which can lead to dehydration, and may worsen kidney problems. show your world what's truly inside. ask your doctor about once-weekly trulicity. . thanks for watching. have a great weekend. let's hand it over to chris. >> i am chris cuomo and welcome to "primetime." here is the reality. the fbi director is sounding the alarm that we are being attacked like 9/11. why won't lawmakers protect us? why won't they protect themselves from cyber attacks? they're disrupting our way of life. they are increasing by the day. did you hear that the sergeant at arms of the senate said that cyber attacks are her biggest security concern? that she is more worried every

day about what happens there than another mob coming. ransomware attacks are the key concern. hackers hold companies, critical infrastructure hostage, demand ransom. they target everything from our hospitals to transportation to the gas in your car. the food you feed your family. these people pay. we don't even know. the u.s. government says it won't negotiate with terrorists but they're okay with all the critical infrastructure paying hackers ransom, hundreds of millions of dollars? guess what they pay it in? cryptocurrency. why? because you can't track it. why is that allowed? why hadn't the government moved on crypto as a cheat from tracking? one thing is for sure. they cannot claim ignorance. the doj, department of justice, declared 2020 the worst year ever for extortion related cyber attacks. guess what? we're in the first half of this

year, right? we've already seen a 102% increase. 102%. in ransomware strikes just compared obviously year over year. the head of the fbi equates the challenge of this threat we face to 9/11. you understand that is not something that christopher wray is going to throw around lightly. he knows how disrespectful it is to even bring it up. if he is going to compare something he better mean it and he does. listen to his quote. there are a lot of parallels. a lot of importance and a lot of focus by us on disruption and prevention. there is a shared responsibility not just across government agencies but across the private sector and even the average american. wray did not come up with this. he is building on what other intel leaders have been warning for years and even warned members of congress straight to their faces. look what we put together. >> it would be difficult to

overstate the breadth and scale of malicious cyber activity. >> they come from everywhere. it's sort of an evil layer cake. >> we need to raise our game with respect to this. >> the digital infrastructure that serves this country is literally under attack. >> all the same message. nobody acts. congress has failed to go after the perpetrators. many of whom have been traced back to russia. so either it's a troll farm related somehow to russian intelligence or they are russian actors that russia is aware of even if they're not in control of them but they're allowing them to operate. okay? now when lawmakers did have a chance to pass real cyber security legislation back in 2012, guess who made it die? mitch mcconnell. led a filibuster in the senate and also blocked a bipartisan denuns yags of russian interference in our election. he ironically blocked an election security bill in 2019

and then rejected criticism he was aiding russia. the white house says president biden plans to bring up these hacks with putin in two weeks at a summit in geneva, but putin is already doing what he does best, laughing off the obvious. >> translator: it's just ridiculous to blame russia for this. i think the relevant u.s. services should find out who the scammers are not russia for sure. for us to extort money from some company? we are dealing with some chicken meat or beef. it's just hilarious. >> one little step sideways there. that was channel 1, right? that is state run media. see how the guy had to nod along? why? because he wants to keep doing his job. don't forget what you have is a blessing in this country with the media. if that had been in america, that leader would have been questioned about what he had just said. i know the media is not perfect and it is highly imperfect. it bothers me on a regular basis also even though i am a member of it. but remember the blessing.

okay? one step sideways. now, back into the focus. he can joke about it. he can say it's hilarious. but we know that he thinks the joke is on us and we know why he can laugh because we know who bought his perfidy. remember this? >> my people came to me. dan coates came to me and some others. they said they think it's russia. i have president putin. he just said it's not russia. i will say this. i don't see any reason why it would be >> i will never get over how embarrassing that moment was and i don't know how anybody can. dan coates is his intel guy and says we think it's russia and he believes putin over his own guys. amazing to me. biden says he'll push it. we'll see. we know that because of where trump was on this and whatever it is about russia we know his party is a collective of pawns but the joke will be on us if we

keep letting ourselves be attacked. let's turn to someone who was once in charge of facing down these threats. former trump national security adviser john bolten author of "the room where it happened." welcome back to "primetime" sir. >> glad to be with you. thanks for having me. >> now, first, you heard that. am i over stating? am i getting anything wrong? what do you want this audience to know about cyber attacks, relative inaction, and why? >> i think there is no doubt chris wray had it correct that this is a threat overall equivalent to or probably greater than 9/11. it comes in a lot of different forms. some cyber attacks really are acts of war. i think russian efforts to interfere in our election are a war against the constitution. then there are others that are intelligence operations, intelligence gathering, or clandestine.

