this sunday, legal showdown. >> the thugs and criminals who are corrupting our justice system will be defeated,

discredited and totally disgraced. >> donald trump warns of potential death and destruction if he's charged in the hush money probe in manhattan. >> it's dangerous, and if he keeps it up he's going to get someone killed. >> he's ratcheting up the attack, rallying his supporters to his defense as yet another legal probe, the special counsel criminal investigation intensifies. >> i'll talk to trump's attorney joe tacopina and far eco-ferreira. >> your platform should be banne ceo faces bipartisan skepticism that the app may be used for spying by the chinese government. >> has indeed spied on american citizens? >> i don't think that spying is the right way to describe it. >> >> can the biden administration ban the most downnloaded apppp on the planet? >> and parental permimission a washingtoton debates tiktok, ut decides to target all of social media and becomes the first state in the nation to restrict

how children use it. >> we have a responsibility to protect our young people. >> i'll talk to republican governor spencer cox who signed this new law regarding parental consent for minors using social media apps. joining me for insight and analysis are nbc washington correspondent yamiche alcindor. wall street journal columnist, peggy nunes and democratic pollster cornell belcher. welcome to sunday. it's "meet the press". >> from nbc news in washington, the longest-running show in television history, this is "meet the press with chuck todd." good sunday morning. this week left no doubt donald trump is still in charge of the republican party. just a few hours after trump's false claim that he was going to be arrested in the manhattan hush money case last tuesday, the speaker of the house kevin mccarthy announced that house republicans were launching investigations into manhattan

district attorney bragg, and three chairmen claiming unprosecute oral authority demanded bragg testify and turn over documents and let me remind you, it's on a case where we don't know what the charges are or any will be brought. the rest of the party, even trump's 2024 opponents race. >> in your heart of hearts you know, too, that this is political. >> this is a political stunt. i think it's disgusting. >> it kind of reeks of political revenge. >> we know it's political revenge. >> what i call a criminalization of politics. >> a politically motivated effort by a soros-funded d.a. >> the manhattan district attorney is a soros-funded prosecutor. >> all of those are pre-reactions because there is no indictment and one hasn't happened yet.

his version of iowa, new hampshire and south carolina are the legal probes that face them in washington, atlanta and new york, and as we've seen time and time again, when trump is in legal jeopardy his rhetoric intensifies and it did this week. trump attacked brag personally who is the first black district attorney in manhattan viciously calling him a soros-backed animal and doing the work of the devil. trump escalated it. he threatened potential death and destruction if he is charged and later in the day, bragg did receive a later containing a death threat containing white powder in an envelope and it tested negative and it's one of several hundred death threats bragg and his office have received in recent weeks. in the 2024 campaign in waco, texas, of all places, trump focused his speech in legal jeopardy really leaned into it. his campaign made witch hunt

signs in an effort to be featured prominently behind him while he was speaking. >> the department of injustice in washington d.c., was investigating me for something that is not a crime, not a misdemeanor, not an affair. i never liked horse face, ross cuterial misconduct is their new tool and they're willing to use it at levels never used before. when they go after me they're going after you. >> the manhattan d.a. does not work for the department of justice. joining me now is joe tacopina who represents him in the new york press. welcome to "meet the press." >> thanks, chuck, good morning. >> let me start with a simple question. why did your client, mr. trump make the claim that turned out not to be true? did he make it up?

>> no, he didn't make it up. he was reacting to a lot of leaks coming out of the district attorney's office. there had been a leak, chuck, that monday the day before that, tuesday, was there a law enforcement meeting including secret service and nypd that was going to go through the logistics of the arraignment, and then there was, of course, a lot of rumors regarding arraignment being the next day and he assumed based on those leaks that that was going to happen. it wasn't about making it up and he doesn't want to be arrested. >> has been in the d.a.'s office contacted you or told you about special arrangements. did he have any of this knowledge through you? >> no, not through us. we've been in touch with the district attorney's office regarding potential logistics, an arraignment if it gets to that point, but certainly it didn't come from us except we were reading the newspaper on monday or the friday proceeding.

