>>> $24.5 MILLION, THE SETTLEMENT YOUTUBE AGREED TO PAY TO PRESIDENT TRUMP, JUST ONE IN A LONG LINE OF LAWSUITS FILED AGAINST U.S.

COMPANIES.

WHILE THE AGREEMENT MARKS AN END TO THIS CASE, THE ATLANTIC'S ADAM SEWARD ASKS WHAT THE TRUE COST MIGHT BE FOR DEMOCRACY AS HE EXPLAINS TO MICHEL MARTIN.

>> THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR TALKING WITH US.

>> THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR HAVING ME.

>> I WANT TO TALK ABOUT YOUR RECENT PIECE IN THE ATLANTIC TITLED "LOWER THAN COWARDS," WHICH SAYS A LOT, DOESN'T SAY IT ALL," LOWER THAN COWARDS" AND IT DESCRIBES WHAT YOU CONSIDER THE RESPONSE OF AMERICAN ELITES TO WHAT YOU CALL TRUMP'S AUTHORITARIAN BULLYING.

YOU ARE ARGUING IN THIS PIECE THAT PRIVATE COMPANIES AND OTHER ELITES, UNLIKE THE MILITARY, DO HAVE THE FREEDOM TO RESIST, YET MANY HAVE CHOSEN NOT TO.

YOU WRITE, "CASCADING ACTS OF COWARDICE FROM THE PEOPLE BEST POSITIONED TO RESIST TRUMP'S AUTHORITARIAN POWER GRABS HAVE MADE TRUMP SEEM EXPONENTIALLY MORE POWERFUL THAN HE ACTUALLY IS."

CAN YOU JUST UNPACK THAT A LITTLE BIT?

GIVE AN EXAMPLE OF PEOPLE WHO YOU THINK COULD RESIST HIS BULLYING BUT DON'T.

>> WELL, YOU KNOW, ALL THESE LARGE PRIVATE CORPORATIONS THAT HAVE HUGE BUDGETS AND A TREMENDOUS AMOUNT OF INFLUENCE AND THAT INCLUDES MEDIA COMPANIES, UNIVERSITIES LIKE HARVARD -- SOME OF THEM ARE ACTUALLY FIGHTING BACK -- BUT PROMINENT UNIVERSITIES COULD SAY NO.

RIGHT NOW THE TRUMP ADMINISTRATION IS TRYING TO COERCE THESE UNIVERSITIES INTO TEACHING ONLY REGIME-APPROVED CURRICULUM AND THE ISSUE IS THAT WHEN PEOPLE -- WHEN SO MANY PEOPLE FOLD AND I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT TO SAY THAT A LOT OF THESE INSTITUTIONS ARE OPTIMIZED FOR PEOPLE WHO WANT TO COMPROMISE.

THEY'RE OPTIMIZED FOR, YOU KNOW, A CIVIL SOCIETY IN WHICH THERE IS NOT AN AUTHORITARIAN LEADER WHO IS TRYING TO BULLY PEOPLE INTO SUBMISSION AND SO THEY'RE NOT, YOU KNOW, QUALITIES THAT LED THEM TO THAT POSITION ARE NOT THE KIND OF QUALITIES YOU WOULD WANT IN A LEADER IN TERMS OF BEING BRAVE ENOUGH TO STAND UP TO A BULLY.

>> CAN YOU SAY MORE ABOUT THAT?

EXPLAIN THAT, LIKE THE LAW FIRMS, FOR EXAMPLE, WHO HAVE PAID -- >> WELL, RIGHT.

WE HAVE THESE LAW FIRMS THAT HAVE MADE AGREEMENTS WITH THE TRUMP ADMINISTRATION.

THESE ARE PEOPLE WHO, IF ANYONE IS EQUIPPED TO, YOU KNOW, FIGHT THE TRUMP ADMINISTRATION TO A STANDSTILL, IT'S PROMINENT LAW FIRMS AND YET SO MANY HAVE AGREED TO WHAT IS, FRANKLY, UNCONSTITUTIONAL AGREEMENTS DEFINING WHAT KIND OF CASES THEY CAN TAKE, OBLIGATING THEM TO HELP THE TRUMP ADMINISTRATION IN SOME OF ITS LEGAL GOALS.

THESE ARE PEOPLE WHO COULD HAVE FOUGHT THE TRUMP ADMINISTRATION AND DID NOT AND THE REPUTATIONS HAVE SUFFERED AS A RESULT.

