and school board members? and all this other stuff is going on. you need to be prepared for the consequences that deval from not. because it's not an evolution, it's a devolution. of the process. that's not brought to either, just like abortion, there isple. thank you so much for your time this evening. and that is "all in" on this thursday night. alex wagner tonight starts right now. >> always good to see you, ayman. great to share the studio with you. and thanks to you at home for

joining us. first it was the lawyers. trump attorneys john eastman and rudy giuliani were subpoenaed to testify by the fulton county district attorney in georgia about their involvement in trump's scheme to overturn election results in that state. the d.a. also subpoenaed three other lawyers whose names you may remember from the january 6th hearings. all of them appeared before the special grand jury in fulton county. at the same time those subpoenas went out, the fulton county d.a. also subpoenaed senator lindsey graham, again, related to his involvement in that scheme. for context ten days after the 2020 election, senator graham placed a phone call to georgia secretary of state brad raffensperger. the georgia secretary of state told "the washington post" at the time he was stunned by graham's request to toss out huge swaths of legally cast ballots, and a few days later senator graham denied he'd ever said such thing. instead he said he wanted to

talk about the process for future elections. >> did you or did you not ask him to throw out votes? >> no. i talked to him about how you verify signatures. i suggested he go forward and change the nature that a bipartisan team verifies signatures. >> that post-election phone call quickly became a focus of the district attorney's criminal investigation. senator graham fought his subsequent subpoena to come and testify, but the fighting didn't work. and so senator graham also wound up in the hot seat before that fulton county grj. then there was former chief of staff mark meadows. meadows was part of that infamous phone call where then-president trump pressured election officials to find him votes to tip the election in this favor. meadows was ordered to testify before the grand jury, but to this day we have no reporting to confirm he ever actually did.

then there was mike flynn, the trump ally and conspiracy theorist who advocated trump declare marshal law and seize voting machines during the election. a lot of key people and a lot of key moments. all of them before the 75 people called to testify before that grand jury. and all those people are presumably on the phones with their lawyers trying to remember exactly what they said in those hearings and that is today three parts of the special grand jury's report were released on the judge's orders. it confirms perjury may have been committed by one or more witnesses testifying before it. the grand jury recommends that the district attorney seek appropriate indictments for such crimes where the evidence is compel. translation -- at least one of the witnesses who appeared before that grand jury appears

to have lied and could end up in jail. tuesday reporters caught up with senator lindsey graham who said he was confident he hadn't perjured himself before rushing out of the room to avoid answering more questions. >> yes, i'm very confident. i have no idea what they're going to do. i'll just leave that to -- i'm confident. >> the newly released portions of of the report also note the grand jury found by unanimous vote that no widespread fraud took place in the georgia 2020 presidential election that could result in overturning that election. so you can add that to the pile of official groups in georgia that have found trump's claims of widespread voter fraud to be patently false. former president trump for his part used the release of this report to preamaturely declare victory. on his social media platform truth social trump said the

report -- one potential reason trump's name doesn't appear in the sections of the report released today could be because he's still the subject of the criminal investigation one where the d.a. may soon have to decide whether or not to charge him with a crime. that decision could come any day now. mr. moore, thanks for being here i want to start with the breadcrumbs we're following. the phrase one or more witnesses in the sentence may have committed perjury, is that meaningful to you? >> well, i'm glad to be with you tonight. i'll tell you i don't know

anybody who appeared before the grand jury ought to betaking great comfort in anything that was said and, you know, we're in unusual waters here. it's uncharted territory. you don't see these reports in georgia. we just have a criminal grand jury. there's really no play book, no go by for this type of report. and here, you know, the special first grand jury sent some things out, the judge redacted most of the report. but i think he did that sort of balancing the interest of maybe the maybe has access to some information at the same time protecting the d.a.'s investigation and protecting due process rights of potential defendants in the case. we're seeing something not a normal occurrence. it is unusual to have a grand jury say that they didn't believe some of the witnesses.

that may happen at times with a prosecutor in the confines of the grand jury room but not necessarily in a public filing like this or in a public report that gets put out. my guess is at the end of the day you're going to find those people who challenge the subpoenas, who file sort of frivless claims of privilege and other things to keep from having to testify before the grand jury that ultimately did, you'll find some correlation likely between those names and the people that the grand jury thought were being less than forthcoming, less than candid with them in fulton county. >> yeah, one of those names it appears in bright lights is that of senator lindsey graham where we already know there's a disagreement between two people including him involved in a sort of central part of this scheme. the secretary of state of georgia brad raffensperger says that senator graham asked him to reject votes. senator graham says he did not, assuming they both said the same thing to the grand jury that means that one of them is lying.

