Return to Transcripts main page

Cuomo Prime Time

January 6 Committee: Meadows & Patel Are "Engaging" With Panel; Rancher: Brian Laundrie Would Not Survive In Carlton Reserve; Facebook Under Increasing Pressure Amid Calls For Regulation. Aired 9-10p ET

Aired October 08, 2021 - 21:00   ET

THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.

[21:00:00]

CHRIS CUOMO, CNN HOST: Appreciate it, John. I am Chris Cuomo and welcome to PRIME TIME.

It is time to get after it. It's time to put on your lawyer hat. The idea of Trump exercising executive privilege, to avoid any scrutiny, by the January 6th commission, is being reported, as if it is a legitimate option.

It should not be. And here is why. The facts. Trump sent a letter to the National Archives, today, asking to withhold about 40 documents, the committee wants, citing executive privilege.

Now, does that exist? Yes. A sitting president has that privilege. The key is "Sitting." Trump is obviously out of office. Does that matter? Yes. Why? Two arguments.

Legally, there is zero precedent for a former president getting such protection, from their own issuance, from their own issuance, meaning they say, "As a former president, I want to exercise this privilege."

Now, there's a distinction to be made, I'll get to in a second, but no precedent of the law, recognizing a former president being able to do this. The closest thing to a case on point is what happened in the Supreme Court against Nixon. And that case rejects the idea.

Why? The privilege belongs to the presidency, which is an office. It does not attach to the person in the office, ad infinitum, meaning forever.

Second, we know this not just as a matter of law, but as a matter of practice, because, to the distinction, I mentioned earlier, former presidents have asked sitting presidents, to exercise the privilege, on their behalf, to protect particular communications or documents.

That means, in no small irony, it is up to President Biden, to choose whether to protect Trump's January 6th communications. And Biden said, "No way. You deserve a full understanding of what led to an attack on the Capitol, on January 6th." President Biden and the White House said it matters too much to censor.

But for Trump, this is not about the law. It's not about proper practice. It is about delay. Delay by a man, who has been working the legal system, for half a century.

The latest move? His lawyer warned four of his ex-aides not to comply with their subpoenas, and at least one listened.

The January 6th panel put this out earlier.

"While Mr. Meadows and Mr. Patel are, so far, engaging with the Select Committee, Mr. Bannon has indicated that he will try to hide behind vague references to privileges of the former President.

We will not allow any witness to defy a lawful subpoena or attempt to run out the clock, and we will swiftly consider advancing a criminal contempt of Congress referral."

Now, if you'll recall, four Trumpers got subpoenas. They only mentioned three. They left out Scavino. Why? Because, effectively, he's been on the lam, for the last two weeks, dodging being served, although personal service, meaning, to him directly, it's not really necessary here.

Of all those four though, Bannon has the fewest reasons to not comply. His lawyer put out this tripe that they must accept Trump's "Direction and honor his invocation of executive privilege." Now, this fails twice.

First, again, there is no privilege, for a former president, which is what Trump is, to be exercised by the same.

Second, Bannon wasn't even part of the administration, on January 6th. He was a podcast host, under indictment, as a matter of fact, for allegedly defrauding Trump's supporters. Remember, Trump let him off the hook, and pardoned him.

So, even if executive privilege did apply here, and it should not, neither with the others, and certainly not with Bannon, because that protection is about a president, and key advisers, so that they can have conversations without fear of exposure.

But in 2018, Trump said of Bannon, "Steve Bannon has nothing to do with me or my Presidency." Now, that was after they had a falling out, but that's irrelevant.

If Bannon had nothing to do with the Presidency, according to former president Trump, how could the privilege argument, ever hold up, even if privilege existed?

So, with privilege waived by Biden, and not available to Trump, will the committee follow through, on its threat, to hold Bannon, in contempt? That's what is getting all the media focus.

[21:05:00]

But I suggest a different question. Forget Congress. Will any of what has, is, and will, likely come out, about Trump savaging the Department of Justice, and its officials, move from Congress, to the DOJ itself, meaning will Attorney General Merrick Garland, take action?

It seems Trump thinks that there is a chance because he has been swooning over Biden's A.G. lately.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DONALD TRUMP, FORMER PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: He's a respected man.

He's somebody that has always been highly respected.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CUOMO: My guess is Trump has no idea who Garland was, until he became relevant, in the Supreme Court talk. But that's not what matters. What matters is a nice Trump is a worried Trump. Does he have good reason?

