CROSSING THE RUBICON IN A NATION OF LAW.

IS IT TIME FOR A THIRD PARTY?

AND CAN GOVERNMENT KEEP KIDS OFF SOCIAL MEDIA?

STAY TUNED, IVORY TOWER IS NEXT.

♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ GOOD EVENING.

WELCOME TO IVORY TOWER.

I'M DAVID CHANATRY, FROM UTICA UNIVERSITY.

I'M JOINED AROUND THE TABLE TONIGHT BY NINA MOORE, FROM COLGATE UNIVERSITY, TY SEIDULE FROM HAMILTON COLLEGE, BEN BAUGHMAN FROM GANNON UNIVERSITY AND RICK FENNER FROM UTICA UNIVERSITY.

THE BIG STORY THIS WEEK, AND SO FAR THIS YEAR, IS THE ARREST OF A FORMER PRESIDENT.

THAT'S NEVER HAPPENED IN OUR 247-YEAR HISTORY, AND IT'S ONE MORE NORM SHATTERED IN THE ERA OF DONALD TRUMP.

THIS “HUSH MONEY ” CASE IS JUST ONE OF 6 ACTIVE INVESTIGATIONS OF THE FORMER PRESIDENT, AND IT MAY BE ONE OF THE WEAKER CASES.

WE'RE A NATION OF LAWS AND NO ONE SHOULD BE ABOVE THE LAW, BUT IS THIS THE KIND OF CRIME THAT SHOULD PUT A PRESIDENT BEHIND BARS?

>> WELL, THIS IS THE TYPE OF CRIME THAT YOU INVESTIGATE.

AND IF YOU LEADS TO AN INDICTMENT, WHICH IT DID, THEN THE FACTS AND THE FINDINGS WERE RELEASED AS WE HAVE BEEN HEARING IN THE NEWS OVER AND OVER AND OVER WITH WHAT'S BEEN RELEASED ABOUT THE 34 CHARGES.

NOW, WHAT HAS NOT BEEN RELEASED IS ALL THE EVIDENCE THAT THEY HAVE.

AND ANTI-MONEY LAUNDERING CASE, WHICH IS PRETTY MUCH WHAT THIS BOILS DOWN TO, IS HIGHLY COMPLICATED AND THROUGH DISCOVERY, THE DEFENSE IS GOING TO GET THE EVIDENCE THAT THEY HAVE.

>> AND IT SEEMS LIKE-- YES, WE UNDERSTAND THERE IS STILL DISCOVERY TO COME, AND WE DON'T KNOW WHAT THAT EVIDENCE IS, BUT WE DO KNOW WATT BIG CHARGES ARE AND THE CHECKS THAT WERE WRITTEN.

>> YES, AND TO ME THIS IS THE WRONG TIME AT THE WRONG TIME.

YOU KNOW, FROM WHAT I'VE READ, THERE DOESN'T SEEM TO BE A CONSENSUS AMONGST JUDGES, FORMER PROSECUTORS, EDITORIAL BOARDS, THAT THIS IS REALLY UP TO A CRIME THAT WE SHOULD BE CHARGING A FORMER PRESIDENT.

CLEARLY IT APPEARS THERE WAS FALSIFICATION OF BUSINESS DOCUMENTS, WHICH WOULD BE A MISDEMEANOR.

THE QUESTION IS SINCE HE BE BEING CHARGED WITH FELONY, HOW ARE THEY GETTING TO THAT POINT.

AND IT APPEARS FROM WHAT I'VE HEARD, THAT THERE IS SOME CAMPAIGN FINANCE LAW THAT IS GOING TO BE-- WHAT I'M WORRIED ABOUT IS 1: THIS WASN'T PROSECUTED AT THE FEDERAL LEVEL WHEN THEY HAD THE OPPORTUNITY, SO WHY IS IT FALLING TO NEW YORK STATE TO DO THIS?

IS IT BECAUSE WE HAPPEN TO BE A VERY LIBERAL STATE WITH LIBERAL JUDGES AND I THINK I DON'T WANT THIS TO END UP AFFECTING THE OTHER CASES THAT I THINK ARE MUCH MORE SERIOUS, THE OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE WITH THE DOCUMENTS, THE INSURRECTION JANUARY 6 AND CLEARLY WHAT IS HAPPENING IN GEORGIA WITH THE MEDDLING OF THE ELECTION THERE.

>> TYE, YOU ARE OUR HISTORY PROFESSOR AT THE TABLE.

DID THE FRAMERS ANTICIPATE ANYTHING LIKE THIS?

>> SURE THEY DID.

I MEAN THEY DISTRUSTED HUMAN NATURE FUNDAMENTALLY.

