and nourish your soul. escape to exactly what makes your heart beat. you will love every moment. jamaica. heartbeat of the world. let's go. oh no... i thought i just ordered tacos. nope!... ramen... burgers... milk from the store, and... ...cookies? wha, me hungry! here, i'll call some friends to help us eat. yeah, that good idea. get more from your neighborhood. hey yo, grover! doordash.

like you, my hands are everything to me. but i was diagnosed with dupuytren's contracture. and it got to the point where things i took for granted got tougher to do. thought surgery was my only option. turns out i was wrong. so when a hand specialist told me about nonsurgical treatments, it was a total game changer. like you, my hands have a lot more to do. learn more at factsonhand.com today.

hey, thanks for watching. have a great weekend. let's hand it over to chris for "cuomo prime time." chris. >> enjoy the weekend. make some good memories. i am chris cuomo and welcome to prime time. so, 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 cyberattacks? they are disrupting our way of life. they are increasing, by the day. did you hear that the sergeant at arms of the senate said that cyberattacks are her biggest-security concern? that she is more worried, about what happens, every day, there than about 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. and these people pay. and we don't even know. the u.s. government says it won't negotiate with terrorists. but they're okay with all this critical infrastructure, paying hackers ransom? hundreds of millions of dollars? and guess what they pay it in?

cryptocurrency. why? because you can't track it. why is that allowed? why hasn't the government moved on crypto, as a cheat from tracking? one thing is for sure. they cannot claim ignorance. the doj, the department of justice, had declared 2020 the worst year, ever, for extortion-related cyberattacks. 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 threat we face to 9/11. do you understand, that's not something that christopher wray is going to just throw around lightly. he knows how disrespectful it is to even bring it up. he is going to compare something to it, he better mean it and he does. lis t 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's 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. they have 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 militia cyberactivity. >> they come from everywhere. it's, sort of, a -- i call it, 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 that is 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 are allowing them to operate. okay? now, when lawmakers did have a chance to pass real cybersecurity legislation back in 2012, guess who made it die? mitch mcconnell. led a filibuster in the senate. he, also, blocked a bipartisan denunciation 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 his summit in gee knee have. >> 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. >> just one little step sideways there, that was channel run,

right? that's state-run media. why? because he wants to be able to keep doing his job. don't forget what you have as 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's not perfect. i know it's 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 perfity. remember this? >> my people came to me, dan coats 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 coats was his intel guy, who says we think it's russia. and he believes putin, over his own guys. amazing, to me. so, biden says he's going to push it. we'll see. look. 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. so let's turn to someone, who was, once, in charge of facing down these threats. former trump national security adviser, john bolton. author of "the room where it happened." welcome back to prime time, sir. >> glad to be with you. thanks for having me. >> now, first, you heard that. am i overstating? am i getting anything wrong? what do you want this audience to know about cyberattacks? the congressional level of awareness and relative inaction and why? >> well, 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 cyberattacks, 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's another category of criminal activity. some of it's state sponsored. some of it, just by good, old-fashioned criminals. there's cybervandalism. and then, there's 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 have gotten very reliant on them. they're enormously convenient. they vastly increase productivity. but they've left us at risk, and

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's not always easy to know. but my understanding in digging in on this is you guys know plenty. people come with propose als an plans of things to do. and there's some kind of n nonchalance when it comes to cybersecurity. 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 would be going all out to do something. but when it comes to cyberterror, you have no-such reflex. why? >> well, i think a lot of people have trouble adjusting to the potential implications of these cyberattacks. and i think you have put it well. if somebody came in and blew up a bridge. and you 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 unfamiliarity 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 have not done enough to defend against it. and let's, also, be clear. this is never going away. this is never going away. >> well, especially, if we don't

do anything about it. and that's why, ambassador, i wonder, now that you have the benefit of hindsight. you know, i know that 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. and that had to lead to that 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 cybersecurity 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 -- you can always do more. but i will tell ya. i'm very proud of the cyberstrategy that we developed, when i was national-security adviser. it received praise even by obama-administration officials. and we did some things that

