this sunday, legal showdown. >> the thugs and tz7jáu'day, legal showdown.

>> the thugsjfi] and criminals areçócorrupting our justice system, xdhe's rallying his supporters as another legal probe, the special counsel criminal investigation intensifies.e1xdxdr >> i'll talk to trump's attorney joe tacopina and preet bharara. >> your platform should be banned. >> tiktok ceo faces bipartisan ( skepticism that the app may be used for spying by the chinese government. >> has indeed spied on americaná citizens? >> i don't think that spying is the right way to describ"wit. >> can the biden adóilistration ban the most downloaded app on the planet?5a■xdw3lpe1lpe1ñri]

>>fá and parental w3permission. as was, utah decidest( to target all of 5$%1■ media and becomes the first state in the nation to restrict how children use it.i] >> we have a responsibility to protect our young people. >> i'll talk to republi#pf governor spencer cox who signed this new law regardi consent for minors usq media apps. joining me for insight and e9 correspondent yamiche alcindor.1 jake sherman, co-founder of "punchbowl news."r "wall street journal" columnistf peggy noonan 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 sundayrdjj this week left no doubt donald trump is still in charge of the republican party. just a few hours after trump's vjj be arrested in the manhattan hush money case last tuesday, the speaker of the house kevin mccarthy announced that house republicans were launching é@■ investigations into manhattan r

district attorney bragg, and three chairmen claiming an, fá quote, unprecedented abuse of fá prosecutorial authority demanded bragg testify and turn over documents and let me remind you, it's on a case where we dongt;xd know what the charges are or any will be brought.t(çócmy■ we're not even sure what documents they want. the rest of the party, even w3ñi 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. xd >> it kind of reeks of politicar revenge. >> we know it's political xd >> what i call a criminalization of politics.jflp >> politically motivated effort by me to a soros funded da. >> the manhattan district i]lp attorney is a soros funded prosecutor. >> again, all of those are what i call pre-reactions because

there is no indictment anl@jne hasn't happened yet.xd trump's biggest obstacle nomination, though not a political one, 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 bragg personallyi +p!= attorney in manhattan viciously calling him a soros-backed animal, and he also added he is doing the work of anarch■3rs and the devil.xdxd andq then in an overñi media post on friday, trump escalated it.ñiñrfáe1 he threatened potential death and destruction if he is charged and later in the day, bragg did death threat including white powder in the envelope and the ó white powder tested negative and bragg and others have ret:judlp1 in recent weeks. oñ his firs formal rally of the 2024 campaign infá waco, texas, oft( places, trump foc of his speech on his legali]

jeopardy, in fact, really leaned into it.xd his campaign made witch hunt signs in an effort to be featured prominently behind himá while he was speaking. >> the district attorney of new york under the auspices and direction of the department of q injustice in washington, dc dc, was investigating me for something that is not a crime, not a misdemeanor, not an affair.xdt( i never liked hors]@fñ prosecutorial misconduct is their new tool, and they're willing to use it at levels never used before.t(qñr when they go after me they're going after you. >> just a reminder, the xdfáfá manhattan da does not work forlp the department of justice. joining me now is joe tacopina mr. tacopina, welcome to "meet the press."jf >> thçn&s, chuck, good morning.d >> why can your client, mr. trump, make that claim that

turned out not to be true?xd did he make it up?p,■ t up.e make it up?p,■ he was reacting to a lot of leaks coming out of the district attorney's office. that monday the day before thatá thursday, 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, ■ lot of rumors regarding the arraignment being the next day, and he assumed based on those happen. he wasn't making it up and he doesn't want to be arrested. ymd >> hasçó anybody in the da's office contacted you or told you about any special arrangements?i did he have any of this knowledge through you? we've been in touch with the district attorney's office ñixd regarding potential logistics, 1 of an arraignment, if it gets to that point, but it ce didn't come from us.r it came frm■@1 m read in the newspaper that y monday or the friday preceding.