IN SOME CASES THEY'VE LOST CLIENTS BECAUSE IF YOU'RE LOOKING FOR AN ATTORNEY, IF YOU'RE LOOKING FOR ZEALOUS REPRESENTATION, YOU REALLY DON'T WANT TO HIRE AN ATTORNEY THAT HAS DUAL LOYALTIES IN TERMS OF THEIR INTERESTS IN APPEASING THE GOVERNMENT.

IT REALLY UNDERMINES THE LEGAL SYSTEM TREMENDOUSLY AND THAT'S PRECISELY WHY IT'S SO SHOCKING THAT SO MANY OF THEM HAVE CAPITULATED.

>> BUT WHY DO YOU THINK THEY HAVE?

>> I THINK IN SOME CASES, YOU KNOW, THERE ARE ORGANIZATIONS THAT HAVE LEADERSHIP THAT ARE USED TO TRYING TO FIGURE OUT A WAY TO GET ALONG RATHER THAN VERSED TO CONFLICT AND I THINK IN SOME PLACES THEY ACTUALLY AGREE WITH THE ADMINISTRATION AND THEY ARE HAPPY TO BE LOOKING LIKE THEY ARE FORCED TO DO THINGS THAT THEY OTHERWISE WOULD WANT TO DO BUT THAT MIGHT INCUR A BACKLASH IF THEY LOOKED LIKE THEY WANTED TO DO IT INSTEAD OF THEY WERE BEING FORCED TO DO IT.

>> LIKE THE TECH COMPANIES, FOR EXAMPLE?

THE TECH COMPANIES ARE AN EXAMPLE, NO MORE CONTENT MODERATION, YOU KNOW, UNFETTERED FREE SPEECH, AS IT WERE, THINGS OF THAT SORT?

>> YEAH.

I THINK IT'S VERY CLEAR BY UNFETTERED FREE SPEECH, THEY MEAN PRIVILEGING CONSERVATIVE SPEECH.

WHEN THEY TALK ABOUT UNFETTERED FREE SPEECH, THEY DON'T REALLY MEAN THAT.

THEY HAVE INTERNALIZED THE DEFINITION OF FREE SPEECH THAT IS PROMINENT IN THE TRUMP ADMINISTRATION, WHICH IS FREE SPEECH IS WHEN REPUBLICANS CAN SAY WHAT THEY WANT AND WHEN EVERYONE ELSE CAN SAY WHAT THEY WANT.

BUT THE ISSUE WITH PRIVATE FIRMS IN GENERAL IS THAT, YOU KNOW, IF YOU ARE SUBJECT TO REGULATION OR TARIFFS ON THE BASIS OF YOUR RELATIONSHIP WITH TRUMP, THAT'S A SYSTEM WHERE CORRUPTION AND THREAT SEEKING THRIVES.

THAT'S NOT A SYSTEM WHERE YOU SUCCEED ON THE QUALITY OF YOUR PRODUCT OR YOUR SERVICE.

THAT'S A SYSTEM WHERE YOU SUCCEED ON THE BASIS OF YOUR RELATIONSHIP TO THE WHITE HOUSE AND, YOU KNOW, A LOT OF COMPANIES ARE ACTING IN THEIR SHORT-TERM INTEREST IN CURRYING FAVOR WITH TRUMP, BUT PROFIT SEEKING INSTITUTIONS ARE OFTEN NOT VERY GOOD AT LOOKING AT THE LONG TERM.

THAT'S WHY WE HAVE A STATE- REGULATED MARKETPLACE.

THAT'S WHY WE HAVE REGULATIONS IN THE FIRST PLACE BECAUSE SOMETIMES THAT SHORT-TERM PROFIT SEEKING CAN BE EXTREMELY DESTRUCTIVE TO THE LARGER SYSTEM.

AND IT IS EXTREMELY DESTRUCTIVE TO THE LARGER SYSTEM BECAUSE THE END PRODUCT IS A DEGRADED MARKETPLACE WHERE CORRUPTION EATS UP MOST OF THE GROWTH AND PROFIT AND THE AMERICAN PEOPLE WILL BE POORER AS A RESULT EVEN IF, YOU KNOW, A SELECT SET OF OLIGARCHS AT THE TOP OF AMERICAN SOCIETY WHO ARE ALIGNED WITH TRUMP CONTINUE TO SEE THEIR BANK ACCOUNTS GROW.

>> YOU CONTRAST -- >> AND THAT'S A CONSERVATIVE POINT, BY THE WAY.