then there is another category of criminal activity. some of it is state sponsored. some of it just by good old fashioned criminals. there's cyber vandalism. then there is just mischief. we need better thinking to understand the nature of the threats and therefore what the responses are. but the greatest threats come from state actors. and we've seen over the past decade a huge amount of interference with our information technology and computer systems. you know, we've gotten very reliant on them. they are enormously convenient. they vastly increase productivity. but they've left us at risk. we have ignored the problem for far too long. >> so when you say we've ignored the problem, you were aware of it. you were there. why don't we do more? i understand that, well, it is not always easy to know. my understanding in digging in on this is you guys know plenty. people come with proposals and plans of things to do, and there is some kind of nonshah lance

when it comes to cyber security. i often analogize if one person came into this country and attacked one factory as an act of terror, we would all be talking about it, know everything about that person, their organization, and the government, and the government would be going all out to do something. when it comes to cyber terror you have no such reflex. why? >> i think a lot of people have trouble adjusting to the potential implications of these cyber attacks and i think you've put it well. if somebody came in and blew up a bridge and we could see the pictures of it people would say, that's bad. but when you hear that china for example has extracted tens of thousands of government personnel records from the office of personnel management, and taken them to beijing, it seems very abstract. now, this may be a question of age. it may be a question of unfamiliar ill yart with

information technology, but i think when you begin to see it in the form of ransomware, that actually as bad as it is helps generate public understanding of what's going on. this is a threat not just of government agencies but in the private sector involving transportation, we saw one against colonial pipeline, but think of it in terms of railroads, air traffic control systems, traffic light systems, in cities, this kind of vulnerability exists. we haven't done enough to defend against it. let's be clear. this is never going to go away. this is never going away. >> especially if we don't do anything about it. that is why, ambassador, i wonder -- with the benefit of hindsight, you know, i know there was something with the former president and russia. i mean no suggestion of any collusion or anything of the sort but he had a political resistance to them because of the media and scrutiny dynamic. that had to lead to the bs he said in helsinki.

i know you had to be as embarrassed by that as every american was when he said my intel guys tell me it's putin but putin says it isn't and i believe him. doesn't get more embarrassing. do you wish you had done more, that you had pushed back more on him, that you had pushed on cyber security and said, look, i know you got some kind of flavor of crazy going on but we have to do this anyway? that you had been more outspoken in hindsight? >> well, you can always do more. but i will tell you i am very proud of the cyber strategy we developed when i was national security adviser. it received praise even by obama administration officials. and we did some things that are classified but that include changing the rules for initiating offensive cyber operations. you know, it's not enough to be defensive. i think you need to create structures of deterrence and we reversed a lot of what had been done in the obama administration that inhibited our ability to engage in offensive cyber

operations. but there's no question we can all do more and the point i'm trying to make is there's never going to be stasis here. we'll never have adequate defenses. as long as there are valuable assets at stake here people will try to hold them at risk. so this is a new reality. we get a lot out of information technology but it leaves us vulnerable and we have to protect against the vulnerabilities. there has to be a continuing focus of attention. >> ambassador, i've heard this not just from you. i'm not singling you out. you were in a very privileged position. and you have been open to what worked and what didn't work to a certain extent. you guys pat yourselves on the back here for addressing cyber security in the trump administration specifically and, yet, in 2020 you had your worst year ever in number of attacks only second to this year where it is up 100% in just the first half of the year, you know, apples to apples. how can you feel you did

anything right if it is getting worse and worse? have we lost the signal here? can you hear me, john? or no? all right. let me take a break unless john is doing a great job of pretending not to hear me. no. we'll take a break, get this right and then continue the conversation. stay with us.