am i doing the math wrong here? >> no, you're doing it right. and the problem for senator graham is secretary raffensperger made no real secret about it when it happened. he went in public and made some public comments about how he felt about the call. those sort of contemporaneous statements at the time are going to come back to bite senator graham in fact if he's one of the people the grand jury was talking about. remember this is just a report. it's almost like a recommendation to the d.a. she can take or leave or take parts of it and put it in a file. this does not mean she will move forward with perjury charges. it just means there were members of the grand jury who felt they weren't getting the full story. my guess she'll have to play through other likely defendants in the case and she may decide

that's enough. you can't have beef stew without carrots and potatoes and beef. and we're waiting to see at the end of what will shakeout in this investigation. >> i'm going to assume that's a brunswick stew metaphor. >> right. that's just a good beef stew. you've got to have the carrots and potatoes, but we're waiting on the beef. >> just real quick, trump, it former president, saying he's fully exonerated by this report. which you point out it's not a charging document. it's basically georgia's version of the january 6th committee. they had a lot of information, they're issuing their recommendations. it's up to the d.a. to decide what to do with it. do you think the president is on any solid ground here in claiming exoneration? >> no. he's put more spin on that than

any basketball player with a ball. there's no comfort he can take in this report. the judge said specifically i'm taking the names out, i'm taking the recommendation out who the grand jury said should be indicted. to say now, well, my name is out just is sort of laughable at this point. it is not surprising he wasn't called to testify before the grand jury. typically a prosecutor won't do that. if they've got a target, a subject of the investigation you don't bring them in to put on a circus in front of the grand jury claiming the fifth over and over. so i'm not really surprised at all, and this is just classic trumpian spin that is meaningless, and it may provide some fodder for other channels and some supporters somewhere, but it's a completely meaningless statement that he put outch. >> my name is not in a report

with no names. >> right. my name is not in it either. >> my name is also not in there so i'm exonerated as well. michael moore, thanks for joining us this evening. joining us now is andrew wiseman. what is your reading, what is interesting to you? >> first i've been totally exonerated, that rang a bell because unlike the eight pages that we have with 400 pages where donald trump said he was totally exonerated, which he wasn't, here he says so because it's eight very, very redacted

pages. just to highlight something you probably alluded to but just to point out something sort of interesting to me you had unanimity on this issue of, you know, was there widespread fraud in the election and interesting that was unanimous. but the issue of whether people -- anybody had committed perjury was just by a majority, and that tells me there's going to be sort of critical thinkers. this wasn't just a block of people who were saying all the same thing. so that was like one small piece of tea leaf reading. >> and in the summary we got they said they're going to find in a full report who voted yes and no on certain things. >> yes, which is fascinating as a sort of former trial lawyer the idea a jury is going to give you their break down in a case, that just doesn't happen where you've got a break down and sort of this is what the grand jury

thinks and who thought what. usually you get there's an indictment or not an indictment. you don't get that it's 14 people or 17 people and these people dissented. here it was fascinating to me you had such a strong break down. >> do you think that could be at all -- and i'm an amateur legal scholar, very amateur legal scholar here, but it seems like the d.a. has some civilian cover if he does pursue an indictment here, right? >> absolutely. >> and if she does go forward with high stakes indictments and we then read the full report and we learn not all the folk of georgia wanted to move on for example a criminal indictment of lindsey graham or donald trump, does that complicate her mission at all? >> you know, i don't think so.

