there, thank you for your time. >> thank you. >> that is all in on this tuesday night. you can watch the mehdi hasan show at 8 pm eastern, here, on msnbc. it streams weekly on peacock, to. alex wagner tonight, starting right now. good evening alex. thank you for putting that on our air. >> thank you so much, alex, i appreciate. it >> thanks to at-home for air. thanks to you at home for joining us this hour. we are following breaking news out of texas where authorities believe they have in custody a man accused of killing five of his neighbors with a semiautomatic rifle.

officials will be holding a press conference later this hour, and we'll of course bring you any detail we learn later this hour. but first most americans have spent at least some of their life living paycheck to paycheck not knowing how or even if they'll be able to pay their bills each month, and now that is not just americans, it is also the country america itself. the entire federal government is one month from being out of cash, and that is not an exaggeration. we're already four months past the debt limit. the treasury has been doing creative accounting to move the money around since then. and now the treasury is the warning the government of the united states could truly, truly be broke by june 1st. if republicans in congress do not raise the debt ceiling in the next 30 days the global economy could collapse. so given the staelks here this should be a relatively straightforward fix, because who would want to use the debt

ceiling as a negotiating wedge. >> hopefully we're on good shape on the debt ceiling. i can't imagine anybody ever using the debt ceiling as a negotiating wager. >> can't imagine it. who? who would want -- turns out the entire republican party. now, despite the fact the gop raised the debt creel under president trump, they raised it three times, every time republicans are in control of congress and there is a democrat in the white house the raising of the debt ceiling becomes a drama, it becomes a crisis. now, you might think doing something so reckless would hurt them politically, but here is the thing, republicans have a neat little trick, they pretend they have nothing to do with it. >> they're extreme policies made our economy a mess. now they refuse to responsibly raise the debt ceiling instead of negotiating common sense solutions, they're putting the american economy in crisis. shame on liberals in congress. tell them to stop playing

partisan games. >> that ad which was made by the house republican aligned american action network, that ad is part of the group's new six figure ad buy and it's running commercials like those in the six districts with democrats. and i know that ad feels like madness. it feels like you have been plunged into opposite land. but the gop gaslighting seems to be working. this is a new poll from morning consult and politico. it shows most voters, 37% would blame both parties equally if the u.s. defaulted on its national debt. only 24% of voters would blame republicans for a crisis that is literally manufactured by republicans. and 30% of voters would blame democrats. the gaslighting does not end there. today we saw a spectacular effort by republicans to gaslight america when it comes

to the reason ethics concerns facing the supreme court. now, you may be thinking which ethics concerns. was it the fact for decades justice clarence thomas has accepted luxury trips from a republican billionaire mega donor. or he bought a house for thomas, a house thomas' mom still lives in despite the fact thomas does not own it or he didn't recuse himself from cases involving the 2020 election even though his own wife urged top lawmakers and state officials to overturn that election. or it was about how justice neil gorsuch failed to disclose he sold a vacation home to the chief executive of one of the country's biggest law firms despite that firm vag cases before the supreme court. i could go on and on here but the answer was it was all the of

the above and more. democrats in the senate judiciary committee held this hearing today to try and talk about ethics and accountability on the high court and try to suggest some solution. but rather than get into all of that, republicans did this. >> this is not about trying to upgrade the ability of the court to be more transparent. it's about an effort to destroy the legitimacy of this conservative court. >> today's hearing is an excuse to sling more mud at an institute. >> these hearings and the radical left's continued attacks on justice thomas and his wife ginni over the last 31 1/2 years are part of a sustained hateful attempt to discredit an honest man. this is all just a shakedown, nice supreme court you've got there, america. sure would be a shame if something happened to it. >> i hope we don't have see

another assassination attempt, i hope we don't have another justice actually kill before this body will take its job seriously and stop its attempts to coerce a judicial branch of government. >> the left despices clarence thomas, and they do not despise him because he's a conservative, this is a political attack directed at a justice they hate. >> if you just watched the republicans in today's hearing you might have left thinking the real problem here is left-wing dark money and not, for example, the bimmian airs we actually know for sure have been courting conservative justices for decade. and the thing is a lot of americans will only see the republican side of this, and that gaslighting, it works. back in february before the latest clarence thomas scandals a poll showed 62% of republicans had a favorable opinion of justice thomas. then on april 6th propublica