>> mr. trump has described alvin bragg this week as a soros-backed animal saying he was doing the work of the devil, called him a degenerate psychopath, calling him soros in reverse saying he was the gestapo. as his lawyer, do you stand by those comments? >> so, chuck, as his lawyer i want to dissect this case because it's a case that shouldn't be brought and wouldn't be brought if it were anyone other than donald trump. does anyone actually think left, right or in the middle that anyone else would be prosecuted for making a civil settlement in a hush money case with personal funds? of course, not. no one's ever been prosecuted for that. the closest we've got was john edwards back in the day when a donor paid $900,000 for his mistress and the child to be housed somewhere. that case was ultimately

dismissed by the department of justice after they couldn't get a conviction and that was with the donor. the distinction is so vast and it's clear to anyone whether you are in support of donald trump or don't like anything about donald trump, we should all be concerned as citizens in this country about weaponization. in all my years as prosecutor i have never seen the discretion like this. >> we have no idea what the charges are. >> well -- no, i have an idea. >> would you advise a client to personally attack a prosecutor like this? it's dehumanizing, mr. tacopina. >> you know, chuck, i know. again, i'm not his social media consultant. i don't -- i think that was an ill-advised post that one of his social media people put up and he quickly put down the rhetoric in the photo -- >> you're only referring to the baseball bat. he didn't take down the other

rhetoric. wait a minute. wait a minute. wait a minute. you're referring to the baseball bat that was featured in "the new york post" cover and it was a rough hit. we went through january 6th. so it's not that a possibility that trump's rhetoric creates violence. it's already happened once. are you not concerned it can happen? >> i'm not -- i'm not -- i'm not creating that proposition that rhetoric creates violence and i'm not here to discuss that, chuck. i'm not going to defend or condemn anything regarding social media. it's not what i do. i'm not a trump pr person. i'm a litigator and a lawyer, and i'm talking about this case in manhattan that is a case that would not be brought for anyone other than donald trump. when we use the office to mrit politicize and weaponize a campaign. look at the facts for a second, you have two crucial distinks, one, this is personal funds and can you imagine the amount of

people that would be begging hear donald trump's scalp if he used campaign funds for personal expense and they would be going ballistic and they have a right to be going ballistic because the standard and this is very important. the law is this. if you use personal funds and you're involved in the campaign, the bright line test is would you have expended that money? would you have made that payment irrespective of the candidacy? irrespective of the campaign? and the answer to that question is yes. this was the personal civil settlement that's done every day in new york city and it has nothing to do with campaign -- >> no, no, no. look, you may have your day in court to make this case, but you keep saying it's personal funds. that is not what michael cohen pled guilty to. these were funds that were repaid by the trump organization. trump signed the check. >> incorrect. >> it is in a court of law it's

been proven that it was trump organization funds. >> it's personal funds. it was not funds related to the campaign. >> but he used a trump organization check. >> not campaign finance chuck. >> that's personal. >> everything with the donald trump organization is personal? you realize the door you're opening there? >> chuck, chuck, you're absolutely conflating issues and they don't go together. they just don't. this is a case that's being investigated because alleged lead donald trump had an obligation to notify the fec, the federal election committee, he did not. the fec has come forth and said that. this has nothing to do whether he paid it through an organization, or his personal funds and by all accounts this was personal funds and it's personal, whether donald trump organization, donald trump the person, mar-a-lago corporation, whatever it is. they're personal and not campaign funds and that's the key distinction here. if they were campaign funds we'd

be having a different discussion. we'd be talking about how he used campaign funds and they'd be paying if an indictment as i said earlier. >> what this investigation may end up being is about the essentially falsifying business records which by the way, this prosecutor has brought over 60, this one and the previous one brought it over 60 times. this is not an unusual crime to charge someone with in the manhattan district attorney? oh, no? >> oh, chuck, you couldn't be more wrong when you make that statement. there's -- first of all, it's a case of first impression. never in the history of this country has this been done before. never has someone been charged with a crime for falsifying business records to pay hush money, as they call it or confidential settlement in legal jargon regarding a personal matter. never in the history of the manhattan district attorney's office and there was a filing

obligation, which he did not, that would be a crime. if he had used campaign funds, we'd have an argument here. this was a personal matter, and -- >> he called it legal fees and -- they were, in fact, they weren't. no, it's insane legal retainer and it was legal fees by michael cohen who arranged it with his own money and took out a loan, resolved this without the president knowing and came back is not a bill in four times of the amount and paid it off. what was he supposed to be put in his personal ledger? payment for hush money to quiet an affair that i claim i never had so my family doesn't get embarrassed? is that what he puts in his ledger? >> how about the -- you keep saying what should be the ledger. should it be the truth? >> chuck. would you ever put a four paragraph sentence to a ledger?