it would be cool to ride a horse on the moon.

the hackers don't even want us having this conversation so they tried to knock us off. john bolten gave me that joke in the break. it's a good one. we have him back. mr. ambassador, thank you very much. obviously the former assistant to the president for national security affairs and former u.s. ambassador to the united nations. good to have you. so let's just step back. it's friday night. let's get this right. so we were talking about why it was hard for you when you were in the administration. i mentioned and showed the audience a reminder of the helsinki disgrace. what did you come up with as an

idea for why the former president was so sensitive to being overtly aggressive toward russia on anything let alone cyber attacks where you have them so red handed? >> i think on russia in particular he thought that any reference that could be used against him for being complicit with the russians in the 2016 election would have undercut the legitimacy of his election. i didn't agree with that. i thought he ought to confront what russia was doing directly. i can tell you the components of the government did do a lot to try to, for example protect against russian interference in the 2018 election including some of the offensive cyber operations that i mentioned. i think with good effect. we've learned a lot. we need to do a lot more. we're coming from behind. generally trump got along with authoritarian figures for reasons even he couldn't explain

very well and putin certainly fit that bill. >> i've heard that from other past members of the administration that he came to the conclusion that anything that was said about russia was somehow bad for him because whether he liked it or not he was connected to them so he just wanted them out of the conversation and didn't want to deal with them on any level. still doesn't explain helsinki but maybe in some per verse way it does, that's where his head took him. i can't have anything bad said about russia because it is bad for me. the only thing that makes a modicum of sense. then it comes to the efforts. what i was asking before the break, that i understand you did things you believe deserve credit. you say even former obama officials said was good but you're doing a lousy job here right because in 201020 we had e worst year ever of cyber attacks and whatever was done during the trump administration and now

stinks. what do i have wrong? >> i think there is a lot more that can be done. i think public awareness is still not what it should be. people don't appreciate how reliant we've become on information technology and therefore how dangerous it is when people can get in and interfere with it. we have seen a number of areas where i think that's changing. if you look at the threat for example to telecommunications from chinese companies like huawei and zte very strong steps were taken against them. those have been continued and recently expanded by the biden administration. but we're still coming from behind. i think these recent ransomware attacks give us an opportunity. i think it would be catastrophic to change the view that you don't pay ransom. that is like paying ransom for the release of hostages. >> right >> i think we need more reporting on this. but mostly, we need the private sector to do a lot more, to look

at what the risks are, to their information technology systems, and do more to protect them. we've gotten a lot of profits and convenience out of this technology but it's brought risks and we fleedneed to pay s insurance. >> experts say the biggest reason for the ramp up is not technology on the bad guy side. it is how to be paid. cryptocurrency. now they don't have the problem of having the money tracked. wires or anything, offshore accounts, whatever it is, real currency at some point has to be cleaned. cryptocurrency does not. this is not new to you guys. why haven't you moved to regulate cryptocurrency in this regard? i have been told that in the financial world they have figured out how to reconcile crypto with their kyc policies. their know your client and know your customer policies. why hasn't the government done this? >> well, i wouldn't want to disappoint you but donald trump actually on several occasions

told steve mnuchin the treasury secretary we should outlaw cryptocurrency. i don't understand why it is considered to be a repository value. >> i'm not upset by that. i am upset by why nothing happened. if trump had a feeling about this i certainly never heard him talk about it publicly. why did nothing happen? >> i think people didn't fully appreciate how dangerous it was. again, there is a breakdown across not just a few people in the administration but across the country generally. look how many people have invested in it. i think this is something that for both organized crime and rogue states and adversaries of the united states that want to mask their financial transactions it's a great boon to them, not something we should accept. >> all right. i want to ask you about something else while i have you here and i appreciate your time especially with the difficulty. what happened with general flynn? his comments recently are just

more proof of his perfidy that he is willing to say things that are incendiary to play to the advantage of this president. with the benefit of hindsight, do you think you should have done more to squash the kind of talk that's coming out of his mo mouth and others while you were there? >> well, i certainly didn't hear any talk about, of the kind we've seen about the stolen election. i think trump is really understandable entirely in terms of what he sees benefiting him. i think this was a demonstration he is an anomaly in american politics. it's very concerning. i don't think it's as dangerous to democracy in this country as some people do because i think it's so much a fringe movement that at this point it's not the kind of threat some people think. i think it's bizarre, extreme, and unacceptable.