AND IF WE SHOULD DISTRUST DONALD TRUMP FUNDAMENTALLY SO YES, THERE IS THE IMPEACHMENT PROCESS, THERE IS THE LAWS, THE FACT THAT WE TAKE AN OATH TO THE CONSTITUTION, NOT TO A SINGLE PERSON.

AND IF YOU JUST LOOK AT THE ELECTION OF 1800 WHERE THEY WERE CALLING EACH OTHER SATAN, THEY WOULD CERTAINLY UNDERSTAND WHAT WE ARE DOING NOW.

AND I THINK THAT WE HAVE TO BRING THIS BACK TO TRUMP AND WHAT HE DID WHICH IS SO TAWDRY, WHICH IS TO PAY OFF A PORN ACTRESS AND HE DID THAT PAYOFF WHILE HE WAS IN THE WHITE HOUSE.

SO THE ONE THING I'VE SEEN ABOUT THIS, IF YOU WERE A LAW PROFESSOR, OR A FEDERAL PROSECUTOR, THEY'RE LOOKING AT THIS CASE GOING GEE, I REALLY DON'T THINK IT'S REAL.

BUT IF YOU ARE A NEW YORK PROSECUTOR, SOMEONE WHO HAS UNDERSTANDING OF NEW YORK CRIMINAL LAW, THEY'RE GOING, I THINK THIS IS REAL.

I WOULD BE VERY WORRIED IF I WERE DONALD TRUMP.

WHY.

>> WHY THAT DISTINCTION?

THEY DON'T THINK IT IS AND THEY THINK IT IS?

>> PEOPLE THAT UNDERSTAND NEW YORK LAW ARE THE ONES WHO ARE PROSECUTING THE CASE AND THEY'RE THE ONES WHO ARE SAYING THIS IS A BETTER CASE.

WHEREAS THOSE WHO ARE FEDERAL PROSECUTORS AND THOSE WHO ARE LAW PROFESSORS DON'T WORK WITH THE NEW YORK CRIMINAL CODE EVERY DAY.

>> I SEE.

NINA.

>> I HATE TO DISAGREE WITH YOU, TYE BUT I'M GOING TO.

>> BRING IT ON.

>> OKAY.

>> PLEES PLEASE DO.

>> I THINK PART OF THE PROBLEM HERE IS THAT THIS PROSECUTOR IS GOING FOR TRUMP AND, YET, WAS UNABLE TO ARTICULATE THE CRIME THAT SUPPOSEDLY ELEVATES THIS FROM A MISDEMEANOR TO A FELONY.

AND WHEN YOU GO FOR THE PRESIDENT, AND YOU ARE DOING IT IN FRONT OF THE ENTIRE WORLD, YOU HAVE TO BRING, IF NOT YOUR A GAME, AT LEAST YOUR B GAME.

HE BROUGHT HIS F GAME.

HE BROUGHT NOTHING TO THE TABLE.

I AGREE THAT TRUMP IS BAD, BUT NOT JUST BECAUSE OF WHAT IS HAPPENING HERE IN THIS CASE.

HE'S BAD FOR THE COUNTRY.

HE'S BAD FOR AMERICA.

THINK ABOUT THE UKRAINE CALL, THE GEORGIA CALL, WE COULD LOOK AT HIS WEAKNESS WHERE RUSSIA IS CONCERNED.

BUT ALSO JUST THE FACT THAT HE ENGAGED IN SO MUCH RACE BAITING AND MISOGYNY; HOWEVER, HOWEVER, IN THE DAYS LEADING UP TO AND SINCE THE INDICTMENT, HIS LEAD OVER DeSANTIS AS THE POTENTIAL REPUBLICAN NOMINEE WIDENED.

THE TRUTH OF THE MATTER IS, FOR THE REST OF AMERICA, AND I SHOULD SAY JUST PRIOR TO THE INDICTMENT, POLLS SHOW THAT AMERICANS, 75% SAID YEAH, SURE, WE THINK THIS IS POLITICAL BUT MORE THAN 60% SAID STILL GO AFTER HIM.

BUT THAT WAS BEFORE, I THINK, THEY REALIZED THAT IF THERE IS SOMETHING THERE, IT SHOULD HAVE BEEN PUT ON THE TABLE BEFOREHAND.

AND THEN FINALLY MY GREATEST FEAR HERE IS, I'M NOT GOING TO SAY THAT HE WAS CIRCUMSTANCE CIRCLE LING THE DRAINS BUT OTHER REPUBLICANS HAVE MANAGED TO GET ENOUGH OF A BACKGROUND TO BEGIN TO CRITICIZE HIM.

