December 8, 2025 • 48 mins
The Lincoln Project’s Rick Wilson examines Trump’s indefensible pardons. Tim Wu details his new book The Age of Extraction: How Tech Platforms Conquered the Economy and Threaten Our Future Prosperity.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
Hi, I'm Molly John Fast and this is Fast Politics,
where we discussed the top political headlines with some of
today's best minds, and a new Harvard poll puts Trump
at a dismal twenty nine percent approval among young voters.
We have such a great show for you today. The
Lincoln Project's owner Rick Wilson joins us to discuss Trump's
(00:21):
indefensible pardons, and we'll talk to Tim wu about his
new book, The Age of Extraction, How tech platforms conquered
the economy and threaten our future prosperity. But first the news.
Speaker 2 (00:34):
So, Molly, you may have heard on Sunday news shows
Scott Persent loves to talk about how he is a farmer.
He's no longer a farmer.
Speaker 1 (00:42):
Aw what happened?
Speaker 2 (00:45):
Well, Molly, I don't know if you've heard what This
economy is not very good for a soybean farmer like
Scott Persent.
Speaker 1 (00:51):
Yeah, so you know what happened.
Speaker 2 (00:53):
He sells the soybean farm because everybody's getting out of
this economy and out of this market because it's about
to go very bad from Scott p acent stupid decisions.
Speaker 1 (01:01):
I'd be real curious to know who he sold it
to and how much they overpaid. I could see like
Trump World tends to get really good offers for things
they're selling, and I just I'm very curious as to why,
if that makes any sense, Like why do people love
to buy things from Trump World? Why do foreign countries
(01:22):
love to give Jared money to invest? Why? I mean,
it's just so interesting that these people are making so
much money. Now, it's odd.
Speaker 2 (01:34):
Why Well, if there's one thing, I know, it's really
just so sad to me that he's not gonna be
able to talk about this on the Sunday shows.
Speaker 1 (01:41):
You know, it's worth just for a minute pulling back
and thinking about Scott Besson, who is now ultimately out
there defending some pretty stupid moves that our government has
made and trying to make the case that like all
of this is on purpose, when in fact it's clearly not.
The tariffs are not working. Bessend thinks that if he
(02:03):
goes on, you know, if he goes to the Deal
Book conference and yells about the New York Times and
goes on Morning Joe and yells at the Morning Joe anchors,
that this will somehow make Trump happy. And the problem
with like having this imperial presidency, which is what we have,
this Project twenty twenty five fantasy of conservative think tanks,
this presidency that controls all the arms of the federal government.
(02:26):
Is that so much of what's happening in the federal
government is to please Trump and not to make the
economy better or help people or solve problems. Like it's
literally just to please one person who happens to be
basically a child, and a pretty dysfunctional child. So it's
(02:46):
just really such an incredible waste of a federal government
to use it all just to make some Orange guy happy.
Speaker 2 (02:55):
So, speaking of Trump's cabinet of misfit sociopaths, Tom Holman,
my least remember, is defending President Trump after he called
the Smalley community garbage.
Speaker 1 (03:05):
Yeah. So part of what happens every weekend is that
members of Trump World go on television to defend his
most indefensible projects. Trump is going after Somali immigrants why
because everything else is not working for him? And he
remembers that when he ran for president in twenty fifteen,
when we were all young, when I was in my thirties,
(03:27):
Do you remember your thirties? I remember my thirties when
I slept through the night and anyway, in our thirties,
Donald Trump came down that elevator and he said, all
Mexicans are rapists, and some I assume are good people.
And what he did was that he activated a base
that had been low frequency, that had felt that they
(03:48):
couldn't connect to a mid Romney Republican party because they
wanted the red meat of racism. And Donald Trump when
he brings up ilhan Omar, he's doing that because he
can't get anything else to get his people, except it's
a distraction from all of his other problems. And that
is why it should not be taken seriously. It should
be dismissed and condemned and move on, agreed, and also
(04:12):
make every Republican elected defend it because they know it's wrong.
Speaker 2 (04:17):
The Eric Schmidt quickly discussed later in this episode with
Rick was really really telling because he lost his shit
that Stephanopoulos asked him more after he tried the normal
deflection of I haven't seen the tweets. He loses his
shit on him because they can't believe they're ever being
held accountable for this, and they're defending the indefensible corruption
that we see.
Speaker 1 (04:36):
Today and good for Stephanopoulos.
Speaker 2 (04:39):
Agreed, I'll give him a rare W from me.
Speaker 1 (04:43):
No, he's done a lot of he's done.
Speaker 2 (04:45):
I agree, Yeah, he's done a lot of good. There's
some bones to pick though.
Speaker 1 (04:49):
Yeah, well you're wrong.
Speaker 2 (04:51):
The Education Department has picked up one of our favorite patterns,
molly having to rehire workers that these fucking idiots threw
away because they thought that the government most so bloated
and then they realized, fuck, we need this to do things.
Speaker 1 (05:06):
Yeah, so look this is again, this keeps happening, This
keeps happening. Republicans are like, what does the federal government
do anyway, let's disassemble it, you morons. You can't do
it this way. The federal government is not moral lago.
It's actually not nearly as big as you think it is,
(05:27):
and it does a lot of services. So the Education
Department has hundreds of fire employees to return temporarily. This
is just like doge. This is just like when they
fire the people who are, you know, guarding the nukes
and then they had to rehire them. This is just
what keeps fucking happening. It is absolutely so beyond stupid,
(05:52):
and it's like they just keep solving problems they themselves created.
Speaker 3 (05:57):
Yep, So what are the.
Speaker 2 (05:59):
More interesting that the Democrats are going to get too,
particularly a senator who refused to endorse Zoramumdani and a
Congressman who was reluctant to They're really going after Trump
for affordability, and now we see the GOP congressmen are
cowering from it because they know it's going to work.
Speaker 1 (06:16):
Trump said this week that affordability was a con job.
That he said that on Wednesday, it's a con job.
What I think he meant was he can't do anything
about inflation. That's what I'm pretty sure he meant. He
said affordability is a con job. They have a real
problem when it comes to affordability, because inflation is a problem.
(06:38):
Republicans are going to be saddled with it. Blaming the
president for the economy is what people do. It's a
non partisan issue. I don't so I don't know what
Trump is thinking. They have And by the way, if
you're worried about inflation, just wait because the ACA tax
(06:58):
credits are expired and that means everyone tells insurance is
about to get way more expensive. And Trump is a
real fucking problem here. I don't think there's an easy
solve here. And by the way, again, it's this problem,
which is that Republicans need to separate themselves from Trump
(07:19):
while still not making Trump mad. And like you know,
that was hard enough to do with someone like Joe Biden,
who supposedly may have given some permission, though I don't
necessarily believe that that you could separate yourself, but like
Trump will not do that because Trump is a child.
So I think that's going to be a real problem
(07:39):
for Republicans. Over at our YouTube channel, we have some
really exciting stuff. Jesse and I have made a documentary.
It's called Project twenty twenty nine, A Reimagining. It's a
series about how demic can deliver popular policies when they
(08:03):
regain power. The first episode is up now. It's the
first part of the series, and we're going to examine
what went wrong with some of the Biden administration's approach
to policies that may have prevented Democrats from being able
to deliver the broad anti corruption legislation that needed to happen,
(08:28):
and by the way, that would have prevented some of
the corruption we're seeing right now. The first episode dives
deep into the first step of fixing American politics. It
may sound unsexy, but it's a big, important issue, and
that big subject is campaign finance reform. For this episode,
(08:49):
we talk to some of the smartest people we know,
professors and academics, people like Lawrence Lessig, Tiffany Muller, Michael Waldman,
and Tom Moore. Republicans were prepared for when they got
the levers of power. Democrats need that same kind of preparation.
(09:11):
That's why we need to start the conversation on how
Democrats can do the same thing. So please head over
to our YouTube channel and search Molly Jong Fast Project
twenty twenty nine or go to the Fast Politics YouTube
channel page and you'll find it there and help us
spread the word and stay tuned for more episodes. Rick
(09:36):
Wilson is the founder of Lincoln Project and the host
of the Enemy's List.
Speaker 4 (09:40):
Rick Wilson Molli Jong Fast with your cute pets in hand.
Speaker 1 (09:45):
I have a little hairless dog on my lap, and
we're here to talk about how things are going. And
in case you're wondering, this week, Donald Trump pardoned a Democrat.
A Democrat Congressman Henry Kuehlar yep of the Rio Grande
(10:05):
Valley and R Plus. He's like a mansion character, right,
a Joe Manchin. He's from a district that a Democrat
would not win. Correct he pardoned him. Who knows why?
Maybe because he just loves freedom or he considers white
collar crimes to not actually be crimes. That's my theory.
Speaker 4 (10:27):
That is, I think that theory's got a lot of weight.
Speaker 1 (10:30):
He pardons him. Quahlar then immediately registers to run again
as a Democrat. Chef's kiss, Baby, Chef's kiss.
Speaker 4 (10:41):
You know, this is one of the things, Molly that
I find fascinating about pardon palooza. So we're killing people
in speed boats down in Verslila and in the Pacific.
Speaker 1 (10:52):
That's because they might have drugs. So they also might
have fished.
Speaker 4 (10:56):
They hypothetically might have conceivably had drugs, but they weren't
going to the US. They were going to Surinam. But
you know, we might kill him anyway.
Speaker 1 (11:03):
We plan got a distretch from the Ebstein files.
Speaker 4 (11:07):
Yep, we pardon the president of Honduras, who is serving
federal time for engaging in massive cocaine smuggling and ventnol
smuggling into America because Roger Stone, that degenerate fop weirdo
miracle of phrenology, takes Trump a letter that he clearly
wrote like Imperial Lord Trump, I love the he Pardons
(11:28):
Chuair for whatever reason. I don't know if somebody said, hey,
maybe he'll switch or maybe we've got a deal, and
then turned around and screwed them. But if he did
turn around and screw them, I salute him for that,
honestly mad props game nos game brother.
Speaker 1 (11:42):
Well you know who doesn't salute him me? Do you
know who is not happy with this development?
Speaker 4 (11:48):
Donald John Trump?
Speaker 1 (11:49):
He had a truth today which was then, you know
it's an important truth because Rapid Response forty seven then
tweeted it so we could happen.
Speaker 4 (12:00):
Rapid Response forty seven in cell weirdo, who's taking doing
that from curating his anime doll collection.
Speaker 1 (12:09):
He is real mad. And there are a lot of
words that are capitalized in this very long capitalized but
I'm going to read you sort of the the highlights.
Will you were treated so badly? Explanation point. I signed
the papers and said to the people in the Oval
office that I did a very good job saving things God,
(12:33):
was he happy that day? Then it happened explanation point.
Explanation point. Only a short time after signing the pardon,
Congressman Henrykiler announced that he will be running for Congress.
He puts running in quotes in the great State of
Texas as a Democrat.
Speaker 4 (12:52):
Donald's mad.
Speaker 1 (12:53):
Now, such a lack of loyalty. Explanation point. Oh well,
next time, no more, mister night Sky. Explanation point. And
it's signed President Donald J. Trump.
Speaker 4 (13:05):
No, thank you for your attention to this matter.
