he now says he got vaccinated. however, he said he wouldn't use his platform to urge others to do so. >> we're talking about, like, people's bodies and well-beings, so i don't feel me personally should be involved in what others do with their bodies. >> it's a shame. they could make a difference. the news continues, so let's hand it to chris for cuomo primezyme thank you, john. i'm chris cuomo. the nation's top general was set up. he was the victim of a classic political hit job and we know it. you were told by political malfactors in media, including me, that a new book would reveal no less than the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, generally

milley, contacted china to calm fears about trump. treason, cried the righteous senators on the right. >> he does need to resign. he needs to resign, if he doesn't resign, ehe needs to be fired. >> he should be immediately relieved of his duties. >> this is a constitutional violation. it's a violation of his oath to the constitution but it also is treacherous. >> because he went outside. he did it alone. he was on his own. he went rogue. and it was all a lie. the next day, we learned general milley had told people, had done it the right way, had others in the room, sent out different briefings on it to the intel community. and people like me reported that to you, but the trumpers and the oppthe

opportunityists esper knew at the time acting secretary of defense miller after him was told chief of staff mark meadows told secretary of secretary of state pompeo told milley confirmed all of it at a senate hearing. yet nobody, none of those people said anything when he was being attacked. here was milley zeroed the calls on 30 october and 8 january were coordinated before and after with secretary esper and acting secretary miller's staffs and the interagency. i am certain that president trump did not intend to attack the chinese, and it is my directed responsibility, and it was my directive responsibility by the secretary to convey that intent to the chinese. my task at that time was to

de-escalate at secretary of defense esper's direction. eight people sat on that call. with shortly after my call ended with general lee, i personally informed both secretary of state pompeo about the call among other topics. >> somehow we have two problems. why didn't hawley apologize to milley at the senate armed services committee hearing? he was there. he had it wrong. he called for the guy who said it was treason. he said he had to resign. why didn't they call secretary of state pompeo? secretary esper? chief of staff meadows and miller? don't they want to know why these guys didn't reveal that they knew? they were closer to the president than milley. and does anybody really believe that these senators had no idea

in the incestuous trumpy world that these other guys didn't know what milley was doing? they hadn't been told after they started making accusations? you don't think anybody clued them in? instead, they just jumped to conclusions, dragged milley through the mud knowing that he followed protocol. and secretary of state pompeo, he was even worse. he was told directly by milley, says the general, and then pretended he didn't know anything. listen. >> unconstitutional incomprehensible and out of line. we need to get to the bottom of this as quickly as possible. >> if general milley called and told the chinese communist party i promise you, this is deeply inconsistent with his response. >> what about your

responsibility, sir? and don't -- please. pompeo is a stupid trumper. no, he isn't. top of his class at west point. everybody who's been around him talks about his intelligence. it's like people calling senator ted cruz dumb. he's not dumb. he's a legal genius. senator hawley was a supreme court clerk. these are smart people. they're intelligent. they're educated. they're making political calculations. pompeo had to know that he knew that everything he just said there and so much more was wrong. the only thing that makes sense is he wanted to see the joint chiefs chairman go down. doesn't he need to account for his complicity? he knew milley was being set up and said nothing. give me a good reason, a good reason to bash milley when you

knew he did not deserve to be bashed. now, milley also addressed two other big items. one is a corresponal larry. pelosi made no secret then or now that she thought trump was mentally unstable and incar was he attempting to euusurp authority and submitted all the background information. now, if miller says that's not true, where is he? if the memos don't exist, where is that? and yet nobody at that hearing was going to tell milley anything about, okay, you did the right thing.

that's the problem with our politics right there. the other big reveal from milley came about the afghanistan exit. he confirmed the military wanted to keep 2,500 or so on the ground to keep intel flowing. now, why is this important? one, because it didn't happen and it's going to make a difference in the state of our national security. everyone who knows what they're talking about worries about exactly that. second, president biden said he was never told that. then he added to his recollection. milley also had an interesting epitaph for the exit. listen. >> i think one of the other senators said it very well. it was a logistical success but a strategic failure. >> what does that mean a logistical success? because of the amazing evacuation effort. why did you need to make that effort?