A better mind, CNN Legal Analyst, Ben Ginsberg, a leading Republican election lawyer, good to see you, Counselor.

BEN GINSBERG, CNN LEGAL ANALYST, REPUBLICAN ELECTION LAWYER: How are you, Chris?

CUOMO: Better than expected.

First, do you accept the aforementioned analysis of whether executive privilege can be exercised by Trump?

GINSBERG: The privilege clearly rests with the sitting president. Sitting presidents often have reason, to honor these requests.

I think the other factor that comes in here is very much the actual actions that took place on January 6th. They were not official actions in any way. They may have been political. They may have had to do with the past election, or the certification of the current election. But they were not official actions that usually come under executive privilege.

CUOMO: Two points. One, documents, sounds boring for the public. What can be in there that we're not expecting, when it comes to January 6th?

GINSBERG: Well, one of the big puzzles is what exactly the President was doing, during the time, from the end of the rally, to when the insurrection is dissipated.

And so, the official White House documents will include telephone logs, contemporaneous emails, perhaps, contemporaneous texts. Those will provide a much fuller picture of what Trump, and his associates were doing, during this terrible time.

CUOMO: Now, I do not mean to disrespect Congress. But I really believe if there are any teeth to the situation, it only comes from the DOJ. I mean, Congress doesn't even have a great set of tools to enforce subpoenas. Do they? GINSBERG: No. I mean, one of the dirty little secrets, about the Founding Fathers, in the Constitution, in separation of powers is they didn't really provide Congress, tools, to enforce their subpoenas.

You certainly saw that with members of the Trump administration, during impeachment. And you even saw it with Eric Holder, responding to the Republican subpoenas, on Fast and Furious, during the Obama administration.

CUOMO: Now, two questions. One, do you believe the DOJ would have anything here to really mine? And how concerned are you, about what all this does, in terms of undermining the next set of elections?

GINSBERG: I think DOJ always has powers to investigate crimes.

So, if Attorney General Garland decides that what happened on January 6th is in fact criminal activity, worthy of a broader investigation, than just the indictments, against the insurrectionists, he certainly has the authority.

But overall, there is harm to our elections. It certainly denigrates the trust Americans have, in the results that take place. You've seen that the actions, towards election officials, that the Trump supporters have done, is causing many election officials, experienced election officials, to retire.

It's sort of like working the refs, Chris. The onslaught of criticism, for the election officials, is going to impact people, who are trying to do their jobs, the right way, in upcoming elections.

CUOMO: I would use a different analogy. I don't know that it's working the refs as much as it's working the scorebook. I saw in your--

GINSBERG: Yes.

CUOMO: --thoughts about this issue, Counselor that you say "Look, maybe the best bet is to just let Trump continue these bogus audits, and let state by state show that everything was OK."

But the counter argument is you got lucky in Arizona. You had those Cyber Ninjas. The fact that they didn't figure out how to change the results may have just been good fortune.

What if you do an audit, in a state, like Texas, and they bring in some outfit that knows how to work the numbers, and they show, that it was wrong, illegitimately?

[21:10:00]

GINSBERG: Well, I don't think this is about the counts so much. There's no way to decertify the 2020 election. What this is about--

CUOMO: But they could undermine confidence in the count.

GINSBERG: Well, they've already done that. And the question is how you resolve the fact that 30 percent of the population doesn't have faith in the elections.

I think this is almost a "Give them enough rope to hang themselves" situation, that in fact, every time, Trump and his supporters have had to prove election fraud, had the opportunity, they failed, whether it was the litigation, their own commission, in 2017, the report by Michigan Senate Republicans that debunked all the theories there, the Arizona audit.

Not so much for the counts, but for when they said there may be illegal ballots, those allegations were so quickly refuted, that eventually the truth of the matter, which is that Trump has no evidence of systemic fraud, has to come out, and perhaps that can convince some of his supporters that they're wrong.

And in addition to the supporters, elected Republican officials, who I think are sort of, their souls are getting eaten alive, having to put up with what Trump is saying, and support it.

CUOMO: Lastly, from everything that you've heard so far, what do you believe is the largest risk, to Trump, or any of his people, for exposure to the DOJ, because of their activities or communications around the 6th?