Speaker 3 (13:06):
That would have been it official.
Speaker 1 (13:08):
I do enjoy a thank you for your attention to
this matter. But I think that the point here is
that my man is a mobster.
Speaker 4 (13:18):
And so I guess the correct analysis of Donald Trump
is that he is a crime boss. Yeah, there's no
alternate analysis of it. There's no there's no secondary analysis
of it. Everything he does is motivated by graft and
greed and scamming and making money.
Speaker 1 (13:36):
It's quid pro it's quid pro.
Speaker 4 (13:39):
Do, it's you know, the whole thing is the guy
is just absolutely yo. Quid pro yo works too, But
the whole thing is just absolutely flagrantly corrupt at every turn.
And there's nothing about this raft of pardons he's been
doing that in any way has anything to do with justice.
They're all criminals. I mean, he's partnering all these cyber
(14:02):
bros who were literally in business with his sons.
Speaker 1 (14:05):
There's a graph that shows that Donald Trump has partnered
more than a thousand people. This is like about ten times.
Speaker 4 (14:13):
Well, it's like sixteen hundred if you count.
Speaker 1 (14:16):
Yeah, so if you count to January, sixth rioters, which
is hundreds of people that he also partned. I think
there are a number of important reasons to talk about
pardon Beluza, but the biggest of which is that he
is clearly running some kind of situation here where he's
partning people.
Speaker 4 (14:36):
Listen, they were doing it in the last in the
end of the last administration into the last Trump administration,
where Matt Slapp and Rogerstone are all these other guys
and Gates were going to Trump and getting these pardons
for people, and there was reporting at the time that
cash was changing hands, and I nothing would surprise me
less than this being a pay to play.
Speaker 1 (14:57):
Jesse has brought up a really important point, and then
I want to talk about the problem Republicans find themselves
in which I think you'll appreciate. Jesse has a quote
from George Stefanopolos. He is interviewing Eric Schmidt. You may
remember Eric Schmidt. He is the senator from Missourra, Missura. Yep,
he says Stephanoppolos, and I think this is really the
(15:20):
thing that everyone needs to ask Republican senators. And I
think it gets me to another thing I want to
talk about, which is Stephanoppolos says, do you support this
pardon of the former Hondurian Hondoran president? And the senator says,
I'm not familiar.
Speaker 4 (15:35):
This is the twenty twenty five equivalent of I didn't
read the tweet. Remember in the first administration, that was
always well, I didn't see the tweet. Whenever Trump would
say something horrible or racist or insane, I didn't see
the tweet. Now it's I'm not familiar with the details
of that case. The Senate in particular has been an
embarrassment about holding Trump to account because they have a
relatively greater amount of political power to do so. The
(15:58):
House is just, you know, the House is what it is.
I do find it kind of amazing that even somebody
as dull witted as Eric Schmidt thinks he can get
away and fool people that this is somehow not missed
it lavish corruption that he's completely aware about.
Speaker 1 (16:15):
Now, I'm going to take you somewhere with this because
I think it's really important going on an event. We're
going on an Inventor. We see Republicans unable to separate
themselves from Trump because they're scared of Trump. But as
Trump gets to be more and more kryptonite, they find
(16:35):
themselves in a problem. And I'd love you to talk
about that because, like I feel like we see people
illustrate this. Like here's Stephonic fighting with Mike Johnson, obviously
trying to show that she's like could be a normal
bluestate Republican. Right, talk us through what's happening here.
Speaker 4 (16:55):
Look to bifurcate that question. Let me do at least
really quickly. She is going to desperately try to be again.
She's going to try to reclaim her normy kred. Watch
what happens. She'll be all of a sudden back like oh,
I was at the Harvard Institute of Politics. I have
mem Romney, I work for George Book. You watch what
she does. It will not work. Kathy Hockel may not
(17:15):
be a the you know, America's favorite governor or New
York's favorite governor. But if it's twice beeing Kathy Hockel
and elis staphonic. The Gretchen Wieners of American politics, at
least define is going to get blown out. She cannot
move to the center. There's no getting there. The video
of her talking about Trump over and over and over
and over again, it's the quotes that launched ten thousand ads.
(17:40):
As for the rest of these guys, there was a
stat out the other day about the twenty six districts
where they are the most vulnerable Republicans and of those
twenty six, twenty one of them vote with Trump one
hundred percent of the time. That is psychotic, that is
not that doesn't happen. Ever, Barack Obama didn't have Democrats
vot with him one hundred percent of the time. Well,
(18:02):
Clinton didn't have Democrats voting with him shit sixty percent
of the time. This is insane. It is not a
sign of a strong party. It's a sign of a brittle,
weak party that is so afraid of losing a primary.
Because Trump has a mean tweet about them, that they're
going to strap themselves to the sky and they're going
to ride the burning wreckage all the way down. They
(18:23):
can't get away from him. And if they break from him, remember.
Speaker 1 (18:27):
Take him down.
Speaker 4 (18:28):
There's nothing Trump hates more. Trump doesn't even hate Democrats.
There's nothing he hates more than a Republican who doesn't
obey him.
Speaker 1 (18:35):
Is that true? Rick, tell me more? No, fail, you're
speaking from personal experience here.
Speaker 4 (18:41):
I am, indeed, but this is a long running pattern
with Trump. He has more hostility toward apostate Republicans or
anyone who would dream of opposing him from his own party,
than he does for the most liberal Democrats. You know,
In fact, you saw this with the mondami on Donnie Trump,
you know, sat there feeling weirdly conflicted about Mondamie in
(19:03):
the Oval office because he likes game, game, knows game.
But he with Republicans. His favorite hobby is to humiliate
the ones that kiss his ass and then deviate even
in the slightest little bit. That's why he's going after,
you know, not only the mtgs, but he'll start going
after these other people and their consultants. I know this
(19:23):
for a fact. I spoke to a Republican polster who
handle's House and Senate and governor's races about ten days
ago now most just after Thanksgiving, so call it ten
days ago, who told me, Yeah, we're trying to find
a way. We're trying to find something to split off
on that they won't kill us over. And it's really hard.
Speaker 1 (19:42):
And here's the problem is as Trump does less and less, well,
like you need him to turn out low frequency voters
because he's alienating the indies.
Speaker 4 (19:54):
Right, the Independents are now basically fifty to twenty against Trump.
So that's insane, by the.
Speaker 1 (20:02):
Way, right, So you're alienating the indies. Dems are not
going to vote for you. You're splitting apart Republicans and
that See, that's one of the other things I want
to talk about because I think the reason Donald Trump
went after ilhan Omar this weekend that was another thing
you did, was because he cannot get any traction on anything,
so he things back to the base.
Speaker 4 (20:23):
I thing it's working for him, Molly nothing, I mean
everything he has tried in the last I mean real talk,
since Epstein, since since since Pam Bondi gave that statement,
we're not going to release anything, and there's no there
there blah blah blah. Nothing Trump has done since that
point has lasted more than about three or four days. Now.
(20:45):
Sometimes he'll get a story tear down the White House
East Wing the last three or four days. Sometimes you'll
get a story like the like the last week on
Ukraine stuff, three or four days, two or three days.
But nothing changes the subject forever. Like it used to
the center of gravity with Trump. He used to blow
up the media cycle and then the next center of
(21:07):
gravity was whatever the next media cycle was for him,
whatever he blew up next. But now he blows up
the media cycle. Then it's back to Epstein.
Speaker 3 (21:14):
Right.
Speaker 1 (21:15):
They used to say he was the assignment editor. Remember that,
Oh yeah, for sure, for sure.
Speaker 4 (21:21):
And look, I do think to get back to these
Republican candidates, all of them know what's happening. Their consultants
right now are are looking for the timing of when
they break with Trump and hoping it won't kill off
turnout when they break with Trump. And so we're going
to see a lot of these guys after their primaries
are over in the spring or early summer, say, man,
(21:44):
I really wish the president would do something different on
tariffs because they won't be murdered at that point. But
it's going to be too late.
Speaker 1 (21:51):
It's a Tom Tillis thing, right. We see Tom Tilli's
breaking with Trump because he's not running again. We see,
you know. But I want to go to why we
can keep going back to Epstein, because I have a
theory and I want to talk to you about it.
The reason that we keep going back to Epstein is
because the Democrat, the ranking member of Oversight, keeps releasing
(22:13):
stuff Epstein, and he keeps releasing stuff about Epstein because
he's a young guy, right, He's a young, competent guy.
His name is Robert Garcia. I talk about him a lot.
I talk about oversight a lot because when you're not
in power, you have very few things you can do.
(22:33):
And one of the very few things that Democrats can
do right now is message Epstein. Oversight has this power
to subpoena. They subpoena the estate. If Jerry Connolly, we're
still the head of Oversight.
Speaker 4 (22:47):
Don't even start, it would be a disaster.
Speaker 1 (22:50):
He died because Democratic leadership was scared to tell him
he couldn't have the job, so they gave him the job,
even though he was sick and he was having treatment
for cancer and was in his late seventies. He died
and Garcia's at the job.
Speaker 4 (23:06):
This is the classic crisis management problem.
Speaker 3 (23:09):
You know.
Speaker 4 (23:10):
I've helped corporate clients, political clients for thirty years deal
with crises, and when you're in it on your own,
it's never as easy as it looks on the outside.
But there are rules every time in a crisis management situation.
Get the truth out, no matter how much it hurts
in the short term. Drip drip, drip is always worse
for you in the end than one big reveal. The
(23:32):
second part of it is go out and say what
you're going to do to reform yourself and your process
and your company. Trump can't release this stuff for a
host of reasons, both about himself and about some of
his donors, and about people he likes, and about people in.
Speaker 1 (23:46):
The corporate world.
Speaker 4 (23:47):
And he can't reform himself. He doesn't care about human trafficking.
He doesn't care to happen to the victims of Epstein
and Maxwell. And the final part of any crisis like
this is you have to learn from You have to
behave in a different way in the future. You can't
just say we're going to reform in this way. You
have to show, you have to walk the walk, and
he can never do that. He is He is an old, sick,
(24:11):
cruel guy with a lifelong history of abusing women in
various capacities and manners, much of which we know about
from the legal record, much of what you know about
from the from the divorce record, from the social record,
from this, from from his long behavioral pattern. He even
if he was still healthy, he couldn't change. And now
(24:31):
they're stuck with him, and they're stuck with this. Republicans
own this crisis.
Speaker 1 (24:36):
So Marjorie Taylor Green says that she talks to Donald Trump,
and Donald Trump says, you don't want the Epstein files
released because it's going to hurt a lot of people
who cares, but also who he's going too hard.
Speaker 3 (24:50):
Yeah.
Speaker 4 (24:51):
There, answer is it's going to hurt people that Trump
has political and financial relationships with. We know some of
the tick tick tick on. This will end up implicating
people that are in business and politics and media, and
it's going to burn some people to the ground that
he likes. It's going to hurt him, right, I mean criminal, Well,
(25:15):
probably a more criminal exposure than he does, right for sure.
Speaker 1 (25:18):
And they're Republican donors and some of them may even
be Democratic donors. And honestly, who cares because getting after
people who do SAZ child sex trafficking is a nonpartisan activity.