>> mr. trump has described alvir bragg this week as a soros- was doing the work of anarchists and the devil, called him a ok degenerate psychopath, calling d him a soros, racist in xdrevers causing him 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 3 anyone other than donald trump. let's be clear about that. does anyone actually think leftd right, or in the middle that anyone else would be prosecuted for making !ñá civil settlementn 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 r mistress and the child to be housed somewhere.çó

that case was ultimately dismissed by the department of justice after they couldn't getá a conviction and that was with the distinction hereúr so vasvvq and it is clear to anyone, whether you are in support or donald trump or detractor or don't like anything about donald trump, we should al4 country about the weaponizationñ that is what this is,n! s discretion like this. >> you say that, but we have no idea what the charges are yet.ed >> well -- no, i have an idea. >> would you advise a client to personally attack a prosecutor i mean, it's lesusp'izing, mr. tacopina. know.úa. again, i'm not his social media consultant.i] i don't -- i think that was an ill-advised post that one of his social media people put up and ■

he quickly took it down when he realized the hotoric in the >> 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 wasi a rough hit. there was -- here's the thing, % we went through january 6th.x0 so it's not that a possibility that trump's rhetoric creates violence. it's already happened once.q5ti happen?xd 'm not -- i'm not accepting that proposition that his rhetoric created violence. i think violence was on thee1 w that day. but i'm not here to discuss that, chuck.ñre1 i'm not going to defend or condemn anything regarding social media. it's not what i do.lpqi] i'm not a trump pr person. i'm a litigator and a lawyer, and i'm talking about this case in manhattan, which is a case ñi that would not be brought for 1k when we use the office to politicize and weaponize a ok campaign, that's what's ñr troublinbpáo me.xd

if you look at the facts for a second, you have two crucial distinctions and one this was personal funds.i] can you imagine the amount of people that would be begging fo3 donald trump's sp if he used q expense? they would be going ballistic and they would have a right to be going ballistic. thee1 standard of law -- and th is important, if you used personalñi funds an you're involved in the campaigni the bright line test is would you have expended that money?lpk irrespective of the candidacy? irrespective of the campaign? is yes. this was the personal civil settlement that's done every day in new york city and it has xdt( nothing to do with campaign finance laws.qfá >> no, no, no. look, you may have your day in court to make this case, but you personal funds. p this was funds where he was q repaid by the trump organization.e1 >> no, incorrect.

>> you call itt( personal funds. it is in a court of law it's been proven that it was trump organization funds.lpt( it was not funds related to the campaign. >> but he used a trump organization check. qrltr(t&háh% >> not cam#=kujzçó finance laws. chuck, that's personal.q that's personal. >> everw.$ing with the donald trump organization is personal? you realize the door you're opening there.jf >> chuck, cpáa-1juá—q absolutely conflating issues and 2( they just don't. this is a case that's being investigated because allegedly donald trump had an obligation ] to notify the fec, the federal election committee, he did not.p the fec has come forth and said that. this has nothing to do whether he paid it through an organization, or his perso.w funds. these were personal funds, by t( all accounts these were personal funds and not campaign funds.e1 whether the trump organization, donald trump the person, fá mar-a-lago corporation, whatever it is.e1 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.e1 we'd be talking about how he used campaign funds and they'd be paying for an indictment as i said earlier. >> what this investigation may r 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 n% brought it over 60 times over the last four years. this is not an unusual crime to charge someone with in the q manhattanfáxd district attorney office. >> oh, no. oh, chuck,t( you couldn't be mo wrong whenu statement. there's -- first of all, it's a case of first impressi/oh ju+hju$is country has this been done before. never in the manhattan attorney's office has someone been charged with a crime for falsifying business records to ■ pay hush money, as they call it or a confidential settlement in legal jargon regarding a personal matter. n the history o÷s @■ manhattan districb@gttorney's qq

office. if there with -- were axd filin obligation, if he'd taken tax obligation, if he'd taken tax money, which he did nopá would be a crime.w3 if he had used campaign funds, we'd have an argument here. this was a personal matter, and -- w3ok >> he called it legal fees th> 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 ou■ the amount and over the course of a year was paid off. what was he supposed to be put in his personal ledger?çóe1xdxd áuásvwhat would he putxd in payment for hush money to quiet an affair that i clyi1 had so my family doesn't get embarrassed? is that what he puts in his ledger? >> how about the third onkóumy■d shouldn'txd it be the truth? >> chuck, chuck, ñichuck, would

you ever put a four-paragraph sentence to a ledger?xdñie1 honestly, i think you're being a little petty when you're looking at this now. there is no filing obligation, you can put whatever you want in your personal ledger.çó if it were a taxñrxd obligation that wouldok be one r if it werexd 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 ñi initially it was and he was taking a deduction, and he did not. secondly, did he use campaign funds?w3 he did not. tptest is would he have mad payment regardta- campaign and the answer is a resounding yes by all accounts. >> i do want to get you to respond to someone who had a differen4@/=yy7iju)qj)ráh and it was you a few years ago. and let me play thiuáá$p'd get you to respond. >> quite frankly, michael cohen again has made statements that wgá any prosecutor to say that doesn't make sense, that a