published its huge investigative piece which detailed all the luxury trips that billionaire paid for justice thomas, trips he did not disclose. two days after that the economist and u-guv, they ran that poll again. this time they found 67% of republicans had a favorable approval of clarence thomas. it went up, it also managed to jump 5% with independent voters in that time. republican spin somehow made clarence thomas more popular because he didn't disclose his joy rides with a billionaire. this is madness. so what happens now? joining us now is claire mccaskill, former missouri senator and currentmistnist political analyst. and the great lisa reuben, msnbc legal analyst. thank you both for being here. it's clear republican lawmakers

do not particular care if the supreme court has lost the confidence of a great portion of the american public, but shouldn't the justices themselves actually care? have you been surprised about how the court has reacted to all of this? >> yes and no. because on one hand clarence thomas' ethical breaches are so serious that you would think all the other members of the court if not most of the members of the court would be offended by that and want to police themselves before congress polices them. on the other hand, we've seen through the weaponization of the federal government subcommittee of house judiciary what happens when congressional oversight runs amok. and remember they are doing what they're doing now in the name of the january 6th committee. in other words, the democrats did this, they issued tons of subpoenas by a parallel criminal investigation was going on, we can do that, too. and if i am one of the liberal justices on this court i might be thinking right now congress passing a law demanding ethical reform from us might not be so

bad, but what happens when the other shoe is on the foot? >> they're looking eight, ten years for the better oversight on dealings onto the court. >> it's a long-term concern as opposed to a short-term how do we deal with clarence sort of a problem. >> claire, i would love to get your thoughts about the performances we saw at this hearing and the latest -- i think this just before the hearing marsha blackburn, senator marsha blackburn and nine other republican senators introduced the protect our supreme court justices act, which would increase the maximum jail time for violating the federal law that prohibits attempts at influencing the decision making process of a judge from one year to five years. basically a chilling effect on those who might otherwise potentially call out the behavior of a supreme court justice. what is the republican minority

in the senate doing here? >> they are trying to distract everyone from the real ethical concerns that have surfaced. i mean, let's get real here. we have a man spending $10 million trying to influence public policy in america, and then he gives lavish gifts to the supreme court justice who is at the point of the spear in trying to move those policies to the right. and that all happened after thomas got on the supreme court. and his mother living rent free courtesy of this billionaire? of course there needs to be a hearing. of course there needs to be public awareness of these ethical transgressions. and what the republicans are doing is shameful it's their new method of politics. they want to distract you from what is really going onto shiny

object over here along the way trying to do some damage to the first amendment and the right of every american to criticize opinions of the supreme court. >> it's also buying into this conseat clarence thomas tried to establish publicly, which is to criticize the court, that is behavior that should not be tolerated. and they're weaponizing the notion of criticism and saying we're going to crack down on the critics because there is so much criticism flying at the court right now. i guess i wonder to claire's point about accountability here, you're referring to the fact there hadn't been a ground swell of support among all the justices for better oversight, right? and we know chief justice roberts decided not to show up to this hearing. instead he sends a letter on ethics and practices signed by all nine justices. and a lot of folks are saying why aren't they playing ball with thus at all? do you feel that calculation on

their part could change at all in the coming weeks as the story continues it be at best a thorn in the court's side? >> the supreme court is a little bit like a marriage. the only people who know what's really going on inside are the nine of them, right? and soy r so on some level like i said before i am surprised because i believe there are a number of justices on both sides of the aisle that do their job with integrity and honesty. on the other hand, this is a group of people who believe very strongly that separation of powers demands that the court police itself lest we have a situation where congress is in the hands of extremists on both sides and starts to herd on them. >> the conservative judge who wrote a letter in support of congressional oversight and he's effectively -- i'm grossly paraphrasing. he's like because there's no