Speaker 4 (25:30):
Yeah, and listen, I will say this, I have you know,
I'm I'm when when Democrats screw up, I will tell
them they're screwing up. But they have been very good
about this about saying let the chips fall where they may,
let it roll. I don't see Democrats out there saying, well,
we want to we don't want to hurt anybody on arm.
They don't they're doing The Democrats are doing the correct
(25:51):
thing here by saying fuck it if Bill Clinton's in
the file, Bill Clinton's in the file, Oh well yeah,
And that's the right way to approach it. But Trump
clearly is picking and choosing. Now, I want to ask
you a question because I had somebody that they asked
me a friend of mine. I said to me, he goes,
do you think Trump is going through this material and
going to some of these corporate people that are in
(26:12):
there and basically blackmailing them?
Speaker 3 (26:14):
I don't.
Speaker 1 (26:16):
It really shocked me.
Speaker 4 (26:17):
I don't have any evidence of that, but I wanted
to get your thought on that, because, I mean, if
he had the files in front of him, Trump.
Speaker 1 (26:23):
Is never doing three dimensional chess no, so it's hard
for me to imagine that he's doing something like that, Like, sure,
would that make sense? Absolutely? Do I think he's doing it?
Probably not. I just think he's not that organized. I
think like largely what this crew does is try to
is just like react to problems, right. I don't you know, like,
(26:48):
do I think he's not firing people because it was
why he had so many leaks the first time around? Yes?
Do I think he liked gave Heggs at that job
because he liked the way he looked on television? And yes,
do I think that E's Like No, I think they
you know, they have it somewhere. They're like, we're never
releasing it. I mean, look, I have a very smart
(27:10):
straight journalist friend who said they're gonna just release and
release and release, but only stuff on Democrats, right, But
I don't actually think so. I think they're just going
to try not to release any of it for as
long as they can.
Speaker 4 (27:21):
I think I think this the stonewall tactic is going
to last through the election, then they're gonna and I.
Speaker 1 (27:27):
Think they're just gonna be like sue Us. I just
think they're gonna be like sue Us, fuck you. Like
that's the thing. It's like Trump is not putin. There's
like a temptation. Like I was thinking about this because
I was thinking, like when they went after Komi, I
was thinking, like they're gonna just create some crimes, like
the way Russia does. You know, they're gonna like put
(27:50):
something on his hard drive and be like you did this.
They're not smart like that whatever. For whatever reason, they're not,
so they don't do stuff like that. They just are like,
we're gonna go after him for long to the FBI
because he said because of Eli and it's like such
a convoluted thing that you can't so so I don't
think that. And I mean, like a great example is
last week when they were trying to get this indictment
(28:12):
and they just couldn't get the indictment on Tiss James
because they just didn't have anything and they kept trying.
You know, they're just not so good. I mean, thank god,
they're not so good at that.
Speaker 4 (28:20):
I was just gonna say that we should all be
relieved by that knowledge. And and we you know, and
if you're on the victim list, if you're if you're
on the Epstein victim list, those people really want answers,
they want more stuff, release, they want accountability. And it
just goes back again. Anytime these people in Trump universe
say it's all about the children and we're protecting victims
(28:41):
from traffickers, it's all a lie.
Speaker 1 (28:43):
Yeah, it's it's never ever, ever about the children.
Speaker 4 (28:49):
No, no, it really never is, never is.
Speaker 1 (28:52):
Thank you, Rick Wilson.
Speaker 4 (28:54):
You are as always welcome. I look forward to seeing
you next week.
Speaker 1 (29:00):
Tim Wu is a former Special Assistant to the President
and a professor of law at Columbia University and the
author of the Age of Extraction, How tech platforms conquered
the economy and threaten our future prosperity. Welcome to past politics, Tim,
it's great to be here. We're just going to start
(29:22):
went wrong with the Internet.
Speaker 3 (29:25):
That's a good question.
Speaker 5 (29:26):
Basically, we thought that we could trust everybody that they
were going to help make everybody rich, and instead they
made themselves rich. The owners and founders of the big
platforms I think basically go back the nineties that was
the promise. It was going to be like this technology
that empowered everyone, made ever pretty rich, to everything for everybody.
Speaker 3 (29:47):
But it ended up making a very narrow group rich.
Speaker 1 (29:50):
That's all went wrong. A senator who is now very
mad at me I was once at his book party
and he said, there is no fact checking on the internet.
Speaker 3 (30:00):
I think that we thought that was going to be
a good thing.
Speaker 5 (30:02):
I mean a lot of my new book, Age of Extraction,
is about like the promises of the nineties, early thousands,
the dream, you know.
Speaker 3 (30:09):
To blame us a little.
Speaker 5 (30:10):
Bit, I think we believe that if everyone could sort
of have a soapbox and say whatever they wanted all
the time, that like something beautiful would come out of
that and pure. And I guess something could come out
of it, but I'd to have trouble describing it as beautiful,
pure creature of innocence.
Speaker 1 (30:26):
In any which way. So let's talk about where we
are right now. Because I used to spend all my
time worrying about AI, but I've now focused back to
just worrying about how America survives having no local reporting,
which is another favorite worry of mine. There is clearly
a problem. They cannot be solved with substack, cannot be
(30:47):
solved with X, cannot be solved with blue sky, which
is reporting is the only way we know to keep
power and check. We are in a reported catastrophe at
this moment, right The people who have the money to
pay for the reporting, you know, the elon must of
the world, are not very interested in accountability. So is
(31:11):
this it for the fall of the Roman Empire? I mean,
is there a way to reverse this trajectory?
Speaker 3 (31:16):
There is?
Speaker 5 (31:17):
I mean, I think there's a tony of money in
the system. It just goes in all the wrong places,
if that makes sense. Yeah, Like I was one of
the chapters in my new book, I talk about this
one product of Amazon's, you know, the when you search
on Amazon for like any old product and you get
those weird sponsored results and like you can't really figure
out what you really want.
Speaker 3 (31:35):
Well, just from that.
Speaker 5 (31:36):
Little little gimmick, Amazon makes fifty six billion dollars last year,
which is more than double of all the newspaper income
of every newspaper on the planet Earth. So in a way,
you could have like that little thing, or you could
triple the number of newspapers not in the United States,
in the world and like somehow we just accepted the
idea that there's the enormous extraction platforms. They don't pay
(31:59):
any tax, they don't support anything. They occasionally buy something,
you know, like Bezos bought the Post, I guess.
Speaker 1 (32:05):
And now he's killing it because foam parties. I mean,
he just lost interest in democracy.
Speaker 3 (32:11):
Yeah.
Speaker 5 (32:11):
Oh, they just turned it into a platform. I mean,
at some point there was this whole like, let's not
be mister nice guy anymore. Let's just like turn this
newspaper into my mouthpiece, or let's I mean the case.
I guess Elon Musk was the first with buying Twitter
and just saying, all right, this is going to be
my personal thing to make conspiracy theories mainstream. So there's
a huge amount of money in the system. Like that's
(32:33):
the craziest thing. We are living in a period where
there's just tons of money. There's lots of it's all
all there, but we don't tax it. It like occasionally
gets given to charity, or it gets used for pet
projects and to make people really wealthy. So there is
way more than enough money support any of the kind
of broadcasting anything you could want. He was a number
of systems you could choose. You could be more like
(32:54):
the Germans, like the British, like anything, but somehow we're
doing none of it.
Speaker 1 (32:58):
So tell me how we fix the Internet.
Speaker 3 (33:00):
Good question.
Speaker 5 (33:01):
I think we have to decide that some of the
big platforms are like utilities in our time and they
get to take some money.
Speaker 3 (33:08):
But no more.
Speaker 1 (33:08):
You want to socialize the platforms. No, that was a
little mean. What I mean is you want some government
involvement with platform private public kind of situation.
Speaker 3 (33:18):
Well, no, I want to control them like utilities.
Speaker 5 (33:21):
I don't think government would like necessarily run like Amazon
that well you know, we end up more like post office.
But I do think they should limit how much Amazon takes,
like just say like, okay, you get thirty percent, like
the electric company. We don't say lectric company, Okay, you
know you have a great product, charge whatever the hell
you want.
Speaker 3 (33:38):
It's like there's some kind of limits.
Speaker 5 (33:39):
So I think we need to find the places that
they're like utilities and say that's how much money you get.
Speaker 3 (33:44):
No more so that the rest of us, and I
think they should pay some taxes.
Speaker 1 (33:47):
Give me this sort of broad sweep of why you
are the person to make this case?
Speaker 5 (33:52):
Okay, So I worked in Silicon Valley back. I guess
in the dot com era, that actually created a certain
level of of distrust of the place. Give me why,
I think because everyone needs to be a multimillionaire and billionaire,
even though they also talk about wanting to help the public.
So in other words, I feel like there was a
(34:13):
lot of I guess immaturity in the sense of, Okay,
we need to help everybody do this, run this thing
like a charity.
Speaker 3 (34:19):
I'm thinking of early Google.
Speaker 5 (34:20):
But we got to make huge amounts of money too,
and like these things are never going to conflict with
each other. It's like, you know, twenty year old logic.
When do you think you can stay up all night
and then also like be fine the next day. It
has a lot of that kind of thing.
Speaker 1 (34:31):
They're hypocrites too.
Speaker 5 (34:33):
When I worked, there was a fair amount of just
straight out lying, which I found difficult about our products.
It was sort of more normalized and yeah, so that
made me more cynical. I mean, I think back then
I was still much more believer than I am now.
I think it's when they just got big that I
started to lose faith. I worked there, I've worked in
the federal government for the Supreme Court. I worked for
(34:55):
the White House twice, Obama and Biden and Festerer Columbia
and I have basically tried to reboot the anti monopoly
movement with like Lena Khan and a few others Jonathan
Caanter have been trying to reboot anti monopoly.
Speaker 3 (35:07):
That's the other thing.
Speaker 5 (35:08):
I think we got to break these guys up, Like
it's absurd just to have this level of monopoly extraction
from a country that claims to be free.
Speaker 1 (35:15):
Well what that look like, because we talk about brigant monopolies,
but just like nuts and balts, give me an example
of what that would look like and how you would
do it.
Speaker 3 (35:24):
I mean a good example. Ship has saled a little
bit of this.
Speaker 5 (35:28):
But you know the fact that Google not only a
search engine but then also owns like the browser, the
main browser also is trying to dominate AI.
Speaker 3 (35:37):
You know.
Speaker 5 (35:37):
I just think it should be a bunch of different units.
I think Amazon should be a marketplace. It's an amazing marketplace,
but shouldn't be selling in competition with its own you know,
its own sellers. So you would sort of ban Amazon
Amazon sales, Facebook, you would spin off WhatsApp and Instagram
and make those separate companies.
Speaker 3 (35:55):
It just have more like, you know, more separation. Competition, Yeah,
more competition.
Speaker 5 (35:59):
It's kind of crazy that there are just really three
or four giant companies who all kind of think the
same way.
Speaker 3 (36:05):
And it's really kind of not the American way. I'll
put it that way.
Speaker 1 (36:08):
What would you do about Section two thirty? I need
you to explain to our listeners. Just give us what
it is, how it's used, and how it could imagining
it as something better.