lawyer took out a equityt( loanf his own money, paid money to someone hew3 didn't çóknow, to afford t($130,000 and didn't te the client aboutlp the legal agreement, and it's a freight if that's, in fact, the case.t(ñi >> look, we put in the if, in fact, that is the case.ñ?ayr"$v 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 money. the hypothetical question posedó to me five years ago beforei]t( afe as so many legal experts go on ■ tv, and i was asked about this hypothetical question.f>i i responded wiu)6áp'd 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 d case, when i'mñr answering a hypothetical question without knowing the facts 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 tze 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 u campaign finance law involved here because his personal funds and the expevd9qui been made irrespective of the n■ campaign. those are facts i didn't have before me five years ago as a hypothetical question was posed to a legal expert on tv.i]i] >> all right. it sounds like you have a defense ready to go, but 5a■ probable. i mean, if you're a prosecutor, you're making these claims.çót( great.q show us your proof of it. it seems like there's enough at dispute here that actually this belongs in a court of lawi: resolve this. >> of course, it doesn't belongi in a court of law, chuck. listen, again, you can 6ai%9 case, cobble two misdemeanors

together and try to make a felony to meet thec statute of ñi there's misdemeanor that exists.ñiñi there's not even a crime here. >> there's a crime here. there is a campaign finance crime that he has pled guilty to, that involves the former the court of this issue. >> wrong. >> well, that's not what the federal government said.ñi michael cohen served time. what did he serve time for?r >> can i tell you? >> a million different crimes. the guy was committing tax and i other frauds and other perjury.3 if y7ub want to say it, fine,oht if you let mee1 answer,t( which whenxd michael cohen pled guilt he said something crucialjfe1 t

campaign finance law, ande1 it' what everyone has used, even if you accept the word of ar convv a guy who has lied in any forum he's ever been in, he said when he pled guilty that this was done for the benefit ofxt campaign and for personal embarrassment to the client and his family including his young son barron. the campaign.d exclusively for it's like me buying a suit for the campaign so i can look better than if i had an old suit it's a personal expenditure. it's not a campaign expenditure even though it benefits the campaicht's not a campaign expenditure. when michael cohen said it was for personal and cy or reasons, that takes it ok exclusivel9a;áeij(ps(aign finance law and there ka@9= crime. that's the law on campaign finance. xde1lpxd a very murky law on campaign finance 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 in this case. the manhattan case, it's çó just one of the criminal lpxdqlp

investigations against the former president where we've seen major developments in the case. former trump officialsi] includb former chief of staffe1 mark meadows will beçói]fá compelled testify regarding january 6th. mi january 6th, is still in question. arguments heard this week. trump lost his attorney-client privilege, and his mar-a-lago documents case had to talk to ar grand jury on friday. and then there'sq the case of ■ference in the state ofxd georgia where the das likely to decide soon whether to bring charges there.ok joining me now is the former u.sy/uj district of new york preet bharara.t+h#rom the southern i]d >> preet, welcome back. >> thanks for having me. >> let me start with what@ve just heard, mr. tacopina. at the end of the day would this be an easier case in federal

court? >> 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 saying no crime here.u nobody would ever charge this case. it's unseemly, it's irrationally, it's never happened before and it did, it happened with respect to michael cohen who was not only charged with this type of crime, thisñ@( particular crime.v it. his lawyer thought it was a crime and he thought it was a crime, pled guilty to it. his lawyer thought it was a crime and allowed him to pl>q% guilty to it. the judge accepted the guilty plea and thought it was a crime 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.ñiñri]jf >> you heard his case.u he feels as ifçó there's not -- and, look, thew3 campaign finan cases have not been easily prosecuted, and we know that. he brought the john edwards case.+■e1e1 >> i >> these arexd very difficultçó win because the law is not clear, is that fair?ok

if you're alvin bragg, how hard of a case is this going to be? >> i don't know all the facts and i don't know what evidence they have and i don't know what■ testimony the grand jury has been, and i don't think a2÷ody is saying it's a slam dunk case and i don't think anyone is ñiçó sayino3 it's an open and shut matter. >> the way i hear it, wow, it soundings like they need a mediator. >> i think you have it exactly right. it's a provable case. you have challenges like in any case and issues 'credibility with respect to michael cohen who is a key witk case.xdáhr' the xdçóñi violation, that's not the instruction the judge is going to give. nobody's 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 law as i know it and it's not the instruction that the judge is $= nobody's saying it's an easy, easy case. i will make another point, though, as people attack alvin bragg and say he's doing this for political reasons, this is a person that's been attacked for a year in one instance in book d length form for not rushing to judgment, for not finding the wq easiest and quickest case to bring against the former bring against the former president evenr$áuh$e had ok respect prosecutors in his