because of how you exited and how you read the situation wrong, and strategically leaving without having anybody on the ground to let us know what's happening, tough to justify that. so two big questions. why did the right set milley up and what should be done? and what is the final word on what the withdrawal from afghanistan will mean to you here at home? we have a man who knows the terrain in afghanistan and knows the players and political terrain of this hit on milley. former trump national security adviser john bolton, author of "the room where it happened." welcome back, sir. >> glad to be with you. nang thanks for having me. >> you were on tv right after the election warning about the same types of things that milley was worried about. tell us, why were you concerned? >> well, i think it had become increasingly clear that trump was so fascinated with this notion that he was spinning that the election had been stolen

that there were things that he would do we probably -- none of us would have predicted but in an effort to try and reverse the election. now, i'm not saying i foresaw anything like what happened, but i think people were nervous, and i think milley and others were properly nervous too. it's been reported that he and mark meadows and mike pompeo began holding morning calls for what was called the landing the plane exercise. now, that may have been one of those situations you mentioned a moment ago where milley said he spoke with meadows and pompeo, i don't know. but i was sure he was in regular contact with them and i think that was simply a very prudent thing to do. >> after hearing his testimony and the reporting, do you have any question as to whether he followed the proper protocols and bringing people in the loop and otherwise? >> if somebody has different evidence, let him bring it forward. i haven't heard anything from anybody who knows how this works

at that level, and there are a lot of people talking about it who obviously don't have the slightest idea how it works. i haven't heard anybody say anything to the contrary. one key point mentioned apparently in woodward and costa's book, then secretary of state defense, motivated by intelligence reports that the chinese leadership worried that in this kind of chaotic environment they saw, they might be subject to a wag-the-dog-style attack. esper and milley both concluded absolutely correctly that if the chinese leadership is in that kind of mood, they could make a miscalculation. they could also believe that we were in disarray, and they might seek to take advantage of it. so the notion that the rough a number of different levels that the you asked government would

communicate to china -- don't misread the situation, take it easy, it would have been a dereliction of duty not to have made those zblaucalls. >> two more points. i don't know how meadows and pompeo knew what milley was doing and guys like cruz and rubio didn't know that. you know how close all these players are. you were there. and for them to sit quiet, especially secretary of state pompeo when he was told directly, according to general milley, and say this looks bad, this looks bad, don't you see that as shameful of him? >> yeah. look, in situations where we've made a decision that you're going to have a chairman of the joint chiefs call to his counterpart, and i participated in several of those, you discuss it among the principles of the nsc, informally, phone calls and whatnot, and there's generally

agreement and it goes ahead. so i find it very hard to believe that pompeo, meadows, perhaps others, haspel, wouldn't have known about it and concurred with it. so i was stunned a few days ago to hear this interview by mike pompeo that you just played because pompeo had to be reading the same intelligence as milley. >> and milley told him. shouldn't pompeo -- shouldn't meadows, shouldn't miller and esper be put in that same position as milley today and say why didn't you tell us when you heard us making the accusations, why didn't you tell us that you knew that he had done this? and why was it okay for you? because if it was wrong for milley to do it, it would have been wrong for them in different ways. shouldn't that be done now? >> well, i think -- i think we know why they haven't said it.

there are political ambitions at stake. pompeo is running for president. i think that's pretty clear -- >> what about the senators, rubio, hawley. how can have questions for milley and not have them for the people you told that didn't let you know that they knew? >> yeah. may i just say, i'm not sure pompeo would have communicated to those people or mark meadows that milley was calling the chinese because it was so standard operating procedure, so regular order, so by the book, it wasn't a big deal. >> yet pompeo pretends it could have been wrong and it's got to be investigated. >> i mean, look, it's really obvious this was a hit on milley. you got to call it straight and those guys have to answer questions now that they want to see milley answer. >> yeah. look, in politics in washington, we know there's ample ambition.