it remains to be seen, but i don't think that's going to come out in a trial that's going to hurt somebody. it's interesting and nice to know what they thought. but at the end of the day the person who has to make the call is the d.a. and the grand jury she has to go to, so there will be a second grand jury that will decide just the issue of is there probable cause. it really is this is sort of, yes, you can get cover in the same way the january 6th committee can get doj cover. this can help in her sort of public acceptance, you know, there is a first ever indictment of a formal president, having sort of public acceptance of why it's being done and why there's

some legitimacy is going to be critical, more critical than any criminal case i think any of us have ever seen. >> and from a state d.a. to go, you know, shoot for the moon as it were with the former president, what do you see as the time frame here? you make the very important point there's another grand jury involved here. it's not like faunae willis is off to the races. what should we be expecting in terms of time line? >> so one thing the real grand jury has to investigate everything and hear from the same witnesses, all of that can be read in so you don't have a lot of time for that. i'm hearing about new witnesses being called into that grand jury. so my suspicion is that what she's doing at least is going to

have to be ready for when she brings an indictment. for instance there's all sorts of motions that will be made if the former president is charged with change of venue to take the case federally. she's got to prepare for that, to challenge the grand jury to seek minutes of the grand jury. so i can see her really wanting to have all of her ducks in a row that when this is brought all of that is thought through. so it really does remind me in that sense when i was in the special counsel investigation, you know, there's a lot of work that goes into things other than the actual charge and being ready for the court fight that's about to happen. >> oh, i mean unlike anything we've ever seen. speaking of federal investigations, i do want to call your attention to -- because i do like talking about subpoenas. it's the thing that gets me up in the morning. vice president mike pence has been served a subpoena to

testify under doj special counsel jack smith, and there's been questions about the reasons he's invoking not having to comply with the subpoena. he was asked about whether he had testify voluntarily. i want to play that sound because it's very telling. >> the issue here is whether or not a vice president who served as president of the senate should be subject to a subpoena to appear in court. >> but will you voluntarily -- >> the justice department has insisted and i'm reserving that right in the event this were a matter that would go to trial, and we simply made it clear to them we think it's not only unprecedented but we think it's unconstitutional. >> would you be okay with voluntarily -- >> as i said i've written extensively about this, spoken extensively. >> really, he could just testify. >> there is this issue why not

just do it voluntarily, and when i was in the government i thought you be an obligation to the public and if you're called you're supposed to speak. you're paid by the taxpayer. i know this may sound naive. when i saw nikki haley, you're running for the highest office in the land. you have an obligation. you're running for the highest office of the nation. why are you just not doing this out of your sense of patriotism? and then whatever the chips are, they fall where they may so help somebody or hurt somebody, that's not your job is to not spin that. one thing i'll say the speech and debate clause issue is going to be more complicated than people think. >> which is the defense -- what he's invoking right now.

>> exactly. and i don't think that people who say there's no ground for it, there's just no basis, i think that's too much. i think this is a novel issue. he sits in the white house now but not that long ago the vice-presidency used to sit at the capitol. their salary comes from the capitol. so it is an interesting hybrid of a role, and he's going to play that up. i don't think it'll prevent him from testifying completely, but i do think that this is not one where we should just say dismiss it. we all know why he's doing it, but that doesn't mean there's not some kernel there the court may agree. >> it's like star trek for law, going where no man has ever gone before. >> another great analogy. >> andrew wiseman, thank you, sir, for your time as always. >> you're welcome. we have quite a bit to get to tonight.

we'll talk to the reporter whose latest reporting is raising new questions about just exactly when and how a former high level fbi counter intelligence official got tangled up with a controversial russian oligarch. and if you're wondering whether other states are following georgia's lead and investigating potential criminal behavior in and around the 2020 election, we have got some news for you. that's just ahead. have got some news for you that's just ahead. i wish that shaq was my real life big brother. what's up, little bro? turns out, some wishes do come true. and it turns out the general is a quality insurance company that's been saving people money for nearly 60 years. for a great low rate, and nearly 60 years of quality coverage- go with the general.

georgia wasn't the only state where president trump falsely claimed that there was election fraud. georgia wasn't the only state where republicans issued a separate slate of fake electors. those schemes also unfolded in new mexico, arizona, nevada, pennsylvania, wisconsin, and michigan. and the justice department is starting to zero in on them. in december special counsel jack smith sent grand jury subpoenas to state and local elections officials from six states, basically every battleground state with a fake elector scheme except for new mexico. he's seeking any and all communications those officials had with trump, his campaign, and his allies. and while it is notable that a fake elector scheme touched that many states, the efforts to upend michigan's election results were particularly zealous. just two weeks after the presidential election, trump himself summoned two michigan republican legislative leaders to the white house.

