when you switch to comcast business mobile. don't wait! call, click or visit an xfinity store today. her uncle's unhappy. i'm sensing an underlying issue. it's t-mobile. it started when we tried to get him under a new plan. but they they unexpectedly unraveled their “price lock” guarantee. which has made him, a bit... unruly. you called yourself the “un-carrier”. you sing about “price lock” on those commercials. “the price lock, the price lock...” so, if you could change the price, change the name! it's not a lock, i know a lock. so how can we undo the damage? we could all unsubscribe and switch to xfinity. their connection is unreal. and we could all un-experience this whole session. okay, that's uncalled for. that's going to do it for us for right now. tonight, opening statements and donald trump's first criminal trial. what happened today in court and what prosecutors say he

orchestrated a scheme to corrupt the 2016 election. what's next for speaker mike johnson now that the house is passed aid for ukraine. we are days away from supreme court arguments on trump's immunity claim. this case is national security. the 11th hour gets underway this monday night . here we go. good evening, once again. i am stephanie ruhle and we are 197 days away from the election. we are not talking about the election today, opening statements got underway in donald trump's first criminal trial. the former president was forced to sit in silence as lawyers from the manhattan district attorney's office alleged he and his allies were part of a conspiracy to influence a 2016 election. the goal, negative stories

about trump so voters would never see them. trump's lawyers said he had no involvement in coverups and there was nothing wrong with trying to influence an election. laura jarrett was in court and has the details. >> reporter: tonight prosecutors painting a stark portrait of former president trump and their opening statements during his hush money trial. egg case mr. trump has argued is designed to derail his campaign. >> this is done is election interference. >> reporter: prosecutors said it's mr. trump who is guilty of election interference by paying off adult film star to silencer before the 2016 election, telling the jury, this case is about a criminal conspiracy to bury a story that could've cost him the presidency, and then lying in business records over and over again to cover it up. the alleged scheme stretches back to 2015, meeting at trump tower between mr. trump and his former fixer michael cohen and

david the publisher of the national enquirer. this is where prosecutors say the trio hatched a plot of the tabloid to buy and bury any damaging stories about trump, it's known as catch and kill. prosecutors say it was the release of the access hollywood tape that turned the campaign upside down in october 2016. the lead prosecutor reading mr. trump's most incendiary remarks from that video for the jury today. arguing the former president was so desperate to contain the damage with female voters, he directed michael cohen to pay off stormy daniels so she could not go public about a sexual encounter. it's not the hush money itself that he is charge within the trial. it's how then-president trump documented his monthly reimbursement payments to michael cohen on company records as legal expenses. prosecutors telling the product dashed jury, it was election fraud, pure and simple.

mr. trump is not facing conspiracy or campaign-finance violations. something the defense sought to highlight today saying the payments to cohen were for legal expenses, arguing there is nothing wrong with trying to influence an election. it's called democracy. not a crime. >> former national enquirer publisher and longtime friend of donald trump david was the first witness called by the prosecution. testified briefly about what he called using checkbook journalism to pay for stories. he is expected to continue his testimony tomorrow. trump has pleaded not guilty and denies having any relationship with stormy daniels. we need help here tonight. let's get smarter with our leadoff panel. a political investigation reporter for the guardian, he has been at the courthouse covering the trial.

and a pulitzer prize-winning investigative reporter for the "new york times" and it covers the trump family and business interest. my old friend, department of justice -- former acting soliciting general and legal analyst, hugo, you get first dibs because you were in the courtroom today of everything you heard and saw inside and outside, what was your, what stuck out to you. >> how badly the day went for trump. i think his lawyer struggled. it was notable because the state put on a convincing opening statement. in particular what todd blanche ran into his he could not say what does client wanted him to say. the defense did not charge the case so he was last having to say things like, it's president trump. he has earned his title. we should refer to him as president trump. >> who cares? it's a criminal trial and the argument he's making is how to refer to trump? what we call him by name? that

was his big moment? >> he let up with it. everyone in the courthouse looked around and thought, is a really going with this argument? eventually segued into saying trump was ignorant of this and could not be held accountable because it was michael cohen's doing and he never signed off the chest dashed checks. the one argument he did not make was this idea of how voters were not deprived of any information before the 2016 election because they would not have been privy to the trump organization's records in the first place. that never came up. >> you have been following every step of this since day one. what was your take away? >> similar to hugo. i think the trump opening statement fell really flat. there were three arguments the opening statement made.