everybody's got it. no one can deny it. hopefully there's principle too, and principle ought to outweigh ambition. when in the case of an aspiring presidential candidate ambition comes out on top of principle, it's bad news. >> you're talking about pompeo. let's see how he answers for himself. john bolton, thank you very much. appreciate it. >> thanks for having me. we turn from the chaos of the trump white house. look, politics is dirty. john bolton is right. ambition can often come first. but, look, this time in our life is going to be remembered, all right? politicians are loose with the truth. not like trump and his crew. people play dirty. not like what you're seeing right now with milley, okay? they had to know or had reason to know that they were chasing him for going rogue when they had reason to know at least that he didn't go rogue. and you're going to have a guy who was a sitting secretary of

state say, oh, yeah, this is bad, you got to look at it? think about what that means. the arrogance that he had to know what was going to come out that he was told, and he played milley that way anyway? that's who we are now? the trump white house is one thing. president biden is now there and he's got problems, especially with his economic agenda. afghanistan is in the rear view mirror. that's not going to decide the midterms. what's happening right now, his party has problems. we have a progressive here to tell us why there are these problems and why you look at them -- he looks like a clean-cut guy. but he said he is a hard effing no. i'm going along with pelosi's plan to put infrastructure first. why does a guy who looks like he should be clapping erasers say something that hard about the state of play? let's find out why next.

with extra hot sauce. tonight, i'll be eating salmon sushi with a japanese jiggly cheesecake. (doorbell rings) jolly good. fire. (horse neighing) elton: nas? yeah? spare a pound? what? you know, bones, shillings, lolly? lolly? bangers and mash? i'm... i'm sorry? i don't have any money. you don't look broke. elton: my rocket is skint! as someone who resembles someone else... i appreciate that liberty mutual knows everyone's unique. that's why they customize your car insurance, so you only pay for what you need. oh, yeah. that's the spot. only pay for what you need. ♪ liberty, liberty, liberty, liberty ♪

have you ever sat here and wondered: "couldn't i do this from home?" with letsgetchecked, you can. it's virtual care with home health testing and more. letsgetchecked. care can be this good. get 40% off with promo code lgc40. ♪ ♪ every day can be extraordinary with rich, creamy, delicious fage total yogurt.

presidency canceled his trip to chicago tomorrow because he has to get his party on the same page with his economic agenda. it is in jeopardy. this isn't just about robust debate. his race is against the clock as well. he's got meetings with senators manchin and sinema, but on the house side there is almost as many meshuggaas. you have the bipartisan infrastructure bill as a stand alone. now, pelosi is tough and smart and good at this. and yet today she was under fire from liberals for delinking the bill from that larger reconciliation social safety net build back better spending plan. my next guess, democratic congressman jared huffman of california says he's a hard effing no, and i keep repeating

it because the media likes salacious things and he used the f word, so we're saying it, because he doesn't want to vote for the bill alone. all respect, congressman. i'm just playing with you about being clean cut and looking good. i m i would like to game out the situation. let you and i be like the manning brothers on monday night football who are the biggest gift to that sport and to us since john madden, and diagnose what's going on from two people who understand the game. if you don't vote for the stand-alone infrastructure bill, what do you gain and what do you lose? >> first, chris, it's great to be with you. let me just say with regard to my word choice, i didn't actually use the f-bomb, but saying the word effing, you're a new yorker, so that's like please and thank you.

i knew you would understand. in terms of what do we gain and what do we lose, it's all about leverage. it's really important for people to understand if we pass that senate bill on thursday, it's done. it goes to the president, it becomes law. we give up an enormous amount of leverage. why is that leverage important? because we need both parts of the deal that was always the deal. >> okay, so wait. hold on. congressman, fair point. but let's just take a look at that point. you're making it sound like opportunity lost. however, you would deliver the largest infrastructure bill we have seen in a generation, which would be one more big achievement than president biden has thus for. so even if the spending bill went away, and i don't think there's any good chance of that right now, it's about how much and when, that would be a huge win for biden. >> thankfully, our choice is not between that senate bill and