are -- that are classified. but that include changing the rules for initiating offensive cyberoperations. 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 cyberoperations. but there is no question, we can all do more. and the point i am trying to make is there's never going to be stasis here. we're never going to 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 got a lot out of information technology. but it leaves us vulnerable and we have to protect against the vulnerabilities. there's got to be a continuing focus of attention. >> but, ambassador, you know, i have heard this and not just from you, so i'm not singling you out. but 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 cybersecurity. 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's 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's getting worse and worse? >> we lost the signal here? oh. >> can you hear me, john? or no? all right. let me take a break. unless john's doing a great job of pretending not to hear me. but we will take a break. we'll get the coms right and then we will come back and continue the conversation. stay with us. re, she'll say she's got goals. and since she's got goals, she might need help reaching them, and so she'll get some help from fidelity, and at fidelity, someone will help her create a plan

for all her goals, which means suzie will be feeling so good about that plan, she can just enjoy right now. that's the planning effect, from fidelity. so good about that plan, she can just enjoy right now. it would be cool to ride a horse on the moon. to make progress, we must keep taking steps forward. we believe the future of energy is lower carbon. and to get there, the world needs to reduce global emissions. at chevron, we're taking action. tying our executives' pay to lowering the carbon emissions intensity of our operations. it's tempting to see how far we've come. but it's only human... so what's going on? to know how far we have to go. [dog] i'm a talking dog. but it's only human... the other issue.

[dog] oh...i'm scratching like crazy. you've got some allergic itch with skin inflammation. apoquel can work on that itch in as little as 4 hours, whether it's a new or chronic problem. and apoquel's treated over 9 million dogs. [dog] nice. and... the talking dog thing? is it bothering you? no... itching like a dog is bothering me. until dogs can speak for themselves, you have to. when allergic itch is a problem, ask for apoquel. apoquel is for the control of itch associated with allergic dermatitis and the control of atopic dermatitis in dogs. do not use apoquel in dogs less than 12 months old or those with serious infections. apoquel may increase the chances of developing serious infections and may cause existing parasitic skin infestations or pre-existing cancers to worsen. new neoplasias were observed in clinical studies and post-approval. most common side effects are vomiting and diarrhea. feeling better? [dog] i'm speechless. [dog] thanks for the apoquel. that's what friends are for. ask your veterinarian for apoquel. next to you, apoquel is a dog's best friend.

[ring] [ring ring] [ring] oh no... i thought i just ordered tacos. nope! sushi... ramen... burgers... tandoori chicken... some milk from the store, and... ...and, let me guess. cookies? wha, me hungry! yeah. here, i'll call some friends to help us eat. yeah, that good idea. yeah. get more from your neighborhood. doordash. hey yo, grover! you like ramen? are the color cartridges in your printer doordash. ready for another school year? (boy) what's cyan mean? it means "cyanora," honor roll.

(mimics missile dropping) the ink! dad!!! dad!!! i'm so hosed. yeah, you are. (shaq) the epson ecotank printer. no more cartridges. it comes with an incredible amount of ink that can save you a lot of trips to the store. get ready for the dean's list. who's dean? the epson ecotank. just fill and chill. the hackers don't even want us having this conversation, so they tried to knock us off. john bolton gave me that joke, in the break. and 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. it's 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 on cyberattacks. where you have them so r red handed? >> well, i think, on russia, in particular, he thought that any -- any -- 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 -- i didn't agree with that. i thought he ought to confront what russia was doing, directly. and i can tell you that 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. and i think with good affect. we ever learned a lot. we need to do a lot more. we're coming from behind. i think, generally, trump got along with authoritarian figures, for reasons even he couldn't explain very well. and putin certainly fit that bill. >> i have 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. he didn't want to deal with them, on any level. still, doesn't really explain helsinki. but maybe, in some perverse way, it does. that's where his head took him. that i can't have anything bad said about russia because it's bad for me. it's the only thing that makes even a modicum of sense. so, then it comes to the efforts and what i was asking before the break, which is, i understand that you did things that you believe deserve credit. that you say even former-obama