but i don't think it's so much of a threat. >> there are two dramatic counterpoints. one is january 6th was an act of terror, an insurrection, as found by our federal government against the u.s. capitol. you and i in our lifetimes have never seen anything like it. so that's scary. you now have all of these republican run states passing laws that you and i have never experienced in our lifetime either that take us the closest to the kind of reductionist policies where race is involved that we thought we got out of in the 1950s and 1960s. how do you see those as not worthy of concern? >> well, i think january 6th was one of the most tragic days of american history but i don't see it being repeated. i don't see the circumstances coming together again. i think one way to make sure it's not repeated is that everybody who crossed the lines in the capitol that day should be put in jail for the maximum

amount of time allowable and anybody who engaged in violence against police or others in the capitol should be put in jail for a longer period. >> the republican party won't even investigate it, john. the republican party doesn't want it investigated when they were the targets. >> i'm part of the republican party and i would have voted to have a commission to investigate it. >> why won't they? >> i think it's serious. because i think they're scared of the political consequences and that is one reason why i and others have tried to explain trump's influence is declining. it is a fact that his influence with real voters is declining. >> even with all these states passing these laws? to limit voting rights? and to recall elections on their own -- >> let me come back to that. >> make your points please >> i think a lot of republicans are afraid of their shadow when they don't realize trump's influence is diminishing. i've put out a poll and we'll have others that i think will

show that as well. on the voting rights thing it is hard to have a serious conversation about this these days but as a matter of civic responsibility think everybody who is physically able to vote on election day should vote on election day at the polls. i say that because we have very little that is required of us as citizens to demonstrate civic responsibility. jury duty is one and voting is another. i think making that a common act on one day where everybody does the same thing -- >> the republicans won't even make it a day of vacation and give people the day off to make it easier to vote. every restriction in place has been done by your party, john. nobody shares what you're saying in your party. >> we have had a couple of hundred years where election days have not been days off and it is amazing people have voted. it's just part of being a citizen to get up a little early and vote before you go to work or vote after you come back. to say it's, we have to have

days off to get people to work, i don't buy it. >> i'm not saying you have to have days off i'm saying that is in keeping with what you are saying about making it a sacred duty. what i'm saying is your party has historically been the beneficiary of early voting and absentee ballot voting. it was only when trump came in and demonized it that the enthusiasm amongst your party fell off. we've had it around since the 1700s. >> it is not a question of what party votes. no. i remember once, the first time i voted absentee i had to swear out an affidavit that i was necessarily out of my state on business that day. and i think basically that's the way it should be. i think the civic responsibility point is everybody on the same day going to the polls, standing in line if necessary and voting. it is one thing the country can do all together. >> i know but john you know what's wrong with that theory is that once you get to poorer

communities and communities of color especially what happens? less staff. less hours. longer lines. hours and hours. now you're not allowed to give them water. >> that doesn't mean -- >> cosm on. it's onerous. people can't get time off work. they're working two jobs. >> it is not onerous. i absolutely don't agree. my father was a firefighter for the city of baltimore. and he managed to vote despite long hours and everything else. i think on election day people can find the time to vote if they're interested and the point is that when the community does it as a whole it helps bring the community together, which we need more of in this time. >> i know. what i'm saying is your civic duty aside and the fact that firefighters usually have swing shifts, right, so they work like 24 hours and then have two days off so it is a different kind of mentality. >> maybe in new york. >> these laws, look, we all love our first responders. that's not the point. what i'm saying is that these