Speaker 3 (36:19):
All right.
Speaker 5 (36:20):
So Section two thirty was passed in the nineties to
be kind of a shield or an immunity for what
were then tiny little tech companies who were struggling and
threatened by the possibility of being sued for things. And
the idea was, for example, you know back then, demone,
do you remember AOL?
Speaker 3 (36:39):
Is that like?
Speaker 1 (36:40):
No, of course I remember. I mean I am that ault.
Speaker 5 (36:44):
So AOL like had millions of chat rooms and invariably
there was like crazy things being said, and the idea was, well,
if AOL is responresponsible every single thing that someone says
in any single chat room, like, the whole Internet will collapse.
And so all and a bunch of other people lobby,
and they say, okay, we're going to get a blanket
immunity to like most state laws for defamation and you know,
(37:06):
anything else we do wrong, we're kind of going to
be immune. So they have this sort of special immunity.
I will note that like newspapers radio shows do not
have it. Like if a newspaper says so and so
is a criminal beats his wife something like that, that's defamation,
has a dread disease, whatever. But they've been kind of immune.
So I think that was okay in the early days
they were tiny, but more and more the tech companies
(37:28):
are kind of deciding what you should see. Like they're big.
They are in the game of presenting information. They become
part of the media, but they have none of the
media's duties. I guess the idea is, you know, I
think it's pretty simple. It's like, okay, if you're going
to be AOL, fine, But if you're going to be
like YouTube and you're feeding people a steady diet of
like hate crimes and insanity and then they go off
(37:50):
and do something, or if you like Eric exposing children
to like suicide videos, and you're like, I'm sorry, I
guess and you're the one who sent it at them,
and then.
Speaker 3 (37:58):
You're like, oh, you know, well, the Internet's crazy place.
Sorry about that.
Speaker 5 (38:03):
I don't think that goes anymore. So the overarging principle
is like, we're not asking for a lot. I mean,
even what I'm saying here, we've done nothing to kind
of control the power of big tech, nothing at all.
It's been twenty five years. There's some of the most
powerful companies in history. If you compare us to like
Standard Oil, compare it to the fifties General Motor, whatever
you want to compare it to, we have a lopsided
(38:24):
system which is out of whack with any point in
American history at this point. And I guess I was
starting to say this ten years ago, and it's gotten
worse and worse and worse. And if we don't do something,
I feel our politics will get crazier and more violent,
which is already happening.
Speaker 1 (38:38):
The goal here is that these platforms would have the
same legal constraints the newspaper might or a publishing house might.
Speaker 3 (38:48):
Let mean, yes, that's in section two theories.
Speaker 5 (38:50):
What I would say more, particularly if we want to
get down the nitty gritty, is I would say that
when they promote or show you content that they own it.
They can't get away, you know, if they if they're
the ones who are promoting something onto your feed, that
that's their responsibility. If that ends up being you know,
accompliced to a crime or defamation or something like that,
that they start to own it once they're involved.
Speaker 3 (39:11):
But I think it's broader than that.
Speaker 5 (39:12):
I just think we have a general scheme now thirty
years old, where we immunize tech companies from most laws,
almost all taxation, and you know, various other things that
we use to control power to Section two thirty is
a part of a much larger trend of just saying,
you guys get to live in a different country more
or less called Silicon Valley where the laws of the
(39:33):
United States do not apply.
Speaker 1 (39:35):
So is tech tobacco? Is tech oil? Are those one
to ones?
Speaker 5 (39:41):
No, because those other industries are much more subject to laws.
Speaker 3 (39:46):
And have been much less successful. I mean tobacco's an example.
Speaker 5 (39:49):
Eventually tobacco started to become under public influence and responsibility
and eventually started losing something. No one has laid a
glove on big tech. The Europeans maybe a little, but
it's just this kind of completely I guess sovereign industry unaccountable.
I think they believe themselves now kind of by their
(40:10):
very nature, to be superhumans who are beyond mere democratic control.
So why well, if you go and spend a lot
of time in Silicon Valley like thinking, I think they
have the almost religious belief that technology is taking us
towards some kind of nirvana, and so if you mess
with it, you're evil. So that's why, if that makes sense,
(40:32):
I think there's an entire religious mindset that goes along
with it. I was reading one of Mark Andreessen, he's
this well known VC investor. Oh yes, and he said,
artificial intelligence saves lives, and we need to get superhuman intelligence.
So if you decelerate it or get in the way,
you are basically guilty of murder. Because I was like,
that's a lot.
Speaker 3 (40:53):
That's a lot.
Speaker 5 (40:54):
If you don't pay your taxes so the hospital doesn't
have money, are you then guilty of murder?
Speaker 1 (40:57):
I mean, I'm in you can say anything saying right,
that's the good thing about the Internet. It's nonsensical. So
I once had a different senator explain this to me.
I'm not sure it's right, but I'm not sure it's
wrong that the reason the Internet is so out of
control is because there's a low level grift happening with
(41:21):
senators where you know, meta employees, the daughters of a
very important United States senator crypto donates to a lot
of Republicans and Democrats. That the money is just too
free flowing to our politicians, and that's how we got
here or that's how we stay here. Is that correct?
And if so, how do you stop it? And if not,
(41:43):
what is so?
Speaker 3 (41:45):
I think there's some truth to that.
Speaker 5 (41:46):
In the Biden administration, we tried to pass what would
seem like very easy laws to pass, like protection of
children's privacy, protection of children against violent and horrible materials,
basic privacy for all, Like things that you would imagine
if they ever got to the Senate floor or House
floor would pass Nearian Nasley could never ever get a vote,
(42:08):
and no one would ever say why.
Speaker 1 (42:10):
By the way, that is an insane thing to say.
I mean, I know it's true because I saw it
happen firsthand, But just think about how insane that is.
Speaker 5 (42:18):
Yes, things that like if you pulled Americans it's not
like Democrat, but probably ninety percent Americans think, you know,
children maybe should have more privacy online, like targeting you
know ads that like targeted marketing directing at children, probably
not the best idea, Like I don't maybe ninety nine
percent no votes?
Speaker 3 (42:34):
Why no votes?
Speaker 5 (42:36):
You know, it would always be the leader would somehow
like very murky, very secret, no votes.
Speaker 1 (42:43):
That was when Chuck Schumer was the majority leader.
Speaker 5 (42:45):
Yes, just interesting, no votes, never a vote somehow maybe
wait till they know, oh you know, we'll do it
next term, or yeah, you know we're going to get
to that, or I no votes and like that. That's
the real thing about It's not like somehow these things fail,
it's they get killed before the ever a vote. So
I kind of began to believe that it's just you know,
I do remember that there was one or two centers
(43:06):
leaning in our direction, and then they said they got
threats to Google just run ads against them in their primary.
Just just what doesn't care the content, you know, So yeah,
I think there's I think they want to hold the
whole political system.
Speaker 3 (43:17):
And the recent results speak for themselves.
Speaker 5 (43:19):
They had no votes on any tech relating technology for
the last twenty years. That's something in the late nineties,
no votes on anything, not not no passage, no votes.
That's where a lot of hearings, a lot of performative
yelling and like bring them in and give them a
hard time.
Speaker 1 (43:33):
Well, they see how popular it is. They just don't
want to pass legislation.
Speaker 5 (43:37):
Yes, they want to vote, but they do want to
like yell at people and like say, I, you know,
gave Mark Zuckerberg a really hard time about this stuff.
Speaker 1 (43:44):
Kristen Cinema, one of the many senators who was against
tech regulation now lobbying for data farms.
Speaker 3 (43:54):
Yeah, it's a good example.
Speaker 5 (43:55):
I mean, I think it's very clear in the DC
that if you are on kind of tech side, you
can expect a nice, easy, multimillion dollar year job. We
don't have to do much ever, occasionally have a meeting
and you know, kind of coast and if you don't
take their side, then you can work in a think tank,
you know, or whatever.
Speaker 3 (44:15):
Or trying to get a nonprofit job.
Speaker 5 (44:17):
But they just kind of it's kind of like almost
like bribery in advance.
Speaker 3 (44:22):
Does that make sense, Like it's it's not.
Speaker 5 (44:24):
Yeah, And that kind of hangs over people's heads and
they decide, well, do I want to get my I mean,
I got myself out of that game, and it was
never sort of made. I guess that he came clear
to me when I was starting get that disinvited from parties,
subtle job offers started to go away. So, yeah, you
cross some line and you're out. And I guess she
read the tea leaves and decided she wanted to have
(44:44):
a cushy job for the rest of her life and
make millions in doing nothing, which is kind of what
she was doing the Senate too, but not making the
same amount of money.
Speaker 1 (44:54):
We laugh, not because it's funny, but to keep from crying.
I think that yeah, there is definitely we are clearly
cross to rubicon. So if you are listening to this,
sort of give us, because I'm so upset, now give
us a sort of call to action.
Speaker 5 (45:11):
I think a lot of the stuff starts with children's stuff,
Like the path towards a lot of responsibility for big
industries starts with children's stuff. So I think, you know,
at some point the pressure to protect children becomes unbarrel.
I would agree and write, you know, and try to
shame your elected representatives support child protection legislation.
Speaker 3 (45:30):
I think from there you build other legislation. I'm a little.
Speaker 5 (45:33):
Cynical because I've wasted huge amounts of my time trying
to get these stupid bills fast. I think you also
have to get elected representatives off the fence where they
just kind of occasionally complain about things but avoid the
votes or the pressure being serious about wealth.
Speaker 3 (45:49):
And balance in our time. I mean, it's problem for
the Democratic Party in some ways.
Speaker 5 (45:52):
The Publican Party can even be a little more open
about it all. They are also very subject to their
own becoming captured and just starting complain about conservatives.
Speaker 3 (46:01):
So those are my call the actions.
Speaker 5 (46:03):
Don't let your representatives just be lazy on these issues
and get away with it. And you know, more generally,
I think we can turn the ship around. I think
the United States has at its greatest periods of being
tested responded in the progressive era, New Deal era. We
just need people, I don't care you vote for, who
actually pledge to do things and then actually do them,
because i we just elect some people who really do
(46:25):
not are not able somehow to let votes happen in Congress,
and we just let things happen at all, and we're
stuck there, and you know, some of the other stuff
is a distraction. We need to deal with the incredible
wealth and balances in our time, and people who get
distracked from that, I think are taking us away from
the real problem in our in our times.
Speaker 1 (46:44):
Tim. I hope he'll come back.
Speaker 3 (46:46):
It's been a pleasure anytime.
Speaker 1 (46:50):
No, no, Rick Wilson, Yes, you know what time it is.
It's fuckeray time, It's fuck great time. Rick Wilson, Do
you do you have a moment of fuckery?
Speaker 4 (47:01):
I have probably what is like the pinnacle of the
moments of fuckery for a long time, and that is
Steve Whitkoff and Jared Kushner privately negotiating with Putin, and
by that I mean taking bribes from Putin, and by
that I mean being paid off by Putin, and by
that I mean serving as Putin's dirty little whos in
order to part out and break up Ukraine. The Russians
finally have figured out their best negotiating strategy, and that
(47:23):
is to bribe Donald Trump through Jared the bagman of
the family, and to bribe Donald Trump through Stephen Whitkoff,
who they have been negotiating using the Russia's plan to
parcel up Ukraine. And to kill it off. They're not negotiators,
they're undertakers. The bad faith that's going on here is astounding.