office basically begging him to bring that case, he didn't do it. this is the mark of someone who3 is carefult( and deliberative, 1 we can have the argument about the merits and case, but you can't say about alvin bragg that he's rushing to the court to indict the president on flimsy charges. xd >> i'm not asking yo@l=i political look, but as a former law enforcement official, look,k what the former president did, ho/■2ujvzu look at it if you're alvin bragg, if he brings the indictment, qjj$(ár'g it down, he looks like he's been bullied.r in that sense, we're really e1t( seeing the law enforcement community get challenged here by the former president.çó how would you be handling this? >> i don't know. i'm retired from that now by virtue -- >> are you sure?fá >> i'm retired fo look, the only way you can handle these cases and you will get criticism whether you bring a case or don't bg a casee] you have to look the at the law and the facts. the evidence is as i said a q

second ago, you can disagree e1 with him ultimately when we see whi@q! he's not willi[hjeáir'ging lpw3 cases, and i know some people say it's unprecedented to bring a case against a former president, but it's also the case there should be one standard of law enforcement equal before the law, and if other people have been charged with a crime, and asxd i xdsaid this case.é@■ who is the ne if you believe the crime was committed? some might argue that donald trump is not charged with anything. pai/heor his crime.fá the federal case where a judge decided attorney-%,q ve÷9j= of that and where do you think this could be leading to?i]çót(d >> you ticked off a couple of sources. the alvin bragg case is one of t'■ we have legal jeopardy in fulton matter overseen by the special ó

counsel is preceding a case and there are people speculating that there would not be a case there, mar-a-lago or january 6tf and this shows you that they're■ a!gressive and second judge in a different wm+■ there are attorneys and donald trump were conspiring together ó to commit a crime. where these prosecutors should u work together, any grand jury ñi sharing agreements or anything like that? >> you can have that.xdt(ñi >> there's no overlap between ñá that alvin bragg is a manhattan da, and what thew3e1c justice department is doing, and there may be some overlap between what fulton county is about the big lie and election interference. my guess is they're not really sharing too much because it's a% local prosecutor and you want to keep those two lines separate, but that would not be unusual. >> that wouldn't be unprecedented. fáçó

preet bharara, always good to >> thanks for coming down. donald trump may indeedñiñró 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 for his role in the watergate scandal was pardoned by gerald ford and ñi never was formally charged with crimes, and he joined me in 1988 and talked about the impactxd (uq left on his legacy, and he also had a warning for future presidents.t(ñr >> winston churchilvnce wrote x% that strong leaders usually do the big things well, but they follow up on small things and the small things!@ecome 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.i]çóe1 those were the bigñiçthings. and thenlp here was a small thi] and we fouled 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 q see what we accomplished and i]ó what we did wrong. and for the future, i would advise all of me and the position of president to do the big things as well as you can, butxd when a small thi is there, deal with it. deal with it fast, get it out of the 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, perhaps successfully pick the candidate they wanted to run against in 1972. when welp comee1 back, republicans rally to the defense of donald lptrump, anticipatinge could be charged with a cri&qñr áte1 ignoring his dange attacks and calls for political violence.

nicorette knows quitting smoking is freaking hard. you get advice like... just stop. go for a run. go for ten runs. run a marathon. instead, start small with nicorette, which will lead to something big.

give your small business one tech solution instead, start s that checkscorette, all the boxes. it's all here with the comcast business complete connectivity solution. peace of mind with cyberthreat security. the power of the largest, fastest reliable network. plus, save up to 75% a year with comcast business mobile. the complete connectivity solution. from the company powered by the next generation 10g network. get started for just $49 a month.

and ask about an $800 prepaid card. comcast business. powering possibilities™. >> wk. the panel is here. washington correspondent yamiche welcome back. the panel is here, nbc washington correspondent yamiche alcindor and wall street journal columnist peggy noonan.ñie1t(e1 i want to start with this issueó

of violence.r s doing it .r again. however you want to look at it.q 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.t( >> all right.r we've heard him in the social t( media posts and all of that.t(eó forget the legal debate here, why isn't there more outrage about this?ñr >> i wonder lately if people xd have become a little desensitizeu0 donald trump because they're so used to it.xd there's also, i think, there hap been a sense this week that you look at what he's doing, posingp with a baseball bat saying ther( may be violence, all of this stuuó, you look and you think is this ] strategy or a public nervous breakdown?