I'M A LIBERAL.

I'M NOT A CONSERVATIVE.

I'M NOT LIKE A MARKET FUNDAMENTALIST, BUT THESE ARE THEIR INSIGHTS.

THESE ARE THE THINGS THEM USED TO BELIEVE THAT THEY HAVE JETTISONED IN THE NAME OF BECOMING A FULLY AUTHORITARIAN STATE.

>> IS THERE SOMETHING ABOUT THE INSTITUTIONAL IMPERATIVE ONCE YOU BECOME PART OF THESE BIG INSTITUTIONS?

THE IDEA IS OH, WHAT DO I NEED TO DO TO PRESERVE THE INSTITUTION EVEN IF THAT IS AVERSE TO ALL THE THINGS I'VE BEEN TAUGHT THIS INSTITUTION IS SUPPOSED TO STAND FOR?

>> YEAH.

I THINK THAT'S A PROBLEM THAT EVERY INSTITUTION FACES IS WHEN YOUR INSTITUTIONAL SELF- INTEREST CONFLICTS WITH YOUR STATED VALUES AND THE PROBLEM IS THAT WHEN YOU HAVE THAT MULTIPLIED, YOU KNOW, WHEN IT'S NOT JUST ONE INSTITUTION, BUT IT'S MANY, MANY, MANY, WE MULTIPLY IT 100-FOLD, YOU END UP WITH A VERY SERIOUS COLLECTIVE ACTION PROBLEM WHERE ALL THESE INSTITUTIONS THAT MIGHT HAVE COLLECTIVELY BEEN ABLE TO PUT UP A REALLY STRONG RESISTANCE TO THE CONSTITUTION OVERREACH THE TRUMP ADMINISTRATION IS ENGAGING IN, THEY HAVE INSTEAD, YOU KNOW, PUT THEMSELVES IN A POSITION WHERE HERE GETTING PICKED OFF ONE BY ONE INSTEAD OF FIGHTING TOGETHER, AS BEN FRANKLIN FAMOUSLY PUT IT, WE MUST ALL HANG TOGETHER OR WE'LL ALL HANG SEPARATELY.

WHAT'S HAPPENING NOW IS THAT, YOU KNOW, ALL THESE INSTITUTIONS ARE HANGING SEPARATELY.

>> YOU CONTRAST ELITE CAPITULATION WITH THE COURAGE OF ORDINARY PEOPLE, PROTESTERS, DETAINEES, JURORS IN GRAND JURY PROCEEDINGS WHO HAVE RESISTED DESPITE GREATER RISK.

>> SOMEONE LIKE JIMMY KIMMEL, JIMMY KIMMEL WAS NOT THE FIRST PERSON, NOR THE PERSON MOST HARMED BY, YOU KNOW, BY THE ADMINISTRATION'S CRACKDOWN ON FREE SPEECH.

I MEAN YOU LOOK AT ALL THESE PEOPLE WHO WERE DETAINED BY I.C.E.

WHO WERE LOCKED UP ON THE BASIS OF THEIR PRO PALESTINIAN ADVOCACY WHO THEN CAME OUT AND SAID I STILL BELIEVE WHAT I BELIEVE REGARDLESS OF THE FACT THAT THE STATE COULD TAKE AWAY MY FREEDOM, YOU KNOW, MY HOME, THINGS LIKE THAT.

>> YEAH.

>> I THINK THE ISSUE IS AGAIN, IT'S SOMEWHAT RELATED TO THE ISSUE OF LEADERSHIP, WHICH IS THAT WHEN PEOPLE BECOME COMFORTABLE IN THEIR LIVES, THEY CAN SOMETIMES FORGET WHAT ACTUALLY MATTERS BEYOND COMFORT AND THAT'S RELATED TO A SIMILAR POINT THAT I WAS MAKING IN THE PIECE ITSELF, WHICH IS THAT COWARDICE IS AN UNDERSTANDABLE REACTION TO REAL DANGER, BUT THIS IS SOMETHING WORSE THAN COWARDICE, AN AVERSION TO ANY KIND OF CONFRONTATION IN DEFENSE OF THE VALUES THAT YOU CLAIM TO HOLD.

AND THAT, YOU KNOW, TRUMP'S REAL TRIUMPH WAS UNDERSTANDING THAT SO MANY OF THESE PEOPLE CLAIM TO HAVE VALUES THAT THEY DID NOT ACTUALLY HAVE AND WOULD ABANDON THOSE VALUES UNDER ANY KIND OF SUSTAINED PRESSURE.