I was told that the Ukrainian hearing or the Ukrainian
(47:43):
meeting over the weekend with Ukrainian delegation was essentially Rubio
and others insulting them, saying, fuck you, take the deal,
or we'll leave you, or you're gon, We're gonna leave
you out to dry. And they go into Putin's office
with the Golden knee pads on and leave with sacks
of cash, either physically or more metaphor. It is unbelievably
insanely corrupt. Witcoff now has been reported we have his
(48:06):
voice on tape released by European Intelligence Service. We have
Witcocks saying I'm gonna teach you how to manipulate Trump
so we can keep Trump on your side. Yes, listen,
a prosecutor about five minutes out of law school could
indict that motherfucker for espionage and treason. It is insane,
and I think there's no circle of hell hot enough
for those two guys.
Speaker 1 (48:27):
For wit Coffin, Kushner, Rick Wilson, thank you all.
Speaker 3 (48:31):
We'll see you next week.
Speaker 1 (48:32):
That's it for this episode of Fast Politics. Tune in
every Monday, Wednesday, Thursday, and Saturday to hear the best
minds and politics make sense of all this chaos. If
you enjoy this podcast, please send it to a friend
and keep the conversation going. Thanks for listening.
Hi, I'm Molly John Fast and this is Fast Politics,
where we discussed the top political headlines with some of
today's best minds, and a new Harvard poll puts Trump
at a dismal twenty nine percent approval among young voters.
We have such a great show for you today. The
Lincoln Project's owner Rick Wilson joins us to discuss Trump's
(00:21):
indefensible pardons, and we'll talk to Tim wu about his
new book, The Age of Extraction, How tech platforms conquered
the economy and threaten our future prosperity. But first the news.
Speaker 2 (00:34):
So, Molly, you may have heard on Sunday news shows
Scott Persent loves to talk about how he is a farmer.
He's no longer a farmer.
Speaker 1 (00:42):
Aw what happened?
Speaker 2 (00:45):
Well, Molly, I don't know if you've heard what This
economy is not very good for a soybean farmer like
Scott Persent.
Speaker 1 (00:51):
Yeah, so you know what happened.
Speaker 2 (00:53):
He sells the soybean farm because everybody's getting out of
this economy and out of this market because it's about
to go very bad from Scott p acent stupid decisions.
Speaker 1 (01:01):
I'd be real curious to know who he sold it
to and how much they overpaid. I could see like
Trump World tends to get really good offers for things
they're selling, and I just I'm very curious as to why,
if that makes any sense, Like why do people love
to buy things from Trump World? Why do foreign countries
(01:22):
love to give Jared money to invest? Why? I mean,
it's just so interesting that these people are making so
much money. Now, it's odd.
Speaker 2 (01:34):
Why Well, if there's one thing, I know, it's really
just so sad to me that he's not gonna be
able to talk about this on the Sunday shows.
Speaker 1 (01:41):
You know, it's worth just for a minute pulling back
and thinking about Scott Besson, who is now ultimately out
there defending some pretty stupid moves that our government has
made and trying to make the case that like all
of this is on purpose, when in fact it's clearly not.
The tariffs are not working. Bessend thinks that if he
(02:03):
goes on, you know, if he goes to the Deal
Book conference and yells about the New York Times and
goes on Morning Joe and yells at the Morning Joe anchors,
that this will somehow make Trump happy. And the problem
with like having this imperial presidency, which is what we have,
this Project twenty twenty five fantasy of conservative think tanks,
this presidency that controls all the arms of the federal government.
(02:26):
Is that so much of what's happening in the federal
government is to please Trump and not to make the
economy better or help people or solve problems. Like it's
literally just to please one person who happens to be
basically a child, and a pretty dysfunctional child. So it's
(02:46):
just really such an incredible waste of a federal government
to use it all just to make some Orange guy happy.
Speaker 2 (02:55):
So, speaking of Trump's cabinet of misfit sociopaths, Tom Holman,
my least remember, is defending President Trump after he called
the Smalley community garbage.
Speaker 1 (03:05):
Yeah. So part of what happens every weekend is that
members of Trump World go on television to defend his
most indefensible projects. Trump is going after Somali immigrants why
because everything else is not working for him? And he
remembers that when he ran for president in twenty fifteen,
when we were all young, when I was in my thirties,
(03:27):
Do you remember your thirties? I remember my thirties when
I slept through the night and anyway, in our thirties,
Donald Trump came down that elevator and he said, all
Mexicans are rapists, and some I assume are good people.
And what he did was that he activated a base
that had been low frequency, that had felt that they
(03:48):
couldn't connect to a mid Romney Republican party because they
wanted the red meat of racism. And Donald Trump when
he brings up ilhan Omar, he's doing that because he
can't get anything else to get his people, except it's
a distraction from all of his other problems. And that
is why it should not be taken seriously. It should
be dismissed and condemned and move on, agreed, and also
(04:12):
make every Republican elected defend it because they know it's wrong.
Speaker 2 (04:17):
The Eric Schmidt quickly discussed later in this episode with
Rick was really really telling because he lost his shit
that Stephanopoulos asked him more after he tried the normal
deflection of I haven't seen the tweets. He loses his
shit on him because they can't believe they're ever being
held accountable for this, and they're defending the indefensible corruption
that we see.
Speaker 1 (04:36):
Today and good for Stephanopoulos.
Speaker 2 (04:39):
Agreed, I'll give him a rare W from me.
Speaker 1 (04:43):
No, he's done a lot of he's done.
Speaker 2 (04:45):
I agree, Yeah, he's done a lot of good. There's
some bones to pick though.
Speaker 1 (04:49):
Yeah, well you're wrong.
Speaker 2 (04:51):
The Education Department has picked up one of our favorite patterns,
molly having to rehire workers that these fucking idiots threw
away because they thought that the government most so bloated
and then they realized, fuck, we need this to do things.
Speaker 1 (05:06):
Yeah, so look this is again, this keeps happening, This
keeps happening. Republicans are like, what does the federal government
do anyway, let's disassemble it, you morons. You can't do
it this way. The federal government is not moral lago.
It's actually not nearly as big as you think it is,
(05:27):
and it does a lot of services. So the Education
Department has hundreds of fire employees to return temporarily. This
is just like doge. This is just like when they
fire the people who are, you know, guarding the nukes
and then they had to rehire them. This is just
what keeps fucking happening. It is absolutely so beyond stupid,
(05:52):
and it's like they just keep solving problems they themselves created.
Speaker 3 (05:57):
Yep, So what are the.
Speaker 2 (05:59):
More interesting that the Democrats are going to get too,
particularly a senator who refused to endorse Zoramumdani and a
Congressman who was reluctant to They're really going after Trump
for affordability, and now we see the GOP congressmen are
cowering from it because they know it's going to work.
Speaker 1 (06:16):
Trump said this week that affordability was a con job.
That he said that on Wednesday, it's a con job.
What I think he meant was he can't do anything
about inflation. That's what I'm pretty sure he meant. He
said affordability is a con job. They have a real
problem when it comes to affordability, because inflation is a problem.
(06:38):
Republicans are going to be saddled with it. Blaming the
president for the economy is what people do. It's a
non partisan issue. I don't so I don't know what
Trump is thinking. They have And by the way, if
you're worried about inflation, just wait because the ACA tax
(06:58):
credits are expired and that means everyone tells insurance is
about to get way more expensive. And Trump is a
real fucking problem here. I don't think there's an easy
solve here. And by the way, again, it's this problem,
which is that Republicans need to separate themselves from Trump
(07:19):
while still not making Trump mad. And like you know,
that was hard enough to do with someone like Joe Biden,
who supposedly may have given some permission, though I don't
necessarily believe that that you could separate yourself, but like
Trump will not do that because Trump is a child.
So I think that's going to be a real problem
(07:39):
for Republicans. Over at our YouTube channel, we have some
really exciting stuff. Jesse and I have made a documentary.
It's called Project twenty twenty nine, A Reimagining. It's a
series about how demic can deliver popular policies when they
(08:03):
regain power. The first episode is up now. It's the
first part of the series, and we're going to examine
what went wrong with some of the Biden administration's approach
to policies that may have prevented Democrats from being able
to deliver the broad anti corruption legislation that needed to happen,
(08:28):
and by the way, that would have prevented some of
the corruption we're seeing right now. The first episode dives
deep into the first step of fixing American politics. It
may sound unsexy, but it's a big, important issue, and
that big subject is campaign finance reform. For this episode,
(08:49):
we talk to some of the smartest people we know,
professors and academics, people like Lawrence Lessig, Tiffany Muller, Michael Waldman,
and Tom Moore. Republicans were prepared for when they got
the levers of power. Democrats need that same kind of preparation.
(09:11):
That's why we need to start the conversation on how
Democrats can do the same thing. So please head over
to our YouTube channel and search Molly Jong Fast Project
twenty twenty nine or go to the Fast Politics YouTube
channel page and you'll find it there and help us
spread the word and stay tuned for more episodes. Rick
(09:36):
Wilson is the founder of Lincoln Project and the host
of the Enemy's List.
Speaker 4 (09:40):
Rick Wilson Molli Jong Fast with your cute pets in hand.
Speaker 1 (09:45):
I have a little hairless dog on my lap, and
we're here to talk about how things are going. And
in case you're wondering, this week, Donald Trump pardoned a Democrat.
A Democrat Congressman Henry Kuehlar yep of the Rio Grande
(10:05):
Valley and R Plus. He's like a mansion character, right,
a Joe Manchin. He's from a district that a Democrat
would not win. Correct he pardoned him. Who knows why?
Maybe because he just loves freedom or he considers white
collar crimes to not actually be crimes. That's my theory.
Speaker 4 (10:27):
That is, I think that theory's got a lot of weight.
Speaker 1 (10:30):
He pardons him. Quahlar then immediately registers to run again
as a Democrat. Chef's kiss, Baby, Chef's kiss.
Speaker 4 (10:41):
You know, this is one of the things, Molly that
I find fascinating about pardon palooza. So we're killing people
in speed boats down in Verslila and in the Pacific.
Speaker 1 (10:52):
That's because they might have drugs. So they also might
have fished.
Speaker 4 (10:56):
They hypothetically might have conceivably had drugs, but they weren't
going to the US. They were going to Surinam. But
you know, we might kill him anyway.
Speaker 1 (11:03):
We plan got a distretch from the Ebstein files.
Speaker 4 (11:07):
Yep, we pardon the president of Honduras, who is serving
federal time for engaging in massive cocaine smuggling and ventnol
smuggling into America because Roger Stone, that degenerate fop weirdo
miracle of phrenology, takes Trump a letter that he clearly
wrote like Imperial Lord Trump, I love the he Pardons
(11:28):
Chuair for whatever reason. I don't know if somebody said, hey,
maybe he'll switch or maybe we've got a deal, and
then turned around and screwed them. But if he did
turn around and screw them, I salute him for that,
honestly mad props game nos game brother.
Speaker 1 (11:42):
Well you know who doesn't salute him me? Do you
know who is not happy with this development?