laws are very obvious in what they're trying to do. it is interesting you would fight the assertion. every one of the laws makes it more difficult to use what is an accepted method of voting in your own party. that you would capitalize on, organized around, and benefited from. >> that's what i said. it's hard to have a serious conversation about this. i'm trying to make a philosophical point about the nature of voting and the civic responsibility inherent and asking how best do you bring that to the fore, to help strengthen faith in the political process in this country? and i think uniformity of voting would help do that. so to that extent i don't think it has anything to do with restricting voting. i think the more casual you make voting the less important it b. the more it becomes -- >> it is not about making it casual. this past election they said was the safest election they've had in these states that are republican run. okay? so it wasn't that it was casual using that as a euphemism for

unfair or sloppy. it was efficient and allowed a lot of people to vote that your party apparently doesn't want to vote. doesn't that concern you from a national security perspective? >> i think trump to the contrary not with standing that we probably as a party have benefited from early voting. that doesn't change my opposition to it. >> right. but aren't you concerned about -- >> i'm saying i still don't like it. >> i get that you don't like the concept. but the concept exists. and these laws -- >> but the concept is important. >> doesn't it bother you from a national security standpoint? >> look, if everybody -- i think equal treatment under the law is key. and if you treat everybody the same and say we're basically going to have everybody vote in person on election day with limited exceptions -- troops deployed overseas, people unable to make it for medical

reasons -- >> that's not the state of play. >> what i'm trying to tell you and what i'm trying to explain you to is the theoretical basis on which we should try and make these laws conform. and i think to say that you want to reduce voting on election day, decreases the importance of the act of civic responsibility. >> last thing on this. just because of a national security concern. the idea of states passing laws that make it easier for them to overturn election results that they don't like, does that present a national security issue? >> well, i don't think it presents a national security issue. i think laws that undercut public respect for the integrity of the process are damaging but i would say one other thing. one of the most important barriers to donald trump trying to up end the 2020 election was the fact we have such a diverse,

federalized system of counting votes in the presidential election. if everything had been centered in washington as some legislative proposals in congress now would do it would have been easier for trump to try and subvert the election. i think we need to strengthen the federal dispersement of this authority because i think that is an important safeguard against efforts to corrupt the outcome of elections. >> his saying that he is going to be reinstated in august, do you dismiss that as trump hog wash or is that something that concerns you as it is catching fire in the ranks? >> well, i think this is another example where republicans should say it is not going to happen. it's crazy thinking. and the people need to be disabused of the idea that it's anything other than delusional. >> john bolton, former ambassador, former assistant to the president for national security, thank you for having this extended conversation with us tonight. appreciate you.

>> glad to be with you. thank you. as john bolton just told you, trump will not be reinstated. there is no mechanism. there is no chance. he is not going to be reinstated as president. he is not even going to get reinstated at facebook at least not any time soon on the social network. they gave him the maximum penalty. it announced an extension on his ban today and of course trump's barking up a storm about it. but does he have anything but sour grapes? is tlhere a fair argument this was the wrong thing to do? smerconish with his take plus new details about what happened behind the scenes on january 6th between trump and kevin mccarthy. the lengths mccarthy had to go to to get trump to call off his mob. brian stelter has the scoop, next.

rely on the experts at 1800petmeds for the same medications as the vet, but for less with fast free shipping. visit petmeds.com today.

today is five months to the day since january 6th. five months to the day. and on that day, facebook has extended its ban on donald trump. stretching it to at least 2023. the explanation? given the gravity of the circumstances that led to mr. trump's suspension we believe his actions constituted a severe violation of our rules, which merits the highest penalty available under the new enforcement protocols. at the end of this period we will look to experts to assess whether the risk to public safety has receded. an ex-president considered a risk to public safety. of course trump as always playing the victim crying censorship and insult to all the millions who voted for him and still lying about the election being rigged against him. he is also dangling a return to office in a followup response. next time he is in the white house, no more dinners with mark