built in oversight on the court all they have is their reputations because the country has to abide by their judgment. literally they are judges, their judgment matters. if half the country believes they have exercised very poor judgment, the appearance of that conflict is cause for a loss of fundamental belief in the court, and that's all the court has. >> that's right. all the court has is its own reputations. and i think, again, thinking through those on the court that don't have ethical problems, i think to the extent they criticize the court or appears to be out of step with one another, that doesn't do anything for the legitimacy of the court either. justice aalito on the other han saying the court should be beyond reproach as you noted. when the court starts sniping each other that does nothing to shore up americans confidence in

the court, and that has to be part of the cal clas for those who are not the wrongdoers here. >> i just -- i am so -- nothing should surprise me at this point, claire, but the degree to which republicans are not only not entertaining what are legitimate concerns but brushing them aside and trying to blame democrats, i have to talk to you about the debt ceiling. the ad we played for everybody how the debt ceiling looming crisis is the fault of liberal partisans who want to create -- manufacture a drama for the american public is -- and yet that messaging seems to work if you read the polls. >> well, i think the polls show that nobody's really sure how this is going to work and who is really to blame because it is kind of a confusing mess. i've been to this movie, i've seen this movie, i've been in this movie before. i understand what's going on here. the debt ceiling will be raised. republicans always raise it as

you said under republican presidents. and by the way, they spent like crazy under trump. the debt and the deficit went up under donald trump and the republicans who supported him, they supported all of that. so this is phoney-baloney. the debt ceiling will get raised. there'll be some kind of negotiation on spending that will allow kevin mccarthy to get a sick leave, to get it through the house. because i'll tell you what the political fallout, because the democrats will figure out a way to get them to vote on a clean debt ceiling and if the republicans are seen as blocking it at that moment there'll be serious political fallout because our economy will go into a tailspin. >> also the republicans will raise it, but also there's no way president biden is going to let the country go off a cliff, right? you're betting here. he is the person that ultimately is the reasonable person in the room in the hostage negotiations. and to me that seems like a good thing for the country but also republicans are going to try to

exploit that as far as they can, no? >> yeah, listen, kevin mccarthy is driving at a break neck speed towards the cliff, and biden is going to be throwing down the strips of nails to try to get the flat tire to stop him. but make no mistake, let's not say biden is going to save it. because mccarthy is the one causing it, mccarthy is the one who can save it, and if biden can't get it done it is mccarthy and the republican's faultd. for the first time in the history of this country we're going to say to the world we're just not going to pay our bills. so i really think biden will -- by the way, it will help his political image if he does get a deal because that's what he ran on, he could get a deal. it's really koond of a win-win in biden, and i think the one in political peril here and i think he'd admit if he you gave him a truth serum and that's kevin mccarthy. >> i tend to agree with you.

claire mccaskill, lisa rubin, thank you for joining me tonight. >> we have a lot more to get to this evening including day one of writers of some of your favorite shows walking off the job. we're going to tell you why they're striking and what comes next. plus we have jaw dropping new testimony in the case of the woman accusing donald trump of raping her years ago. what her long time friend said she heard just minutes after that alleged attack. that's coming up next. attack. that's coming up next.

ah, these bills are crazy. she has no idea she's sitting on a goldmine. well she doesn't know that if she owns a life insurance policy of $100,000 or more she can sell all or part of it to coventry for cash. even a term policy. even a term policy? even a term policy! find out if you're sitting on a goldmine. call coventry direct today at the number on your screen, or visit coventrydirect.com.

from the moment e. jean carroll first sat on the witness stand as part of her civil battery and defamation lawsuit against donald trump, trump's defense lawyers have made it clear that their strategy here is to poke hole, to inject doubt and to undermine e. jean carroll's account of how trump allegedly raped her in a new york city department store in the '90s. allegations trump has repeatedly denied. as part of that strategy trump's lawyer joe tacopina has been bombarding e. jean carroll with questions like why didn't she scream during the attack, why didn't she call the police and instead call a friend? why didn't she burn the dress she was wearing the day of the assault? tacopina's questioning became so aggressive and repetitive a

judge presiding over the case, he had to intervene. today during the testimony of lisa burnbach, trump's lawyers leaned into that strategy once again. they cited her past criticism of the former president and they attempted to frame her testimony as politically motivated. she admitted to criticizing trump in the past, but she said that criticism didn't take away from what she heard from her friend, e. jean carroll, all those years ago. quote, e. jean said to me many times he pulled down my tights, he pulled down my tights almost like she couldn't believe it. she was still processing what had just happened to her. question, how did she sound? breathless, hyperventilating, emotional. her voice was doing all kinds of things. what did you say after ms. carroll described this to you? even though i knew my children didn't know the word, i ducked out of the room, my phone was