AND IT SAYS SOMETHING I THINK, YOU KNOW, IT SAYS SOMETHING BAD ABOUT ELITES, BUT IT DOES SAY SOMETHING GOOD ABOUT THE AMERICAN PEOPLE, THAT SO MANY AMERICAN PEOPLE WHO, YOU KNOW, ARE NOT -- THERE ISN'T GOING TO BE A BUNCH OF NEWS -- IF THEY ARE HARMED BY THIS ADMINISTRATION, THERE AREN'T GOING TO BE A BUNCH OF NEWS STORIES ABOUT IT IN THE WAY THERE WAS WITH KIMMEL WHO DID AN ADMIRABLE THING IN STANDING UP TO TRUMP.

THESE ARE NOT PEOPLE WHO ARE GOING TO BECOME HEROES IN THE MEDIA.

THEY ARE PEOPLE DOING WHAT THEY ARE DOING BECAUSE THEY HAVE REAL VALUES AND THEY ARE STANDING UP FOR THEM.

>> LET'S TALK ABOUT THE ROLE OF THE MILITARY BECAUSE OBVIOUSLY ONE OF THE MORE ATTENTION- GETTING EPISODES IN THE FIRST TRUMP ADMINISTRATION WAS WHEN HE STAGED THAT KIND OF WALK OVER TO ACROSS LAFAYETTE PARK, WHICH IS IN FRONT OF THE WHITE HOUSE, OVER TO THE CHURCH, ST.

JOHN'S AND HAD IT CLEARED OUT BY THE NATIONAL GUARD.

THE THEN CHAIR OF THE JOINT CHIEFS, GENERAL MILLEY, WALKED OVER THERE.

HE LATER APOLOGIZED IN AN ALL- CALL TO THE TROOPS SAYING HE WAS WRONG.

HE SHOULD NOT HAVE PARTICIPATED IN THAT.

SO THIS WEEK DEFENSE SECRETARY PETE HEGSETH PULLED IN SOME LIKE 800 SENIOR OFFICERS FROM ALL OVER THE WORLD FOR THIS KIND OF -- I DON'T KNOW WHAT IT WAS -- LIKE A GROUP CHAT AT QUANTICO AT GREAT EXPENSE AND, YOU KNOW, INCREDIBLE SECURITY RISKS HAVING ALL OF THESE SENIOR LEADERS IN ONE PLACE AND HE SAID THAT -- HE MADE HIS COMMENTS.

WE'VE PROMOTED TOO MANY UNIFORMED LEADERS FOR THE WRONG REASONS BASED ON THEIR RACE, GENDER, HISTORIC SO-CALLED FIRSTS AND THE PRESIDENT CAME ON AND SAID WE SHOULD USE SOME OF THESE DANGEROUS CITIES AS TRAINING GROUNDS FOR OUR MILITARY.

I WAS JUST CURIOUS HOW THAT WHOLE SCENE LANDED FOR YOU AND WHAT WOULD YOU DRAW FROM IT?

>> IF YOU WANT TO SEE SOMEONE UNQUALIFIED WHO WAS ELEVATED TO A POSITION THEY DIDN'T EARN ON THEIR BASIS OF THEIR RACE AND GENDER, YOU COULD LOOK AT THE CURRENT SECRETARY OF DEFENSE WHO IS ALL OF THOSE THINGS AND HIS MAIN QUALIFICATION IS LARGELY HE IS A TRUMP SYCOPHANT.

TRUMP HAS ALWAYS USED THE PHRASING THOSE ARE MY GENERALS, BUT ACTUALLY THEY AREN'T HIS GENERALS.

THE AMERICAN GOVERNMENT, ELECTION ASIDE WHO ADMINISTERS THE AMERICAN GOVERNMENT, IT DOES NOT DECIDE OWNERSHIP OF THE AMERICAN GOVERNMENT BECAUSE THE OWNERSHIP OF THE AMERICAN GOVERNMENT DOES NOT CHANGE.

IT IS OWNED BY THE PUBLIC.

THE SAME IS TRUE OF THE MILITARY.

WHAT HAPPENED IS THESE PEOPLE ARE IN A CHAIN OF COMMAND AND THEY HAVE TO FOLLOW ORDERS, LEGAL ORDERS, THAT IS.