honestly, i think you're being a little petty you can put whatever you want in your personal obligation, that would be something. if it was campaign funds it would be something else. neither of these things happened. was it a tax deduction? they pulled it out of the grand jury because they thought initially he was taking a deduction and he did not. secondly, did he use campaign funds? he did not. he used personal funds and the test is would he have made the payment regardless of the campaign and the answer is a resounding yes by all accounts. >> i do want to get you to respond to someone who had a different point of view on this and it was you a few years ago and let me play this sound and get you to respond. >> quite frankly, michael cohen again has made statements that would give rise to suspicion for any prosecutor to say that i lawyer took out a home equity

loan, paid money to someone he didn't know, to afford $130,000 and didn't tell the client about the legal agreement and it's a fraud if that's, in fact, the case. >> if in fact, that's the case. >> did you hear that last line, chuck? >> no, i understand that. so what is it that you've learned about this case that changes your point of view? >> the facts. the facts. that what i just said and i'll repeat it again, that this was personal expenditure and not campaign mono pep the hypothetical question posed to me as a legal expert as so many legal expert goes on tv and i was asked a hypothetical question. i responded with this twice and i'm reading the transcript. if that is, in fact the case, i start with it although you didn't read it in the clip, which, if that is, in fact the case, when i'm answering a hypothetical question, and i will respond how i think appropriate. now what i since learned is that

there were no campaign funds used, that there was a legal invoice sent by a lawyer over the course of a year to cover these payments and more, and more importantly, that the campaign finance law is clear. bradley smith, former chairman of the fec, has come on and said clearly that there was no campaign finance law involved here because his personal funds and the expenditure would have been made irrespective of the campaign and those were facts i didn't have before me as a hypothetical question was posed to a legal expert on tv. >> it sounds like a defense is ready to go. >> i'm ready. >> if you're a prosecutor, you know, you're making these claims. great. show us your proof of it. it seems like there's enough at dispute here that actually this belongs in a court of law to resolve this. >> of course, it doesn't belong in a court of law, chuck. listen, again, you can't bring a case, cobble two misdemeanors

for statute of limb tagds and there's no crime here. the -- >> there's a crime here. there is a campaign finance crime that he has pled guilty to, that involves the former president, and it was a crime at the court of this issue. >> wrong. >> well, that's not what the federal government said. michael cohen served time. what did he serve time for? >> a million different crimes. he was committing tax and medallion frauds and other perjury. if you want to the say it, fine, but if you let me answer which is when michael cohen pled guilty he said something crucial to campaign finance law, even if you accept the word of a convicted perjuror and liar and a guy who has lied in any forum he's ever been in, he said when he pled guilty that this was

>> we're going to find out and it is a very murky law. >> for sure. >> this is why you might need a court of law to figure this out. mr. tacopina, i really appreciate you coming on and sharing your perspective and the perspective of the president. >> thank you, chuck. the manhattan case, it's just one of former cases against

the former president. former chief of staff mark meadows will be compelled to testify on january 6th. mike pence's testimony from january 6th, is still in question. trump lost an attorney client privilege, and his mar-a-lago documents case had to talk to a grand jury on friday and there was the case of election interference in the state of georgia where the d.a. is likely to decide soon with whether to bring charges there. joining me now is the former u.s. attorney from the southern district of new york preet ferrara. >> welcome back. >> thanks for having me. >> let me start with what we just heard, mr. tacopina. at the end of the day would this be an easier case in the state of new york. >> i don't know. my former office chose not to bring the case, what was interesting in your exchange with tacopina and we've had a