one, it was not trump's idea but michael cohen's idea to do all of this. michael cohen took out a home equity loan of thousands upon thousands of dollars on his home in order to pay off stormy daniels. no lawyer does that. the idea that he would've done it on his own out of the goodness of his own heart or something, early implausible. you put on the screen before trump's lawyer statement that there's nothing wrong with trying to influence an election. it's called democracy. that's legally a totally bogus argument because influencing an election is sometimes legal or illegal. if you bribe someone to vote for you, that's illegal even though it's influencing the election. trump is accused of trying to hide the gifts essentially to him and avoid the transparency that the campaign-finance laws require. that's a crime every day of the week. third, he says, well, these

payments are for purely legal expenses. legitimate legal expenses. that, i think, is going to be a problem we will hear about the next month as the trial goes forward. as an attorney, the last thing you want to do is overpromise in your opening statement and tell the jury, the evidence will show something and then it doesn't turn out to show it. that's when you blow your credibility. harry made this point earlier today, who is the witness who will testify that these payments were for legitimate legal expenses. it's unthinkable. i think a poor way to start which is why trump has always been scared of not just the other trials but this trial in particular. >> david, what do you think? >> i am struck by how this trial has given us something i didn't think we would ever see. trump does not use email or create a paper trail that shows what his thinking or what he

did. he makes decisions in a room with a small number of loyal is. family members and people who have been with them forever. that's why it's a hard nut to crack to explain his motivations in a court of law or newspaper story. you had to get one of those few people in that circle with him. now they have that, michael cohen, he has been with jumper every three series of moves trump made while president. he turned him into a witness for the prosecution. we will hear in the courtroom somebody say there were three people in the room but i was one of them. with david we were two of them. i didn't think we would see that, that person turning on trump. >> when the defense has their witnesses, who is donald trump going to have? this family man who supposedly, according to donald trump's team, was protecting his family. none of his family members showed up in court to be with him. it was lawrence o'donnell earlier who said even jeffrey

dahmer, his mom and dad, they came to court every day of his trial. if the only people who were in trump's inner circle, the likes of michael cohen or david what about his family? they are not in court. will they be defense witnesses? >> i don't think they are. donald trump jr. might've been involved a little in this transaction as it was the books and covered up. i don't think they were privy to this, and i do not see them calling them to make a case this was something good. what they will rely on is the trump team will rely on the idea that there's a bunch of.ca but we don't know enough to connect them or say it was trump's intent which you need is a nonlawyer, you need to prove this case. >> neal, do you think the jury notices that donald trump is a man standing alone? we see other defendants show up with all sorts of family

members and support to try to gain sympathy with the jury. will it impact the jury in any way that nobody has shown up for trump as of yet? >> i am not sure the spectators will make a huge difference. i think a closely related point which is the witnesses against trump, light people like david and michael cohen, these are people trump hired or paid. yes, trump's strategies michael cohen has no strategy. a by to a court, but he is try's criminal. he is the guy trump brought in to start this in the first place. i think the jury at the end of the day will be left with, every person that seems to surround donald trump is a criminal or a liar or scoundrel or all of the above. in a way that will rub off on donald trump. i think that dynamic is definitely going to be at play. there's a lot of charges here.