OBVIOUSLY THEY AREN'T OBLIGATED TO FOLLOW ILLEGAL ORDERS, BUT THEY HAVE TO FOLLOW LEGAL ORDERS, AND SO THEY CREATED THIS CAPTIVE AUDIENCE WHERE THE PRESIDENT AND THE SECRETARY OF DEFENSE, YOU KNOW, YOU JUST NEED TO PUT TWO AND TWO TOGETHER.

HERE YOU HAVE HEGSETH SAYING, YOU KNOW, THE MILITARY'S FOR KILLING.

WE'RE NOT GOING TO DO RULES OF ENGAGEMENT ANYMORE.

IT'S FOR MURDERING PEOPLE.

I THINK IT'S BIZARRE TO ACT LIKE THE LAWS OF WAR ARE A RECENT INVENTION OR SOMETHING WE CAME UP WITH IN 2020.

THEY ARE ACTUALLY HUNDREDS OF YEARS OLD AND ARGUABLY OLDER THAN THAT, BUT WHEN THE SECRETARY OF DEFENSE SAYS THE MILITARY IS FOR KILLING PEOPLE AND THE PRESIDENT SAYS WE'RE GOING TO SEND THE MILITARY INTO AMERICAN CITIES FOR PRACTICE, WHAT THAT MEANS IS THAT THE PRESIDENT IS SAYING I AM DECLARING WAR ON OTHER AMERICANS AND I EXPECT YOU TO KILL THEM.

THEY DIDN'T INTEND THAT.

THEY COULD HAVE EASILY CLARIFIED IT, BUT THAT'S WHAT THOSE TWO THINGS PUT TOGETHER MEAN.

>> I'M ASKING YOU HOW YOU FEEL THE MILITARY RESPONDED.

I'M ASKING YOU -- >> THE MILITARY IS OBLIGATED TO BE APOLITICAL AND THEY UNDERSTAND THAT.

THAT'S WHY THEY ARE PUT IN THIS UNCOMFORTABLE POSITION WHERE THEY'RE SAYING IF YOU DON'T WANT TO KILL AMERICANS, IF YOU DON'T WANT TO USE AMERICAN CITIES AS A TRAINING GROUND, YOU SHOULD RESIGN.

THEY WANT TO PURGE THE OFFICER CORPS OF PEOPLE WHO MIGHT NOT WANT TO OBEY AN ORDER TO KILL AMERICAN CITIZENS.

WE COULD TALK ABOUT MILLEY.

THE PROBLEM THAT REPUBLICANS HAD WITH MILLEY ESSENTIALLY WAS THAT DURING THE PROTESTS IN 2020 TRUMP TOLD HIM TO GO OUT THERE AND SHOOT PROTESTERS AND HE SAID, "NO, I'M NOT DOING THAT."

AND AFTER JANUARY 6th HE WAS SAYING, "I WANTED TO UNDERSTAND."

I THINK THE PHRASE WAS CALLED WHITE RAGE AND REPUBLICANS WENT CRAZY BECAUSE WHAT THEY WANT IS A MILITARY ESTABLISHMENT WHO NEXT TIME TRUMP ATTEMPTS TO STEAL AN AMERICAN ELECTION, IF HE LOSES, AND HE IS CONSTITUTIONALLY BARRED FROM RUNNING AGAIN, BUT THE SUPREME COURT DOESN'T REALLY SEEM PARTICULARLY INTERESTED AT THE MOMENT WITH WHAT THE CONSTITUTION SAYS, WHAT HE WANTS, WHAT THEY WANT IS A MILITARY THAT IS GOING TO BE WILLING TO BE USED AS A POLITICAL TOOL TO KEEP A PRESIDENT IN OFFICE WHO DOES NOT BELONG IN OFFICE.

>> WHAT I SAW IN THAT ROOM WAS A REAL UNIFORMITY OF PURPOSE AND VALUE BECAUSE THEY TO A PERSON ALMOST KEPT SILENT AND IT WOULD HAVE BEEN EASY I THINK FOR SOME OF THEM TO HAVE BEEN SORT OF LAUGHING OR CHORTTLING OR GIVING THE PRESIDENT THE REACTION THEY WANT AND I DO WONDER WHETHER YOU THINK THEIR DISCIPLINE IN THAT MOMENT SPEAKS TO A VALUE SYSTEM THAT SUPERSEDES THAT OF SELF- PRESERVATION IN THE WAY THAT YOU HAVE LAMENTED WITH OTHER INSTITUTIONS.

>> WELL, I THINK IT'S DIFFERENT BECAUSE THEY ARE PART OF THE GOVERNMENT.