wireless and i said i -- i whispered e. jean, he raped you. that was not the only shocking account in the courtroom today. a woman named jessica leads testified trump groped her in an airplane back in the late '70s. quote, he was trying to kiss me, he was trying to pull me towards him. he was grabbing my breasts, it was like he had 40 million hands. to carroll's lawyers this testimony and the testimony of other women, it speaks to the idea that trump's alleged sexual predation fit a pattern of behavior, and that pattern is precisely what lawyer george conway had in mind when he bumped into e. jean carroll at a party in new york in 2019. he said carroll mentioned she was thinking of suing trump to which conway replied almost instantly, quote, you have a case. joining us now is that lawyer and columnist george conway. it's great to have you on the show. you were there when this idea sort of crystallized in e. jean

carroll's head she could go to court with this. can you talk about why the pattern was so key in terms of billing a case against trump? >> it's interesting because my thinking about it had evolved. i hadn't really thought much about all the sexual assaults and allegations until that summer and i saw a thread online where a woman in massachusetts had put together on twitter all of the different allegations of all the different women like dozens of them. and i thought that's just -- that's incredible because the similarities were immense. and it was right around the time, maybe right after jean came out with her book and with the new york magazine article. and it got me thinking i -- you know, this is pretty strong case. and i wrote an article -- someone said make an article. i wrote an op-ed in "the washington post" saying, look,

if republicans believe we need a rape accusation against clinton then they better damn believe e. jean carroll because her allegations are supported not only by contemporaneous witnesses who heard her tell the story within days if not minutes, and minutes in the case of lisa bernbach. and one thing we learned -- i learned from reading all the me too journalism of ronan in the "new yorker" and jody canter at "the new york times," the things -- the sexual assault is very difficult to prove when it's just two people in a room and nobody else. but the corroboration that you can get from the contemporaneous statements of where the woman shocked goes to a friend and

says i can't believe what just happened to me. and then the men are always -- the men who do these things do them more than once, dozens of times as with the case with donald trump. >> with impunity. >> with impunity because they think it's their sense of entitlement, that their a star and they can do it. >> which was articulated by the soon to be president in the "access hollywood" tape. >> it was the one moment where donald trump told the truth. >> if you -- well, i won't get into -- the defense that his team is mounting which is this kind of relentless barrage of questions meant to get at the fine details of this story in an effort to undermine its voracity in the case of e. jean carroll or say it was politically motivated on the part of lisa bernbach. what do you make of that given

what it sounds like the strength of the argument from the prosecution? >> there is a legitimate way and a very delicate way that lawyers can cross examine victims or alleged victims of sexual assault, and they have an obligation to do it as a matter of their professional responsibility, but you have to do it very carefully and keep to the facts. i remember watching once roy black the famous miami criminal defense lawyer did this really astonishingly good cross-examination of the complainant in the case, they showed how you do it. you do it respectfully, kindly, and you go through this happened and this happened. and you stack the things that sort of weigh against the complainant's story.

and tacopina did some of that from reading the transcript, but he did it in this hand fisted way and stuff like -- >> to the consternation of the judge. >> it's okay to ask you didn't call such and such, didn't call police, just respectfully to go through that. all legitimate questions, and it's appropriate to present that to the jury, but stuff like i don't know what the tone was because i wasn't there the way lisa was, if -- if you're asking questions like, oh, you didn't cry on tv but you're crying here. that's just outrageous. >> badgering, outrageous, disrespectful questions. >> and just think it backfired in front of the jury. >> george, you're a lawyer but also an outspoken critic of this president. >> the evidence reflects that. >> the evidence reflects that,