nothing. the choice is between the full package and, you know, something that needs to be negotiated. so it's just not that simple, chris. and the truth is, if we wanted to talk about the details of that senate bill, yeah, we have neglected infrastructure for several decades and there are some good things, the broadband investment in particular in that senate bill. but we may be missing our last best chance to do something on the climate crisis, and that senate bill is not only lacking, it would take us backwards. it's fossil fuel business as usual, so we got to have the other half of the deal to make this package climate positive. >> you need the spending bill to balance out the deficiencies in the infrastructure bill. now, that is a novel argument, congressman huffman. what i have heard from the progressives slash, left, liberal, whatever, i don't know what we call them these days, that, oh, no, we finally have

the numbers, they're all popular, we want all of it. not that it had to be done to make anything correct, but it's about advantage. >> yeah. on the social media ininvestmen that's correct. but on the climate piece, we always needed to go through the butting reconciliation. you can't do it with senate republicans. i wish you could, but if you want it to be bipartisan, there are no senate republicans that will take bold action with you. >> how worried are you that if thursday comes and you guys flex and don't let pelosi get it done that it sends a message of weakness and inability to governor that may haunt you in the midterms. >> i think confront that go messaging challenge -- i think there will be many in the media and where else that will pronounce chaos and disarray and

failure, but it's not. a thursday "no" vote on the infrastructure bill is not the end. it's maybe the end of the beginning. we've got more work to do to get both pieces of this ready for success, and we will set about doing that work. nobody's given up. nobody's walking away. >> the criticism is that you're hurting biden. you're making it look like he doesn't control his own party. something is better than nothing. perfection should not be the enemy of progress. if you got a $1 trillion spending bill instead of $3.5 trillion, and i'm not saying that's going to happen, you would be way ahead of the game, trump's big achievement that wasn't about dividing the country was about a tax cut that people didn't even like that wasn't even paid for. and it still wound up benefiting his base. this would be way more than that and you may be jeopardizing it. >> gwe don't have to settle for any old something. we can do better than that. the deal that came to us from the president, that came out of the senate to the house was for

a lot more than just that one piece. so when folks suggest that we should de-couple them, dozens of my colleagues and i feel very strongly, no, that's a terrible idea, deserve original deal. if we have to vote no on a vote thursday we think the counterproductive and shouldn't happen, we'll do that, but we'll also roll up our sleeves and get to work. >> two more quick things. one, how do you get a sinema and a manchin to the table with this? i don't know senator sinema's posture as well as we know manchin's, but threatening him does not seem to be working well. what's your take? >> you know, i don't want to threaten him either. i think we're going to lean heavily on the president to try to deliver those two senators in particular. i do think we're at that particular time where it's long past time to talk in generalities about i don't like this number or i'm not quite there. they have got to show their

cards and we're going to need the president to lean in and get them to show their cards so we can get this done. >> just quickly, do you think there's any chance you guys pass nothing? >> no. i think we will land this plane, chris, and we're going to have plenty of critics and plenty of people wanting to declare failure, but we're going to get there. >> i'm not here to hate. i want to understand because this matters what you guys are doing. congressman jared huffman, appreciate you being with us. >> thanks for having me. >> please come back and let me know the state of play. >> i will. >> be well. one point of exception. new yorkers are not like this symbol of crassness and crudeness all the time. plenty of people use bad language. we didn't create it and we don't own it. we heard from the family of gabby petito today. they had a memorial this weekend that really made you realize what family is about, what loss is about, and how desperate they are to make something purposeful out of ptheir pain.

right now they have turned focus and they want the fiancé to turn himself in to the fbi. what about the fiancé's family? what do we know? what questions must be asked? there is new information that is helping understand where the family was when and then leads to the big question, why, next. oh! are you using liberty mutual's coverage customizer tool? so you only pay for what you need. sorry? limu, you're an animal! only pay for what you need. ♪ liberty. liberty. liberty. liberty. ♪

you're driving innovation. you're racing to the cloud. you need to do it securely. that's why palo alto networks developed prisma cloud - an integrated platform that secures your cloud environment end to end. used by the world's largest organizations, prisma cloud provides the cyber security you need from code to cloud. so you can get cloud security right, the first time around. we've got next.