GINSBERG: I have to go with the raw fact of armed insurrectionists, breaking into Capitol, to disrupt the peaceful transfer of power that undergirds our democracy, and what their actions were during that day, and in the lead up to that day, which is why the documents that the - that the government will - or the House Committee will get a hold of, can be so crucial, in showing that basic violation of the Constitution.

CUOMO: Ben Ginsburg, always a better mind. Thank you for helping the audience, understand, this situation.

GINSBERG: Thank you, Chris.

CUOMO: Best to you and the family. I'll speak to you soon.

All right, another mysterious investigation, Gabby Petito. That is the case. She is the victim. Brian Laundrie is the fiance.

And the question is twofold now. Been almost three weeks. That is an important line, in terms of survivability, in a place like this reserve, or preserve. More than 80 miles of hiking trail, nearly 25,000 acres of land and swamp, and lots of hiding spots. That is if he's even there.

Remember, the only reason that they looked at the preserve is because his parents said that's where he went. What if they weren't telling the truth? What if they were wrong? Let's assume they were right, like the police are.

I've got a rancher, here tonight, who knows that reserve better than many. Why does he think Laundrie is anywhere but there? Next.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) TEXT: CUOMO PRIME TIME.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

[21:15:00]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

TEXT: LET'S GET AFTER IT.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CUOMO: Tonight, we take a step back, because of developments in the Gabby Petito case.

The development, North Port, Florida police tells CNN that even after Brian Laundrie's parents reported him missing, they still refused to answer any questions about Gabby Petito, whose body had not yet been found.

Remember, the most damning facts here are, when Brian Laundrie came home, his parents stopped communicating with the Petitos, even before Gabby was reported missing, let alone found dead.

Second is that Brian Laundrie is nowhere to be found, all right? Now, investigators never had the chance to talk to Brian, before he left home, without coming back.

We're all learning all of this, as the manhunt for Laundrie, continues, in Florida's Carlton Reserve. Remember, they're only in that reserve, looking, because they found the car, after the parents told authorities that's where he said he was going.

Attempts have been slowed by heavy flooding. A Laundrie family attorney says the water in the preserve is receding, which may help the search. I don't know how he would know that. But that's what we're told.

North Port Police say their entire search there was prompted by information, provided by the parents, like I said. But since then, they've had zero credible tips, on sightings of Laundrie, in the reserve itself.

Police previously confirmed that a notice was placed, on Laundrie's abandoned Mustang, near an entrance, to that reserve. But does that mean he definitely drove it there?

Let's bring in someone, who knows the area very well, Alan McEwen. And he is a Florida cattle rancher. He has spent nearly every day, at the reserve, for 30 years. Now that's a portfolio of understanding!

First of all, sir, thank you for taking the time. I appreciate it.

ALAN MCEWEN, CATTLE RANCHER & OUTDOORSMAN WHO LIVES NEAR CARLTON RESERVE, VISITED CARLTON RESERVE NEARLY EVERY DAY FOR 30 YEARS: Yes, sir. Thank you.

CUOMO: Now, from what you understand, of the situation, and what it takes to be in there, and stay in there, you say, you doubt that Brian Laundrie could be there.

Why, sir?

MCEWEN: Well, for anybody, to go in there, any period of time, at the time he went in, with the flooding that we've had, it is just impossible for anybody to survive in there, even to move around in there.

Like I said, we had a real bad flood that came up. It came all the way up through the Myakkahatchee, which came out through there. And you have 25,000 acres of nothing, but wetlands, completely wet.

CUOMO: Now?

MCEWEN: Except for the main entrance, which is on the power lines, which is dry.

[21:20:00]

CUOMO: So, help us understand, for people who've never been in there, who don't even understand what that kind of terrain is like, when you've had flooding in an area like that, how much water are you talking about? What does it do to the trails? What does it mean that it's hard to move around?

MCEWEN: Well, it's actually the real name, back in that area is called the big slew. And there's flag palms (ph) out there, anywhere from a quarter mile, in diameter, to some that are a mile in diameter.

We call it seven palms (ph) some of us that know the area like that. And the whole area is just backed up underwater. You go out there, and there's places, it's ankle-deep, with the palmettos, are still underwater, places that are knee-deep, up to waist-deep.

And it's muck, completely muck. I mean, I've rode horses, in there, looking for cattle, when I've had them get out, and run over in there. And you'll be going in there. And I'll have - I'll be walking along, and my horses just fall slap down, through their chest, into the muck, and hard to get out. You sink.