melange of republicans and no crime here. nobody would charge the case. it's unseemly, it's irrationally, it's never happened before and it did, it happened with respect to michael cohen. he was charged with this particular crime, he thought it was a crime, pled guilty to it. his lawyer thought it was a crime and allowed him to plead guilty to it. the judge accepted the guilty plea and thought it was a crime. you can argue about whether or not it's appropriate to bring such a case and argue about the optics of it, but the idea that this is unprecedented is just false and wrong. >> you heard his case. he feels as though it's not, and the campaign finance cases have not been easily prosecuted and john edwards and he brought the john edwards case. these are very difficult to win because the law is not clear. is that fair? if you're alvin bragg, how hard of a case is this going to be? >> i don't know the facts and i don't know what evidence they have in documents and i don't know what the testimony the

grand jury has been, and i don't think anybody is saying it's a slam dunk case and i don't think anyone is saying it's an open and shut matter. >> the way i hear it, wow, it sounds like a mediator. >> it sounds like you have it right. it's a provable case. you have challenges like in any case and issues of credibility with respect to michael cohen who is a key witness in the case. maybe he'll be able to persuade the jury not withstanding the judge, but insofar as even a little bit of the motive was related to personal embarrassment. that's not campaign finance violation, that's not the instruction the judge is going to give. nobody's saying it's an easy, easy case. i will make another point, though, as people attack alvin bragg and say he's doing this for political reasons, this is a person that's been attacked for a year in one instance in book length form for not rushing to judgment, for not finding the easiest and quickest case to bring against the former president even though he had respected prosecutors in ms. office basically begging him to

bring that case, he didn't do it. this is the mark of someone who is careful and deliberative and we can have the argument once we see the campaign finance part of it, but you can't say about alvin bragg that he's rushing to the court to indict the president on flimsy charges. >> i'm not asking you for the political look, but as a former law enforcement official, look, what the former president did, however you look at it if you're alvin bragg, if he brings the indictment, if you don't bring it down, he looks like he's been bullied. in that sense we're seeing the law enforcement community get challenged here by the former president. how would you be handling this? >> i don't know. i'm retireded from that now by virtue -- >> are you sure? >> i'm retired for now. look, the only way you can handle these cases and you will get criticism whether you bring a case or don't bring a case is you have to look the at the law and the facts. you can disagree with him

ultimately when we see what the allegations are and he's not willy-nilly bringing cases and i know people say it's unprecedented to bring a case against a former president. there should be one standard of law enforcement before the law and if other people have been charged with the crime, some might argue that donald trump is not charged with anything. >> his sentence is done and he's paid for his crime. a judge decided attorney-client privilege -- it doesn't happen very often and where do you think this could be leading to? >> you ticked off a couple of minutes ago, donald trump faces jeopardy from a number of sources. the alvin bragg case is one of them and he has legal jeopardy in fulton county, georgia, and the federal matter overseen by

the federal counsel is preceding a case and there wouldn't be a case there, mar-a-lago or january 6th and this shows you that they're, aggressive and this is now a second judge in different context, it's found, and maybe there are attorneys and donald trump were conspiring together to commit a crime. >> is there ever an instance where these prosecutors should work together, any grand jury sharing agreements or anything like that? >> you can have that. >> there's no overlap between what alvin bragg is doing and the manhattan d.a. and what the justice department is doing and there may be some overlap between what fulton county is doing because it relates to interference and january 6th was about the big lie and election interference. they're not sharing much because it's a local prosecutor, but that would not be unusual. >> that wouldn't be unprecedented. >> preet ferrara. always good to get your perspective. >> tharpgs for coming down. >> donald trump may indeed become the first american

president to be indicted, but others have come close. in 1974, a grand jury named richard nixon an indicted co-conspirator was pardoned by gerald ford and never charged with crimes and he talked about the impact watergate left on on his legacy and had a warning for future presidents. >> winston churchill once wrote that strong leaders usually do the big things well, but they follow up on small things and the small things become big. i should have read that before watergate happened. in 1972 we went to china, we went to russia, we ended the vietnam war effectively by the end of that year. those were the big things and then here was a small thing and we followed it up beyond belief. it was a great mistake. it was wrong as i pointed out over and over again, but under the circumstances now people, as they judge that period have to