you actually are not sure. lp you actually are not sure. lp >> i'm not sure.r >> r terms of tacky poli,i trying to nail down and excite his bargn■d looks like he's succeeded, and waco looked last night like he succeeded. there is a part, a significant part, but only a part of the republiyú9h!ase that is all about trump. it seems to me they the big question in the coming year can anybody(mlse 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 havi('z nervous breakdown or if it's campaign politics.lpñiqjfçóxd or if this is his campaign u strategys;n saying, let's make lemonade.g >> either way, it's a dangerous place, and i do have a quote talking about the district atmpney saying he's a soros-backed animal.

that's a classic anti-semitism á racist trump, 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 underñifáq tremendous threat of violence right now, and it's dangerous in that we don't have morejfr republicans calling it out, and( it's really, really troublesome. >> go ahead, yamiche. >> former president trump hasndç u benefitted from a republican party that has backed him after something like january 6th. he was playing music from the xd ñth men's choir, which iñit( learned about yesterday which is made up of men who were imprisoned because of january 6th.!u■g >> 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 facka=1%q%1 consequences or legal most popular figure right now w3

for the gop nomination. so thatñr tells meht■ heq fet, this is working forñr okhim,ok he's using it as a political >> they did lose the midterm in '22. there have been political consequences, jake, to get republicans to sober up here.i] >> the definition ofw3 insanitys doing thee1 same thing twice an sult, right?fáçó donald trump lost them and minimized their gains in the house and lost the senate and lost the presidency and he's h9■ a political disaster for xd3 the republican party just from f pure, statistical point of viewr and it is 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 electionr the people who are in congress ] who were being guarded by xm capitol police officers and federal agents with machine guns. ko■çóe1c but they're pretending they don't. >> the cause >> yeah. >> -- also know what happened, but they're pretending they don't. e1 >> the cause within the republican party. r

>> i was fact-checking you just a bit there.xd as much as we learned about xd donald trump and the gop, we have also learned about ron desantis this week.w3 we have a pretty interesting story here, a republican xdçó strategist who didn't want to be named told our reporters on nc news that this last week withe1 de hot.r desantis is doing a book tour and he's barnstorming the i] country, and his numbers are going down, and trump's going up.ññdxd it's just not a good look for desantis, and there's been a lot of, like,i] questioning oflpñiç desantis this week. peggy, are you questioning him?ó >> look, the past week showed you all of the worst and most objectionable, upsetting and just horrifyingc3tonald trump.çk running against trump,xdçó and trump's numbers went up with the base and desantis' went down.

look, we've seen where it goes. you know all the stuff that hta1 >>lp you're talking about 2015, peggy noonan. >> let me throw this in. youe1 look at desantis. you see his record.r>úu÷fáxd you sort of have one question. you have a few questions, but one is> the u.s. has national interests becoming entangled in a territorial dispute with russia. now take a look at what he saidd to piers morgan literally like four days later. take a listen.çóf:w i i would give it back to ukraine

100%, and the reality is what is it for america andt( certainly ground troops would be a mistake, and that was the point i was trying to make.lpó[■ russia was wrong to invade and they were wrong to take crimea. i 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 knowq what his position is.e16z■ heó[■ sees on capitol hill the republican party turning against ukraine, or a big chunkp,■ of t republican partyfá turi! againsi h!eh! ukraine, and you can't think s/+) at the same time think putin is a war criminal.u he's coming across as somebody who is learning which way to move the sail.!m(qq' a rough we him. when we come back, kids in utah will soon have to have their parents' permission to use social media. i'll speak with the republican signed it into law.a5■

my asthma felt anything but normal. a blood test helped show my asthma is driven by eosinophils, which nucala helps reduce. nucala is a once-monthly add-on injection for severe eosinophilic asthma. nucala is not for sudden breathing problems. allergic reactions can occur. get help right away for swelling of face, mouth, tongue, or trouble breathing. infections that can cause shingles have occurred. don't stop steroids unless told by your doctor. tell your doctor if you have a parasitic infection. may cause headache, injection site reactions, back pain, and fatigue. ask your asthma specialist about a nunormal with nucala. ♪♪

