices in

the then swing state of colorado. an issue were protections for so-called dreamers, people who were brought to this country without legal authorization as children, many of whom had lived in the u.s. almost their entire lives. president obama supported protections for those dreamers, but he insisted that he could not grant them those protections alone. he said the republican controlled congress would have to send him a bill. but then in june of 2012, right in the middle of the campaign, something remarkable happened. president obama came around and decided to try. he announced that he would grant protections to thousands of dreamers through executive order. the pressure worked. president obama was re-elected with strong support from the latino community despite the protests, but much to the chagrin of the obama administration, the protests didn't stop. many of those dreamers were protected but there were still some who weren't.

and the parents of those dreamers could still be deported at any moment, so the activists kept pushing, even interrupting the president during speaking events. >> most importantly we will live -- most importantly we will live up -- most importantly we will live up to our character as a nation. that's exactly what we're talking about here. that's why we're here. >> mr. president, you have the power to stop -- >> and that's why we're here. >> president obama, again, insisted he did not have the power to take those actions alone, but the activists kept the pressure on, and by the following year president obama moved again using another executive order to shield even more dreamers from deportation and deprioritize the deportation of people without criminal records. there were plenty of people at the time who questioned the strategy of those protesters who

asked why they weren't protesting mitt romney and republicans in congress who were blocking progress on immigration reform. because those protesters understood a key part of how social movements work. they understood that sometimes in order to make real change, you have to target the people who are movable, the people who wanted you in their coalition, the people who actually care. that is both the burden and the beauty of what it means to be part of a functioning, big tent political party that is responsive to social change. to be on the side of what the late john lewis called good trouble. yesterday at a rally in detroit, michigan, vice president kamala harris was interrupted by a group of demonstrators protesting the war in gaza. this is how she responded. >> you know what? if you want donald trump to win, then say that. otherwise, i'm speaking. >> it's a snappy line. makes for a good sound bite.

it's undeniably true she will be a better president for their cause than donald trump. but as those immigration protesters proved back in the obama administration, these issues are more complicated than we're better for you than the other guys. kamala harris has already proven that she is the kind of thoughtful leader who listens on these issues, that she understands the nuance of this particular issue even while some continue to insist that neither nuance nor context matter in this story. and her campaign presents a real opportunity to reset the relationship with the varied communities expressing dissatisfaction over this war and america's role in it. can the harris campaign use this as an opportunity to listen? and can those protesters use this as an opportunity to be heard? i'll talk to "the new york times" michelle goldberg about that after the break. e goldbergt that after the break

dave's company just scored the comcast business 5-year price lock guarantee. high five! high five! -i'm in a call... it's 5 years of reliable, gig speed internet... five years of advanced security... five years of a great rate that won't change. yep, dave's feeling it. but it's only for a limited time. five years? -five years? introducing the comcast business 5-year price lock guarantee. powering 5 years of savings. powering possibilities.

three months ago before president biden adropped out of the race, journalist meddy hasan asked alexandria ocasio-cortez what they would say if they could not handling the war in gaza. >> you know, for an individual palestinian american that has had their family kill, i am not

here to lecture anyone. i have a vested interest in protecting democracy, not just here domestically but globally. and it isn't -- i truly do not believe this is the lesser of two evils type of situation. i think about what conditions do i want to be organizing under in the next four years. >> what conditions do i want to be organizing under for the next four years? which of the candidates on the ballot would you prefer to organize and protest under? who will sit, listen, and be moved by the voices of dissent, and who will try to silence them? these are the questions that will be important both for voters and for the harris campaign as it continues to face americans who are speaking out loudly against the ongoing war in gaza. joining me now is michelle goldberg, opinion columnist for "the new york times." michelle, thank you for joining me. you have understood and really tried to parse the nuance in

this difficult conversation since october 7th including how it sort of played out on college campuses. and it seems to me kamala harris has a moment and opportunity here to bring that nuance into the conversation prior to what she said yesterday at that rally, she actually met with leaders of the uncommitted movement, the group of people who had organized going out in the primary and saying we're voting. we're showing up, but we're telling you about our dissatisfaction. tell me what you think is going on here. >> i think this is an extremely difficult needle for kamala harris to thread, and i would also say that i'm not sure i agree that it's really possible to bring that much nuance to a conversation that you're having with protesters at a rally as opposed to -- with people -- within the stakeholders that you meet with one-on-one. i was very glad to hear that she met with the uncommitted activists and hope she has more

and longer meetings with them, and to some extent there's just going to be a fundamental difference. i don't even know if there's a difference of opinion, but kamala harris is still the vice president, and i don't think it's realistic to expect her to break with the policy of the president that she served while she's serving him even if she sent a lot of signals that she's much more sympathetic to the palestinians and much more cognizant of the immense suffering of gaza than biden has been. >> let's listen to that. let's listen to what kamala harris said after her meeting with benjamin netanyahu on july 25th. >> the images of dead children and desperate, hungry people fleeing for safety sometimes displaced for the second, third, or fourth time.