see what we accomplished and what we did wrong and for the future, i would advise all of those who follow me and the position of president do the big things as well as you can, but things as well as you can, but wjq small thing is there, deal with it. deal with it fast, get it out of the way because if you don't it's going to become big and then it may destroy you. >> just to remind you, the small thing was an attempt to hijack the democratic primary process and in this case, successfully pick the candidate they wanted to run against in 1972. when we come back, republicans rally to the defense of donald trump anticipating he could be charged with a crime while ignoo she fofound it. the fefeeling of f finding the psoriaiasis treatmtment she's bebeen lookingng for. the fefeeling of f finding the psoriaiasis treatmtment sotyktu is t the first-o-of-its-kind, oncece-daily pilill for moderarate-to-sevevere plaqueue psoriasisis for r the chancece at clearr oror almost clclear skin.. it's like e the feelining of finding g that outfifit psoris tried toto hide fromom you. it's like e the feelining of finding g that outfifit psoris or findiding your swswimsuit it's like e the feelining of finding g that outfifit psoris is ready f for primetitime.

[d[dad] oncece-daily sototyktu is prpn to getet more peopople clearerer skin to getet more peopople than the l leading pilill. don't takeke if you'rere allec to s sotyktu; don't takeke if you'rere allec seserious reacactions can n o. don't takeke if you'rere allec sotytyktu can lolower your a aby don't takeke if you'rere allec to fight i infectionss including g tb. seserious infefections, cacans including g tb. including g lymphoma,, muscle proroblems, including g lymphoma,, and changeges in certatain s including g lymphoma,, haveve occurred.d. tell your r doctor if f youe an i infection,, liliver or kididney problele, hihigh triglycycerides, liliver or kididney problele, or h had a vaccicine or plana. sotyktu isis a tyk2 ininhib. or h had a vaccicine or plana. tyk2 i is part of thehe jak familily. it's not k known if sosotu tyk2 i is part of thehe jak familily. has s the same r risks as jak i inhibitors.s. fifind what plplaque psoriris hahas been hididing. asask your derermatologistst t hahas been hididing. sotytyktu for clclearer skin. so clelearly you.. sosotyktu. so clelearly you.. your paiaint is realally bad. whatat? i i said, "besest coffee i've evever had." (slurps)s) are you u okay? mom, thehe walls looook awfu. what? i said, , "can i havave a waff" waffle..... waff... . waffle. thank yoyou. shouldld've usesed behr. sosorry, sign n where? no, , i said, "should've usesed behr. it's s got one-cocoat hide."

today lelet's painint wiwith behr mamarquee, the #1 ratated interioior pai. it l looks greatat in here!! bebehr. exclususively at the hohome depot.. did you ever stress about us having three kids? no, that was always part of f the plan.. three kids?! this was never part of the plan! ththese kids o order the lobsbster mac ''n che! what if shshe wants to p play golf?? wewe're going g to have to ououtlaw golf.f. absolutelyly no golf in t this house!e! not under r my roof! absolutelyly no golf in t this house!e! sisince we statarted workikg with empowower, alall of our f financial q ques haveve been answswered, sisince we statarted workikg with empowower, so we e don't haveve to worr. so youou never- so we e don't haveve to worr. nonope. alalways part t of the plal. join 17 mimillion peopople d tatake controlol of your nonope. alalways part t of the plal. finanancial fututure to empor whatat's next. nonope. alalways part t of the plal. start t today at e empowerm >> wk. the panel is here. washington correspondent yamiche alcindor and wall street journal columnist peggy noonan.

i want to start with sort of this issue of violence. i mean, the former president,mñ peggy, you know, he is doing it again. however you want to look at it. he's doing it again and it's really kind of ugly. let me play some of the stuff that he said, particularly this first bite. >> all right. we've heard him in the social media posts and all of that. forget the legal debate here, why isn't there more outrage about this? >> i wonder lately if people have become a little desensitized in this area with donald trump because they're so used to it. there's also, i think, there has been a sense this week that you look at what he's doing, posing with the baseball bat saying there may be violence, all of this stuff. you look and you think is this strategy or a public nervous