you remember that? it was right as he was contesting the state's election results. they met, trump and the officials, for nearly an hour. despite that pressure the two legislators left the meeting promising to follow the law and follow the normal process regarding michigan's electors. but the attempt to subvert the will of michigan's voters did not end there. on december 14, 2020, a group of republicans who signed onto their own certificate to award michigan's 16 electoral college votes to trump, they actually tried to break into the statehouse to deliver their electoral votes, just tried to blow that security. ultimately law enforcement blocked them. those fake electors even considered entering michigan's capitol the night before and hiding out overnight to ensure they would be inside the state senate chambers on the 14th to deliver those fake votes. in the end joe biden certified the winner by a little over 154,000 votes. though trump did not make a call

to the michigan secretary of state to find another 154,000 votes at least that we know of, his brazenness to steal the election in that state rivals the scheme in georgia, which is perhaps why the attorney general opened an investigation into the michigan fake elector scheme and then referred it to the u.s. attorney's office for the western district of michigan in january of 2022. and last month she reopened her criminal probe into the elector scheme saying quite candidly, yes, we are reopening our investigation because i don't know what the federal government plans to do. meanwhile the claims of election fraud have not ended even though it is the year 2023. while michigan is busy getting to the bottom of what happened in 2020, it's also moving quickly to try to insulate the state's infrastructure from the rot of election denialism in the years to come. joining us now is one woman at the front of that fight, michigan secretary of state

jocelyn benson. madam secretary, thank you for being here tonight. >> thanks for having me. >> thanks for coming on the show. i know you're busy doing the important work of trying to save democracy and i want to get to some of the measures you're proposing in your state to ensure the sanctity of our democracy, but i first want to start if you could with this moment where we're reexamining just the outlandish, brazen, anti-democratic efforts to steal the election in 2020 and remind us of what it was like to live through what happened in michigan in 2020. >> it was a constant, every day constant wack a mole. we would wake up thinking have we protected against every potential challenge. it did feel like indeed every lever was going to be tried day after day after day.

none of us had anticipated the depth which people would go. on that moment on january 6th i realized we should never underestimate how far people are willing to go to further their political agenda and overturn the will of the people. >> as you witness what's unfolding in fulton county and the work being done there, the number of high level trump officials she's speen odd, the testimony she's gotten, the work forthcoming, charges are imminent, do you think that is a shot in the arm to other state level officials who are saying, okay, we're going to hold these folks accountable. just because he's a former president or as a current senator or whoever it is, doesn't mean they're insulated from following the law. >> absolutely. and, look, truth, law, just, the constitution they're all on the side of democracy and the will of the people in this case. but if we don't have

consequences for those who were a part of what was a very well coordinated national effort to overturn a presidential election, the valid will of the people, if there are no consequences then we have no assurance it won't be tried again. we hope to never experience anything like that again but we have no assurance that we won't unless there's real consequences that we have yet to see. so i'm grateful our attorney general of michigan has said, look, i don't know what the federal government has planned to do on this coordinated effort and seeking justice there, but we in michigan will seek adjust s against those who tried to take away our voter forces, and rimy proud she continues to lead and work with all of us to seek justice for really the anti-democratic efforts we saw in michigan. >> are you heartened by the fact the doj has requested documents from michigan officials? i mean the special counsel seems

to be looking specifically at your state now. is that -- tell me how that ranks -- full stop, you are heartened. when we talk about the efforts you are engaged in to make sure this doesn't happen again, could you outline some of them and how they might work because election misinformation and election fraud, how do you combat it from the state level? >> one, again, the legal consequence and political consequences are key. and voters spoke clearly in michigan in 2022 rejecting up and down the ticket those who were running on a platform of denying the results of the 2020 election. so we have the will of the people at our backs to now enact policies that would do everything from protecting our election workers from the threats this misinformation generates to addressing those who intentionally spread disinformation by seeking action there. we want to make it a -- against the law to fengzally law to voters about their rights, about

their democracy and really address the practices while ensuring our election system itself is protected from the evolution of what that misinformation generates. and we're working with other states as well because this, again, wasn't just about michigan. nevada, arizona, all of it, we're all part of it but we hope to lead in michigan by showing what real consequences lock like and accountability look like and preparation to prevent against future efforts. >> are you at all worried about wading into the debate over civil liberties that's like unfolding, for example, on social media? does that complicate what you're trying to do at all? >> we respect and will respect the parameters of the first amendment. just like, you know, it's not appropriate or legal to lie to people about what's in certain products in commercial advertising, it should not be appropriate for people to intentionally lie and spread misinformation about our elections and the rights of voters especially when we know