CUOMO: So, it would be very hard to move.

MCEWEN: And every trip--

CUOMO: Let alone to get very far.

And then you have the observation issue. What is the chance that, in those kinds of conditions, he would have been seen, or do you think nobody was really in there, because it was so wet?

MCEWEN: I don't think anybody was in there to begin with. I don't think anybody in their right mind would even go in there to hide, if they were hiding. It's too hard to move around in there.

You can't - you can't move around, unless you get on the one trail, and it's only going to take you straight up the power lines. And you're not going to stay on that. You're going to want to get off.

But with the palmettos, the swamps, and the flag palms (ph), it's just - there's no way. There's no possible way, for anybody to go in there, and camp.

To find out a high ground in there, I know two to three places in there that are very high. I had some cows get out last year. Again, like I said once before, I spent five weeks, chasing one cow, and I found three high grounds that were under smoke hammocks that the cows were laying up in.

But it took me five weeks to catch them. And even when they were running across there, they were sinking and bobbing, I couldn't even get to them. And my dogs couldn't get across there.

CUOMO: What is--

MCEWEN: It's just is what is it is - it's--

CUOMO: It's just too--

MCEWEN: I'm sorry?

CUOMO: I get it now. I understand.

And thank you, because for a lot of people watching this show, like me, I've been in these places for work. But I wouldn't understand. It looks like a forest. But it's not. It's more of a bog, is what you're explaining, when it's wet like that.

What is the chance that something in there got him, ate him or hid him?

MCEWEN: Well, I don't think anything in there's going to eat him. I mean, as wet as it is, everything else has gone to higher ground, except for like alligators and snakes and fish.

And other than that, most like you say, when you get out in the wild, like that, alligators are usually more scared of you than you are of them. I mean, we're not at a public golf course, we're not in town, where alligators are used to seeing people. You get out there, and you'd come up on an alligator? Nine times out of 10, they're going to run from you.

Now, the only other thing out there that really could get him is a Water Moccasin, snakes. We got a lot of them out there. Think about a Water Moccasin is they don't run from you. They come after you. One gets you, you can't get out of there, you're dead.

And then, again, when you have something dead, out there, you're going to have buzzards, flying everywhere. And you can't see any buzzards flying anywhere. There - no buzzards have been flying in any direction of this place at all.

CUOMO: You - when you say - you keep talking about one trail that follows the power lines. Is that really the universe of possibility of places that he could have walked? I mean, how many - aren't there tons of trails through there?

MCEWEN: There's tons of trails, but all the trails are underwater. Every - again, the trails that people walk, and ride their bicycle on, at two weeks ago, it has dried up a little bit now, but there was no way for you to go out there, and just go on a natural hike.

I mean people that have been searching for him, they've been out there on four wheelers, people that haven't been out there before, and they're sinking their four wheelers, or sticking them. Swamp buggies are getting stuck. They can't even travel through there, through the palmettos and stuff like that.

CUOMO: So, you're saying your money is--

MCEWEN: There's just--

CUOMO: --on the fact that his car may have been there, but you don't think he ever was. And if he was, he wasn't for long.

MCEWEN: Oh, his car was definitely there.

CUOMO: Right.

MCEWEN: There was nothing about that.

CUOMO: Right.

MCEWEN: I actually believe somebody drove his car out there, parked his car. In my thoughts, they picked it up on Friday. And they called the police. They drove the car home. And then they called the place.

I mean, if my child was missing, I wouldn't have waited till Friday, if he didn't come home Tuesday night. I would have been looking for him then.

But I - when I - when I went out there, and would have found the car, I sure wouldn't have picked up the car, and went home, and then called the police. I would have called right there, on the spot, looking for my child.

CUOMO: Now, I hear you.

MCEWEN: My child's missing.

CUOMO: I hear you.

MCEWEN: I could care less about the Mustang.

CUOMO: There are a lot of curious things, going on here, in terms of what was done, and not done.

[21:25:00]

But I have to tell you. Mr. McEwen, I know that this is all second nature for you. But this was really helpful. I haven't heard anybody lay out the constraints of being in this area, and what it would take, as well. So, thank you for this, sir.

MCEWEN: Oh, you're welcome.