DeSANTIS SAYING HE WAS ALL ABOUT DRAMA AND SOME OF THE OTHERS SAYING THAT HE WAS RESPONSIBLE FOR THE MID TERM LOSSES.

BUT NOW THOSE VERY SAME CRITICS ARE NOW RALLYING AROUND HIM.

AND SO I THINK IT'S HAVING THE OPPOSITE EFFECT.

POLITICALLY OF BOOSTING A MAN THAT I THINK HAS BEEN ONE OF THE WORST FIGURES IN AMERICAN POLITICS IN FOREVER.

>> IT SHOWS THE MORAL BANKRUPTCY OF THE REPUBLICAN PARTY THEN.

>> DOES IT?

>> THE GUY IS INDICTED AND THAT MAKES THEM GO MORE TOWARD HIM?

>> HE IS INDICTED FOR REASONS THAT THEY BELIEVE TO BE WEAK.

AND, AGAIN, YOU WOULD HAVE TO SAY THE SAME OF 70 PLUS PERCENT OF AMERICANS WHO ALSO BELIEVE THAT IT'S POLITICAL.

>> THE REPUBLICANS THINK ALL OF THE ARGUMENTS IN ALL OF THE THINGS HE HAS DONE IS WEAK SO I'M NOT CONCERNED WITH WHAT REPUBLICANS THINK HERE BECAUSE YOU GO TO THE OTHER CASES AND THEY'RE GOING TO SAY IT'S WEAK.

THE PROBLEM IS, I DON'T THINK THERE IS A CONSENSUS AMONGST MAINSTREAM PROSECUTORS AND EDITORIAL BOARDS THAT THIS IS THE RIGHT CASE AT THE RIGHT TIME.

>> THE PROBLEM IS, WE DON'T KNOW ALL THE FACTS YET.

AND HE IS NOT GOING TO SHOW ALL THE FACTS RIGHT OUT OF THE GATE.

THERE IS DISCOVERY FOR A PURPOSE.

THERE IS ALSO STRATEGY THAT THEY'RE GOING TO HAVE.

NOW THERE ARE CONCERNS THAT I HAVE TO SAY.

THE FIVE-YEAR LIMITATION OF STATUTE LIMITATION.

THAT'S AN ISSUE.

AND IT IS A NOVEL APPROACH.

SO WHAT NICK AND NINA ARE SAYING, THAT IS A CONCERN.

>> SO THE PROBLEM, WHEN WE FIND OUT WHAT THAT EVIDENCE IS, IT'S GOING TO BE NEXT YEAR AND RIGHT IN THE MIDDLE OF THE PRIMARY SEASON AND THAT JUST MAKES FOR EVEN MORE OF A MESS IT SEEMS LIKE.

>> AND I DON'T THINK THERE IS GOING TO BE ANYTHING NEW HERE.

I MEAN WE'VE HAD SINCE 2017.

AND YOU'VE HAD EVERYBODY LOOKING AT IT AND MICHAEL COHEN OUT THERE SPILLING ALL OF THE BEANS, SO WHAT'S NEW HERE OTHER THAN A THEORY.

>> WELL, WE'LL LEAVE THAT RIGHT THERE.

WE CERTAINLY WILL BE TALKING ABOUT THIS MORE AND PERHAPS THE OTHER CASES, TOO.

WITH TRUMP INDICTED, BIDEN UNPOPULAR, AND BOTH SEEMINGLY HAVING LOCKS ON THEIR PARTY'S NOMINATION FOR 2024, IS THIS A GOOD TIME FOR A THIRD PARTY?

THE CENTRIST GROUP NO LABELS HAS LAUNCHED A $70 MILLION DOLLAR EFFORT TO GET A PRESIDENTIAL LINE ON THE BALLOT IN ALL 50 STATES.

NO LABELS THINKS IT CAN PULL VOTERS FROM BOTH SIDES.

THE POLLING IS INTRIGUING, BUT 3RD PARTIES HAVE A POOR RECORD IN AMERICAN POLITICS.

MIGHT THIS TIME BE DIFFERENT?

RICK?

>> IT DEPENDS UPON WHAT THEIR END GAME IN, AND WE REALLY DON'T KNOW THAT.

THERE ARE A COUPLE OF THINGS THAT COULD HAPPEN.

ONE, THEY COULD NOMINATE SOMEONE AND THEY WIN AND THEY HAVE COME FORTH WITH SOME CAL INCLUDES WHERE 60% OF VOTERS ARE INDEPENDENT.

IF WE GET 60% OF THOSE, YOU KNOW, WE CAN WIN.

THE NUMBERS DON'T ADD UP.

THEY COULD GET NOMINATED AND THEN LOSE AND THEN IT DEPENDS WHO THEY ARE GOING TO NOMINATE.