your honor. the fact of the matter is trump's numbers have never been higher, and there's just this weird thing unfolding which is the guy who's the front-runner in the republican nomination could have a summer of criminal either trials or criminal indictments being charged against him, and i wonder what -- you know, does the trump phenomenon supercede legal reality? how and why is he stronger? does any of this weaken his standing with the public? >> it weakens histanding with a normal public, the center of the electorate who can go either way. i think it strengthens him among his base because, you know, they have basically dug themselves a bunker where they are refusing to listen to and -- and give any credence to anything negative about donald trump. because once you let that little doubt in that maybe he's not a nice guy, maybe he doesn't

always tell the truth, you begin to realize you have to admit you start losing the ability to deny reality. and i think that's what happened. they don't want to admit their wrong, so i think four things are going to basically happen in the next 18 months. one is he's going to be indicted two or three more times. second is i think that his or her going to get the nomination anyway because i just don't think -- i think the system is setup so if the person who is the front-runner and has a plurality of the votes even if he doesn't get the majority of the votes although he seems to be able to dot that right now according to the polls will get the nomination and the rules are stacked in their favor. and the third is i think he's going to foment violence. i think we've seen from his truth social posts, we've seen from his posts about this case he wants to intimidate anybody who speaks out against him.

he wants to encourage people to believe he is persecuted. and he is -- you know, if there's violence that results he's going to say, oh, these are the things that happened, which is what he said on january 6th. and the last thing is and having -- >> the american public is just pretty tired. >> and even some republicans are pretty tired. some of them would like to see him just, you know, roll-off into the sunset and never come back from scotland or whatever. but they don't have the physical courage or the moral courage to say that. >> the fortitude to say that. i mean some people though, right? >> i don't know. anybody? >> heroes. george conway, thank you for making the time. great to see you. we still have more to come tonight including why some of your television shows are going dark tonight. not this one, though.

that's coming up next. up next. ♪ ♪ away suitcases come in many colors. so you can find your color. colors. choices. happiness. away. ♪ ♪ there is a better way to manage diabetes. the dexcom g7 continuous glucose monitoring system away. eliminates painful fingersticks, helps lower a1c, and is 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 fingersticks. 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 gonna affect my glucose. when a friend calls and says, "hey, let's go to breakfast," -i can get excited again. -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 that everything i need is right there on my phone. (earl) the dexcom g7 is so small, it's so easy to use, and it's very discreet. (dr. king) if you have diabetes, getting on dexcom is the single most important thing you can do. (david) within months, my a1c went down to 6.9. (donna) at my last checkup, my a1c was 5.9.

(female announcer) now, millions more are covered by medicare. take advantage of the expanded coverage by calling today. (upbeat music) ♪

it was 2007 and tv and film writers across the country had just gone on strike. it was a huge strike and created a dilemma for all the other creative people that work with writers, people like actors and

directors and late night hosts who had to get on the air that night in front of a live audience without any writers, which is how we got this incredible moment with conan o'brien filling airtime on live tv by spinning his wedding ring. >> here we go, suzy, are you ready to time this? we're going for 41 eks, if we do it, this will be television history. here we go, and that's a good spin, that's a good spin. oh, yeah. hold on. suzy, what was the time on that spin inthat looks like a good spin to me. >> 36 seconds. >> ultimate indignity.

trust me, there's time to do it again. let's not -- let's not be in a rush to do it right away. >> that is the stuff of tv legends. the 2007 writers strike lasted 100 days during which time conen o'brien personally paid the salaries of 75 writers on his show to help them make ends meet. now, today for the first time in 15 years the union representing over 11,000 scripted tv and film writers across the country has once again gone on strike. and just like last time there is a lot of support for this union. today late night legend jay leno went to the picket line to show his support and hand out donuts to striking writers. this was stephen colbert last night announcing his show would go dark during the strike.

>> everybody including myself hopes both sides will reach a deal, but i also think that the writers' demands are not unreasonable. i'm a member of the guild. i support collective bargaining. this nation owes so much to unions. they're the reason -- this is true. you know,s are the reason we have weekends and by extension why we have tgi friday. so the next time you enjoy a whiskey blazed blaze burger, you thank a union. >> now you heard stephen colbert say there he hopes both sides reach a deal. on one side of this fight is the alliance motion picture and television producers. it represents most of the major tv and film studio. and i should mention here comcast, the corporation that owes msnbc, is one of the companies represented by that group. on the other side is the writers guild of america. it represents all the tv and film writers in their negotiations with those studios.