Like I said, again, the palmettos out there alone, are enough to trip you up, when you're walking through them, when you stumble through them. The mosquitoes will carry you off.

Anybody out there, more than a day, without mosquito spray, would - you'd go insane, with the bugs getting you, and everything else. You - there's just no possible way for anybody to survive out there, like that.

CUOMO: I get - I got it.

MCEWEN: Nobody.

CUOMO: And I appreciate you. I wish you the best. And thank you.

MCEWEN: Thank you very much, sir.

CUOMO: All right.

All right, so now, the country, and the debt ceiling, everybody's happy, because now America is not going to default on her debts.

Why be happy? They just kicked this back, for another fight to come, in December. And you have McConnell saying, "I'm not going to help you, next time." Like he helped this time?

Washington is broken. My next guest can explain better than anyone, why Congress has gotten, this polarized and paralyzed.

The Professor is back.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

TEXT: CUOMO PRIME TIME.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

[21:30:00]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

TEXT: LET'S GET AFTER IT.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CUOMO: Brinksmanship is about taking things, to the brink of disaster, in order to force leverage and outcomes. It's not something that the Senate was known for, historically. But it is now.

They just barely avoided disaster, after Republicans barely scraped together enough votes to help Democrats kick the debt limit crisis down the road, to December. So, this is going to be back on us, before you can blink an eye. And it will probably be worse.

Majority Leader Chuck Schumer is under fire, for blasting Republicans, after the vote. Listen.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SEN. CHUCK SCHUMER (D-NY): Republicans played a dangerous and risky partisan game. And I am glad that their brinksmanship did not work.

I thank, very much thank, my Democratic colleagues, for our showing our unity, in solving this Republican-manufactured crisis.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CUOMO: All right, let's dig in on what's happening in this Senate dysfunction, with the Professor, Ron Brownstein.

It's good to see you.

RON BROWNSTEIN, CNN SENIOR POLITICAL ANALYST, SENIOR EDITOR, THE ATLANTIC: Good to see you.

CUOMO: So.

BROWNSTEIN: Talk about going from one impassable bog to another, by the way, for, your last segment.

CUOMO: I know, right? But well done. Well-played. Well done.

BROWNSTEIN: Yes, yes.

CUOMO: Let's herd some cows!

BROWNSTEIN: Yes.

CUOMO: Why this Senate is so gridlocked? What happened?

BROWNSTEIN: Look, the long-term trend, the change in the Senate is that it is now more closely divided than it used to be, but also more deeply divided than it used to be.

Chris, it's become very hard, for either party, to get very far above 50. I mean, if you look at this entire century, we've only had three majorities, of 55 or more, in the last 22 years. In the 20 years, before that, there were seven majorities, of 55 or more. In the 20 years, before that, there were nine majorities, of 55 or more.

Both sides can't get very far above 50. And at the same time, it's become harder, for either side, to get support, from the Minority, for anything that they want to do. And so, what that means is that you don't, you know, you're not very close to 60, on your own, which is what you need, to break the filibuster, for all that, you know, everything that can't be shoehorned into reconciliation. And it's very hard to get the other side to come with you.

And both of these dynamics are really roll out of the same current, which is that it's become almost impossible, for either side, to win Senate seats, in states that vote the other way for President.

And since Joe Biden won 25 states, Democrats have 47 of their 50 Senate seats. Donald Trump won 25 states. Republicans have 47 of their 50 Senate seats. And basically, that means that each side is has a hard time getting a solid majority.

But given that almost all of the senators, from the other party, are from states that voted against their presidential candidate, it's also hard to get them to vote with him as well.

So, you add all that up, and a 60-vote requirement, and it just doesn't work very well.

CUOMO: Especially when you have half the Senate is put in office by like 18 percent of the population.

BROWNSTEIN: Yes. Yes, well--

CUOMO: So, they are playing small ball with their politics in a way that we're not used to the Senate doing.

So, the big question, becomes, from an enlightened mind, such as yourself, the filibuster?

BROWNSTEIN: Yes.

CUOMO: Do you believe the arguments militate more in favor of keeping, losing or modifying?

BROWNSTEIN: I think losing or modifying severely. I mean the idea - the alternate history being spun by a Kyrsten Sinema and Joe Manchin that the filibuster encourages bipartisan cooperation never has really been true. And it is less true now than ever.