zuckerberg. is facebook right to do this? let's bring in the man with the right stuff. michael smerconish. good to see you, brother. right or wrong? >> it's hard to give you a direct answer. here is the reason why. he deserved to be punished. i think that he incited the events of january 6th. but facebook is managing a fire hose. they cannot keep track of all of the content from the 3 billion, think about that, nearly 3 billion users worldwide so by definition singling him out for a treatment and punishment they can't apply evenly and by that definition it is unfair. >> look, certainly practically it is going to play to his advantage within his base because i think people who don't like him won't really care. it is not going to change their feelings. the people who do like him now have another layer to him being

a victim. what is facebook? no shirt no shoes no service is what a business has the right to but is facebook more like a restaurant or more like at&t? or sprint or verizon where they are using something that belongs to everybody, the internet, and providing access? what are they? >> i am so glad you raised that because earlier tonight at dinner one of my sons said what are you going to tell cuomo? when i gave him my answer he said, dad, you're an egg head. you're talking about section 230. and section 230 gave immunity to the platforms like facebook. they said hey. we'll treat you like we treat verizon rather than the way we would treat cnn or a newspaper. in other words, you are not going to be held accountable for the content that comes across your transome. now, chris, when facebook begins

to regulate content like that of donald trump aren't they inviting additional scrutiny and saying 230 should no longer apply to them? >> yes. >> that is really what i think this case is about on a deeper level. >> me, too. we have to get an answer and the problem is the state of play stinks because right and left they are playing it to advantage about who gets hurt more by social media and you get a perversity in that dynamic because you have the right saying facebook is against us but you look at the main traffic things on facebook they're all righty organizations, all righty fringe outlets and others who get the most wattage on facebook. i don't know what they're crying about. i do think we need to decide this, mike. we have to decide what the level of scrutiny is because they are going to keep making these decisions. >> well, the only thing i feel confident about in predicting for the future is that facebook is going to continue to be a

political football and something else when i read the statement they issued today, chris, that is unclear to me, what is it that happens at the end of the two years when they assess the climate? the language was imprecise. i don't know. are they saying we're going to evaluate the way donald trump has behaved himself or look at the american landscape and determine whether in that landscape it is safe for him to re-emerge? they didn't really define that. if they did it went over my head so i think that in trying to do the right thing all they've done is set themselves up for a continual ping-pong match between the left and the right. >> look, the high ground is he is unique. he can create a unique environment with unique reach. the language they used from the oversight board tracks very close to first amendment language. he created an environment where a serious risk of violence was possible. that is dancing with brandonburg

the legal standard about what is an imminent threat and when is something really what we used to call fighting words don't really exist as a protected thing anymore. an environment where serious fighting words are protected now. an environment where serious risk of violence is possible. dancing with the law but not a legal ruling. it's weird. we got to do better and he is going to benefit from this. thank you. i always remind people smerconish airs tomorrow morning at 9:00 a.m. eastern right here on cnn. his radio show on sirius xm. the potus channel is the best morning listening you can make. house republican leader and trump appeaser kevin mccarthy is at it again and tweeted this today in response to the former president's facebook ban. they fueled lies of russian collusion. they targeted and censored his followers. now they're blocking him for another two years. remember, five months to the day of january 6th is today.

that was a big part of what facebook is reconciling. yet mccarthy is exhibit a of the negative impact trump had. because of what he said happened on that day and guess who has new information for us? brian stelter. he has the updated paperback of his book "hoax" donald trump, fox news, and the dangerous disportion of truth and he has new details that prove mccarthy is the last guy who should be saying trump was treated unfairly. this is his first interview about the book. congratulations on getting more material. >> thanks, chris. >> congratulations on having "hoax" out again and you've learned more things and one of them i have a mccarthy on fox/donald trump tweet for people. let's play the sound that leads to this interesting combination