so often they're connected directly to threats of violence against the very people who make our democracy work. >> it's like the consumer financial protection bureau for democracy. >> for the voters. >> michigan secretary of state, thanks for your time tonight. really appreciate it. >> thanks for having me. coming up the latest twist in the saga of the chinese spy balloon and all the stuff we shot out of the sky after that. plus new reporting raises concern said about a former fbi official indicted for his work with a controversial russian oligarch, specifically about when that relationship began. we'll talk to reporters who have been getting all the scoops. that's next. o have been getting all the scoops. that's next. we planned well for retirement, but i wish we had more cash. you think those two have any idea? that they can

sell their life insurance policy for cash? so they're basically sitting on a goldmine? i don't think they have a clue. that's crazy! well, not everyone knows coventry's helped thousands of people sell their policies for cash. even term policies. i can't believe they're just sitting up there! sitting on all this cash. if you own a life insurance policy of $100,000 or more, you can sell all or part of it to coventry. even a term policy. for cash, or a combination of cash and coverage, with no future premiums. someone needs to tell them, that they're sitting on a goldmine, and you have no idea! hey, guys! you're sitting on a goldmine! come on, guys! do you hear that? i don't hear anything anymore. find out if you're sitting on a goldmine. call coventry direct today at the number on your screen, or visit coventrydirect.com.

during his tenure at the fbi he oversaw roughly 150 fbi agents in new york and headed the recruitment of foreign spies to come work for the u.s. and now he has been federally indicted twice. his name is charles mcgonigal. he left the fbi in 2018, but this past month the justice

department charged mcgonigal for taking and concealing over $200,000 from an albanian intelligence officer while still working at the fbi. they also have charged mcgonigal with violating u.s. sanctions by working with notorious russian oligarch oleg deripaska who has close ties with vladimir putin. mcgonigal took money from deripaska after me left the fbi in 2018, and the investigation does not appear to concern espionage. but new reporting today from insiders is posing a handful of concerning questions about when exactly that russian relationship began. here's the report. in 2018 mcgonigal traveled to london where he met with a russian contact who's under surveillance by british authorities two u.s. toelgs sources told insider. insider was able to determine the year but not the month of the meeting. the fourth source noted regardless whether the meeting occurred before or after

mcgonigal retired from the fbi in september 2018 it suggested a serious and extended relationship. what does this all mean in terms of mcgonigal's russian contacts? did he foster the relationship when he was in the fbi or also when? and also remember two years before this meeting the fbi was at the center of some highly controversial work including an investigation into hillary clinton's e-mails and a probe into the trump campaign's possible lijs to russia. so what can this new reporting add to our understanding of this mess, or as one source described it, what the "f" was he thinking? joining us now is the reporter on that piece, senior correspondent at insider. he was the first to report on the existence of the mcgonigal investigation in september and has been the lead reporter on the story with scoops galore. matt, it's great to have you here. thanks for joining me.

2018 we know this meeting happened. you suggest in the piece it may have preceded the correspond between mcgonigal and this russian asset may have preceded the actual meeting. can you tell us how you've tried to pinpoint the month in which this meeting happened, and, you know, what intelligence you have about the degree to which there was any back and forth prior to the meeting? >> certainly. so we know that mcgonigal retired from the fbi in september 2018. and we know this meeting with a russian in london who was under u.k. surveillance also occurred in 2018. we don't know whether he met with a russian before or after his retirement. i've tried to pin that down. if anyone out there knows, please reach out. i've also tried to pin down exactly who this russian is. there are some indications in the indictments that suggests it could be possibly oleg deripaska, but we don't know that. i reached out to deripaska's people and they do not want to comment about this because they

have their own issues going with doj. now, what we do know is that charlie mcgonigal did travel to london and did meet with a russian who was important enough for the british to be watching. and we know that the british were concerned enough about this meeting to alert the fbi, to actually ring up the u.s. embassy in london and tell the fbi's legal attache there this happened and we're really concerned about it. i don't know exactly what was said, but they were worried. and we know that that alert that went from the u.k. to the usa was part -- at least part of the predication or the beginning of the fbi's investigation into mcgonigal. so until that happened, it seems likely that the fbi may not have been aware that there was a problem here. >> matt, why would mcgonigal go to him? where mean he's former head of counter intelligence for the fbi in new york.