As I said, it is almost impossible, for a president, in either party, to get meaningful support, from the other side, for anything he wants to do, I think, in large part, as I said, because almost every senator is now elected in a state that votes for their side, for President, so it's awful-hard to cross party lines.

And basically, all you are doing, at this point, is providing the Minority a veto. We have a quasi-parliamentary system, at this point, with incredibly high levels of party discipline, and a very little support, from the Minority, for anything the Majority wants to do.

Well, in a parliamentary system, you have a majority rule. We don't have that. We have a parliamentary system, without majority rule, because of the filibuster. And that's a model that isn't replicated anywhere in the world, for a good reason. It's a contradiction, in terms.

And you see it so clearly, on the voting rights now, where Joe Manchin is basically saying that Washington should only respond to the efforts that Republicans and Red states are making to suppress access to the ballot box, if Republicans in the Senate agree to turn against their party members, in the States.

[21:35:00]

The whole - the whole logic just kind of falls apart, and I think the filibuster has been obsolete or anachronistic for a while. It's even more pernicious, I think, in this modern environment.

CUOMO: Ron Brownstein, appreciate you, as always. Always a plus to have the Professor. Be well.

BROWNSTEIN: Thanks, Chris.

CUOMO: Have a good weekend.

BROWNSTEIN: Thank you.

CUOMO: Social media, I'm telling you, I'm not objective about it.

I'm telling you, just as a parent, being a parent comes before being a professional. And you cannot tell any parent that pays attention to their kids' lives, that social media can't be any better, can't be any safer, especially when it comes to kids.

So, I don't care that this has been one of the worst weeks for Facebook. It should be. It's just that Facebook isn't the only person we should be talking about.

Now, another outage, amplifying its problems. And again, these outages, they are some coincidence, in terms of distracting from the heat that's on them. They're also the least of their problems.

Does the government need to regulate? If so how?

And I want to bring in somebody, who knows that Facebook's not going to fix itself. He was once an adviser, to Mark Zuckerberg. The man is smart, and he is committed. You got to read the piece he just wrote, that's on TIME magazine's cover.

This is a guy that can help us figure out what's wrong that we don't even know. Next.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

TEXT: CUOMO PRIME TIME.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

[21:40:00] (COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

TEXT: LET'S GET AFTER IT.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CUOMO: As you probably know, there was another outage, for Facebook, today. It wasn't as widespread, as the earlier one, this week. But it shows you two things.

One, just how powerful social media is, in the fabric of our lives. Mixed metaphor, but you know what I'm saying. It's so important that we can't ignore it.

And also, just how big the footprint Facebook has, which kind of speaks to whether or not is it really good for one company to absorb that much of the bandwidth of our social media existence? Probably grabbed your phone to check, because that's how important it is.

The race to get everything fixed. It's not about losing customers. It's about losing their product. That's you and your kids, all right? The safety of our kids, and the privacy of our information, that's how they're making their money, OK?

This moment, went viral, a few years ago. But it's telling about how Facebook plays with the truth. Listen.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SEN. ORRIN HATCH (R-UT): Well how do you sustain a business model, in which users don't pay for your service?

MARK ZUCKERBERG, FACEBOOK CEO: Senator, we run ads.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CUOMO: Yes, "Run ads," not that they "Sell ads." What's the difference? Because what they sell is the access to you and, to a staggering degree, our kids.

You see what I'm saying? It's not that they're getting money to - like a magazine, or something like that. It's the information, man. It's the access. And it's what is being put, in front of our kids.

For example, did you know that, for the first quarter of this year, guess what the most popular link was, on Facebook? Take a guess. You're wrong. It was a site link about misinformation that was feeding anti-vax movement. How is that OK?

This business model is becoming known as "Surveillance capitalism." How is that OK?

My next guest knows the reality, OK? He worked in there. He was one of the earliest investors. He understands the business model and the mentality. He's also the Author of "Zucked."

Roger McNamee just wrote, that's his book, but he just wrote this article, it's on the cover of TIME magazine. It's online. You can get it. I'll put it on my social media also. You have to read it.

Because Roger, the point you're making?

Thank you for coming back, brother. Appreciate you.

ROGER MCNAMEE, EARLY INVESTOR IN FACEBOOK, AUTHOR, "ZUCKED: WAKING UP TO THE FACEBOOK CATASTROPHE," MANAGING DIRECTOR & CO-FOUNDER, ELEVATION PARTNERS, SILICON VALLEY VENTURE CAPITALIST: My pleasure.