MY GUESS, IT WOULD NOT BE SOMEONE LIKE A RON DeSANTIS WHO WOULD CLEARLY TAKE AWAY FROM THE REPUBLICAN SIDE IF IT WAS TRUMP BUT MORE LIKELY TO BE MAN CHON OR LARRY HOGAN AND MY GUESS IS THAT WOULD PROBABLY HURT THE DEMOCRATS MORE.

BUT THERE IS A THIRD SCENARIO THEY LEFT OPEN AND THAT'S THE CASE THAT THEY MAY ENDORSE EITHER THE REPUBLICAN OR THE DEMOCRATIC CANDIDATE.

AND FROM EVERYTHING I'VE READ, I THINK THERE IS A 0% CHANCE THAT WOULD BE TRUMP.

SO THE MOST LIKELY CASE WOULD BE THAT THEY COULD ENDORSE BIDEN, WHICH I THINK COULD BE HELPFUL TO THE DEMOCRATS.

THE QUESTION WOULD BE IN EXCHANGE FOR WHAT?

WE'VE ALREADY SEEN WHAT JOE MANCHION HAS TRIED TO DO IN TERMS OF DEMOCRATS.

>> HAS A THIRD PARTY EVER BEEN ANYTHING BUT A SPOILER?

>> WELL, NO, NOT SINCE THE REPUBLICAN PARTY STARTED IN 1860, NO, IT HASN'T-- '56.

JOE STEIN IN 2016, NOT GOOD.

RALPH NADER IN 2000, REALLY BAD AND ROSS PEROT IN 1992 STOPPED GEORGE BUSH FROM BEING ELECTED.

SO IF A THIRD PARTY CAMPAIGN IS TO THRIVE, IT HAS TO START AT THE LOCAL LEVEL AND NOT THE PRESIDENTIAL LEVEL AND THAT'S WHAT ERIC GROSSMAN AND CHRISTIED TO WHITMAN ARE DOING.

THEY'VE UNITED A MOVEMENT AND TRYING TO DO IT AT THE LOCAL LEVEL NOT THE PRESIDENTIAL LEVEL F. WE ARE DOING IT AT THE PRESIDENTIAL LEVEL, ALL IT TAKES IS A FEW VOTES AT THOSE BATTLE GROUND STATES AND IT COULD BE A SPOILER.

SO, NO LABELS, NO THANK YOU.

>> WHAT'S REALLY STRIKING HERE IS THAT JOE LIEBERMAN WAS ON THE TICKET WHERE RALPH NADER IN 2000 COST DEMOCRATS THAT ELECTION.

HE WON 97,000 VOTES IN FLORIDA.

THEY LOST BY, YOU KNOW-- >> 537 IS THE LATEST ESTIMATE.

SO I THINK THERE IS A REAL CHANCE FOR A SPOILER HERE, AND TO YOUR POINT, RICK, BECAUSE THERE ARE CROSS TABS OF THE PUBLIC OPINION POLLS THAT HAVE BEEN DONE THAT SHOW THAT IT'S DEMOCRAT VOTERS THAT ARE MORE LIKELY TO MOVE TO MODERATES AND INDEPENDENTS AND THIRD PARTIES THAN ARE REPUBLICANS, MY CONCERN HERE IS THAT, SURE, THEY CAN HAVE AN IMPACT ON POLICY, TO GO BACK TO HISTORY, THINKING ABOUT GEORGE WALLACE IN 1968, WHO, YOU KNOW, STARTED THE LAW AND ORDER THAT WAS CO-OPTED BY NIXON, AND THEN IN 1992, REMEMBER ROSS PEROT AND HIS CHARGE TALKING ABOUT THE BUDGET DEFICIT AND THAT WAS CO-OPTED BY CLINTON WHO LEFT WITH A SURPLUS.

AT THE END OF THE DAY, WHAT IS REALLY GOING TO HAPPEN HERE IS THEY'RE MORE LIKELY THAN NOT GOING TO HURT DEMOCRATS.

AND SURE, THEY'RE IMPEDIMENTS.

IT'S NOT A DONE DEAL.

THERE ARE IMPEDIMENTS OF THEM GETTING ON THE PRESIDENTIAL BALLOT IN 50 STATES.

HOWEVER, ALL THEY NEED TO DO IS GET ON THE BALLOT IN A FEW STATES.

>> THEY HAVE NOT COMMITTED TO PUTTING FORTH A CANDIDATE AND THEY HAVE LEFT OPEN THE POSSIBILITY OF ENDORSING.

WHAT IF THEY WERE TO CROSS ENDORSE THE DEMOCRATS?

>> IT'S A MISTAKE TO PUT A THIRD PARTY IN THERE.