Speaker 4 (11:48):
Donald John Trump?
Speaker 1 (11:49):
He had a truth today which was then, you know
it's an important truth because Rapid Response forty seven then
tweeted it so we could happen.
Speaker 4 (12:00):
Rapid Response forty seven in cell weirdo, who's taking doing
that from curating his anime doll collection.
Speaker 1 (12:09):
He is real mad. And there are a lot of
words that are capitalized in this very long capitalized but
I'm going to read you sort of the the highlights.
Will you were treated so badly? Explanation point. I signed
the papers and said to the people in the Oval
office that I did a very good job saving things God,
(12:33):
was he happy that day? Then it happened explanation point.
Explanation point. Only a short time after signing the pardon,
Congressman Henrykiler announced that he will be running for Congress.
He puts running in quotes in the great State of
Texas as a Democrat.
Speaker 4 (12:52):
Donald's mad.
Speaker 1 (12:53):
Now, such a lack of loyalty. Explanation point. Oh well,
next time, no more, mister night Sky. Explanation point. And
it's signed President Donald J. Trump.
Speaker 4 (13:05):
No, thank you for your attention to this matter.
Speaker 3 (13:06):
That would have been it official.
Speaker 1 (13:08):
I do enjoy a thank you for your attention to
this matter. But I think that the point here is
that my man is a mobster.
Speaker 4 (13:18):
And so I guess the correct analysis of Donald Trump
is that he is a crime boss. Yeah, there's no
alternate analysis of it. There's no there's no secondary analysis
of it. Everything he does is motivated by graft and
greed and scamming and making money.
Speaker 1 (13:36):
It's quid pro it's quid pro.
Speaker 4 (13:39):
Do, it's you know, the whole thing is the guy
is just absolutely yo. Quid pro yo works too, But
the whole thing is just absolutely flagrantly corrupt at every turn.
And there's nothing about this raft of pardons he's been
doing that in any way has anything to do with justice.
They're all criminals. I mean, he's partnering all these cyber
(14:02):
bros who were literally in business with his sons.
Speaker 1 (14:05):
There's a graph that shows that Donald Trump has partnered
more than a thousand people. This is like about ten times.
Speaker 4 (14:13):
Well, it's like sixteen hundred if you count.
Speaker 1 (14:16):
Yeah, so if you count to January, sixth rioters, which
is hundreds of people that he also partned. I think
there are a number of important reasons to talk about
pardon Beluza, but the biggest of which is that he
is clearly running some kind of situation here where he's
partning people.
Speaker 4 (14:36):
Listen, they were doing it in the last in the
end of the last administration into the last Trump administration,
where Matt Slapp and Rogerstone are all these other guys
and Gates were going to Trump and getting these pardons
for people, and there was reporting at the time that
cash was changing hands, and I nothing would surprise me
less than this being a pay to play.
Speaker 1 (14:57):
Jesse has brought up a really important point, and then
I want to talk about the problem Republicans find themselves
in which I think you'll appreciate. Jesse has a quote
from George Stefanopolos. He is interviewing Eric Schmidt. You may
remember Eric Schmidt. He is the senator from Missourra, Missura. Yep,
he says Stephanoppolos, and I think this is really the
(15:20):
thing that everyone needs to ask Republican senators. And I
think it gets me to another thing I want to
talk about, which is Stephanoppolos says, do you support this
pardon of the former Hondurian Hondoran president? And the senator says,
I'm not familiar.
Speaker 4 (15:35):
This is the twenty twenty five equivalent of I didn't
read the tweet. Remember in the first administration, that was
always well, I didn't see the tweet. Whenever Trump would
say something horrible or racist or insane, I didn't see
the tweet. Now it's I'm not familiar with the details
of that case. The Senate in particular has been an
embarrassment about holding Trump to account because they have a
relatively greater amount of political power to do so. The
(15:58):
House is just, you know, the House is what it is.
I do find it kind of amazing that even somebody
as dull witted as Eric Schmidt thinks he can get
away and fool people that this is somehow not missed
it lavish corruption that he's completely aware about.
Speaker 1 (16:15):
Now, I'm going to take you somewhere with this because
I think it's really important going on an event. We're
going on an Inventor. We see Republicans unable to separate
themselves from Trump because they're scared of Trump. But as
Trump gets to be more and more kryptonite, they find
(16:35):
themselves in a problem. And I'd love you to talk
about that because, like I feel like we see people
illustrate this. Like here's Stephonic fighting with Mike Johnson, obviously
trying to show that she's like could be a normal
bluestate Republican. Right, talk us through what's happening here.
Speaker 4 (16:55):
Look to bifurcate that question. Let me do at least
really quickly. She is going to desperately try to be again.
She's going to try to reclaim her normy kred. Watch
what happens. She'll be all of a sudden back like oh,
I was at the Harvard Institute of Politics. I have
mem Romney, I work for George Book. You watch what
she does. It will not work. Kathy Hockel may not
(17:15):
be a the you know, America's favorite governor or New
York's favorite governor. But if it's twice beeing Kathy Hockel
and elis staphonic. The Gretchen Wieners of American politics, at
least define is going to get blown out. She cannot
move to the center. There's no getting there. The video
of her talking about Trump over and over and over
and over again, it's the quotes that launched ten thousand ads.
(17:40):
As for the rest of these guys, there was a
stat out the other day about the twenty six districts
where they are the most vulnerable Republicans and of those
twenty six, twenty one of them vote with Trump one
hundred percent of the time. That is psychotic, that is
not that doesn't happen. Ever, Barack Obama didn't have Democrats
vot with him one hundred percent of the time. Well,
(18:02):
Clinton didn't have Democrats voting with him shit sixty percent
of the time. This is insane. It is not a
sign of a strong party. It's a sign of a brittle,
weak party that is so afraid of losing a primary.
Because Trump has a mean tweet about them, that they're
going to strap themselves to the sky and they're going
to ride the burning wreckage all the way down. They
(18:23):
can't get away from him. And if they break from him, remember.
Speaker 1 (18:27):
Take him down.
Speaker 4 (18:28):
There's nothing Trump hates more. Trump doesn't even hate Democrats.
There's nothing he hates more than a Republican who doesn't
obey him.
Speaker 1 (18:35):
Is that true? Rick, tell me more? No, fail, you're
speaking from personal experience here.
Speaker 4 (18:41):
I am, indeed, but this is a long running pattern
with Trump. He has more hostility toward apostate Republicans or
anyone who would dream of opposing him from his own party,
than he does for the most liberal Democrats. You know,
In fact, you saw this with the mondami on Donnie Trump,
you know, sat there feeling weirdly conflicted about Mondamie in
(19:03):
the Oval office because he likes game, game, knows game.
But he with Republicans. His favorite hobby is to humiliate
the ones that kiss his ass and then deviate even
in the slightest little bit. That's why he's going after,
you know, not only the mtgs, but he'll start going
after these other people and their consultants. I know this
(19:23):
for a fact. I spoke to a Republican polster who
handle's House and Senate and governor's races about ten days
ago now most just after Thanksgiving, so call it ten
days ago, who told me, Yeah, we're trying to find
a way. We're trying to find something to split off
on that they won't kill us over. And it's really hard.
Speaker 1 (19:42):
And here's the problem is as Trump does less and less, well,
like you need him to turn out low frequency voters
because he's alienating the indies.
Speaker 4 (19:54):
Right, the Independents are now basically fifty to twenty against Trump.
So that's insane, by the.
Speaker 1 (20:02):
Way, right, So you're alienating the indies. Dems are not
going to vote for you. You're splitting apart Republicans and
that See, that's one of the other things I want
to talk about because I think the reason Donald Trump
went after ilhan Omar this weekend that was another thing
you did, was because he cannot get any traction on anything,
so he things back to the base.
Speaker 4 (20:23):
I thing it's working for him, Molly nothing, I mean
everything he has tried in the last I mean real talk,
since Epstein, since since since Pam Bondi gave that statement,
we're not going to release anything, and there's no there
there blah blah blah. Nothing Trump has done since that
point has lasted more than about three or four days. Now.
(20:45):
Sometimes he'll get a story tear down the White House
East Wing the last three or four days. Sometimes you'll
get a story like the like the last week on
Ukraine stuff, three or four days, two or three days.
But nothing changes the subject forever. Like it used to
the center of gravity with Trump. He used to blow
up the media cycle and then the next center of
(21:07):
gravity was whatever the next media cycle was for him,
whatever he blew up next. But now he blows up
the media cycle. Then it's back to Epstein.
Speaker 3 (21:14):
Right.
Speaker 1 (21:15):
They used to say he was the assignment editor. Remember that,
Oh yeah, for sure, for sure.
Speaker 4 (21:21):
And look, I do think to get back to these
Republican candidates, all of them know what's happening. Their consultants
right now are are looking for the timing of when
they break with Trump and hoping it won't kill off
turnout when they break with Trump. And so we're going
to see a lot of these guys after their primaries
are over in the spring or early summer, say, man,
(21:44):
I really wish the president would do something different on
tariffs because they won't be murdered at that point. But
it's going to be too late.
Speaker 1 (21:51):
It's a Tom Tillis thing, right. We see Tom Tilli's
breaking with Trump because he's not running again. We see,
you know. But I want to go to why we
can keep going back to Epstein, because I have a
theory and I want to talk to you about it.
The reason that we keep going back to Epstein is
because the Democrat, the ranking member of Oversight, keeps releasing
(22:13):
stuff Epstein, and he keeps releasing stuff about Epstein because
he's a young guy, right, He's a young, competent guy.
His name is Robert Garcia. I talk about him a lot.
I talk about oversight a lot because when you're not
in power, you have very few things you can do.
(22:33):
And one of the very few things that Democrats can
do right now is message Epstein. Oversight has this power
to subpoena. They subpoena the estate. If Jerry Connolly, we're
still the head of Oversight.
Speaker 4 (22:47):
Don't even start, it would be a disaster.
Speaker 1 (22:50):
He died because Democratic leadership was scared to tell him
he couldn't have the job, so they gave him the job,
even though he was sick and he was having treatment
for cancer and was in his late seventies. He died
and Garcia's at the job.
Speaker 4 (23:06):
This is the classic crisis management problem.
Speaker 3 (23:09):
You know.
Speaker 4 (23:10):
I've helped corporate clients, political clients for thirty years deal
with crises, and when you're in it on your own,
it's never as easy as it looks on the outside.
But there are rules every time in a crisis management situation.
Get the truth out, no matter how much it hurts
in the short term. Drip drip, drip is always worse
for you in the end than one big reveal. The
(23:32):
second part of it is go out and say what
you're going to do to reform yourself and your process
and your company. Trump can't release this stuff for a
host of reasons, both about himself and about some of
his donors, and about people he likes, and about people in.
Speaker 1 (23:46):
The corporate world.
Speaker 4 (23:47):
And he can't reform himself. He doesn't care about human trafficking.