officials said was good. but you are doing a lousy job, here, right? because in 2020, we had the worst year of cyberattacks, ever. and the only reason it's second place is to 2021, so far. so, whatever was done during the trump administration, and now, stinks. what do i have wrong? >> no. i -- i think there is a lot more, that can be done. i think public awareness is, still, not what it should be. i think people don't appreciate how reliant we've become on information technology. and -- 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, indeed, recently, even expanded by the biden administration. but we're, still, coming from

behind. and 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's 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 -- to look at what the risks are. to their information-technology systems. and do more to protect them. we've -- we've gotten a lot of profits and -- and convenience out of this technology. but it's brought risks and we need to pay some insurance. >> experts say that the biggest reason for the ramp-up is not technology, on the bad guys' side. it's how to be paid. cryptocurrency. that 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's considered to be a repository value. >> i'm not upset by that. i'm upset by why nothing happened. so, if trump had a feeling about this, i certainly never heard him talk about it publicly. why did nothing happen? >> well, i think, people didn't, fully, appreciate how dangerous it was. again, it's -- it's -- there's -- there's a breakdown across not just a few people in the administration. but across the country, generally. look how many people have invested in it. so i think this is something that -- that for, both, organized crime and for rogue

states and adversaries of the united states that want to mask their financial transactions. it's a great boom to them. it's 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, right? that he is willing to say things that are incendiary to play to the advantage of this president. again, with the benefit of hindsight, do you think that you should have done more to squash the kind of talk that's coming out of his mouth and others, while you were there? >> well, i, certainly, didn't hear any talk about -- of the -- of the kind we have seen about the stolen election. i -- i think trump is really understandable, entirely, in terms of what he sees benefitting him. i think this is -- this was a demonstration that he is an anomaly in american politics.

it's -- it's very -- 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 -- it's so much a fringe movement that -- 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 -- it's so -- it's so much of a threat. >> well, 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. and 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 gout out of in the '50s and '60s. how do you see those as not

worthy of concern? >> well, i think, january the 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. and 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. >> republican party won't even investigate it, though, john. the republican party doesn't even want it investigated, when they were the targets. >> i -- i'm part of the republican party. and i would've voted to have a commission to investigate. >> why won't they? >> i think it's serious. and -- and -- because i think they're scared of the political consequences. and that's 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 accord? >> let me come back to that, in one second. i -- i -- yeah, i think a lot of republicans are afraid of their shadow when they don't realize trump's influence is diminishing. and i have put out a poll. we'll have others that i think w show that, as well. now, on the voting rights thing, it's hard to have a serious conversation about this, these days. but i think, as a matter of civic responsibility, i think everybody who's physically able to vote, on election day, should vote on election day at the polls. and i say that, because we have very little that -- that is required of us, as citizens, to demonstrate civic responsibility. jury duty's one. and voting is another. i think, making that a common act on one day, where everybody does the same thing. >> republicans won't even make it a day of vacation. they won't even give people the day off, on that day, to make it easier to vote.