IT'S A MISTAKE BECAUSE THE TWO PARTIES THAT HAVE BEEN IN PLAY FOR SO LONG, THEY'RE BANK ROLLED BY SO MANY DIFFERENT PLACES.

IT IS ALMOST AN ENDLESS TROVE OF MONEY COMPARED TO A THIRD PARTY.

YOU COME IN THERE AND TAKE MODERATES AWAY FROM BOTH CAMPS, MAYBE MORE FROM DEMOCRATS AND WORST CASE SCENARIO, IN MY MIND, IS THAT YOU DON'T HAVE ENOUGH ELECTORAL VOTES FOR ANY OF THE THREE AND THEN IT GOES TO CONGRESS, WHICH YOU'VE GOT 26 OUT OF OUR STATES THAT IS REPUBLICAN LED.

WHO ARE THEY GOING TO SELECT?

AND NOT THE PEOPLE?

THE PEOPLE WON'T BE SELECTING WHO THE PRESIDENT IS.

>> SO NINA I WANT TO PICK UP ON SOMETHING YOU ARE SAYING.

YOU ARE SAYING THAT THIRD PARTIES HAVE AFFECTED CANDIDATES HAVE AFFECTED HISTORY.

YOU MENTIONED WALLACE, FOR INSTANCE, WHO DIDN'T WIN, BUT NIXON TOOK SOME OF THOSE IDEAS AND THEN MADE THEM HIS OWN, I GUESS.

>> YEAH.

>> BUT IN THIS CASE, IF THE IDEAS ARE THE SORT OF MODERATE CENTRIST POSITION, I MEAN ARE YOU SAYING THAT WOULD INFLUENCE PEOPLE WHO BECOME MORE MODERATE GOING FORWARD?

THERE IS SOME VALUE IN THAT, IS THERE NOT?

>> THERE IS AN EMPTINESS TO THE CAUSE HERE OTHER THAN TO PREVENT CANDIDATES FROM BEING EXTREMISTS, RIGHT, TO PULL THEM TO THE MIDDLE.

BUT TO THE MIDDLE ON WHAT?

ON SOME THINGS THE MIDDLE IS NOT FEASIBLE.

DO YOU COME TO THE MIDDLE ON UKRAINE AND HOW DOES THAT PLAY OUT OR WHAT DOES THAT LOOK LIKE?

I THINK WHAT THEY'RE BANKING ON IS VOTERS ARE UNHAPPY WITH BOTH BIDEN AND TRUMP AND UNHAPPY WITH THE ECONOMY AND THE OVERWHELMING NUMBER OF AMERICANS SAY THEY'RE NOT HAPPY WITH THE DIRECTION OF THE COUNTRY.

FINE WHAT ARE YOU OFFERING?

AND ARE YOU OFFERING IDEAS THAT EITHER COULD CO-OPT.

I'M NOT SEEING THE STUFF HERE.

>> THERE IS NOT THE BUDGET MUCH 1992, THERE IS NOT THE SEGREGATION OF 1968.

WHAT IS THE UNDERLYING IDEA?

>> WHAT YOU ARE SAYING IS WHERE'S THE BEEF?

I THINK REAL QUICK, HAVE YOU TO LOOK AT HUMAN NATURE AND HUMAN NATURE, EMOTIONS IS WHAT BRINGS PEOPLE TO THE POLLING STATIONS AND THAT'S THE EXTREMES.

>> THAT'S A HUGE THING THAT THEY COULD AFFECT TURNOUT AS YOU ARE SAYING, BEN, MAYBE NOT TO VOTE FOR ONE OR THE OTHER BUT TO VOTE OR NOT.

>> WE'RE SEEING A GROWING BACKLASH AGAINST THE SOCIAL MEDIA APPS WHICH SEEM TO MONOPOLIZE ATTENTION, ESPECIALLY THAT OF TEENAGERS.

APPS LIKE TIKTOK AND INSTAGRAM ARE BEING BLAMED FOR AN INCREASE IN ANXIETY AND OTHER MENTAL HEALTH PROBLEMS IN YOUNG PEOPLE.

NOW A LAW JUST PASSED IN UTAH WILL REQUIRE PARENTAL CONSENT TO ACCESS SOCIAL MEDIA, LIMIT THE HOURS CHILDREN UNDER 18 CAN USE IT, AND GIVES THEM THE RIGHT TO SUE BIG TECH FOR HARM.

OTHER STATES HAVE SIMILAR BILLS PENDING.

IS THIS THE RIGHT WAY TO GO?

IS FOR GOVERNMENT TO GET INVOLVED?

>> EVERYONE AGREES THERE IS A PROBLEM.