♪♪ get $1500 purchase allowance on a 2023 cadillac xt5 and xt6. ♪♪ visit your local cadillac dealer today. it's official, america. xfinity mobile is the fastest mobile service. ♪♪ and gives you unmatched savings with the best price for two lines of unlimited. only $30 a line per month. the fastest mobile service and major savings? can't argue with the facts. no wonder xfinity mobile is one of the fastest growing mobile services, now with over 5 million customers and counting. save hundreds a year over t-mobile, at&t and verizon. talk to our switch squad at your local xfinity store today. psoriasis really messes with you. try. hope. fail.

no one should suffer like that. i started cosentyx®. five years clear. real people with psoriasis look and feel better with cosentyx. don't use if you're allergic to cosentyx. before starting get checked for tuberculosis. an increased risk of infection, some serious and a lowered ability to fight them may occur. tell your doctor about an infection or symptoms or if you had a vaccine or plan to. tell your doctor if your crohn's disease symptoms develop or worsen. serious allergic reaction may occur. best move i've ever made. ask your dermatologist your brother has landed in the dark lands. they're under bowser's control. about[ screaming ] hang on, luigi. [ ominous music playing ] [ screaming ] yes! fire! [ chuckling ] welcome back. while washington continues to talk about tiktok, this week utah b ecame t welcome back.

while washington continues to talk about tiktok, this week utah became the first sta the nation to dramatically limit how kids and teens can use all social media apps and not just r >> ask teenagers, this is one oi ò-2 i ask them, are you seeing anfá] 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 ask the question, what you do 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 r their ñrchildren's accounts, an it would prohibit kids using social media between 6:00 a.m. and 6:30 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 ñ governor cox, welcome back to "meet the press". 030l■ >> good to ádíwith you again, chuck. thanks for having me back.

>> all right. so let me start, i know why you signed this, as a parent of twoi teenagers myseuáhp)e looking for more tools to figu-ñ this out, but i'm curious, t(i] before you signed it into law z■ what kind of legal scrutiny did1 you put this under because there are a lot of constitutional questions about this. >> sure, there are, and i'm an attorney myself. we looked very closely at this. we worked with our attorney general, my gene0] we worked with experts across ñi the nation and researchers, as u well, and all of the law that is in question here around the first amendment really waqñiñir established in the late '90s, t( early 2000s, before social media even existed.q so we feel very confident that we expect that there will be lawsuits, and we feel confident that we're going to prevail. >> an enforcement seems also to >> an enforcement seems also to be a huge task here.çó ájh"epartment in the --( the state is going to be monitoring these social media q]

companies, and are you going to have to essentially hire more people to do this? >> so -- so, the department of commerce will be handling this,q and we understand that there aró definitely going to be b.■ enforcement issues any time youc industry, it's going to be tough, and we don't expect that we're going to be able to prevent every young person from getting around it.ko■ñ!óú kids are really smart. kids arehe problems, but here's what i would prefer, chuck. obviously, i would prefer xd congressact. that's where it should happen, and i think it will.a5■ it's amazing to me.c we have conservative members of congress. congressman chris stewart is running a bill right now, broad president in his state of the union said we have to do this. conservative members of congresd working together, butçó the sta has to leadxd out, and that's wt we're doing. and i expect othere1jf states t follow as you mentioned, and thençó that helps congress

coalesceq ande1ñi come to an agreement on how we prevent these terrible harms from happening.çó >> i want to get you, though, the specifics of the law is where there will be pushé! k.xd 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 xd parent is attemptinge1 tofá att access toçó a child's social mea mesm!"e? this is where -- i get it, top down, this looks li) idea, govern, when you get into theñixd:qc=nu and things like xd this, you're,xd like, what do i do?xd this seems to be aicqt)urspáe concern.xde1 >> sure. sure, and there are legitimate d through those and one of the proni%=9m actually both bills, these bills don't go into effect in the middle of the year making sure thane're protecting the data privacy of the citizens of utah. again, making sure that we're work. in any custody battle you have issues surrounding kids and

their online activity and what they're doing.xde1çóñi so those things are already being worked through in lots ofd 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 know çó3 .]9ñ this is a data-driven approach and we've been working with collecting research from acrossá the world. we know this is kil.u69iá kids. we have to start there.h children far outweighs and e1 again, this started well before covid ins since 2012 especiallyá among young women, the rates of suicide, depression, self-harm research institution that has looked at this is pointing ts$ social media as the cause.r you )htutááháhe other question i have about this, though, is if you go down this road, did you work with the what would it take for them to á