we cannot look away in the face of these tragedies. we cannot allow ourselves to become numb to the suffering, and i will not be silent. so to everyone who has been calling for a cease-fire and to everyone who yearns for peace, i see you and i hear you. let's get the deal done so we can get a cease-fire to end the war. let's bring the hostages home, and let's provide much needed relief to the palestinian people. >> and in that same set of comments she reaffirmed america's support for israel. she was like a lot of other u.s. politicians sort of saying not really big on netanyahu but we still support israel. she was able to holds both thoughts at the same time. but to your point she is still the vice president under joe biden. how does she convey to people that she's prepared to try to thread a needle that is difficult to thread? >> well, look, certainly there's

some people who are not going to be satisfied with anything but a radical change in u.s. policy that, frankly, even if you think it's substantively warranted, would be politically really risky for her to announce right now. and so i just don't think that's going to happen. where she can i hope signal a change from joe biden and she's already signaled a change and obviously not nearly enough, but i've heard from a number of palestinians who are just beyond being -- there's immense grief from what's happening in palestine but there's also such a sense of dehumanization that biden who was a man so known for his ability to emphasize, seemed to not have that ability when it comes to palestinians, and so i do think it's a start. it's not going to be enough for most people, but it's at least a

start that when he speaks about the suffering in gaza, she speaks about it with -- with real pain. you know, that she seems to really feel it and really find it intolerable. >> your newspaper published an interview that occurred before the rally in michigan that we were just showing a tape of. and in the first arab american mayor of dearburn where the door has slightly closed with president biden, the door has slightly cracked with harris. i want to ask you in the context of the way we set this conversation up, and that is sometimes you protest the people who are more likely to be movable, more likely to be closer to your cause. how does the democratic party think of this, because the democratic party of two months ago or a month ago was a slightly more disunited organization than it is today around kamala harris. this remains the fissure that we

could see a lot of it in chicago and could see a lot of it in the next few months. >> right. and that's certainly one reason why i think a lot of people -- not everyone but why a significant minority of people were relieved the vice presidential nominee wasn't josh shapiro. and the difficulty of that, that's what makes it so different than the case of the dreamers, right? it's understandable to me why pro-palestinian activists would be protesting kamala harris and not donald trump because kamala harris is part of the administration in power. she has a level of agency here that donald trump, thankfully, doesn't have. at the same time, it is in the interest of the democratic party to maintain order and unity, and i actually think that kind of politically the way she handled those protesters is probably a bust for her. >> thank you for joining us tonight. we appreciate your insights and reporting, michelle goldberg of

"the new york times." coming up the gigantic reach of the tech billionaire's elon musk misleading rhetoric about politics and social issues in the united states and abroad and the real world chaos that it sowed. that's next. t it sowed. that's next. looks like my to-do list grew. "paint the bathroom, give baxter a bath, get life insurance," hm. i have a few minutes. i can do that now. oh, that fast? remember that colonial penn ad? i called and i got information. they sent the simple form i need to apply. all i do is fill it out and send it back. well, that sounds too easy! (man) give a little information, check a few boxes, sign my name, done. they don't ask about your health? (man) no health questions. -physical exam? -don't need one. it's colonial penn guaranteed acceptance whole life insurance. if you're between the ages of 50 and 85, your acceptance is guaranteed in most states, even if you're not in the best health. options start at $9.95 a month,

35 cents a day. once insured, your rate will never increase. a lifetime rate lock guarantees it. keep in mind, this is lifetime protection. as long as you pay your premiums, it's yours to keep. call for more information and the simple form you need to apply today. there's no obligation, and you'll receive a free beneficiary planner just for calling.