every restriction that's been put in place has been done by your party, john. nobody shares what you are saying in your party. >> we have had -- we have had a couple-hundred years, where election days have not been days off. and it's amazing, people have voted. it's just -- it's just part of being a citizen to get up a little early and vote before you go to work, or -- or vote after you come back. to say that it's -- that we have to have days off to get people to work. i don't buy. >> i am not saying you have to have days off. i'm saying that would be in keeping with what you are saying, making it such a sacred duty. however, what i am 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. >> it's not a question of -- >> but we have had it around since the 1800s. >> no, no, look. i remember, once, i -- the first time i voted absentee, i had to swear on 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's one thing, the country can do, all together. >> i know, but john, you know what's wrong with that theory. 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 -- >> come on. it's onerous. people can't get time off work. they are working two jobs. >> it is not onerous. no, i don't. i absolutely don't agree with that. my father was a firefighter for city of baltimore, and he managed -- 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. but what i am saying is, your civic duty aside, and the fact that firefighters usually have swing shifts, right? so they work, like, 24 hours. and then, they have like two days off. so it's a different kind of mentality. i'm not saying it's not about that. these laws -- look. we all love our first responders. it's not the point. what i am saying is that these laws are very obvious, in what they are trying to do. and it's interesting, to me, that 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 had capitalized on, organized around, and benefitted from. >> that -- that's why 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 in it. 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 becomes. the more -- >> but, john, it's not about making it casual. you have 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 -- i -- i think it -- i think trump, to the contrary, notwithstanding, that we probably, as a party, have benefitted from early voting. >> yeah, i just said that. >> that doesn't change my opposition to it. >> well, but, are you concerned about these laws that are curtailing it? >> i still don't like it. >> i get it. i get that you don't like the concept. but the concept exists. and these laws -- >> but the concept is important. >> -- is a fundamental --

>> look. i think -- 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. >> but that's not the state of play, john. >> people unable to make it for medical reasons. >> that's not the state of play. >> look. what i am trying to tell you -- and what i'm trying to explain to you is the theoretical basis on which we should try and make these laws conformed and i think to say that you want to reduce voting on election day. decreases the importance of the act of civil -- 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 -- 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 upend 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 federal -- the federal dispersement of this authority because i think that's 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 hogwash? 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's not going to happen. it's crazy thinking. and that, 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. and as john bolton just told you, trump will not be reinstated. there is no mechanism. there is no chance. he's not going to be reinstated, as president. he's not even going to get reinstated at facebook, at least not anytime 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 there a fair argument, that 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. hi guys! check out this side right here. what'd you do? - tell me know you did it. - yeah. get a little closer. that's insane. that's a different car. -that's the same car. - no! yeah, that's before, that's after. oh, that's awesome. make it nu with nu finish. keeping your oysters business growing has you swamped. you need to hire. i need indeed indeed you do. the moment you sponsor a job on indeed

you get a shortlist of quality candidates from a resume data base claim your seventy-five-dollar credit when you post your first job at indeed.com/promo you packed a record 1.1 trillion transistors into this chip i invested in invesco qqq

a fund that invests in the innovators of the nasdaq 100 like you become an agent of innovation with invesco qqq

today is five months to the day, since january 6th. five months, to the day. and on that day.

the explanation, give 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 his -- 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. an 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 follow-up response. next time he's in the white house, no more dinners with mark zuckerberg. was facebook right, to do this? let's bring in the man with the right stuff, michael smerconish. it's good to see you, brother. right or wrong?

>> it's hard for me to give you a direct answer. and here's the reason why. he deserved to be punished. i think that he incited the events of january 6th. but facebook is managing a firehose. they cannot keep track of all of the content, from the three billion -- think about that -- nearly-3-billion users, worldwide. so, by definition, they are singling him out for a treatment and for a punishment that they can't apply, evenly. and by that definition, it's unfair. >> look. certainly, practically, it's going to play to his advantage within his base. because i think people who don't like him won't really care. it's not going to change their feelings. and the people who like him will now have another layer to him being a victim. here's my question for you. what is facebook? no shirt, no shoes, no service. that's 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'm so glad you raised that, because earlier tonight at dinner, one of my sons said, what are you going to tell cuomo? and when i gave him my answer, he said, dad, you're an egghead. you are talking about section 230. >> yeah. >> and section 230 gave immunity to the platforms, like facebook, right? they said, hey, we're going to treat you like we treat verizon, rather than the way we would treat cnn or a newspaper. in other words, you're not going to be held accountable, for the content that comes across your. but now, chris, when facebook begins to regulate content like that of donald trump, aren't they inviting additional scrutiny? >> yes. >> aren't they saying that 230 should no longer apply to them?