breakdown? you actually are not sure. >> i'm not sure. >> -- of which. look, i think speaking in terms of tacky politics, he's trying to nail down and excite his base, looks like he succeeded and waco looked last night like he succeeded. there is a part, a significant part, but only a part of the republican base that is all about trump. it seems to me they're there. the big question in the coming year can anybody else coalesce what is not trump, but yeah, it looks like they're all excited. >> cornell, i'm actually with peggy on this. i'm not sure if he's having a nervous breakdown or if it's campaign politics. let's make lemonade. >> either way, it's a dangerous place, and i do have a quote talking about the district attorney saying he's a soros-backed animal. that's a classic anti-semitism

racist trope, and look, i think it's my job part-time to call out dog whistles, chuck, that's a racist bullhorn, and it's inciting violence and the district attorney is under tremendous threat for violence right now and it's dangerous and you don't have more republicans calling it out and it's really, really troublesome. >> go ahead, yamiche. >> former president trump hasn't had to face consequences and has benefitted from a republican party that has backed him after something like january 6th. he was playing music from the january 6th men's choir which i learned about yesterday which is made up of men who were imprisoned because of where we are. >> they played footage of the attack of the capitol to the crowd. >> that underscores that trump is doubling down on this because he's not had to face political consequences or legal consequences and he remains the most popular figure right now for the gop nomination so that

tells me he feels like this is working for him and is a political strategy. >> they did lose the midterm in '22. there have been political consequences, jake, to get republicans to sober up here. the definition of insanity is doing the same thing twice and expecting a different result, right? donald trump lost them and minimized their gains in the house and lost the senate and lost the presidency and he's been a political disaster for the republican party just from pure, statistical point of view and it is amazing to me having been there on january 6th and we all know as sane people what happened on january 6th. it was an insurrection. they tried to stop the election. the people who are in congress who were being guarded by capitol police officers and federal agents with machine guns. >> yeah. >> -- also know what happened, but they're pretending they don't. >> the cause within the republican party. >> i was fact checking you just

a bit there. as much as we learned about donald trump and the gop, we have also learned about ron desantis this week. we have a pretty interesting story here, a republican strategist that didn't want to be named told our reporters on nbc news that this last week with desantis has not been going so hot and desantais has been doing a book tour and he's barnstorming the country, and trump's going up. it's just not a good look for desantis and there's been a lot of, like, questioning of desantis this week, peggy. are you questioning him? >> look, the past week showed you all of the worst and most objectionable, upsetting and just horrifying of donald trump. desantis, we assume sell be running against and trump's numbers went up with the base and desantis' went down. look, we'll see where it goes.

you know all the stuff that people say. >> peggy noonan. >> let me throw this in, you look at desantis and you see his record. you sort of have one question, you have a few questions, but one is why is he running? does he know? if he knows maybe you could let everybody else know and maybe that will help him in a difficult time. i'm just not sure i'm seeing why he's running. >> you know, cornell, he's getting the best of both worlds of being a candidate, and ukraine, i don't know what to call it, if it's a flip-flop. >> i'll call it a flip-flop. >> the u.s. has national interests becoming entangled in a territorial dispute with russia. now take a look at what he said to piers morgan. >> if i could snap my fingers i would give it back to ukraine 100% and certainly ground troops would be a mistake and that was

the point i was trying to make. russia was wrong to invade and they were wrong to take crimea. y think he is a war criminal. >> is this, jake, somebody who was trying to play too cute with tucker carlson or does he not quite know what his position is? >> i think both. i don't know if he doesn't know what his position is, he sees on capitol hill, the republican party turning against ukraine, or a big chunk of the republican party turning against ukraine and at the same time think putin is a war criminal. he's coming across as somebody who is learning which way to move the sail. >> it does look weak. >> it's been a rough week for him. him. when we come back, k kids in uh