He doesn't care to happen to the victims of Epstein
and Maxwell. And the final part of any crisis like
this is you have to learn from You have to
behave in a different way in the future. You can't
just say we're going to reform in this way. You
have to show, you have to walk the walk, and
he can never do that. He is He is an old, sick,
(24:11):
cruel guy with a lifelong history of abusing women in
various capacities and manners, much of which we know about
from the legal record, much of what you know about
from the from the divorce record, from the social record,
from this, from from his long behavioral pattern. He even
if he was still healthy, he couldn't change. And now
(24:31):
they're stuck with him, and they're stuck with this. Republicans
own this crisis.
Speaker 1 (24:36):
So Marjorie Taylor Green says that she talks to Donald Trump,
and Donald Trump says, you don't want the Epstein files
released because it's going to hurt a lot of people
who cares, but also who he's going too hard.
Speaker 3 (24:50):
Yeah.
Speaker 4 (24:51):
There, answer is it's going to hurt people that Trump
has political and financial relationships with. We know some of
the tick tick tick on. This will end up implicating
people that are in business and politics and media, and
it's going to burn some people to the ground that
he likes. It's going to hurt him, right, I mean criminal, Well,
(25:15):
probably a more criminal exposure than he does, right for sure.
Speaker 1 (25:18):
And they're Republican donors and some of them may even
be Democratic donors. And honestly, who cares because getting after
people who do SAZ child sex trafficking is a nonpartisan activity.
Speaker 4 (25:30):
Yeah, and listen, I will say this, I have you know,
I'm I'm when when Democrats screw up, I will tell
them they're screwing up. But they have been very good
about this about saying let the chips fall where they may,
let it roll. I don't see Democrats out there saying, well,
we want to we don't want to hurt anybody on arm.
They don't they're doing The Democrats are doing the correct
(25:51):
thing here by saying fuck it if Bill Clinton's in
the file, Bill Clinton's in the file, Oh well yeah,
And that's the right way to approach it. But Trump
clearly is picking and choosing. Now, I want to ask
you a question because I had somebody that they asked
me a friend of mine. I said to me, he goes,
do you think Trump is going through this material and
going to some of these corporate people that are in
(26:12):
there and basically blackmailing them?
Speaker 3 (26:14):
I don't.
Speaker 1 (26:16):
It really shocked me.
Speaker 4 (26:17):
I don't have any evidence of that, but I wanted
to get your thought on that, because, I mean, if
he had the files in front of him, Trump.
Speaker 1 (26:23):
Is never doing three dimensional chess no, so it's hard
for me to imagine that he's doing something like that, Like, sure,
would that make sense? Absolutely? Do I think he's doing it?
Probably not. I just think he's not that organized. I
think like largely what this crew does is try to
is just like react to problems, right. I don't you know, like,
(26:48):
do I think he's not firing people because it was
why he had so many leaks the first time around? Yes?
Do I think he liked gave Heggs at that job
because he liked the way he looked on television? And yes,
do I think that E's Like No, I think they
you know, they have it somewhere. They're like, we're never
releasing it. I mean, look, I have a very smart
(27:10):
straight journalist friend who said they're gonna just release and
release and release, but only stuff on Democrats, right, But
I don't actually think so. I think they're just going
to try not to release any of it for as
long as they can.
Speaker 4 (27:21):
I think I think this the stonewall tactic is going
to last through the election, then they're gonna and I.
Speaker 1 (27:27):
Think they're just gonna be like sue Us. I just
think they're gonna be like sue Us, fuck you. Like
that's the thing. It's like Trump is not putin. There's
like a temptation. Like I was thinking about this because
I was thinking, like when they went after Komi, I
was thinking, like they're gonna just create some crimes, like
the way Russia does. You know, they're gonna like put
(27:50):
something on his hard drive and be like you did this.
They're not smart like that whatever. For whatever reason, they're not,
so they don't do stuff like that. They just are like,
we're gonna go after him for long to the FBI
because he said because of Eli and it's like such
a convoluted thing that you can't so so I don't
think that. And I mean, like a great example is
last week when they were trying to get this indictment
(28:12):
and they just couldn't get the indictment on Tiss James
because they just didn't have anything and they kept trying.
You know, they're just not so good. I mean, thank god,
they're not so good at that.
Speaker 4 (28:20):
I was just gonna say that we should all be
relieved by that knowledge. And and we you know, and
if you're on the victim list, if you're if you're
on the Epstein victim list, those people really want answers,
they want more stuff, release, they want accountability. And it
just goes back again. Anytime these people in Trump universe
say it's all about the children and we're protecting victims
(28:41):
from traffickers, it's all a lie.
Speaker 1 (28:43):
Yeah, it's it's never ever, ever about the children.
Speaker 4 (28:49):
No, no, it really never is, never is.
Speaker 1 (28:52):
Thank you, Rick Wilson.
Speaker 4 (28:54):
You are as always welcome. I look forward to seeing
you next week.
Speaker 1 (29:00):
Tim Wu is a former Special Assistant to the President
and a professor of law at Columbia University and the
author of the Age of Extraction, How tech platforms conquered
the economy and threaten our future prosperity. Welcome to past politics, Tim,
it's great to be here. We're just going to start
(29:22):
went wrong with the Internet.
Speaker 3 (29:25):
That's a good question.
Speaker 5 (29:26):
Basically, we thought that we could trust everybody that they
were going to help make everybody rich, and instead they
made themselves rich. The owners and founders of the big
platforms I think basically go back the nineties that was
the promise. It was going to be like this technology
that empowered everyone, made ever pretty rich, to everything for everybody.
Speaker 3 (29:47):
But it ended up making a very narrow group rich.
Speaker 1 (29:50):
That's all went wrong. A senator who is now very
mad at me I was once at his book party
and he said, there is no fact checking on the internet.
Speaker 3 (30:00):
I think that we thought that was going to be
a good thing.
Speaker 5 (30:02):
I mean a lot of my new book, Age of Extraction,
is about like the promises of the nineties, early thousands,
the dream, you know.
Speaker 3 (30:09):
To blame us a little.
Speaker 5 (30:10):
Bit, I think we believe that if everyone could sort
of have a soapbox and say whatever they wanted all
the time, that like something beautiful would come out of
that and pure. And I guess something could come out
of it, but I'd to have trouble describing it as beautiful,
pure creature of innocence.
Speaker 1 (30:26):
In any which way. So let's talk about where we
are right now. Because I used to spend all my
time worrying about AI, but I've now focused back to
just worrying about how America survives having no local reporting,
which is another favorite worry of mine. There is clearly
a problem. They cannot be solved with substack, cannot be
(30:47):
solved with X, cannot be solved with blue sky, which
is reporting is the only way we know to keep
power and check. We are in a reported catastrophe at
this moment, right The people who have the money to
pay for the reporting, you know, the elon must of
the world, are not very interested in accountability. So is
(31:11):
this it for the fall of the Roman Empire? I mean,
is there a way to reverse this trajectory?
Speaker 3 (31:16):
There is?
Speaker 5 (31:17):
I mean, I think there's a tony of money in
the system. It just goes in all the wrong places,
if that makes sense. Yeah, Like I was one of
the chapters in my new book, I talk about this
one product of Amazon's, you know, the when you search
on Amazon for like any old product and you get
those weird sponsored results and like you can't really figure
out what you really want.
Speaker 3 (31:35):
Well, just from that.
Speaker 5 (31:36):
Little little gimmick, Amazon makes fifty six billion dollars last year,
which is more than double of all the newspaper income
of every newspaper on the planet Earth. So in a way,
you could have like that little thing, or you could
triple the number of newspapers not in the United States,
in the world and like somehow we just accepted the
idea that there's the enormous extraction platforms. They don't pay
(31:59):
any tax, they don't support anything. They occasionally buy something,
you know, like Bezos bought the Post, I guess.
Speaker 1 (32:05):
And now he's killing it because foam parties. I mean,
he just lost interest in democracy.
Speaker 3 (32:11):
Yeah.
Speaker 5 (32:11):
Oh, they just turned it into a platform. I mean,
at some point there was this whole like, let's not
be mister nice guy anymore. Let's just like turn this
newspaper into my mouthpiece, or let's I mean the case.
I guess Elon Musk was the first with buying Twitter
and just saying, all right, this is going to be
my personal thing to make conspiracy theories mainstream. So there's
a huge amount of money in the system. Like that's
(32:33):
the craziest thing. We are living in a period where
there's just tons of money. There's lots of it's all
all there, but we don't tax it. It like occasionally
gets given to charity, or it gets used for pet
projects and to make people really wealthy. So there is
way more than enough money support any of the kind
of broadcasting anything you could want. He was a number
of systems you could choose. You could be more like
(32:54):
the Germans, like the British, like anything, but somehow we're
doing none of it.
Speaker 1 (32:58):
So tell me how we fix the Internet.
Speaker 3 (33:00):
Good question.
Speaker 5 (33:01):
I think we have to decide that some of the
big platforms are like utilities in our time and they
get to take some money.
Speaker 3 (33:08):
But no more.
Speaker 1 (33:08):
You want to socialize the platforms. No, that was a
little mean. What I mean is you want some government
involvement with platform private public kind of situation.
Speaker 3 (33:18):
Well, no, I want to control them like utilities.
Speaker 5 (33:21):
I don't think government would like necessarily run like Amazon
that well you know, we end up more like post office.
But I do think they should limit how much Amazon takes,
like just say like, okay, you get thirty percent, like
the electric company. We don't say lectric company, Okay, you
know you have a great product, charge whatever the hell
you want.
Speaker 3 (33:38):
It's like there's some kind of limits.
Speaker 5 (33:39):
So I think we need to find the places that
they're like utilities and say that's how much money you get.
Speaker 3 (33:44):
No more so that the rest of us, and I
think they should pay some taxes.
Speaker 1 (33:47):
Give me this sort of broad sweep of why you
are the person to make this case?
Speaker 5 (33:52):
Okay, So I worked in Silicon Valley back. I guess
in the dot com era, that actually created a certain
level of of distrust of the place. Give me why,
I think because everyone needs to be a multimillionaire and billionaire,
even though they also talk about wanting to help the public.
So in other words, I feel like there was a
(34:13):
lot of I guess immaturity in the sense of, Okay,
we need to help everybody do this, run this thing
like a charity.
Speaker 3 (34:19):
I'm thinking of early Google.
Speaker 5 (34:20):
But we got to make huge amounts of money too,
and like these things are never going to conflict with
each other. It's like, you know, twenty year old logic.
When do you think you can stay up all night
and then also like be fine the next day. It
has a lot of that kind of thing.
Speaker 1 (34:31):
They're hypocrites too.
Speaker 5 (34:33):
When I worked, there was a fair amount of just
straight out lying, which I found difficult about our products.
It was sort of more normalized and yeah, so that
made me more cynical. I mean, I think back then
I was still much more believer than I am now.
I think it's when they just got big that I
started to lose faith. I worked there, I've worked in
the federal government for the Supreme Court. I worked for
(34:55):
the White House twice, Obama and Biden and Festerer Columbia
and I have basically tried to reboot the anti monopoly
movement with like Lena Khan and a few others Jonathan
Caanter have been trying to reboot anti monopoly.
Speaker 3 (35:07):
That's the other thing.
Speaker 5 (35:08):
I think we got to break these guys up, Like
it's absurd just to have this level of monopoly extraction
from a country that claims to be free.