34 different counts. that's a big indictment. 34 is so huge. superlong double album from taylor swift only as 31 tracks. it's an amazing record by the way. there is a lot going on in this criminal trial and today we started to see the prosecution layout the first three key elements that trump paid off the doorman, he paid off one national enquirer story, now is paying off another with stormy daniels. >> let's talk about david former publisher, owner of the national enquirer and a number of other magazines. he has known and been entangled with donald trump for decades. he is the king of new york tabloids and nobody loves to be splashed across those tabloids or have bad stories hidden more than donald trump. the fact that he is the first witness for the prosecution,

what did he tell the jury today? and has trump said -- we know he goes bad on michael cohen yesterday. what has he said about david they've been friends and allies for decades. >> it was interesting because at trial you start with their most important witness and end with your strongest typically. this gave us a witness of where this is going and it was telling from the opening statement from the prosecution that they wanted to link this directly to the election. the whole groundwork leading up to david was trump ended this catch and kill for the campaign. it was to attack political opponents. it was for david -- and this is clearly where it's going. david was asked how we operated and orchestrated the catch and kill schemes. over $10,000 that editors had

to ask him if they could spend that kind of money on sources and try to get stories. he will narrate the entirety of the relationship between trump and him and the national enquirer and that's why it makes them important. >> the prosecution is hoping he will be that narrator, neal? >> absolutely. i think the aim of the prosecution and its chronologically, you start with david because he is negotiating early with trump even well before his he is president to adopt this catch and kill strategy, checkbook journalism is how it was referred to today. everyone would love to have newspapers in catch and kill situations. if you are a candidate or high official or corporate ceo or whatever, biden would love, i'm sure, to have someone buying

every story about his son and making it so none of them could be published. that is with david did here. i think we will see more from him. he testified for a nano second today because one of the jurors had a dental problem. it's the next day or two that we will see that testimony come out. >> former national enquirer executive editor was on air earlier and i want to share what he said about david >> he will be the star witness of this case. and, why the prosecution will be relying on him. he can set the table here. going back to that meeting at trump tower in 2015 two months after donald trump goes down the escalator where they have this meeting comments michael cohen and trump and david and

where david said he will be the eyes and ears of the campaign. purchased negative stories of the market and run negative stories about your rivals. >> tell us more about this relationship. i remember in 2017 went donald trump's daughter and his wife, and the two were disappointed and furious that the likes of vogue magazine were not writing glamour stories about them in the white house. what did david do? he bought us weekly and turned it into a lifestyle magazine, a platform to showcase the trump family in the white house. talk how these two men know each other and have been essentially in business for decades. >> this is an ugly set of journalism. i should emphasize that set the way we do journalism. we don't buy stories to kill them or publish them. that's the way the national enquirer worked and how it worked for years. there were instances where the killed negative stories about arnold schwarzenegger when he

was running for governor. they did it for tiger woods to get a good interview with tiger woods. they buried a story about him. it's been going on a long time and the world trump lived in for years. the new york tabloids. it was a long-term relationship. you can see that david says we will formalize this. doing it informally and now we will formalize it and i will do it to benefit your campaign because i want the access and power and the stories that i will get out of that. i think my publication and he personally will benefit if you rise so i will find stories of will hurt you and make sure nobody else sees them. >> neal, trump's lawyers are denying there was any relationship between donald trump and stephanie clifford, a.k.a. stormy daniels. how did they do that without donald trump taking the stand? >> very hard. the prosecution has to prove that to a jury beyond a reasonable doubt.

the prosecution bears the burden, but as long as they introduce testimony that says so, it will be hard to rebut that in the minds of the jury. it's true that donald trump has a fifth amendment right, of course, not to have to testify. whatever thought he might've had about testifying, i think it was destroyed this morning because the judge known as the sandoval ruling, told mr. trump that if you do testify, everything is fair game, basically, from the new york attorney general's civil suit against you and all the things you were found liable there. the lying you engaged in in court when it comes to the gag order. what happened with e. jean carroll. although that can come out as part of cross-examination. he will not testify. i suspect they will not spend much time on this claim that there was no relationship

because, there are tapes here. michael cohen audiotape donald trump telling him to go pay off stormy daniels. maybe he just wanted out of the goodness of his heart to give her hundreds of thousands of dollars, but i suspect something else was going on and thus it jury was suspected as much. >> this gag order hearing tomorrow, what do you think is going to come of this? is the judge really going to send donald trump to jail, whether or not -- we know if it was a regular old defended, given how he's conducted himself they would, but what will happen here? >> in a regular defendant, you were me, did what donald trump is doing terrifying so flagrantly this gag order would be looking at a 30 day jail sentence. jailing trump's heart for this judge to do right now. particularly, because the jury has been in pendleton this highly consequential case.