i mean, that's really what i think this case is about on the deeper level. >> me, too. and we have to get an answer, and the problem is the state of play stinks. because right and left are playing it to advantage about who gets hurt more by social media. and you get a perversity in that dynamic because you will have the right, who is just better organized in attacks than the left, in general. saying facebook is against us. but you look ought all the main-traffic things on facebook, they're all righty. they are all righty organizations. they are all righty-fringe outlets and others who get the most wattage on facebook. so i don't know what they're crying about. but i do think we have to decide this, though, mike. we have to decide what the level of scrutiny is. because they're 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 that they issued today, chris, that's unclear to me. what is it that happens, at the end of the two years when they assess the climate?

because the language was very imprecise. i don't know. are they saying we're going to evaluate the way that donald trump has behaved himself? or are we going to look at the american landscape and determine whether, in that landscape, it's safe for him to reemerge? they really need to define that. or 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. i mean, their high ground is he's unique. he can create a unique environment with unique reach. the language that 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 brandenburg. the legal standard about what is an imminent threat? and when is something really, you know, used to call fighting words, which don't really exist, as a protected thing, anymore. an environment, where a

serious -- i'm saying hate speech, fighting words are protected now. an environment, where a serious risk of violence was possible. that dancing with the law but it's not a legal ruling. it's weird. we got to do better and he is going to benefit from this. michael smerconish, thank you. and 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. now, house republican leader, and trump appeaser, kevin mccarthy, is at it again. he tweeted this today, in response to the former president's facebook ban. they fueled lies of russian collusion. they targeted and censored his followers. and now, they're blocking him for another-two years. now, remember, five months to the day of january 6th is today. and that was a big part of what facebook's reconciling. yet, mccarthy is exhibit a of the negative impact that 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 paper book of his book -- the paperback of his book "hoax" donald trump, fox news, and the dangerous distortion of truth. and he has new details that prove that mccarthy is the last guy who should be saying that 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 have learned more things. and one of them, i have a mccarthy on fox slash donald trump tweet synchronicity for people. >> uh-huh. >> so let's play the sound, that leads to this interesting combination of events. >> so, should we expect to see the president on camera, this afternoon? >> i would think -- i would think --

>> i'm sorry, again, what was that? >> i -- i don't know. i would think so. >> okay. sir, thank you for your time. we will -- >> thank you. >> -- yeah. just losing a little bit of 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's one of the first times that 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? >> no, 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 calls fox news. sorry, kevin mccarthy called fox

news. and tried to get through to trump, that way. and that's exactly what happened on the afternoon of the riot. i know mccarthy's tried to memory hole the riot recently. but when he was sheltered in place trying to get the mob to heav leave the capitol, he called fox news and it just goes to show the centrality of fox to trump and the gop. it's still going on today, chris. these lawmakers taking their cues from fox, getting misinformed by fox. and that's why, what the network does matters, even though it is, of oftentimes, 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 -- >> the riot. >> january 6th. yes, and how so? >> that's right. this is early morning, january 7th. nobody can sleep after the insurrection. a fox-news veteran texted me with four words that show there was shame, there was regret. at least among some staffers at the network. we could put it up on screen. the four words were, what have we done? what have we done? this is a fox-news veteran wondering, are we -- 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? and i conclude in "hoax" the answer is no. the climate was set up. you know, i went back for history and looked at all the times trump was laying the groundwork for the big lie last fall. he spent dozens and dozens of days doing it. dozens and dozens of rallies. in retrospect, none of this was surprising. it was, all, happening live on right-wing tv. and, of course, it led to the attack. >> now, how do you reconcile the fact that it continues, the big lie, even though the election is over? >> right. and we are seeing that not just on fox but on news max and one america news. that's one of the reasons why i had to rewrite this entire book, practically. because so much has change $since last summer. it's not just that trump lost and fox lost. there are now these new competitors that are going even further to the right. and it's causing this warping, this -- this sectarianism in america that i don't think any of us could have imagined ten years ago. it is why so many at fox were