do real age verification because let's be frank, it's illegal for people under age to look at ñi pornographic material or have access to it.u it's been impossible to keep ñi that off the internet and keep kids from being able to look at >> well, we think it's -- againi we don't think it will be but we are working with social mediag again, over the course of the a rule-making process to figure outnbláym■ how that's going to like.u how do we protect data privacy? i suspect there will be third-party age ver[fkcation companies that we will utilize to make this hap6%9ñ we've seen the leaks that have social media companies. we don't want them having copies of driver's licenses on hand. that's not what we're trying top do here. we believe that there are uçóe1 technological fixes that canlp work around over this, an the next year.v

>> how will you prove addiction? >> we don't have to prove addiction.5y we'll be working again to look q ñu 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 consid]$x9 of 5a■16.5a■ we actually did somethyn.■ a little different. we gave the private right of action to parents and families to be ableçócñ tofá sue these companies to prove there's harm to the child and harm isq presumed so it will be up to th otherwise. 6 >> you don't think section 230 doesn't indemnify the companies from your lawsuit? >> no.ó[■ no, i don't because this is real harm, and we think that this zv■ types of protections and ultimately what that means is social media companies are going e giving access to these platform1 to kids under the age of 16.i]k] brains are developing. it's crazy, listen, chuck.

there is no other industry where we allow 14-year-olds to contract with major corpgsctions 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 frankly, that's not just about -- ñi >> exactly what we're doing. >> governor spencer cox. >> no, no, no, it's about adults too.çó we have to figure this out for adults too.w3xd >> trust me, i'd love the 10:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. ban for everyone. i'm half kidding, only half. >> the biden administration is i threatening to ban the most popular social media app on the planet, but is it too big to ban?çóe1

there is a better way to manage diabetes. the dexcom g7 continuous glucose monitoring system eliminates painful finger sticks, helps lower a1c, and it's covered by medicare. before using the dexcom g7, i was really frustrated. all of that finger pricking and all that pain, my a1c was still stuck. before dexcom g7, i couldn't enjoy a single meal. i was always trying to outguess my glucose, and it was awful. before dexcom g7, my diabetes was out of control because i was tired, not having the energy to do the things that i wanted to do. (female announcer) dexcom g7 is a small, easy-to-use wearable that sends your glucose numbers to your phone or dexcom receiver without painful finger sticks. the arrow shows the direction your glucose is heading-- up, down, or steady-- and because dexcom g7 is the most accurate cgm, you can make better decisions about food, medication, and activity in the moment. it can even alert you before you go too low

or when you're high. oh, the fun is absolutely back. after dexcom g7, i can on the spot figure out what i'm gonna eat and how it's going to affect my glucose! when a friend calls and says, "hey, let's go to breakfast," i can get excited again. (earl) after using the dexcom g7, my diabetes, it doesn't slow me down at all. 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. it has given me confidence and control, everything i need is right there on my phone. (earl) the dexcom g7 is so small, so easy to use, and it's very discreet. (dr. aaron king) if you have diabetes, getting on dexcom is the single most important thing you can do. (david) within months, my a1c went down, that's 6.9. (donna) at my last checkup, my a1c was 5.9. (female announcer) dexcom is the number one recommended cgm brand and offers 24/7 tech support, so call now to get started. you'll talk to a real person. don't wait, this one short call could change your life.

(bright music)

♪♪ ♪♪ welcome back. "data download" time. as washington debates whether to welcome back. "data download" time. as washington debates whether to security concerns, the ceo went to capitol hill this week to ó[■ defend the social media c platform, and one of his talking points said the app was too big to ban.ñi how big is the app and what kind of impact would a ban have? let's take a look at the size op tiktok? tiktok claims to have over 150 million users in the u.s., that's over half of the u.s. population. we can't verify that number specifically, but we can tell you it has been the most e2021 and 2022 and it seems to be that way in 2023. you want to see how much of a in 2020? ad revenue, three-quarters of a billioq,eollars.