think hehe's postingng aboul ththat ancientnt roman coioin? no. hehe's making g real-time momoney moves s with merriri. so no matttter what ththe market's d doing, he's's re. no. hehe's making g real-time momoney moves s with merriri. and thatat's..... how you cocollect coinins. your mononey never s stops wog for you wiwith merrillll, a banknk of americica comp. i thinink i changeged my mimind about t these glassss. your mononey never s stops wog for you wiwith merrillll, yeah, itit happens.. that's why visionworkrks gives yoyou 100 d days to change yoyour mind. it's simple.. a anything elelse i c can help yoyou with? like whahat? vivisionworks.s. see e the differerence. hey guys,, detectct this: livingng with hiv,v, i lelearned thatat i can sty undedetectable wiwith fer medicinen. that's w why i swswitched to o dovato. dodovato is fofor some adudulto are ststarting hiviv-1 treatmt or repeplacing theheir curret hiv-1 1 regimen. dedetect this:s: no otherer completee hiv pipill uses f fewer medicicins to h help keep y u undetetectable than d dovato. detectct this: mostst hiv pillsls cocontain 3 oror 4 medicinin. dovavato is as e effective with jusust 2.

research s shows peoplple who e hiv v treatment t as prescrird and get t to and statay undedetectable can no lononger transmsmit hihiv through h sex. don't t take dovatato if you'e alallergic to o its ingrgredi, oror if you tatake dofetilil. taking d dovato withth dofetile cacan cause seserious or lifife-threatenening siside effectsts. hepatititis b can n become harr to treat w while on dodovato. dodon't stop d dovato withtht talking toto your doctctor, as youour hepatititis b may won or become e life-threaeatenin. seririous or lifife-threateneg side effecects can occccur, including g allergic r reactio, lactctic acid bubuildup, and livever problemsms... if youou have a rarash or othr alallergic reaeaction sympmpt, stop dovatato and gett medidical help r right away. tell youour doctor i if you he kidndney or livever problems, or i if you are,e, may be, or plalan to be prpregnant. dodovato may h harm your unbororn baby. use e effective e birth contnl while on d dovato. do notot breastfeeeed whwhile takingng dovato. most commomon side effffects arare headachehe, nausea,, diararrhea, trououble sleepi, tiredness,s, and anxieiety. detect t this: i stayay undetectatable wiwith fewer m medicines. ask yoyour doctor r abot swswitching toto dovato.

think hehe's postingng aboul ththat ancientnt roman coioin? no. hehe's making g real-time momoney moves s with merriri. so no matttter what ththe market's d doing, he's's re. no. hehe's making g real-time momoney moves s with merriri. and thatat's..... how you cocollect coinins. your mononey never s stops wog for you wiwith merrillll, a banknk of americica comp. welcome back. while washington continues to talk about tiktok, this week utah became the first state in the nation to dramatically limit how kids and teens can use all social media apps and not just tiktok. >> ask teenagers, this is one of my favorite thing to do. are you seeing an increase in

your own life, amongst your friends in your school in -- in depression, anxiety and self-harm and every one of them will say yes, and then i asked the question, what do you think is causing it? and every one of them tell me it's social media. >> all right. the two bills that governor cox signed into law require parental consent before kids can sign up for platforms like tiktok and instagram. they give parents access to their children's accounts and it would prohibit kids using social media between 6:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. already a handful of states are considering similar bills and they may be difficult to enforce and the courts have a say on this. governor cox, welcome back to "meet the press". >> good to be with you again, chuck. thanks for having me back. >> i know why you signed this and as a parent of two teenagers myself, all of us are looking for more tools to figure this out, but i'm curious, before you

signed it into law what kind of legal scrutiny did you put this under because there's a lot of constitutional questions about this? >> sure, there are, and i'm an attornrney myself. we looked very closely at this. we worked with our attorney general, my general counsel. we worked with e experts across the nation and researchers, as wewell, and all of the law thats in question here around the first amendment really was established in the late '90s, early 2000s, before social media even existed. so we feel very confident that we have a good case here. we expect that there will be lawsuits and we feel confident that we're going to prevail. >> an enforcement seems also to be a huge task here. which department in the -- in the state is going to be monitoring these social media companies and are you going to have to essentially hire more people to do this? >> so -- so, the department of commerce will b be handling thi and we understand that there are definitely going to be