that's why the prosecutors instead of asking for about 30 days in jail that's allowed under the law have asked really really what -- $1000 fine. which is peanuts for you. lying about his finances whether it's a lot or little but it's not jail time. there is a solution that i started to float today which is the judge should impose a 30 day jail sentence and suspend the service of that sentence and tell trump, i am adjudicating you as violating this gag order and sentencing you to jail, but i will watch how you act. if you stay within the lines over the course of this trial, then i will reconsider my decision at the end. you hold the keys to your freedom, mr. trump. that is the best way to make it more like any other case and protect the rule of law and protect what trump is doing which is interfering with the jury process and interfering

with the witnesses. >> all right, thank you all for starting us all on this important night. hugo, david, neal. it's time for our tracker following terms media company and how they're doing in the public markets today. the stock ended down slightly, closing at 35 bucks a share but here's what's important. while the company has been losing money as early as tomorrow, pay attention, donald trump could receive an additional 36 million shares for doing absolutely nothing, for spending nothing, he could get that amount of shares tomorrow. in addition to what he already has. at today's price, that would be valued at $1.3 billion. on paper, as early as tomorrow, he could be handed over stock worth 1.3 billion bucks that he cannot sell, but still, that's a wow. a foreign aid bill that

would send help to ukraine and israel heads to the senate. we will break down what's next for speaker mike johnson. his job is still on the line. retired military leaders have a warning for the supreme court why they say trump's presidential immunity claim is jeopardizing the nation's security. the 11th hour just getting underway on an important monday night.

business. it's not a nine-to-five proposition. it's all day and into the night. it's all the things that keep this world turning. the go-tos that keep us going. the places we cheer. and check in. they all choose the advanced network solutions and round the clock partnership from comcast business. see why comcast business powers more small businesses than anyone else. get started for $49.99 a month plus ask how to get up to an $800 prepaid card. don't wait- call today. when i was your age, we never had anything like this. what? wifi? wifi that works all over the house, even the basement. the basement. so i can finally throw that party...

and invite shannon barnes. dream do come true. xfinity gives you reliable wifi with wall-to-wall coverage on all your devices, even when everyone is online. maybe we'll even get married one day. i wonder what i will be doing? probably still living here with mom and dad. fast reliable speeds right where you need them. that's wall-to-wall wifi with xfinity. mike johnson has betrayed america. betrayed republican voters. under his leadership, he passed the biden administration's policies and fully funded them. mike johnson's speakership is over and he needs to resign. if he does not do so, he will be vacated. >> turn up the volume. the senate will begin taking up the long-awaited package for

ukraine, but infighting among house republicans may have only just begun. house speaker mike johnson earned praise from moderates for pushing ahead on the bill. far right members like marjorie taylor greene who use all right there are enraged over his decision to work with democrats and is vowing to oust him again if he does not resent. back with us tonight to discuss msnbc political analyst and republican strategist stuart c -- stevens. his new book, the conspiracy to end america. five ways my party is driving our party to autocracy. i want to start with the wall street journal in the headline they wrote. , quote,, mr. johnson's behaviors called leadership and the gop would be more popular and better able to govern if more of its members showed such metal themselves or respect for those who demonstrated. i want to take a wild guess. you are done with that. >> i agree with that.