CUOMO: Is that we don't even know what we don't know. Even the bills that we're all hoping will fix this are from years ago. And so much of what our lawmakers know, about this business, comes from the lobbyists, from the industry, who are among some of the most moneyed ever in existence.

What's the chance you get real change?

MCNAMEE: Well, so Chris, I actually feel more optimistic today than I have, in a very long time. And the reason is that the whistleblower, Frances Haugen, provided receipts, I mean, really serious internal reports, at Facebook, analyzing things that went wrong. And, in each case, the management team, of course, said "We're going to put profits before people."

But the reason it's so important is that the staffs, on the various committees, in the House and the Senate, recognized that Frances Haugen has shown them things that we didn't know before. So, they know that the legislation they have to create is different than the stuff that they've been working on.

And so, they are feverishly working on this right now. And I would expect between now, and early in the New year, you're going to see a lot of new bills come out that look much more, like the solutions that we need, which you and I've talked about this before.

It's really about safety. It's about privacy. And it's about updating the antitrust laws. And we need legislation in all three areas.

And the great thing about that hearing, with Frances Haugen, is that in the Senate, both the Republicans and the Democrats were on the same page. And when was the last time that happened?

CUOMO: I have a buddy, who is a tech analyst, who had very much appreciated what you've had to say on the show, so far, loves that we're going to keep it going as a conversation, because he said there's so much stuff to cover. So, we will.

[21:45:00]

But he said - he wanted me to ask. The law is only as good as its enforcement. And government has a very hard time enforcing an industry that it doesn't really understand. He said "You think trading is tough to police."

MCNAMEE: Yes.

CUOMO: "This stuff is much harder to police than trading." Do you agree? And if so, what's the answer?

MCNAMEE: I think it's basically exactly as difficult as trading, which by the way, he's right about the core point. This is really, really hard. The government has always had to deal with complex issues.

If you think about the creation, of the Food and Drug Administration, the FDA, Congress knew nothing about the medicine business. But a few members of Congress became experts, and have remained experts.

That process began three years ago, after Cambridge Analytica. So, I feel like there are people like David Cicilline, in the House, and, who really understand the issues, and there's a bunch of senators, who understand the issues. And I'm very hopeful that we'll see good leadership on that part.

But the real challenge, and this is where I think your friend is exactly right, is that this business model isn't just about selling us as a product. It's about using recommendation engines, to manipulate our behavior. And that is what's so dangerous.

Those people who went, and attacked the Capitol, on January 6th, they had been manipulated into believing that that would be viewed as a patriotic act. I mean, think about that!

These are - these are Americans, right? And I can guarantee you, two years earlier, they would never have considered attacking the Capitol to be a patriotic act. That was manipulation that occurred mostly on Facebook.

And the things that we have to do - this is a sort of thing, where you sit there, and say, "Look, the government of last 20 years would never have been able to handle it." But this is a new challenge. And we're America, right? It's like a war.

There was a person at "The Atlantic," who wrote a thing saying that we should view Facebook and companies like that as adversarial countries, right? So, you're dealing with them the way you would deal with a country that you didn't have a good relationship with. And I think that's exactly right.

CUOMO: Well?

MCNAMEE: You can't believe anything they say.

CUOMO: Let's do this. Let's find out what our lawmakers propose to do first, and then let's come on, and scrutinize it, and see where it misses, and where it hits.

Roger McNamee, thank you very much.

MCNAMEE: My pleasure. CUOMO: To be continued.

All right, Facebook may be helping to tear us apart. But you know who brings us together, right? The Wizard of Odds!

He has the numbers to prove that I may be a "Debbie Downer," but I'm not a "Negative Nancy." And we are united in ways we probably never knew.

Something for you to sleep on! That's a hint! Next.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

TEXT: CUOMO PRIME TIME.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

[21:50:00]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

TEXT: LET'S GET AFTER IT.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CUOMO: You want to know the biggest thing that brings Left and Right together? A lack of sleep!

Let's bring in the Wizard of Odds, the Host of the new CNN podcast, "MARGINS OF ERROR." He takes on sleep troubles, and an interesting solution.

Break it down for us. First, let's look at a bipartisan problem. How so?