he must have known this russian he was meeting with was under surveillance by the brits. wouldn't he have known that? >> it is very likely he would have known that because he would have been running the same counter intelligence operations in new york city. that was his job, so he would have known to some degree, the degree to which, you know, surveillance from the british would have penetrated london. now, it's possible that he was just kind of dumb and greedy and did it anyway. it's also possible he thought this meeting was above board. maybe he thought this sort of behavior if it happened after his retirement going to work or speaking to this person for whatever reason was normal. it's also possible that he thought he was recruiting this person as a source, and if that's true sometimes those kind of relationships with go both ways and someone doesn't know what they're getting into. but it is very strange if someone in his role, you know,

would basically be caught meeting with someone the british and former employers in the fbi thought he should not be doing this. this is something asked over and over again, what was he thinking here because it really seems like either a real miscalculation or a blunder that you wouldn't expect someone in such a senior role to make when the stakes are this high. >> matt schwartz, your reporting on this has been relentless and illuminating. we'll follow the story as you post, senior correspondent and insider, thanks for your time tonight. >> thank you. it's a pleasure. up next, a memo to all republican balloon hunters out there. a white house announcement today highlights what could happen when you shoot first and ask questions later. stay with us. ask questions later. stay with us

why are 93% of sleep number sleepers very satisfied with their bed? maybe it's because you can adjust your comfort and firmness on either side. your sleep number setting. to help relieve pressure points and keep you both comfortable all night.

and now, save 50% on the sleep number 360 limited edition smart bed. ends monday. first, you got to fill the 10 foot tall balloon with lots of helium. add 150 kids, and presto, you have real science in action. >> science in action. that was the eight grade class of long fellow launching a high altitude balloon as a science project in the year 2015. students as young as middle school launch high altitude balloons like this all the time. it's a great hands on science

experiment made easy because balloons like this are cheap and easy for civilians to get their hands on. you can buy a high altitude balloon for as little as $12. an illinois hobbyist group that uses balloons like these has now come forward to say their balloon which they were using to float ham radio transmitters went missing. it was last spotted over the yukon territory in alaska at the same time the u.s. shot down a high altitude balloon. so there's a chance the u.s. government used a $400,000 missile to shoot a ham radio transmitter on a $12 balloon out of the sky. today president biden confirmed other than the initial chinese spy balloon the three other mystery objects the u.s. shot down were likely scientific or civilian balloons. republicans in congress have been jumping up and down about how much of an emergency these balloons are and how everything

needs to be shot out the sky basically as soon as we see it, but maybe we need to cool our jets here literally. joining us now is shane harris, intelligence and national security reporter for "the washington post." thank you for being here. the balloon and science experiment is something happening in middle schools all over the country, and maybe we're using f-22 fighter jets to shoot them down. is this the new normal? do you feel the pentagon has to adopt a new political posture -- a new posture because of politics on the chinese balloon? >> as sad i feel for the students balloon has been shot down and the search for them has been suspended apparently in canada, so how much is your science project worth if they're not going to go looking for it, i guess, no, i think the pentagon is in an awkward position as you pointed out where they're scrambling jets. they recalibrated the raiders and there's all kinds of different intelligence components that go into spotting

these things. yes, they have to go up and check and see if their threats. i think right now they are very eagerly trying to figure out how they discern chinese surveillance balloons, which we are all familiar with, from science projects like this because, no, they cannot afford to be sending jets up after, you know, small balloons floating in the air. >> personally i was surprised the u.s. government can't tell the difference between what could be a foreign government's spy balloon and a middle school weather project. did that surprise you? i mean certainly the government isn't admitting this is a middle school science project yet, but the distinction couldn't be made given the technology we have seems surprising to me. >> yeah, it did, actually. it's funny because i've been writing for a number of years about so-called uaps or

unidentified aerial phenomena, which we've talked about before about are these little green men or drones or balloons, what are they? the military has been looking closely at this. what we think has happened, though, in the past several months, there's also one to crash in june that's gotten a lot of attention off the coast of hawaii. and what our sources have told us is that the intelligence community has taken what they learned about these actual surveillance balloons and kind of used it to understand more about other objects that are out there floating in the atmosphere. and they've recalibrated the radar in recent days. and people have used this analogy, look, if you're on a shopping website and you sort of are unselecting certain boxes on that website, you're going to get tons more hits, maybe things you didn't want to see before now are going to appear for you as options. the radar the military used essentially is like that. for a lot of these slow moving high altitude objects they just