the laundries didn't help us find gab by. they're sure not going to help us find brian. for brian, we're asking you to turn yourself in to the fbi or the nearest law enforcement agency. >> that's the latest plea from gabby petito's family to her former fiancé in their search for answers. but y you do to wonder how much of

that message is for the family. it comes as we learn more details about brian's whereabouts in the days after he returned to florida without her. why does that matter? it doesn't matter in terms of the potential commission of a crime, but it does go to consciousness of guilt and it does go to what those around him may have known or even done. a county official tells us he and his family actually stayed at a camp ground together about 75 miles away, about an hour from their north port home between september 6th through the 8th. camping is what this family does, so this was not a one-off. the laundrie family attorney confirms to cnn that they were there on the 6th and the 7th, but that the family left the campground together. i know there's a lot of speculation about the campground and this and that. i think it's a red herring, i don't think it's what relevant here. i think the state of mind discussion is what matters.

did they return home together? that is a question. i think we know the answer. the account is raising more questions, though, as officials seem to be at an impasse on the search. two weeks is a long time to evade authorities. we now know that laundrie's parents have consistently maintained they don't know where he is. now, have they offered to help? is that a fair question? let's bring in joey jackson. let's start with, look, it's not the petito family's job to investigate, to find this guy. they're doing this because they're in pain. two weeks, joey, is a long time. >> yeah, it is. chris, first, as to the grace of the family, as to the humanity of the family during that press conference, giving their thanks to the fbi, all of law enforcement for coming together and dedicating their resources to their child, being so humane, chris, they're talking about other missing people. we know that it's a problem in this country. over 550,000 people went missing

last year, 600,000 the year before. at a moment like that to not make it all about you but to think about what gabby's life meant, i thought it was compelling the preference we saw. as to the activities involving the laundrie family, i think you nailed it. it goes to the issue of consciousness of guilt. is this what you do? your son comes home after he's traveled around the country with his fiancée, the one he loves, the one he's supposed to protect, the one he's supposed to be with, he comes home without her and what you do is release a statement today indicating your concern, indicating your hopes. but would you not have expressed that concern more appropriately if you went to the authorities, if you spoke to the authorities, if you gave the authorities information? if instead of going camping, you conferred with gabby petito's family as to her whereabouts? as to what you noted at the outset of this, this all goes to

that issue of, you know what? you know you didn't do it because maybe you had something to do with it, that's what we all consciousness of guilt, very problematic and troubling. i raise that issue because that's what prosecutors will be using moving forward to establish, you know what? this just does not comport with how a person should act under similar circumstances. >> my attorney told me not to talk, and what exposure would the family have? >> so as to one, look, to be clear, and i always tell clients don't speak to anyone. i've expressed that and i'll continue to express that. i know what i said, i don't know what you heard. so when you speak, you get yourself into issues. i get that. that's one thing. but on the other, why are you releasing a statement talking about how concerned you are and how you know you wish the best? maybe you can express that wish by activity, by doing something, by communicating with the family, by communicating with

the fbi. don't be disingenuous in releasing a statement with respect to your hopes and wishes if you're not going to back that up with activity. that's my beef as to the statement that they released. >> yeah, i agree with you, except in terms of timing. now all they can do is put out the statement because this is about pr because they're getting killed. the time to help was in the beginning. if they knew anything, it was about reaching out to the petito family, going to authorities. it would have been then. i don't know what they can do to help now. if they haven't heard from the kid and the kid left his cell phone and all this other stuff, i don't know what they know about investigating that park that the experts wouldn't know, but what they did in the beginning and did not do i think will come back to be a big part of this story. joey jackson, i'll be doing that story with you. thank you, brother, for helping the audience. you're always a plus. >> thank you, chris. my pleasure. there's another new tell-all book out on the trump white house. eye roll. no. i think there's something instructive in it.

it was written by the only trump press secretary to never hold a briefing, stephanie grisham. she was there and may have helped clear up a big mystery on that trump hospital visit, you remember? i think we got the answer now and i think it matters, next.