leaking to me saying they are concerned about the network and its direction. its lack of leadership. look. we have seen a lot of people leave the network, as recently the last two weeks. folks leaving because they couldn't take it anymore. but that's moving right-wing tv even further to the right in ways that create even more of a -- it's not an echo chamber, anymore, chris, it's an echo prism. >> let's do this. let's do a follow-up segment on this so we can talk about how many copies of the book you have 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 piñata of all of their disaffection and their upset. let's track it for a while. let's make sure we are right about the intentionality. come back, and we'll discuss the impact. the book. >> thanks. >> thank you. the book. i'm asking you a favor. you are 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 knitted things together for you, in a way that will help you understand what we're all living through, and why. brian stelter. ufo sightings. is this crazy talk? not what the government says. it is taking a serious look. why? little, green men? or what they 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.

your mission: stand up to moderate to severe rheumatoid arthritis. and take. it. on... with rinvoq. rinvoq a once-daily pill can dramatically improve symptoms... rinvoq helps tame pain, stiffness, swelling. and for some, rinvoq can even significantly reduce ra fatigue. that's rinvoq relief. with ra, your overactive immune system attacks your joints. rinvoq regulates it to help stop the attack.

rinvoq can lower your ability to fight infections, including tuberculosis. serious infections and blood clots, sometimes fatal, have occurred as have certain cancers, including lymphoma, and tears in the stomach or intestines, and changes in lab results. your doctor should monitor your bloodwork. tell your doctor about any infections... and if you are or may become pregnant while taking rinvoq. take on ra. talk to your rheumatologist about rinvoq relief. rinvoq. make it your mission. if you can't afford your medicine, abbvie may be able to help. he came from italy with nothing for a new life. he sacrificed so much to support his family. military service was just part of his life. he was brave in so many ways. who are the heroes in your family?

another day, another chance. he was brave in so many ways. it could be the day you break the sales record, or the day there's appointments nonstop. with comcast business, you get the network that can deliver gig speeds to the most businesses, and you can get the advanced cybersecurity solutions you need with comcast business securityedge. every day in business is a big day. we'll keep you ready for what's next. get started with a great offer, and ask how you can add comcast business securityedge. plus, for a limited time, ask how to get a $500 prepaid card when you upgrade. call today. when you're born and raised in san francisco, you grow up wanting to make a difference. that's why, at recology, we're proud to be 100% employee owned with local workers as diverse as san francisco. we built the city's recycling system from the ground up, helping to make san francisco the greenest big city in america but we couldn't do it without you. thank you, san francisco. gracias, san francisco. -thank you. -[ speaks native language ] let's keep making a differene together.

we don't know what we don't know. that's the story with ufo.s. what is can't rule out about a series of encounters. officials haven't reached an assessment of what they are. not ruling out much in or out. 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 u.s. government is interested in looking at this? 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. they can't rule it out. 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. it's a silly truism. >> 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. and the belief systems will continue. 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.

the big problem is they are lumping everything in the same category. these are all uap and let's figure out what uaps now. we have 50 things here, 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 sense. i know you dismissed the bases of criticism. you believe they want to believe in something they can't prove. 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.

♪ limu emu & doug ♪ hey limu! [ squawks ] how great is it that we get to tell everybody how liberty mutual customizes your car insurance so you only pay for what you need? i mean it... oh, sorry... [ laughter ] woops! [ laughter ] good evening! meow! nope. oh... what? i'm an emu! ah ha ha. no, buddy! buddy, it's a filter! only pay for what you need. ♪ liberty, liberty, liberty, liberty ♪ hi guys! check out this side right here. what'd you do? - tell me know you did it. - yeah. get a little closer. that's insane.

that's a different car. -that's the same car. - no! yeah, that's before, that's after. oh, that's awesome. make it nu with nu finish.

(vo) jamaica. (woman) best decision ever. (vo) feel the sand between your toes, and the gentle waves of the sea on your skin. feel the warm jamaican breeze lift your spirits and nourish your soul. escape to exactly what makes your heart beat.