i think two things are true. mike johnson deserves a lot of credit for making historic decisions, the first time in a long time, you saw members of european citizenship going forward and say god bless america which happened after this boat. the other hand, it's important not to over praise. it's a dumbing down of what it means to be a speaker of the house. he did not vote the way vladimir putin wanted him to vote. i think that's a pretty low bar for leadership. we still have this reality that the majority of republicans voted the way the vladimir putin wanted them to vote. that shows how the party has collapsed. thank god this thing past. it should've passed months ago. a lot of lives would've been saved. a lot of innocent women and children and soldiers would be alive today. it could've failed and it did not and give some credit to

that. >> what do you think? >> i give mike johnson no credit so i will let you on the part that the should've passed six months ago. i appreciate that president zelenskyy mentioned to kristen welker on meet the press that this is a demand to lp protect and fight for freedom. protect and fight for democracy which helps globally, not just ukraine. i think this is long overdue and it is exclusively motivated by johnson's intention to cover himself with protection from democrats. i said weeks ago that democrats should not offer to save republicans from themselves or save mike johnson from himself unless they get something in exchange. i think this foreign aid package as well as a sequencing on how it was voted as a first step in that process. i think minority leader who could change -- hakeem jeffries

knows how to operate with this minority and hope that over mike johnson's head. >> mike johnson telling far right extremists no, does that mean it's the beginning of the end for him or the beginning of the end for them? >> you know, going out of business sale for any optimism with the republican party. i hate to be want to think they might be able to rise to a higher level. i suspect two months from now, mike johnson will be speaker of the house. you have to realize, they were basically down to putting an ad in craigslist to find a speaker. it was so painful for this party and the members of the party who were trying to focus on the reelection that i do not think they will do with. marjorie taylor greene, nobody likes and people think she is this odd, angry person. she is not someone people are drawn to.

i think he will still be speaker. i think he will stay. >> juanita, i want to go back to the last thing you said. some democrats have signaled their willing to save johnson if this motion moves forward. others are telling axios they will not let him off so easy. what do you think will happen? >> i think there could be an opportunity for democrats to get long-overdue legislation, to formally get votes on the house floor. this motion to vacate his dangling. i agree with stuart that marjorie taylor greene is huffing and puffing with no clear next steps or support. based on the fractures visible within the republican party. i know that hakeem jeffries knows how to negotiate, even with the staging with how the votes rolled out over the weekend, with democrats hanging back while republicans look chaotic. 112 republicans voted the way putin one of them to.

that's the thing democrats will leverage. they will not come to the immediate aid of republicans and mike johnson but they will negotiate further legislation and when the vote comes, they will show up before the clock runs out. >> we will soon find a. thank you both for being here. more than one dozen men and women who have led our nation's military are weighing in on one of donald trump's legal issues. why they say his presidential immunity argument could be a threat to our national security. that and more when the 11th hour continues. .

as trump's new york trial gets underway, as federal election interference trial has been stuck in neutral, waiting for the supreme court to decide of trump is immune from prosecution. arguments in the case is set for this thursday. 19 retired military leaders, military leaders meaning nonpartisan, are warning the court that this is not just about criminality but about national security. three of them join us tonight. debra lee james served as a secretary of the air force from 2013 to 2017. secretary of the navy from 2009 to 2017. and lewis served as secretary of the army from 1998 to 2001. thank you all for being here. this is important stuff. people need to understand.

secretary james, in your filing use a donald trump's argument that presidents should have total immunity threatens to jeopardize our nation's security. can you explain why? >> absolutely. we wrote this amicus brief, my colleagues and i, because we did not want the supreme court overlook in this broad situation that there are important implications. it could be very detrimental to national security. number 1, there are three principles that this is predicated upon. civilian control of the military. the second is the fact that military is apolitical and will follow lawful orders for many president of any political party. they are above politics. number 3, they are obligated to disobey and on lawful order. unlawful order might be something like the order to attack innocent civilians in

warfare. that's what the situation was in vietnam. if they fail to do so by such an unlawful order, the could be held liable for prosecution. can you imagine a situation where the president is immune from prosecution but the soldiers who carry out the orders are? it makes no sense at all. >> that's what i want to get into next. i want to lay it out slowly. when you look at the military, the brief points out the trump's theory would undermine the president's moral authority as commander-in-chief because he would not have to obey the law while the military commands would have to do so. walk us through that. have devastating would that be? >> it would be incredibly devastating. say you got a group of protesters outside the white house. peacefully protesting. the president did not like it and ordered his military commanders to take them out.