before we talk about tax-smart investing, what's new? -audrey's expecting... -twins! ♪ we'd be closer to the twins. change in plans. at fidelity, a change in plans is always part of the plan. football, is a game of inches. but it's also a game, of information. because the nfl is connected. and at any moment, the fate of the season can come down to this. billions of secure connections, per second. when the game is on the line

and the game is always on the line touchdown! the nfl relies on cisco. who pays more for prescription drugs than anyone else in the world? americans do. and whose tax dollars does big pharma use to develop those same drugs? that's right. our tax dollars. it's a big pharma scam. they get rich and we get ripped off. and it's why pharma is spending millions on lies and scare tactics to stop a plan that lets medicare negotiate lower prices. congress, stop the big pharma scam. let medicare negotiate lower prices.

most of the time i don't care why trumpers lie by omission or comission. but we learned something tonight that i think is instructive of a point that should matter to leaders going forward. president trump made this sudden visit to water reed medical center in 2019 and it spooked us all because they wouldn't tell us. you may recall the speculation on the state of his health. he was 73, clinically obese, heart disease, and the administration would say that

they couldn't say. it was routine, planned, interim check, and there was nothing about it that suggested that this was nothing. trump himself claimed he went there first and foremost to visit a great family of a young man under major surgery, and that it was for phase one of his yearly physical. and he is just not to be believed. so now stephanie grisham, trump's former press secretary who notably never met with the press and we got to keep saying that because she was somewhat symbolic of how lousy they did the job there. but she does have details in this new book titled "i'll take your questions now," which is ironic, right? in the book, grisham heavily implies that trump's trip was for a routine colonoscopy. so what? that's your big deal and that's the secret you had to know? she doesn't use the term itself. she describes what he underwent as a common procedure during which a patient is put under. she also notes bush 43 got the same one while in office.

so bush 43 told us. why the secrecy? trump didn't want pence to be in power when he was sedated nor did he want to be the butt, pun intended, of a joke on late night tv. the result? >> was it a health emergency or did he need to get a marble removed from his nose again? >> trump is as healthy as can be. okay. but how healthy can be be? he is a 73-year-old insomniac that eats nothing but fast food who is afraid to go downstairs. >> they weren't the best jokes, but either way he was going to be fodder for late night. here's why it matters. it is a window into how our former president did not see helping you as important.

why do we want our leaders to say when they get things that you may say is embarrassing, getting a colonoscopy, prostate check, or whatever it is, because when he is open about it, he makes it easier for others to be open and get it done. imagine how much good could have been done if he had been open about getting what can be a life-saving procedure, because so many people have a stigma of it like he does. colon cancer is the number three leading cause of cancer-related death in the united states. you know what the worst part is? it's also one of the most preventable. you know who knew that? his predecessor. >> as you know, i've been recommending that americans take precautionary measures for their health, and that people should

be screened on a regular basis, particularly those of us over 50, and tomorrow i'm going to have a colonoscopy at camp david. it is the third such procedure i've had. >> some could say every day as spat colonoscopy. he was willing to put it out there so it would make people comfortable to do it themselves. trump's refusal to promote public health would go on to be a major theme throughout the pandemic. the man never put you first. he always took care of himself. he fed animus. he didn't dispel it. remember, all the living past presidents joined up to promote the vaccine. even though he bragged about bringing the vaccine and said it was the magical panacea. now it's his supporters that are disproportionately paying the price. now it's time to take up the fight. the time has come. social media is out of control. and it can be under control.

facebook is under fire. we can have freedom of speech. having the right to speak doesn't make everything you say right. this network, every major media outlet has to think about what it puts out there. shouldn't facebook and instagram have to as well? especially when it now looks like they're trying to profit off kids? is that fair? and what can they do about it? we have a better mind who was once on the inside of facebook next. 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. 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. one, two! one, two, three! only pay for what you need! with customized car insurance from liberty mutual! nothing rhymes with liberty mutual. only pay for what you need. ♪ liberty. liberty. liberty. liberty. ♪ tonight, i'll be eating a buffalo chicken panini with extra hot sauce. tonight, i'll be eating salmon sushi with a japanese jiggly cheesecake. (doorbell rings) jolly good. fire. (horse neighing) elton: nas? yeah? spare a pound?