THE CDC HELD THAT SOCIAL MEDIA CAUSES ANXIETY AND DEPRESSION, ESPECIALLY IN YOUNG GIRLS.

UTAH CREATED A LAW THAT IS A PARENTAL RIGHTS LAW, TO SAY THAT IT TAKES PARENTS TO ALLOW THESE SOCIAL MEDIA IF YOU ARE UNDER 18.

OTHER STATES, LIKE NEW YORK, CALIFORNIA, AND THE UNITED KINGDOM, HAVE CREATED LAWS THAT TRY TO MAKE IT SAFER, TRY TO MAKE THESE COMPANIES SAFER FOR-- ALMOST LIKE CARS.

MAKE A CAR SAFER.

PUT AIR BAGS, SEAT BRELTS-- SEATBELT AS ROUND IT TO MAKE IT SAFER.

TEXAS WANTS TO MAKE IT ILLEGAL COMPLETELY UNDER THE AGE OF 18.

WE NEED A NATIONAL LAW THAT CREATES THE EQUIVALENT OF A NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION.

SOMETHING THAT IS GOING TO MAKE AND ITERATE OVER TIME TO MAKE THE SOCIAL MEDIA COMPANIES SAFER FOR CHILDREN.

WE HAVE A PROBLEM WITH THIS RIGHT NOW AND THE ONLY WAY FORWARD IS A NATIONAL LAW TO MAKE IT SAFER.

>> THE IDEA OF MAKING IT SAFER, I MEAN, SEATBELTS IN A CAR IS ONE THING.

WHAT MAKES 13450EDIA SAFER?

>> THE ALGORITHMS THAT FEED INTO WHAT OUR YOUTH ARE CLICKING ON.

AND THAT'S WHAT THE UNITED KINGDOM HAS BEEN SHOWING WITH THEIR APPROACH AND WHAT CALIFORNIA'S ATTEMPT IS DOING.

BUT I AGREE WITH TYE, IT HAS TO BE A NATIONAL RESPONSE BECAUSE THINK ABOUT IT.

IF I'M LIKE MOST PARENTS AND I WORK IN AN AREA OF PLOTTED INTELLIGENCE KNOWING MY WAY AROUND THE INTERNET, I STILL GO TO MY SON WHO IS JUST TURNED 19, BUT HE KNOWS HIS WAY AROUND THE INTERNET MUCH BETTER THAN I DO.

WHAT ARE THEY GOING TO DO TO KEEP KIDS FROM ACTUALLY DOING WHAT THEY'VE ALWAYS DONE AND MAKE A FAKE ACCOUNT AND GET ON THEIR ANYWAY?

>> THAT'S WHY I THINK WE SHOULD NEVER RELY UPON LAWMAKERS TO ACTUALLY DEVELOP IDEAS THAT WILL WORK, BUT INSTEAD TO SUPER INTEND PROCESSES AND IT GOES BACK TO THE CLASSIC IRON TRIANGLE.

COMMITTEE IN CONGRESS WORKING TOGETHER WITH THE FEDERAL AGENCY THAT OVERSEES IT AND INDUSTRY LEADERS WHO SHOULD CONDITIONAL TOGETHER TO DEVELOP REGULATIONS AND PERHAPS MINIMALLY CARRY OUT OVERSIGHT, AND THEN WE SEE HOW THAT WORKS.

BUT THE BOTTOM LINE IS, AS TYE POINTED OUT, SOMETHING NEEDS TO BE DONE.

>> I THOUGHT IT WAS KIND OF INTERESTING THAT, YOU KNOW, THE STATES THAT USUALLY RAIL AGAINST THE NAN ESTATE ARE FIRST AND FOREMOST HERE BEING NANNIES HERE.

BUT I DO THINK THAT THERE IS A HUGE PROBLEM.

AND UTAH IS AT LEAST MAKING A FIRST STAB AT IT.

I AGREE WITH TYE THAT, YOU KNOW, HAVING A PATCHWORK OF 50 DIFFERENT SETS OF RULES AND REGULATIONS ISN'T LIKELY TO BE VERY SUCCESSFUL; THAT WE REALLY SHOULD BE LOOKING AT IT AT THE NATIONAL LEVEL BUT THERE ARE ALL SORTS OF PROBLEMS LIKE BEN MENTIONED HOW DO YOU VERIFY SOMEONE IS OF AGE AND HOW DO YOU DEFINE A SOCIAL MEDIA SITE?

WE ARE TALKING ABOUT THE ENTIRE INTERNET?

OR ARE WE JUST TALKING ABOUT FACEBOOK AND INSTAGRAM?

SO IT'S A VERY DIFFICULT THING AND I THINK MORE AND MORE STATES ARE GOING TO TRY TO TAKE THIS ON GIVEN THE PROBLEMS THAT TYE DISCUSSED.