2023 according to insider intelligence, their ad revenue d could be more than $7 billion. this is a fast-growing app, andi [h also able to make money, not ñi directly from the company that r owns tiktok, but from a creator fund, you c per million views or get sponsored posts. some people get deals that givek them as one of the tiktok ñi influencers made nearly $20 million in income last year. so what about the politics of a tiktok ban? look, as people know, more democrats than republicans use i tiktok and itq;wdbout a ten-point advantage according to a recent "washington post" pollá but as for whether axd ban is a good idea or not, ñithere's not ton of political divide.q there are majorities in both 9 based in china, obviously concerned than democrats, and of a ban overall it's kind of a mixed bag, right?ñi you see democrats are a little

bit more in the middle of it. republicans ar#@ supportive of a ban, but there'd a lot of not sure here, which means let's take a look at this in a couple of weeks and see how all of this debate has impactedd public opinion. when we come back, from banning tiktok to utah's new social media law, is the tech industry finally meeting its regulatory moment?t(ñr that next. 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. need a backup plan? get plan b one-step. plan b helps prevent pregnancy before it starts by temporarily delaying ovulation—and you can resume your regular birth control right away. i've got this. ♪♪ the virus that causes shingles is sleeping... in 99% of people over 50. it's lying dormant, waiting... and could reactivate. shingles strikes as a painful,

blistering rash that can last for weeks. and it could wake at any time. think you're not at risk for shingles? it's time to wake up. because shingles could wake up in you. if you're over 50, talk to your doctor or pharmacist about shingles prevention.

welcome back. tiktok, is it a political pr welcome back. tiktok, is it a political problem for democrats to ban xdk this or know, yamiche? bipartisan disdain for it. if you watched that committee hearing you saw democrats and republicans on the hill agree on something, but the 150 million i people plus on tiktojz--t( >> you did what i d!d i did that too. angry. you have young people making hñnp)eds of thousands of dollars on this apart from people t( addicted to it because they lovq

a popular political problem thaf will make a lot of people angryr >> cornell, are you worried about this?+ >> 150 million people. there weren't 150 million peopli that voted in the last midterm. talk about an energizing thing to do. >> yeah.e1 >> we don't do good historicalli at banning things that areqçñ popular. this is a billion-dollar@!m cf1o industry. you have young peopl"wmaking a lot of money on this. it is a problem banning it. >> peggy?çóxdfáxd >> i've got to say, i think underlying the tiktok story and the mt)! mostly tiktok ise1 the fact tha ñi has come to see the united states as a nation of addicts.li china sees us, 150 million of us addicted to this thing. they make the most of it.e1e1 cartels find out, oh, they're xd addicted to all of the drugs, fentanyl, they make the most of3

it so we don't have a border anymore. when you are starting to be known in the world as a nation of addicts, maybe we ought to ñi have a hearing about that. >> yeah. >> something about privacy pile on the chinese right now, but you have no privacy with xd this, and there are data brokers. chinaxd doesn't have to do it. they can buy it from data brokers. >> jake, utah, i think the most compelling thing about why you q don't target tiktok -- you should target all of them -- is the fact all of them are doing this.xd 9ñ why isn't the hill focused that way? >> number one, the big theme of this congress is anti-china. every single committee is looking into china, and it is a priority of kevinçóçó mccarthys and, by the way, as yamiche said, there is bipartisan support for cracking down on tiktok. i have watched untold number of i have watched untold number of congressional hearings and that i've ever seen when the ceo of ó

tiktok came to capitol hill.çó >> boy, did they blow it, and they have been working the community for the last two fá months and they came in this week, guns a-blazing and it ko■ seemed like a bad pr strategy. >> i think the fact that there china buy all of this data? can china take over this application? they couldn't answer those ó[■fá questions. the tiktok representative couldn't answer those questionsá that's the type of stuff that juñ%makes it seem as though even if it's not happening as if tiktok is run by china. i will say another thing, i think it's fascinating that china's version of tiktok is xdp completely different and that it is about civilization and w3ñi exercise and they have time qçó that to me also is striking.fáçó >> yeah. i know. it's fascinating what they don't to take a moment to remember a dear friend of mine, vaughn ververs, who died last sunday night.fálp he was a top digital editor here

for more than a dozen years and and the editor ■hk"the hot line" where he and i both got our start one week apart over 30 vaughn was with me on almost every ride i've been on me as a■ journalist. vaughn was a mentor to a lot of younger journalists. he was a compass on any political story and had a wryé@ optimistic viewpoint of every sty2r and he never for goat c he loved his buffalos and alaska.çó he never for goat where he came from,%t he never judged anyone he didn't like it when people judged him based on one fact. our thoughts are with his wife lisa and his kids at this )(u&t time. we'll be back next sunday because if it's sunday, it's "meet the press."çóñiñrfáxdv for sevennb■ years you