what? you know, bones, shillings, lolly? lolly? bangers and mash? i'm... i'm sorry? i don't have any money. you don't look broke. elton: my rocket is skint!

before i got my dexcom g6, i can never get my a1c below 13. and now it's 7.4. before i got my dexcom g6, this small wearable lets me see my numbers on my phone. it's so much easier to make adjustments. now i feel like i've got this. new focus tonight on the impact facebook has on our kids. the "wall street journal" is out with the latest in a series of report looking at a project facebook launched for preteens, even exploring play dates. it paused instagram for kids, the reporting is the research went beyond that one app. now, this comes as another report comes out from the journal showing facebook has

known for years the damage instagram can do to the mental health of teens. the question is will our kids finally be the line where we say it is time to police what you put out? i'm not saying you have to sensor. i'm not saying you ruin the first amendment but the rest of the media figures out how to do it. why not you? our next guest would know. he was an early investor in facebook and the author of "z ushlgs uck uckd". >> pleasure to be here. >> two quick things and i'd like to pressure you on television to come back because this is a much longer conversation than one segment. give me your quick take on the reality of what they know about the susceptible of kids to social media and what theiry're trying to do to make money. >> the problems like facebook and instagram gather data about us not just on their platform

but everywhere. our location from cell phones, our medical tests and prescriptions, credit cards, app use, web browsing, everything and with kids, it starts in third or fourth grade with microsoft's mine craft or roblox or fortnight or tiktok or instagram or cell phones and google chrome books and never stops and they use this data to predict and manipulate our behavior. so on instagram, they do it with filters that make everyone else look beautiful and to catch up, we have to buy stuff. that's the business model. that's how they make money. it is not an accident any more than scams against seniors, scams against vets, anti vax or the preparation of the insurrection were an accident. >> so second point, so they know the suseptibility of kids and market it anyway because it's profitable, which means they know what is goining out and wh

is being said because we've had the phenomenon where we're talking about different type of tuna tackle and then we get ads. if they know that, why is it too much for them to ask to take their technology and look for things that are misinformation and disinformation and become a more responsibility purveyor of content? >> so chris, the actual solution to this problem has nothing to do with the first amendment. i don't want to sensor. i want to force changes in the business model. the way we force changes in the chemicals industry to end the dumping of toxic chemicals anywhere, the way we did when we banned child labor or created the food and drug administration to police the food supply and drug manufacturing, in this country, we have a long history of making industries safe and protecting consumers from harm and that's what we have to do now. that's the job of congress but

also the justice department and state attorney's general. because we live in a wild west in silicon valley in the whole economy and these monopolies behave like governments. they don't feel like our government is going to stop them and it's not that they're criminal but i droon't think th know where the line is and maybe they don't care and the result is they have done a bunch of stuff that is clearly wrong. i mean, the "wall street journal" had a story about human trafficking. that is clearly a violation of the law. of usuy obviously, aiding and abetting in insurrection is against the law and we have to prosecute these things not because i want to put them in jail but because they need to understand that we mean business and they need to end this business model. if they do that, that will save democracy. that will help us end the pandemic -- >> so let's do this. roger come back and let's talk about what they could do. i got your word? >> you got it, pal. >> done. appreciate it. we'll be right back. handoff. bogeys on your six, limu.

they need customized car insurance from liberty mutual so they only pay for what they need. woooooooooooooo... we are not getting you a helicopter. only pay for what you need. ♪ liberty. liberty. liberty. liberty. ♪

you know, people are going to say look, they want a sensor on social media. no. i know a lot of that comes from the right. you know who gets the most traffic on the right? you know who has the most penetration on the top of the list? members of the right. so i don't know what they're complaining about. "don lemon tonight" with the big store d. lemon. >> i'm fired up and always felt this way that social media should be regulated. they should follow the same rules that we follow here in legacy media. they should -- you shouldn't just be able to spread things about people that's not true. so it has a big influence on someone's livelihood, their credibility, their career, even their lives and so i think that