the writers guild negotiates one big contract with all the studios, and that contract sets basic pay and work standards for writers across the country. i should also mention that the writers guild of america represents workers right here at msnbc including most of the staff on this show. but msnbc workers are not covered by the same contract as scripted film and tv workers, which is why producers are not on strike right now, and which is why i'm not sitting here spinning any of my various jewelry. okay, now we've gotten all that out of the way, this is why the writers are on strike. in the last 15 years since the writers strike in 2007, the tv and film industry has changed dramatically, which you probably know. the rise of streamers such as netflix and apple tv and disney plus has disrupted the industry bigly, and that has changed the way writers get compensated also bigly. production companies are relying on smaller teams of writers to

pump out more content. the writers guild claims film and tv writers are making 23% less than what they were a decade ago thanks in large part to streaming. so now the writers are demanding pay and working conditions that correspond to this new digital age. this is what the writers guild said in a statement today. the companies' behavior has created a gig economy inside a union work force, and their immovable stance in this notion has further betrayed the commitment to valuing the profession of writing. the studios released their own statements saying they remain united in a desire to reach a deal that is mutually beneficial. yes, this is a story about writers and tv shows and whether your favorite programs will be back this fall but also a story about the way major shifts have changed the way art and culture

has changed and not always for the better. my next guest has written a timely book about this very phenomenon, and you're going to want to stick around for that conversation, which is after the break. stay with us. after the break. stay with us

(woman) oh. oh! hi there. you're jonathan, right? the 995 plan! yes, from colonial penn. your 995 plan fits my budget just right. excuse me? aren't you jonathan from tv, that 995 plan? yes, from colonial penn. i love your lifetime rate lock. that's what sold me. she thinks you're jonathan, with the 995 plan. -are you? -yes, from colonial penn. we were concerned we couldn't get coverage, but it was easy with the 995 plan. -thank you. -you're welcome. i'm jonathan for colonial penn life insurance company. this guaranteed acceptance whole life insurance plan is our #1 most popular plan. it's loaded with guarantees. if you're age 50 to 85, $9.95 a month buys whole life insurance with guaranteed acceptance. you cannot be turned down for any health reason.

there are no health questions and no medical exam. and here's another guarantee you can count on: guaranteed lifetime coverage. your insurance can never be cancelled. just pay your premiums. guaranteed lifetime rate lock. your rate can never increase. pardon me, i'm curious. how can i learn more about this popular 995 plan? it's easy. just call the toll-free number for free information. (soft music) ♪ in july of 2019 president trump convened about 200 conservative social media stars for a summit at the white house. charlie kirk was there and so was james o'kief and diamond and silk. they weren't white house reporters, but these people were

trump's press corp. >> you communicate directly with our citizens without having to go through the fake news filter, very simple. together you reach more people than any television broadcast network by far, not even close. >> the white house estimated that those social media stars had an estimated reach of 100 million people. that is nearly a third of the american population. a strong 30% of the population that to this day remains loyal to trump and probably consumes mostly right-wing media. but back in the day, back just a decade earlier it wasn't really like this. as ben described in his new book big media sites like gawker, and huffington post and buzzfeed use their websites to generate clicks and traffic. they weren't necessarily in the pursuit of advancing one candidate or ideology. they were there to monetize the attention of an audience. as editor-in-chief of buzzfeed

news smith helped modify the news department but within that perch he admits he didn't see how right-wing figures with co-op the blogging and media structures. smith writes i certainly hadn't realized the extent to which the right wing populism always seemed to be sitting down the table, looking over its shoulder, learning its lessons. gasoline can create useful energy but can also simply burn. by 2023 it seemed clear the power of this new social energy had been to destroy any institution from the media to the political establishment that it touched. those of us who work in media, politics, and technology are largely concerned now with figuring out how to hold these failing institutions together or to build new ones that are resistant to the forces we helped unleash. joining us now is the man, the author himself ben smith, co-founder and editor-in-chief