>> WE ARE CERTAINLY TALKING ABOUT FACEBOOK AND INSTAGRAM AND TIKTOK AND TWITTER AND OTHERS.

HOW DO YOU DO THAT?

IT'S DARN ADDICTIVE, AND WE ALL SEE THAT.

I SEE IT MYSELF.

I PICK UP THE PHONE FOR NO REASON AT ALL BUT IT'S BETWEEN INNINGS AT A BASEBALL GAME.

>> IT'S DESIGNED TO BE.

>> HOW IS IT DESIGNED AND HOW DOES IT AFFECT IT?

>> IT'S DESIGNED BECAUSE IT HATS GET FUNDED SOMEHOW.

IF THEY ARE IEBL TO SHOW THEY HAVE USERS ON THEIR AND THE AMOUNT OF TIME THEY'RE ON THERE, IT'S GOING TO BE SUPPORTED BY MORE PEOPLE AND ADVERTISERS AND SO FORTH, SO IT'S DESIGNED TO BE ADDICTIVE.

AND HOW YOU ADDRESS IT IS, AGAIN, WE GO BACK TO WHAT TYE MENTIONED, WHERE YOU'VE GOT TO PUT SOME GUARD RAILS IN PLACE THAT'S UNIVERSAL.

THE LAST POINT I WANT TO MILWAUKEE IS IN UTAH, THERE WAS A 13-YEAR-OLD YOUNG LADY THAT MADE A VERY GOOD ARGUMENT ABOUT HER AND HER FRIENDS AROUND HER IN UTAH ARE GOING TO BE PUNISHED AND NOT ABLE TO COMMUNICATE WITH PEOPLE OUTSIDE OF UTAH WHERE YOU'VE GOT THE OTHER 49 STATES THAT THEY'RE ABLE TO COMMUNICATE TO EACH OTHER.

AND IT DOES-- IT IS A PLACE NOT ONLY THAT IS CAUSING SOME MENTAL ISSUES, AT LEAST WHAT APPEARS TO BE SOME CORRELATIONS, NOT CAUSATION, BUT IT DOES APPEAR TO BE INFLUENCING.

IT IS ALSO A PLACE WHERE CHILDREN SEEK HELP AND THEY REACH OUT TO OTHERS AND THEY HAVE AN OUTLET.

>> CARS KILL PEOPLE EVERY YEAR, 20, 30,000 PEOPLE DIE BUT WE MAKE THEM SAFER EVERY YEAR BY PUTTING DIFFERENT THINGS ON THEM.

WE HAVE TO THINK ABOUT THE SOCIAL MEDIA COMPANIES THE SAME WAY.

IT'S NOT GOING AWAY.

WE LIKE IT.

BUT WE NEED GUARD RAILS AND SAFETY AND THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT IS ARGUING ABOUT THE IRON TRY ANGLING.

THAT'S WHAT HAS TO COME TOGETHER TO MAKE IT A SAFER PRODUCT FOR OUR CHURN BECAUSE RIGHT NOW IT'S THE WILD, WILD WEST OUT THERE AND WE NEED LIMITS.

>> AND WE CANNOT BE LIMITED BY PERFECTION.

>> AS AND Fs.

>> I WILL SAY WHO BUT INSTEAD OF ROLLING BACK TAX CUTS FOR THE WEALTHY, SOME MEMBERS OF CONGRESS PLAN TO CUT FUNDING FOR THE POOR.

NOW THE ECONOMIC POLICY INSTITUTE ESTIMATES THAT ONE YEAR OF TAX CUTS FOR THE WEALTHY COST MORE THAN THE BUDGET CUTS WOULD SAFE.

MAYBE IT'S TIME FOR THOSE MEMBERS, WHOEVER THEY ARE, TO SET A DIFFERENT TARGET.

>> OKAY, TYE.

>> MY F GOES TO CAMERON SEXTON, SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES IN TENNESSEE WHO LED THE SUPER MAJORITY EFFORT WHO EXPELLED TWO MEMBERS FROM THE BODY.

YOUNG BLACK MEN.

THEY PROTESTED THE UNWILLINGNESS OF THE TENNESSEE HOUSE TO LISTEN TO THEM ABOUT GUN CONTROL, NOT ONLY EXPELLING THEM WAS A GROSS OVERREACTION TO A RULES VIOLATION, IT WAS BAD POLITICS BECAUSE IT'S GOING TO MAKE THOSE TWO YOUNG MEN MARTYRS TO THEIR CAUSE.

AND ENSURE THAT THEY HAVE A STATE AND NATIONAL VOICE.