enforcement issues any time you wade into this type of an industry, i it's going to be toughgh, and we don't expect th we're going to be able to prevent every young person from getting around it. kids are really smart. that's one of the problems, but here's what i would prefer, chuck. i would prefer congress act and that's where this should happen, and i think it will. we have conservative members of cocongress. congressman chris stewart is running a bill right now, broad bipartisan support and the president in his state of the union said we h have to do thhi. i have president biden and conservative members of congress working together, but the states have to lead out and that's what we're doing, and i expect other states to follow, as you mentioned and then that helps congress kind of coalesce and come to an agreement on how we prevent these terrible harms from happening. >> i want to get you, though, the specifics of the law is where there will be pushback. evan grier and the director for fight for the future said this. these bills radically undermine the constitutional and human

rights of young people in utah. what about in situations where there is a custody battle or allegations of abuse and a parent is attempting to gain access to a child's social media messages. this is where -- i get it, top down, this looks like a great idea, governor when you get into the details and things like this, what do you do? this seems to be a legitimate concern? >> sure. in any custody battle you have issues surrounding kids and their online activity and what they're doing. so those things are already being worked through in lots of context and we will continue to work through it, but this is about empowering families and it's about empowering parents

and it's about holding these social media companies accountable for what we knowow now. this is a data drivenen approac and we've been working with professor jonathan hype at nyu collectiting research from acro the world. this is killing our kids. thee harm being done to our children far outweighs and again, this started well before covid since 2012, specially among young women, the rates of suicide, depression, self-harm has skyrocketed and every research institution that has looked at this is pointing to social media as the cause. >> you know, i guess the other question i have about this, though, is if you go down this road, did you work with the social media companies and say what would it take for them to do real age verification because let's be frank, it's illegal for people under age to look at pornographic material or have access to it. it's been impossible to keep that off the internet and keep kids from being able to look at

it. why do you think your law is going to be able to work? >> well, we think it's -- agaga, we don't think it will be foolproof. there's no question about that, but there are working with social media companies agagain over the course of the year, we will be goining throughh a rule making progress to figure out what that's going to look like and how do we protect data privacy and there will be thhir party age verificacation, companies that we will utilize to make this happen. we've seen the leaks that have happenened with some of these social media companieies. we don't want them having copies of driver's licenses on hand.d. that's not what we're trying to do here. we believe that there are technological fixes and that's what we'll be working out over the course of the lastt year. >> how will you prove addiction? >> we don't have to prove addiction. we'll be working again to look at these. one of the things that the law does that i think is very interesting. i think congress is considering a ban under the age of 16. many states and texas is

considering a ban u under the a of 16 and we actuallyly think is something different and we give the private right of action for parents to be able to soothe she's companies if there's harm done to their child and harm is presumed so it will be up to the social media companies to prove otherwise. >> you don't think section 230 doesn't indemnify the companies fromom your lawsuit? >> no, i don't, because this i real harm, and we ththink that this willll remove those types protections and ultimately what that means is social media companies are going to have to be very careful in giving access to these platforms to kids under the age of 16. it's crazy, listen, chuck. there is no other industry where we allow 14-year-olds to contract with major corporations to use their data for anything they want. we just don't do this. we're going to look back ten years from now and say what did we do? we destroyed a generation of

kids with this stuff. >> we're allowing the tech world to do a giant experiment on the human brain. frankly, that's not just about -- >> exactly what we're doing. >> governor spencer cox. >> no, no, no, it's about adults, too. we have to figure this out at least. >> trust me, i'd love the 10 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. ban (vo)o) red lolobster's s finer poininf fun diningng: at l lobsterfestst, whether r 'a sea-foododie oror a lobsterer newbie, ththere's sosomething fofor eve. try one ofof six dishehes, lilike new lobobster and s shp tacos for r $17.99. and leleave compleletely lobses. wewelcome to f fun dining..

i thinink i changeged my mimind about t these glassss. yeah, itit happens.. that's why visionworkrks gives yoyou 100 d days to change yoyour mind. it's simple.. a anything elelse i c can help yoyou with? like whahat? vivisionworks.s. see e the differerence. (cececily) itit's probobably gonnana take us a whilele to move t this si. (vo)o) betterer hurry! geget welcomee unlimimited for jujust $25 a l. (seth) it's s guaranteeded for 3 yea. (cecily) you get a a great netwtwork ande money y doing it.. (vo) this offerer won't t last lon. only o on verizon.n.