then you put the military in an incredibly impossible situation. either they have to follow an unlawful order and risk being prosecuted themselves or they have to publicly disobey that order. taking it one step further, what happens down the chain of command? what to the unit commanders, what do the kernels and the lieutenants, what do the sergeants and the privates do? they have the commander-in- chief telling them to do something. they have the top military leadership, the chairman of the joint chiefs telling them not to. what you would have his you would have chaos and you would destroy the u.s. military as a fighting force. you would also destroy the u.s. military as a defender of democracy, and probably as a side effect, destroy democracy. >> secretary, one theme of the

document is this massive warning against authoritarianism. a lot of americans out there dismiss the concern of authoritarianism at home. they think we are alarmists and it will never happen here. what would you say to them? >> it is important -- our tradition of our constitution as no one is above the rule of law. if the supreme court were to find that the president can violate criminal laws, they would essentially be saying that the president is above the laws that are passed by congress. that he can do whatever he wants. criminally cannot be charged. so, that's to give him the kind of power that starts that decline toward authoritarianism. it sends the wrong message to countries around the world where we are seeing populists take control of democratic countries, and then change the rules to try to entrench themselves and act as

authoritarians. that's why we did not appoint a king. we wanted the military to be subordinate to civilian control starting with the president, but responding to the will of the people through its elected officials. we did not want a president who could use the military for his personal purposes. there's an argument that's been made by some that the president needs to take bold action and not be afraid of prosecution. we think that argument does not make any sense in this context. first of all, the decisions and former president trump charged with, have nothing to do with wartime decisions. have nothing to do with protecting the national interest. that is not the case in front of the core. it would be a mistake for the court to start to carve out exceptions for national security in this kind of case. it's unnecessary because usually the president has the advice of lawyers from the

white house, from the department of defense, department of intelligence, department of justice, and what you might call gray area decisions. there have been many in the course of our history where there are people who have a good faith belief that the president is acting within his authority to protect the nation and within the bounds of the law. that is sufficient protection from anyone ever coming after he president and saying he willfully, intentionally violated the laws. there is no need to create a carveout. if there's one thing we know about former president trump and any future authoritarian who might become president or would be a authoritarian is he will take an exception like the national interest and they will drive a truck through what should be a limited exception and claim everything they do is

in the national interest. that's what vladimir putin does and that's what kim jong-il does and that's what authoritarians do. they are a national interest so anything they want, personal, political, partisan, otherwise, is by definition the national interest. we don't want to go down the slippery slope. we shouldn't want anyone to have the power. conservatives should be concerned about a democratic president who has the authority to violate criminal laws and misuse the military for political purposes just as much as democrats should. >> secretary james, liz cheney wrote an op-ed where she's urging the supreme court to decide this quickly so the federal election interferes case can go to trial and americans can see the evidence for themselves before the election. do you agree with her? >> i absolutely do. i have nothing but the greatest respect for liz cheney.

she stuck her neck out big time while she was a member of congress. she ultimately paid the ultimate political price for doing so. to the extent the supreme court can make a decision, do it decisively so it's no longer in question, frankly, as an american i never dreamed such a matter would be in question. issue heard secretary caldera say, the principle of no one is above the law in the united states is one i always grew up and when i continue to believe in. for the supreme court to act quickly and decisively is essential. i could not agree more with congresswoman cheney. >> thank you all for being here tonight. when we return, our next guest has witnessed the rise of authoritarianism in the philippines firsthand. our keynote conversation on the threat to democracy in the u.s. when the 11th hour continues . .