tech billionaire elon musk this week posted this comment on "x," the platform formerly known as twitter. quote, civil war is evitable. the world's richest man was

reacting to a video allegedly showing rioters clashing with british police after days of far-right agitated violence and anti-immigrant protests in several towns and cities across the u.k. inspired by a lie that was spread across social media. musk's dangerous comment and subsequent ones earned him justifiable admonishment from members of the british government, but this is not a problem just in the u.k. governments across the globe including here in the u.s. are grappling with how to stop the circulation of insightful rhetoric, disinformation, and misinformation across social media. a task that is made monumentally more difficult when the person doing it is elon musk, who owns "x" and has the biggest audience on the platform with a whopping 193 million followers, his followers. a recent analysis by the non-profit center for countering digital hate found musk's misleading election claims here in the u.s. have accrued 1.2 billion views on "x," which

includes at least 50 instances this year when musk posted already debunked election claims. so the question is is there a remedy? joining me now a veteran venture capitalist and early investor in facebook and google. he's the author of "zucked." it's great to see you but not in circumstances like this. this is big, big problem. elon musk announced to everybody that he wanted twitter to become a town square and be open to everybody, and he's turned out to be one of the biggest garbage purveyors on the entire platform. >> ali, i think the sad thing is elon musk is the proof point that vast amounts of wealth do not buy you either happiness or wisdom, and i think what he's doing now is incredibly destructive. not just his goal but the goal of a lot of billionaires who are really trying to disrupt the

world order, and in my mind it's both incredibly dangerous and very sad. and a lot of it is true because governments around the world have had a policy of being hands off relative to -- industry relative to wealthy people, and that leaves us in this precarious situation where they control the most important platforms in our lives. >> but you've talked about this a lot election interference, seen it happening all over the world that these platforms can do things that are quite disastrous, but in the u.k. what happened here, it was a coastal town in north west england. the suspect was a 17-year-old. he was born in wales. he's a child of immigrants, not an immigrant himself, he just wasn't white. it was spread that this was done by an undocumented immigrant which has led to race riots in the u.k.

people have died as a result of this. police are losing control over things because people are going out and thinking they're going to clear u.k. of undocumented immigrants because of this. elon musk knows better. what's he trying to do here? >> well, i do believe that among billionaires today there is a sense that liberal democracy is teetering and that they can dislodge it and replace it with something authoritarian that will give them free reign to do what they want to do. and you see this in our election where there is one group of tech billionaires in particular who are supporting trump, a second group of tech billionaires who are supporting harris. and yet the things they have in common from a policy point of view, completely overwhelm the places where they disagree. their goal, in fact, for all of them is to be in a situation where their ability to act is unfettered by any kind of regulation and where they're not required to protect the safety of the people who use their

products. they're not required to protect privacy, and they're allowed to do things that just completely stifle competition and innovation in the economy. >> so how does this dove tail with the conversation you've been having with me for years about the fakes and the fact that a healthy democracy depends on a well-informed electorate, that the influence these platforms have now does not make me feel like we're getting a more informed electorate as a result of social media. >> and in fact, ali, i think there's both bad news and good news on this front. the bad news is that the power of these platforms is so great that it has undermined the intellectual honesty of traditional media. we've seen this with "the new york times," "the washington post" and a lot of things historically we've trusted to give us a neutral perspective on what's going on. where quite clearly they're playing the game to maximize clicks, maximize attention. so they're finding ways to

undercut the enthusiasm of the harris campaign by suggesting, oh, there's a issue here or, oh, my gosh, there's a problem with tim walz's military history, which of course is totally baloney. so that's the bad news. the good news is that the biden-harris administration has done something absolutely essential. they have empowered the federal trade commission and the department of justice to pursue anti-trust remedies and in the case of the ftc, consumer protection remedies, against the big tech platforms. and they just won last week a monitor case against google, which is believe it or not one of two. there'll be a second one started next month. in doing that, winning these cases they are threatening, if you will, the ability of these countries to run the world. if you have 3 billion active users the way meta does, the way google does you're in a position where you think you're more portment than any government, so you do not obey the law.