>> YEAH.

>> BUT THESE ARE MEN AND WOMEN WHO SWEAR OATHS TO SERVE AND PROTECT THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES.

THEY DO NOT SERVE OATHS TO SERVE AND PROTECT PETE HEGSETH OR DONALD TRUMP.

>> SO DID DONALD TRUMP AND PETE HEGSETH.

THEY BOTH TOOK THE SAME OATH.

>> THEY BOTH TOOK THE SAME OATH, BUT I THINK IT'S VERY CLEAR THAT DONALD TRUMP IS NOT ONE FOR KEEPING TO OATHS AND, YOU KNOW, I DON'T KNOW PETE HEGSETH VERY WELL, BUT I SUSPECT HE ISN'T EITHER, BUT I THINK YOU ARE MAKING AN IMPORTANT OBSERVATION THAT THEIR SILENCE WAS IN A WAY THEIR REFUSAL TO USE AS A POLITICAL PROP AND MANY MIGHT ACTUALLY AGREE WITH DONALD TRUMP AND PETE HEGSETH POLITICALLY, BUT INSTITUTIONALLY THE MILITARY AND IN PARTICULAR, THE OFFICER CORPS, IS ENCOURAGED TO BE AS APOLITICAL AS POSSIBLE AND I THINK THAT SILENCE REALLY REFLECTS THEIR INSTITUTIONAL TRAINING OF SERVING THE AMERICAN PEOPLE, THE PUBLIC, NOT A PARTICULAR POLITICAL PARTY AND THAT'S THE EXACT THING THAT DONALD TRUMP AND PETE HEGSETH WANT TO CHANGE.

THEY WANT THE AMERICAN MILITARY TO BE A PARTISAN MILITIA, NOT AN ACTUAL MILITARY THAT SERVES THE PEOPLE OF THE UNITED STATES.

>> SO BEFORE WE LET YOU GO, ONE OF THE POINTS THAT PEOPLE MAKE WHO HAVE STUDIED AUTHORITARIANISM IN OTHER HISTORICAL PERIODS IN OUR CONTEXTS, ONE OF THE POINTS THEY MAKE IS THAT AUTHORITARIAN.ISM OFTEN COMES IN THROUGH LEGAL MEANS.

PEOPLE VOTE THEM IN THROUGH LEGAL RULES AND IT MAKES IT IMPOSSIBLE TO VOTE THEM OUT.

>> THAT'S RIGHT.

>> SO THEN THE QUESTION BECOMES WHAT HAPPENS NEXT?

>> I DON'T KNOW.

THE BURDEN IS ON THE PEOPLE TO DEFEND THEIR DEMOCRATIC RIGHT TO SELF-DETERMINATION.

YOU KNOW, THAT'S -- POLITICS EVEN IN AUTHORITARIAN REGIMES, POLITICS DOES NOT CEASE.

TO THE EXTENT PEOPLE DO NOT LIKE WHAT IS HAPPENING, THEY HAVE THE ABILITY TO CHANGE IT AND I WOULD ADD PEACEFULLY, YOU KNOW, NONVIOLENT PROTESTS, NONVIOLENT ACTION HAS BEEN VERY EFFECTIVE IN DISLODGING AUTHORITARIAN REGIMES WITH MEN WHO HAVE PLENTY OF GUNS AND ARE WILLING TO USE THEM.

AMERICANS HAVE TOLERATED AUTHORITARIAN REGIMES IN PARTS OF THEIR COUNTRY, YOU KNOW.

THE ANTEBELLUM SOUTH, MANY, MANY AMERICANS HAVE LIVED UNDER AUTHORITARIAN GOVERNMENTS FORCED AT THE POINT OF A GUN AND THOSE GOVERNMENTS FELL AND THEY DIDN'T FALL BECAUSE AN ARMY -- WELL, IN THE CIVIL WAR THEY DID, BUT, YOU KNOW, THE JIM CROW WAS NOT FELLED BY VIOLENT ACTION AND I THINK THAT PEOPLE NEED TO UNDERSTAND THAT IT IS -- THE PUBLIC, THE AMERICAN PEOPLE, NEED TO UNDERSTAND IT IS WITHIN THEIR POWER TO PRESERVE THEIR DEMOCRACY, BUT THEY HAVE TO MAKE A CONCERTED EFFORT TO DO THAT.

>> ADAM SERWER THANK YOU SO MUCH.

>> THANK YOU.