filtered that out. they thought it's not a missile, it's not a fighter plane, it's probably harmless, we don't need to look at it. now they're looking at it because a giant chinese spy balloon floated across the united states. hopefully they'll calibrate it so they don't have to use this every time. >> much has been made over the sort of ridiculousness of the situation. how developed is a chinese spy balloon in terms of actual intelligence gathering? how concerned should we be as it is a component of the chinese spy program? >> yeah, officials i've talked to, u.s. officials have said it doesn't rank very high in china's hierarchy of china's intelligence gathering capabilities. they have very sophisticated computer hacking operations that can take information off computer networks. the balloons, though, have a

certain advantage they can hover over or loiter over a certain target for a longer period of time, maybe take pictures at different resolutions. sat sliets spinning around the earth maybe for a few minutes to take pictures or gather intelligence as they pass around the target. balloons are useful, but what u.s. officials are saying they're not really part of a higher priority but part of a broader program and pretty confident this balloon that crossed over the u.s. in february did not gather a lot of useful information. >> i just think it's amazing that middle school students are -- first of all, "a," it's a good time to be alive when middle school students have the tech readily available to also the chinese for a spy program. also balloons, bonus, come in different shapes, for example, pikachu or a football. shane harris, thank you for your time and wisdom this evening. >> thanks, alex.

good to talk with you. >> we'll be right back. good to talk with you. >> we'll be right back trelegy for copd. ♪birds flyin' high, you know how i feel.♪ ♪breeze driftin' on by...♪ ♪...you know how i feel.♪ you don't have to take... [coughing] ...copd sitting down. ♪it's a new dawn,...♪ ♪...it's a new day,♪ it's time to make a stand. ♪and i'm feelin' good.♪ start a new day with trelegy. no once-daily copd... ...medicine has the power to treat copd... ...in as many ways as trelegy. with three medicines in one inhaler,... ...trelegy makes breathing easier for a full 24 hours, improves lung function, and helps prevent future flare-ups. trelegy won't replace a rescue inhaler... ...for sudden breathing problems. tell your doctor if you have a heart condition or high blood pressure before taking it. do not take trelegy more than prescribed. trelegy may increase your risk of thrush, pneumonia, and osteoporosis. call your doctor if worsened breathing, chest pain,

mouth or tongue swelling, problems urinating,... ...vision changes, or eye pain occur. take a stand, and start a new day with trelegy. ask your doctor about once-daily trelegy... ...and save at trelegy.com. if you have diabetes, then getting on the dexcom g6 ask your doctor about once-daily trelegy... is the single most important thing you can do. it eliminates painful fingersticks, helps lower a1c, and it's covered by medicare. before dexcom g6, i was frustrated. all of that finger-pricking and all of that pain, my a1c was still stuck.

my diabetes was out of control. i was tired. (female announcer) dexcom g6 sends your glucose numbers to your phone or receiver without painful fingersticks. the arrow shows the direction your glucose is heading: up, down, or steady, so you can make better decisions about food and activity in the moment. after using dexcom g6, my a1c has never been lower. i lead line dancing three times a week, i exercise, and i'm just living a great life now. it's so easy to use. dexcom g6 has given me confidence and control that everything i need is right there on my phone. (female announcer) dexcom g6 is the #1 recommended cgm system by doctors and patients. call now to get started. (bright music) when i was his age, we had to be inside to watch live sports.

but with xfinity, we get the fastest mobile service and can stream down the street or around the block! hey, can you be less sister, more car? all right, let's get this over with. switch to xfinity mobile and save big on the new samsung galaxy s23 series. i should get paid more for this. you get paid when you win. from xfinity. home of the 10g network. everything's changing so quickly. before the xfinity 10g network, we didn't have internet that let us play all at once. every device? in every room? why are you up here? when i was your age, we couldn't stream a movie when the power went out. you're only a year older than me. you have no idea how good you've got it. huh? what a time to be alive. introducing the next generation 10g network. only from xfinity. the future starts now.

that is the show for tonight. we'll see you again tomorrow. "way too early" with jonathan lemire is coming up next. what the previous days have shown we'll always act to protect the interest of the american people and the