and that is epidemic in tech. it's time for a reset in technology, and it's my hope that the harris administration should she be elected will not only maintain the extraordinary progress of the biden-harris administration in anti-trust but complement it with focuses on consumer protection and on privacy so that we can have the much needed reset we need in silicon valley and get it to focus on important problems like climate change and like public health, things right now it's ignoring in favor of nonsense like crypto and generative a.i. >> roger, is there a case for -- and you've made the argument that the federal commission is getting involved in this. are we thinking in terms of what regulation should look like with respect to social media? >> the brilliance of lena cobb is that when she's looking at consumer protection, she started

by looking at instagram and kids. and she's initiated a suit the purpose of which is to force meta to stop gathering data and stop monetizing people under the age of 18. that is the right way to regulate. you decide what the outcome it is you're looking for and you simply decree that's how it's going to be. and we can do that all over these places. like you look at elon musk. why is there no law that says you cannot create a website that portends to register people to vote and then only register red states? right, that's what he's doing, and that kind of stuff should be illegal, and we need to look at the use of technology to undermine the basic rights of the country which is epidemic. >> roger, good to see you. thank you always have joining us, an investor in technology and a very important thinker on these issues. all right, coming up, new tonight special counsel jack smith drops a surprising new filing in donald trump's january

6th federal election case. that's next. january 6th federal election case. that's next. eth. they want that hollywood white smile. new sensodyne clinical white provides 2 shades whiter teeth and 24/7 sensitivity protection. i think it's a great product. it's going to help a lot of patients.

with so much entertainment out there wouldn't it be great... i think it's a g ...if you could find what you want, all in one place? show me paris. xfinity internet customers can enjoy the ultimate entertainment experience and save on some of the biggest names in streaming, all for just $15 a month. get the fastest connection to paris with xfinity.

we've got a surprising new development in donald trump's january 6th election interference case tonight. both sides were expected to submit a joint filing tomorrow proposing a time line for pretrial proceedings. now that the supreme court has returned the case to the district court judge, tanya chutkan. but in a new filing tonight it is the special counsel jack smith not trump's lawyers seeking a delay for more time. as smith considers what impact the supreme court's immunity

ruling should have on his case. joining me now is a former federal prosecutor and senior writer for political magazine. good to see you. thank you for being with us. usually it's trump folks asking for delays on stuff. what do you think is happening here? >> i'm sure they're thrilled by this development. i think there's a few possibilities. it's hard to say for sure. one possibility i think is in play here is potentially the department is considering whether and to what extent they're comfortable moving this case forward in this final few months of the election. i think that's somewhat unlikely since the position the government has taken in this case and in the case down in florida is that essentially there should be no preelection blackout period on pretrial proceedings because the case has already been charged. i've seen some other speculation to the effect that potentially the government's getting ready to file a superseding indictment. that too would somewhat surprise me because there would no reason

for the government to hike the ball at this point. they are legitimately as the filing says consulting with other doj components including the office of legal counsel given the complexity and vagueness of the test that the supreme court provided in their decision and kicked back down to the lower court. >> right. because the supreme court -- it's important for people to remember they sort of sent this back and said judge chutkan you work out based on what we just said, which was unprecedented, what's allowed and what's not allowed. here's the problem. there's logic in judge chutkan working this out and moving forward with this case because donald trump may not win this election and this case may still be alive. what's the chance, do you think we'll still see progress before the election on this case? >> i think it's more likely than not we will see progress here. i think the form of written submissions and potentially live hearings that the government will request. we have a few months left here,

and the standard is nebulous that the court gave them, and legitimately to work through given the various parts of the government. but i still think more likely than not we will see some material activity before the election and perhaps evenane a pretrial evidentiary hearing or two. >> by the way, this is a request by jack smith's team. sounds like they've said the trump team doesn't disagree with it, so is it your view, then, judge chutkan will grant the delay? >> yes, she probably will. it's at the request of the defendant, and this isn't the sort of request where the judge has a lot of latitude to really second guess them. it's not like they're talking about consultation on some issue she has some insight to, so she has to take their word, and it would be pretty unusual to reject a request like this made in a joint capacity. >> is there going to be a great deal of conflict between the trump team and the jack smith

team given that everybody's job right now is to figure out what it is the supreme court is liable and is not? >> i do think we should anticipate some conflict here. if i were the justice department lawyers here i would still be trying to move this forward even on this sort of -- with this delay potentially in the form of hearings and potentially with live testimony at those hearings. trump's position is going to be i'm quite confident nothing should happen before november, and if anything is going to happen it should be as little as possible in the way of any activity including a live hearing. so i would expect once we get down to brass tacks here which hopefully will be in a matter of weeks we will see them. >> that's tonight's show. "way too early" with jonathan lemire is up next. nobody's spoken to crowds bigger than me. if you look at martin luther king when he did his speech,