BOTTOM LINE, SUPER MAJORITIES ARE BAD.

>> BEN, YOUR F. >> MY F GOES TO A FLORIDA CHARTER SCHOOL, AND BARNEY BISHOP, THE CHAIR OF THE SCHOOL BOARD, FORCING A PRINCIPAL TO RESIGN OVER THREE PARENTS COMPLAINING ABOUT MICHAEL ANGELO DAVID BEING SHON TO THEIR STUDENTS DURING RENAISSANCE ART.

>> AND RICK.

>> MY F GOES TO CLARENCE THOMAS, REPORTED THE SUPREME COURT JUSTICE HAS AND IS RECEIVING GIFTS OF VACATIONS AND TRANSPORTATION WORTH THE HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS FROM BILLIONAIRE THOMAS CROW WITHOUT REPORTING THESE.

CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS WANTS TO KNOW WHY THE PUBLIC'S TRUST IN THE SUPREME COURT IS SUCH A LOW LEVEL.

YOU ONLY NEED TAKE A LOOK TO HIS RIGHT.

>> AND OUR As.

NINA, YOUR A.

>> IN A TIME WHEN SO MANY LIVE BY THEIR OWN TRUTH OR THEIR OWN ALTERNATIVE FACTS, IT'S NICE TO KNOW THAT MANY OF US ALSO STILL BELIEVE IN A HIGHER POWER AND IN CAPITAL T TRUTH TO RELIGIOUS OBSERVERS THIS WEEK, I SAY HAPPY RESURRECTION SUNDAY, HAPPY PASSOVER, AND HAVE A BLESSED RAMADAN.

>> AND TYE, YOUR A.

>> TO THE VOTERS OF WISCONSIN WHO VOTED FOR STATE SUPREME COURT THIS WEEK.

THEY ELECTED JANET BY 11 POINTS.

ABORTION AND ELECTION FAIRNESS ISSUES DOMINATED THE MINDS OF STATE VOTERS AND WISCONSINITES HAVE A CHANCE TO STOP GERRYMANDERING AND CHANGING THE LAW BANNING ABORTION.

KUDOS TO THE CHEESE HEADS.

>> BEN.

YOUR A.

>> MY A GOES TO FOUR COUNTIES AROUND PHILADELPHIA, PENNSYLVANIA, THEY HAVE BEEN UTILIZING RECENTLY IN THE LAST FEW WEEKS, TECHNOLOGY AND APPLIED INTELLIGENCE TO LINK CRIMES BASED ON THE SHELLS THAT COME OUT OF THE GUNS DURING SHOOTINGS.

SO WITHIN 48 HOURS THEY COLLECT THE SHELLS, THEY GET IT TO THE LAB AND THEY ENTER IT INTO A DATABASE THAT IS A NATIONAL DATABASE AND IT HAS 6 MILLION ENTRIES IN IT TO HELP LINK CASES TOGETHER.

>> AND RICK, YOUR A.

>> TO THE NCAA WOMEN'S NATIONAL BASKETBALL FINAL BETWEEN LSU AND IOWA.

THE GAME SHOWCASED SOME MAGNIFICENT BASKETBALL, MADE HOUSEHOLD NAMES OF ANGEL REESE AND KAITLYN CLARK.

THE GAME WAS WATCHED BY NEARLY 10 MILLION VIEWERS ON ESPN, THE LARGEST TV AUDIENCE EVER FOR A WOMEN'S BASKETBALL GAME.

WOMEN SPORTS IS COMING ON STRONG IN THE UNITED STATES.

>> THAT IS TRUE.

I WATCHED THAT GAME.

I WATCHED SOME OF THE OTHERS AND APPARENTLY, LSU WILL BE GOING TO THE WHITE HOUSE BUT NOT IOWA.

THE FIRST LADY CREATED A CONTROVERSY WITH THAT.

>> AND TO THAT I SAY... >> SO THERE WAS THAT AND THERE WAS THE RING, RIGHT?

I DIDN'T KNOW WHAT THAT WAS.

>> SHE WOULD HAVE BEEN CALLED FOR A TECHNICAL FOUL FOR TAUNTING, SO WOULD KAITLYN CLARK AND MANY OF THE THINGS SHE DID SO IT'S BOTH SIDES.

>> WOMEN'S HOOPS.

THANK YOU FOR JOINING US TONIGHT FOR COMMENTS, YOU CAN WRITE TO THE ADDRESS ON YOUR SCREEN.

IF YOU'D LIKE TO WATCH THE SHOW AGAIN, YOU CAN DO SO ONLINE AT WCNY.ORG.

I AM DAVID CHANATRY AND FOR ALL OF US AT IVORY TOWER, HAVE A GOOD NIGHT.