of events. >> sir should we expect to see the president on camera this afternoon? >> i would think so. >> i'm sorry. again? what was that? >> i don't know. i would think so. i think that would be appropriate. >> okay. sir, thank you for your time. >> thank you. >> just losing a little signal here. >> well, 3:13. a minute later. i'm asking for everyone at the u.s. capitol to remain peaceful. no violence. remember we are the party of law and order. respect the law. and our great men and women in blue. thank you. it is one of the first times trump said to do something and nobody listened because they mauled law enforcement by the dozens. one minute later, brian, not a coincidence. how so? >> kevin mccarthy called fox news that afternoon because he needed help and because donald trump wasn't listening to him directly so he called fox the same way that you would call the most important person in your life when you needed help the

very most. that's what you would do. you would call, well, donald trump, sorry, kevin mccarthy called fox news and tried to get through to trump that way. that is exactly what happened the afternoon of the riot. i know mccarthy has tried to memory hold the riot recently but when he was sheltering in place trying to get the mob to leave the capitol he called fox news. it shows the centrality of fox to trump and the gop. it is still going on today, chris. these lawmakers taking their cues from fox, getting misinformed by fox, and that is why what the network does matters even though it is often times annoying, distracting, confusing >> i often say there is no shame in their game but maybe i'm wrong because you got a message from a fox news vet early morning after january 6th. >> after the riot. >> yes. and how so? >> this is early morning january 7th. nobody can sleep after the insurrection. fox news veteran texted me with four words that show there was shame. there was regret. at least among some staffers.

the four words were, what have we done? what have we done? this is a fox news veteran wondering, are we responsible for this? and i think we have to ask the question, chris. could an insurrection possibly have happened if fox news had not warped the american body politic for 20 years? i conclude in "hoax" the answer is no. the climate was set up. i went back in history and looked at all the times trump was laying the groundwork for the big lie last fall. he spent dozens of days doing it at dozens of rallies. none of this was surprising. it was all happening live on right wing tv and of course it led to the attack. >> how do you reconcile the fact that it continues, the big lie, even though the election is over? >> right. we're seeing that not just on fox but on news max and 1 america news. that is one reason i had to rewrite the entire book because so much has changed since last summer. it is not just that trump lost and fox lost. there are now these new

competitors going even further to the right and it is causing this warping, sectarianism in america i don't think any of us could have imagined ten years ago. it is why so many staffers at fox were leaking to me saying they are concerned about the network and its direction, lack of leadership. we've seen a lot of people leave as recently as the last two weeks because they couldn't take it anymore. that is moving right wing tv even further to the right in ways that create even more -- it is not an echo chamber, chris, it is an echo prism. >> let's do a followup segment so we can talk about how many copies of the book you sold. >> thanks for the plug. i appreciate it. >> and watch what they're doing to tony fauci right now because he is the new hillary clinton for them. they are making him the pinata of all of their disaffection and upset. let's track it for a while. make sure we're right about the intentionality. come back and we'll discuss the impact. >> i've got the assignment. >> i'm asking you a favor. i don't assign you. you're bigger than i am.

"hoax: donald trump, fox news, and the dangerous distortion of truth." it is a new book. it's the paperback edition but he has redone all of his reporting and really knit things together in a way that will help you understand what we're living through and why. brian stelter. ufo sightings. is this crazy talk? that's not what the government says. it is taking a serious look. why? little green men? or what they don't know about what's happening on earth? so let's take a look at the report and bring back an expert in looking at these phenomena and figure out where we are and where we need to be, next.

priceline works with top hotels, to save you up to 60%. these are all great. and when you get a big deal... you feel like a big deal. ♪ priceline. every trip is a big deal. (announcer) carvana's had a lot of firsts. 100% online car buying. ♪ car vending machines. and now, putting you in control

of your financing. at carvana, get personalized terms, browse for cars that fit your budget, then customize your down payment and monthly payment. and these aren't made-up numbers. it's what you'll really pay, right down to the penny. whether you're shopping or just looking. it only takes a few seconds, and it won't affect your credit score. finally! a totally different way to finance your ride. only from carvana. the new way to buy a car. [singing] oven roasted cooold cuts cooold cuts

emergency planning for kids. we can't predict when an emergency will happen.

