as you, as you're wearing the own, your data jewelry and david carroll associate professor of media design at the parson school of design. thank you so much for joining us. and give steve, thank you david. so what's the bottom line? we all go online and our data's out there, companies figure us out and they send us ads to satisfy your desires. so to start suggesting a brand of deodorant or vacation destination, but it winds up recommending who to hate or who to love or who to vote for. most folks will say say larvae, but it's very much like doping in sports. once you know the competition is rigged and cheating is rampant, the contest is undermined. that's why democracy seems like it's under threat everywhere. the feeling that everything is being manipulated, our voices don't matter and there's nothing we can do about it. well that's turning people away from hope and change. i don't know of owning your data, like david carroll and brittany kaiser suggest is a workable solution. but at least being aware of the dangers that exist as we click boxes and give away permissions all day is a good p

david shribman went to work for the new york times in 1981. that was 18 years after mr. carroll had left. and you sit around the office, they would still ask questions when it was a thorny, what would wally do? i mean, it was just the huge impact he had. but he in 1968, one of the really landmark influential editorials, the winston-salem journal front page, where artists on the vietnam war. now, mr. carroll was a cold warrior. he was, you know, grew up with the dean. and that cold war, the george kennan's and the vietnam war. back then. for those of you who weren't around it, did split the country and the democrats were split, too. johnson was the president and the cold war air scoop jackson. the others were, you know, bombing back to the stone age. and he wrote brilliant editorial that came at it not from the left, but basically argued that it was done in american interest. can describe it in a minute but what's so influential about it? his good friend dean showed it to lyndon johnson. and two weeks later, lyndon announced he was not going to run reelection. he was going to try

carroll. and if you have in there that wall street journal, you really ought to. david truman went to work for the new york times in 1981, and was 18 years after mr. carroll had left, and he sat around the office, they would still ask questions, whether it was a thorny issue, what would wally do? it was a huge impact he had. here. he wrote in 1960 81 of the really landmark influential authoritarians, in the winston-salem journal, front page, on the vietnam war. now, mr. carroll was a cold warrior. grew up, and that's cold war in the george cannons, and the vietnam war back then, for those of you weren't around, it really did split the country. the democrats were split,. to johnson was the president. the cold warriors, scoop jackson and the others, were on the back of the stone age. he wrote this grand editorial that came not from the left, but basically argued that it was not an american issue. as you can describe it, what was so influential about it, he's got fantino at incident showed it to lyndon johnson, and two weeks later, lyndon johnson announced he was not going

david rhoden msnbc contributor. great to have both of you with us. got lots of questions for both of you about where this could go. i will talk to you, carroll. some legal experts, including former trump attorney bill barr says there is a real chance of charges. at least that is what he is suggesting. what does this signal to you? >> we'll, if you really pay attention to what bill barr said carefully, if you really look at his words, he does what lawyers to. he qualifies them a lot. he says well, if they can show that the documents are serious documents which they appear to be, and if they can show that donald trump consciously withheld those from the department, then i believe there is probably a basis for bringing criminal charges. so there are a lot of ifs and probably's in there. i think what he's saying is what we all know. there is what we call a prima facie case, in other words, there appears at first looks to be a viable case, but i assure you that whatever we as the public see, there it is about 50 times more complications that the department of justice has to sort its way through. so i don't think that the appointment of a special c