(♪♪) (♪♪) try dietary supplements from voltaren, for healthy joints.

what is cirkul? cirkul is the fuel you need to take flight. cirkul is the energy that gets you to the next level. cirkul is what you hope for when life tosses lemons your way. cirkul, available at walmart and drinkcirkul.com.

as we spoke about earlier, the historic criminal trial against donald trump is underway right now in new york city and in opening statements, prosecutors argue the hush money payment was election interference. that was connected to the 2016 election. let's forget about 2020 he is facing charges in d.c. and georgia for trying to support the election. what does 2024 have in store?

our keynote conversations with nobel peace prize winner, maria, the ceo, the top digital news site and she's the author of how to stand up to a dictator, the fight for our future. i'm honored to have you back with us. you witnessed the y -- rise of authoritarian power firsthand in the philippines. how does that compare to what you are seeing bubble up here? >> first, it's shocking to see where things are. i've been a journalist for 38 years and we've never lived through anything we are living through today. in the last 38 years. the second thing is it happened quickly. its death by 1000 cuts. small little things you let go of, and if you do not hold the line, you lose those rights. i still have to ask for permission from our supreme court to be able to travel

here. in the philippines, what we saw was shortly after the 2016 election of duterte and within six months institutions collapsed and he became the most powerful leader we ever had. >> you know firsthand what it's based a weaponize justice system. you were quoted but are you worried we could see that happen here? >> i think you are feeling it already. those signs are there. i had 14 investigations. i have two criminal charges. in 2019, kept getting arrested. i had 11 arrest warrant starting in 2019 and a kept posting bail. i thought i would have to workflow this to keep working as a journalist. the good news is we went from duterte and now i say we are in purgatory. you can come out of it but it takes a lot. i worry about america in 2016 when this was happening in the

philippines, said this is coming for you, and it did. it still goes right back to what big tech is doing, this technology that connects each of us that is literally inciting fear, anger, and hate. rewording the types of behavior that you see from leaders like duterte , bolsonaro, former president trump. >> i want to go back to what you said, this death by 1000 cuts. because they are tiny cuts, you've got all sorts of people who are dismissing the idea authoritarianism. you are alarmist, you are crazy. how do you get people to take things seriously when it's happening in tiny increments that for many that are dismissible. >> madeleine albright called it slicing the salami. diving into fascism. you pull up and you realize, the first time i got arrested i never thought it would happen.

>> then it happened over and over. >> we are in a new place. the violence we are seeing -- seeing globally is a.i. and now the 2024 elections in the u.s., it will get worse. generative a.i., and none of the problems with social media have truly been addressed. it's going to get worse. >> on the show, we say the truth matters but only if you see it. how do we address the whether it's social media platforms others, this monsoon of misinformation that's pouring into people's homes and on their smart forms day in and day out with such speed and volume, people believing it? how do you fight that? >> understand it's a design. it's not an accident. it's disinformation. this is

meant to keep you scrolling and last may, the surgeon general said there's an epidemic of loneliness. teens in particular, gen z, greater incidence of sleeplessness and suicides. when you push it forward to generative a.i. that was rolled out in november 2022, you can see the impact. if the first instance you had fear, anger, and hate weaponize, now it's our biology. it's loneliness that could get weaponize by this. having said that, what do we do? first, understand that governments, democratic governments, have abdicated responsibility for protecting us and the public spheres. section 230, said this in the nobel lecture, the second thing is to look around the world and see what has succeeded. poland is one of the bright lights.

it was interesting because we expected the government to take to win. right before elections, it passed an abortion law that brought the youth and the women to the polls. aside from that, you are seeing a lot of countries going back to the future. you have had the son-in-law, the president of indonesia. president marcos. the only namesake of our dictator back in power. the world is in a strange place. 2024 will determine whether or not democracy survives. >> thank you so much for being here. it's a privilege. i wish you all at home very good and safe night. from all of our colleagues across the networks of nbc news, thank you for staying up late. i will see you tomorrow.

shipstation saves us so much time it makes it really easy and seamless pick an order print everything you need slap the label on ito the box and it's ready to go our cost for shipping, were cut in half just like that go to shipstation/tv and get 2 months free