HARRY ENTEN, CNN SENIOR DATA REPORTER, CNN HOST, "MARGINS OF ERROR" PODCAST: Yes, it's a bipartisan problem, because we're all having problems sleeping.

Look at this poll that just came out from Ipsos, last month. What do we see? Sleep or insomnia difficulties, at least a few times, in the last year, look at that, 69 percent of Democrats, 67 percent of Independents, 64 percent of Republicans.

These numbers don't surprise me because basically everyone I speak to has at least some problem sleeping.

CUOMO: I can't believe the Republicans are the lowest, when the guy who was, the head of their party is telling them that the country's falling apart, every five minutes.

All right, couples, they have a particular problem. What is it, and how much? ENTEN: Well this is what I love. Let's just say you're having problems sleeping in your relationship. What is a potential way that we can solve it?

How about we actually sleep separately, from our partner, in a separate room, maybe on the couch, maybe in a different--

CUOMO: Is this just old people?

ENTEN: No, it's not just old people.

When I did this podcast episode, I was shocked at the number of people, who came to me, and said, "You know what? There's nothing wrong with this. I do it all the time. I'm afraid to speak out about it."

But a quarter of all couples are sleeping separately. And it's not just all folks. We need to get past this idea of the "I Love Lucy," that we're going to have twin beds. No, it's not what we're really talking about.

The fact is that households, the size of houses are getting bigger, there are fewer people in the households, so you're able to sleep separately, and still have comfortable rooms. And look, it's modern couples, who are doing this, not the "I Love Lucys" of the past.

CUOMO: All right. Break down the reasoning as to why we don't want to sleep in the same bed.

ENTEN: Yes, I don't think this will necessarily surprise anybody. What's the number one reason? It's snoring. Snoring, 46 percent, sickness at 26 percent, not necessarily a big surprise, maybe your partner's ill, and you don't want to catch it.

But you know what I really love here? This is my favorite part, argument and fighting, 15 percent of the time. But also look at this, temperature differential, 10 percent. And I'm going to tell you why I find that to be interesting.

Because I had a relationship, a few years ago, with a person I was with, and I could not agree on the temperature in the room. I actually liked it really warm. She liked it really cold. So, I was basically hiding all the blankets. She couldn't stand in.

So, you know what I said? "Let's just sleep differently. We can have fun together. But we can sleep separately. And that way our relationship can sustain itself." And you know what? It actually works. Sleeping in a separate room actually worked. It kept us going for a while.

CUOMO: Was this the girlfriend you had that lived in Canada?

ENTEN: No. Look, I've only had a girlfriend, who may have lived in Israel, OK? Not necessarily Canada.

I know it's difficult for you to believe, Christopher. But the fact of the matter is that some people actually enjoy my company, and don't necessarily just want to have me on, for my good looks, and then get rid of me, once the show's over.

CUOMO: I'll tell you what number I think is low there, the kids' one. Once you get into the kids' game, you always - all parents say the same thing.

Remember I told you this, if you ever get into the kid game.

ENTEN: Hey! Hey!

CUOMO: "We're not having them in a bed. We're not having them in a bed. This is our space. This is our thing."

[21:55:00]

But it makes them sleep. And they get in, and they start to become, like little baby Bruce Lees, and they're kicking you. And that gets you out of the bed, or to the corners. That's underrated.

All right, Harry, I got to go. This was good. This is why your podcast "MARGINS OF ERROR"--

ENTEN: Thank you.

CUOMO: --is a smashing success. New episodes, every Tuesday when, Harry, gets back, from seeing, his significant other, in Canada.

We'll be right back with the handoff.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

CUOMO: Thank you for watching. "DON LEMON TONIGHT" with its big star D. Lemon starts right now.

I know there's news. But?

DON LEMON, CNN HOST: No Tie Friday!

CUOMO: But the sleep numbers.

LEMON: Well?

CUOMO: People not wanting to sleep together.

LEMON: Oh my gosh!

CUOMO: Left and Right being joined in being unrestful.

LEMON: I'm about to get in trouble. I'm all--

CUOMO: Well?

LEMON: --I'm all for it. Because, well, number one, our schedules are completely opposite. So, I come home. I'm not ready to go to sleep immediately. So, I have to hang out, in the living room, whatever, or hang out in the room, and - with the TV on or whatever--

CUOMO: But you do stay up too late, and you watch TV in bed, both of which are mistakes.

LEMON: How do you know that?