so that's why it's important to make a plan with your parents. here are a few tips to stay safe. know how to get in touch with your family. write down phone numbers for your parents, siblings and neighbors. pick a place to meet your family if you are not together and can't go home. remind your parents to pack an emergency supply kit. making a plan might feel like homework, but it will help you and your family stay safe during an emergency.

let's discuss with mick west author of "escaping the rabbit hole." so i have one little bone that a lot of people want me to pick with you but first let's go to the macro here, which is why do you think the do you think it is life beyond our universe or what they are worried about not knowing here on earth? >> i think it is very much knowing here on earth. when we see and identify objects, it is a real concern and it is a real national security issues. there are issue of foreign government and our ground space. i don't think it is anything to do with aliens and i am glad they specifically stated this that there is no evidence of aliens. that just really means you can't rule out the unknown. if you don't know what you are looking at and you don't know what aliens look like, you can't rule it out. >> people who believe strongly

this is someone reaching out to us. they don't care what the government says anyway. all the government need to say is they can't rule it out. here is what i don't get. how can they not know if it is man-made or where it is coming from or how to identify it? >> well, i think because they don't have enough information what we are looking at and what we hear is a lot of different sightings of different objects. these are all uap and let's figure out what uaps now. we have fast things and slow things and things ended up bumping around and big things and cold things. it is all different. it is a huge mistake for the government and military and the media to try to think of all of this as being one problem needs solving. there are a lot of different things going on here. >> your balloon theory that we discussed the last time you were on the show, man, people do not

like that theory. they say you didn't take into consideration the wind currents in your explanation and your explanation does not make any e sense. i know you dismissed the bases of criticism. what do you make of this specific criticism that your analysis does not account for the object moving. >> it is simply. you can do the math yourself or find a high schooler to do a math, they'll tell you what's going on. the computation is simple. you don't need to account for the wind and the speed. this is something they mention inside "the new york times" story, they eliminated wind and balloons as a particular cause. it did not say happen fast and wind is not a factor, that's still very much on the table. >> you believe this is about people on earth and what they

know how to do that we have not discovered yet. that's why it is worth researching. that's what the government seems to be insistent on and boy, the methodology will live on after this report. >> mick west, thank you for your applied analysis and thank you for doing it here. >> thank you. >> we'll be right back. when you're entertaining, you want to put out the best snacks that taste great, and come straight from the earth. and last time i checked, pretzels don't grow on trees. just saying.

planters. a nut above. just saying. it would be cool to ride a horse on the moon. hearing is important to living life to the fullest. that's why inside every miracle-ear store, you'll find better laughs at family barbecues. you'll find a better life is in store at miracle-ear, when you experience the exclusive miracle-ear advantage. including innovative technology, like the new miracle-earmini. so powerful, yet it's nearly invisible. we're so confident we can improve your life, we're offering a 30-day risk-free trial. call 1-800-miracle today and experience the miracle-ear advantage.

if you have obstructive sleep apnea and you're often tired during the day, you could be missing out on amazing things. call 1-800-miracle today and experience sunosi can help you stay awake for them. once daily sunosi improves wakefulness in adults with excessive daytime sleepiness due to obstructive sleep apnea. sunosi worked for up to nine hours at 12 weeks in a clinical study. sunosi does not treat the cause of osa or take the place of your cpap. continue to use any treatments or devices as prescribed by your doctor. don't take sunosi if you've taken an maoi in the last 14 days. sunosi may increase blood pressure and heart rate, which can increase your risk of heart attack, stroke, heart failure, or death. tell your doctor if you have a heart condition or high blood pressure. sunosi can cause symptoms such as anxiety, problems sleeping, irritability, and agitation.

other common side effects include headache, nausea, and decreased appetite. tell your doctor if you develop any of these, as your dose may need to be adjusted or stopped. amazing things happen during the day. sunosi can help you stay awake for whatever amazes you. visit sunosi.com and talk to your doctor about sunosi today. welcome to allstate. ♪ ♪ you already pay for car insurance, why not take your home along for the ride? allstate. here, better protection costs a whole lot less. you're in good hands.

click or call to bundle today.