of semiphore and author of this new book. congratulations. i don't know when you had time to write it, but you're prolific in many senses of the word. i guess i was very much struck of the idea in this period of great innovation and, you know, building new sites and things that had never existed before and the optimism inherent in that something dark was afoot which is the sort of keys -- giving another set of people the keys, the rosetta stone, if you will, to building sites and learning ubaudiences which would later be bastardized for totally partisan ideological purposes. >> yeah, thanks for having me on and for the kind words. it felt like this moment in some sense was coming to an end, although i had to go back and figure out this thing we all lived through. i think the thing that surprised

me most was going back and seeing there was this early internet scene where to some degree the explicit goal was to elect barack obama. for the huffington post that was kind of the point, and everyone just took for granted in that world these were college kids, young people newly on the internet. they were democrats. it sort of went without saying facebook was sort of a democratic institution -- >> and then. >> i think everybody point the high point of this world is the vision of barack obama. and looking back the high point, the crowning achievement of this new social media world is the election of donald trump. >> donald trump, absolutely. and if you look at the figures present early on these sites like gavin mckin s who of course goes onto found the proud boys, he's one of the cofounders of vice, which is anything but a radical right-wing publication. >> this came to be as a surprise as i was reporting out all the

characters of this early scene and buzzfeed where i later worked, andrew brightbart was a cofounder of huffington post as well. gavin, the leading proud boy was at vice. steve bannon came to learn from huffington post. and in some ways i think they adapted the lessons more fully than most people on the left. they were most interested in tearing down these institutions, and actually at one point i went to see bannon at 2016 and i was then the editor at buzzfeed, and he was totally puzzled why buzzfeed hadn't gone all in for bernie sanders the way he had for trump not because he loved bernie sanders but that's where the traffic was. >> certainly bannon has built a

stunning amount of grift on the back of his intellectual properties, if you will, but has it -- your sense is that it was always for the traffic, it was always for the money, it was sort of an un -- a part of the market that did not have an adequate response so they filled that gap. it wasn't necessarily an ideological drive that led these folks to ultimately found the institutions they created. >> i think these things are tie up together. i do think there were these new tools that turned out to be just perfect for serving this very angry moment and in facebook in particular it was this great tool for spreading this new real angry energy. and then as facebook i think started to get freaked out by it and adjusted to it and started tweaking its dials to say, wait, wait, we don't want people sharing fake stories about hillary clinton body doubles, ewe want more meaningful stories people engage with, and that

would be is replying kill yourself in the comments and that being shared with everybody because the algorithm is deciding you are dopely engaged. a sort of combination i think the real politics of how people felt and a system sort of designed to amplify. >> why do you think the people who own these sites whether it's mark zuckerberg or to some industry elon musk are so reluctant to adopt the mantle of publishers and there's this deep abiding resistance to really embracing that. it's a headache for sure, but the reality is facebook it's an information -- it's not just a website, it's not just to connect people, it's where people get their information. the same is true for twitter. the efforts to kind of figure out how to make twitter responsible have been so fraught, so ham handed, i won't even comment on what musk is doing, but there seems to be a

deep-seated cultural -- it's antithetical to who these guys are. >> i think you're right. i think to some degree it's nice to have free content rather than content you pay for if you're a business. you get to keep all the money. some of it is ideological. i don't mean left and right ideological. i mean in the sense we can do away with the old east coast media and if you go back and read things from the early 2000s, which i think we're probably both writing, there's this sense, wow, there's going to be this wild open world and overthrow the corrupt establishment. there's a lot of optimism i think for good reason, but at some point i think they were unable to let go of that fantasy. and i think if you look at the trajectory of those sites now, i don't think it was a good business decision among other

things. >> now we have, you know, buzzfeed is shuttering, vice is maybe filing for bankruptcy. it's a very important time to be writing something like this. it's also -- i don't know it's kind of a depressing moment to take stock of what just happen today the country and what happened to the internet in the last 20, well, 15 years. >> it's a very strange moment. it's just really a trip to go back and see how we all thought about it then and how it turned out and i think how people could have made different decisions along the way. >> and we have known each other for some of that time. congratulations on the book. we will be right back. the book. we will be right back. (music throughout)

get the royal treatment. join the millions playing royal match today. download now.

that's it for us. we'll see you tomorrow. "way too early" with jonathan lemire is coming up next. well, they can rest easy now because he is behind bars, and he will live out his