Speaker 1 (35:15):
Well what that look like, because we talk about brigant monopolies,
but just like nuts and balts, give me an example
of what that would look like and how you would
do it.
Speaker 3 (35:24):
I mean a good example. Ship has saled a little
bit of this.
Speaker 5 (35:28):
But you know the fact that Google not only a
search engine but then also owns like the browser, the
main browser also is trying to dominate AI.
Speaker 3 (35:37):
You know.
Speaker 5 (35:37):
I just think it should be a bunch of different units.
I think Amazon should be a marketplace. It's an amazing marketplace,
but shouldn't be selling in competition with its own you know,
its own sellers. So you would sort of ban Amazon
Amazon sales, Facebook, you would spin off WhatsApp and Instagram
and make those separate companies.
Speaker 3 (35:55):
It just have more like, you know, more separation. Competition, Yeah,
more competition.
Speaker 5 (35:59):
It's kind of crazy that there are just really three
or four giant companies who all kind of think the
same way.
Speaker 3 (36:05):
And it's really kind of not the American way. I'll
put it that way.
Speaker 1 (36:08):
What would you do about Section two thirty? I need
you to explain to our listeners. Just give us what
it is, how it's used, and how it could imagining
it as something better.
Speaker 3 (36:19):
All right.
Speaker 5 (36:20):
So Section two thirty was passed in the nineties to
be kind of a shield or an immunity for what
were then tiny little tech companies who were struggling and
threatened by the possibility of being sued for things. And
the idea was, for example, you know back then, demone,
do you remember AOL?
Speaker 3 (36:39):
Is that like?
Speaker 1 (36:40):
No, of course I remember. I mean I am that ault.
Speaker 5 (36:44):
So AOL like had millions of chat rooms and invariably
there was like crazy things being said, and the idea was, well,
if AOL is responresponsible every single thing that someone says
in any single chat room, like, the whole Internet will collapse.
And so all and a bunch of other people lobby,
and they say, okay, we're going to get a blanket
immunity to like most state laws for defamation and you know,
(37:06):
anything else we do wrong, we're kind of going to
be immune. So they have this sort of special immunity.
I will note that like newspapers radio shows do not
have it. Like if a newspaper says so and so
is a criminal beats his wife something like that, that's defamation,
has a dread disease, whatever. But they've been kind of immune.
So I think that was okay in the early days
they were tiny, but more and more the tech companies
(37:28):
are kind of deciding what you should see. Like they're big.
They are in the game of presenting information. They become
part of the media, but they have none of the
media's duties. I guess the idea is, you know, I
think it's pretty simple. It's like, okay, if you're going
to be AOL, fine, But if you're going to be
like YouTube and you're feeding people a steady diet of
like hate crimes and insanity and then they go off
(37:50):
and do something, or if you like Eric exposing children
to like suicide videos, and you're like, I'm sorry, I
guess and you're the one who sent it at them,
and then.
Speaker 3 (37:58):
You're like, oh, you know, well, the Internet's crazy place.
Sorry about that.
Speaker 5 (38:03):
I don't think that goes anymore. So the overarging principle
is like, we're not asking for a lot. I mean,
even what I'm saying here, we've done nothing to kind
of control the power of big tech, nothing at all.
It's been twenty five years. There's some of the most
powerful companies in history. If you compare us to like
Standard Oil, compare it to the fifties General Motor, whatever
you want to compare it to, we have a lopsided
(38:24):
system which is out of whack with any point in
American history at this point. And I guess I was
starting to say this ten years ago, and it's gotten
worse and worse and worse. And if we don't do something,
I feel our politics will get crazier and more violent,
which is already happening.
Speaker 1 (38:38):
The goal here is that these platforms would have the
same legal constraints the newspaper might or a publishing house might.
Speaker 3 (38:48):
Let mean, yes, that's in section two theories.
Speaker 5 (38:50):
What I would say more, particularly if we want to
get down the nitty gritty, is I would say that
when they promote or show you content that they own it.
They can't get away, you know, if they if they're
the ones who are promoting something onto your feed, that
that's their responsibility. If that ends up being you know,
accompliced to a crime or defamation or something like that,
that they start to own it once they're involved.
Speaker 3 (39:11):
But I think it's broader than that.
Speaker 5 (39:12):
I just think we have a general scheme now thirty
years old, where we immunize tech companies from most laws,
almost all taxation, and you know, various other things that
we use to control power to Section two thirty is
a part of a much larger trend of just saying,
you guys get to live in a different country more
or less called Silicon Valley where the laws of the
(39:33):
United States do not apply.
Speaker 1 (39:35):
So is tech tobacco? Is tech oil? Are those one
to ones?
Speaker 5 (39:41):
No, because those other industries are much more subject to laws.
Speaker 3 (39:46):
And have been much less successful. I mean tobacco's an example.
Speaker 5 (39:49):
Eventually tobacco started to become under public influence and responsibility
and eventually started losing something. No one has laid a
glove on big tech. The Europeans maybe a little, but
it's just this kind of completely I guess sovereign industry unaccountable.
I think they believe themselves now kind of by their
(40:10):
very nature, to be superhumans who are beyond mere democratic control.
So why well, if you go and spend a lot
of time in Silicon Valley like thinking, I think they
have the almost religious belief that technology is taking us
towards some kind of nirvana, and so if you mess
with it, you're evil. So that's why, if that makes sense,
(40:32):
I think there's an entire religious mindset that goes along
with it. I was reading one of Mark Andreessen, he's
this well known VC investor. Oh yes, and he said,
artificial intelligence saves lives, and we need to get superhuman intelligence.
So if you decelerate it or get in the way,
you are basically guilty of murder. Because I was like,
that's a lot.
Speaker 3 (40:53):
That's a lot.
Speaker 5 (40:54):
If you don't pay your taxes so the hospital doesn't
have money, are you then guilty of murder?
Speaker 1 (40:57):
I mean, I'm in you can say anything saying right,
that's the good thing about the Internet. It's nonsensical. So
I once had a different senator explain this to me.
I'm not sure it's right, but I'm not sure it's
wrong that the reason the Internet is so out of
control is because there's a low level grift happening with
(41:21):
senators where you know, meta employees, the daughters of a
very important United States senator crypto donates to a lot
of Republicans and Democrats. That the money is just too
free flowing to our politicians, and that's how we got
here or that's how we stay here. Is that correct?
And if so, how do you stop it? And if not,
(41:43):
what is so?
Speaker 3 (41:45):
I think there's some truth to that.
Speaker 5 (41:46):
In the Biden administration, we tried to pass what would
seem like very easy laws to pass, like protection of
children's privacy, protection of children against violent and horrible materials,
basic privacy for all, Like things that you would imagine
if they ever got to the Senate floor or House
floor would pass Nearian Nasley could never ever get a vote,
(42:08):
and no one would ever say why.
Speaker 1 (42:10):
By the way, that is an insane thing to say.
I mean, I know it's true because I saw it
happen firsthand, But just think about how insane that is.
Speaker 5 (42:18):
Yes, things that like if you pulled Americans it's not
like Democrat, but probably ninety percent Americans think, you know,
children maybe should have more privacy online, like targeting you
know ads that like targeted marketing directing at children, probably
not the best idea, Like I don't maybe ninety nine
percent no votes?
Speaker 3 (42:34):
Why no votes?
Speaker 5 (42:36):
You know, it would always be the leader would somehow
like very murky, very secret, no votes.
Speaker 1 (42:43):
That was when Chuck Schumer was the majority leader.
Speaker 5 (42:45):
Yes, just interesting, no votes, never a vote somehow maybe
wait till they know, oh you know, we'll do it
next term, or yeah, you know we're going to get
to that, or I no votes and like that. That's
the real thing about It's not like somehow these things fail,
it's they get killed before the ever a vote. So
I kind of began to believe that it's just you know,
I do remember that there was one or two centers
(43:06):
leaning in our direction, and then they said they got
threats to Google just run ads against them in their primary.
Just just what doesn't care the content, you know, So yeah,
I think there's I think they want to hold the
whole political system.
Speaker 3 (43:17):
And the recent results speak for themselves.
Speaker 5 (43:19):
They had no votes on any tech relating technology for
the last twenty years. That's something in the late nineties,
no votes on anything, not not no passage, no votes.
That's where a lot of hearings, a lot of performative
yelling and like bring them in and give them a
hard time.
Speaker 1 (43:33):
Well, they see how popular it is. They just don't
want to pass legislation.
Speaker 5 (43:37):
Yes, they want to vote, but they do want to
like yell at people and like say, I, you know,
gave Mark Zuckerberg a really hard time about this stuff.
Speaker 1 (43:44):
Kristen Cinema, one of the many senators who was against
tech regulation now lobbying for data farms.
Speaker 3 (43:54):
Yeah, it's a good example.
Speaker 5 (43:55):
I mean, I think it's very clear in the DC
that if you are on kind of tech side, you
can expect a nice, easy, multimillion dollar year job. We
don't have to do much ever, occasionally have a meeting
and you know, kind of coast and if you don't
take their side, then you can work in a think tank,
you know, or whatever.
Speaker 3 (44:15):
Or trying to get a nonprofit job.
Speaker 5 (44:17):
But they just kind of it's kind of like almost
like bribery in advance.
Speaker 3 (44:22):
Does that make sense, Like it's it's not.
Speaker 5 (44:24):
Yeah, And that kind of hangs over people's heads and
they decide, well, do I want to get my I mean,
I got myself out of that game, and it was
never sort of made. I guess that he came clear
to me when I was starting get that disinvited from parties,
subtle job offers started to go away. So, yeah, you
cross some line and you're out. And I guess she
read the tea leaves and decided she wanted to have
(44:44):
a cushy job for the rest of her life and
make millions in doing nothing, which is kind of what
she was doing the Senate too, but not making the
same amount of money.
Speaker 1 (44:54):
We laugh, not because it's funny, but to keep from crying.
I think that yeah, there is definitely we are clearly
cross to rubicon. So if you are listening to this,
sort of give us, because I'm so upset, now give
us a sort of call to action.
Speaker 5 (45:11):
I think a lot of the stuff starts with children's stuff,
Like the path towards a lot of responsibility for big
industries starts with children's stuff. So I think, you know,
at some point the pressure to protect children becomes unbarrel.
I would agree and write, you know, and try to
shame your elected representatives support child protection legislation.
Speaker 3 (45:30):
I think from there you build other legislation. I'm a little.
Speaker 5 (45:33):
Cynical because I've wasted huge amounts of my time trying
to get these stupid bills fast. I think you also
have to get elected representatives off the fence where they
just kind of occasionally complain about things but avoid the
votes or the pressure being serious about wealth.
Speaker 3 (45:49):
And balance in our time. I mean, it's problem for
the Democratic Party in some ways.
Speaker 5 (45:52):
The Publican Party can even be a little more open
about it all. They are also very subject to their
own becoming captured and just starting complain about conservatives.
Speaker 3 (46:01):
So those are my call the actions.
Speaker 5 (46:03):
Don't let your representatives just be lazy on these issues
and get away with it. And you know, more generally,
I think we can turn the ship around. I think
the United States has at its greatest periods of being
tested responded in the progressive era, New Deal era. We
just need people, I don't care you vote for, who
actually pledge to do things and then actually do them,
because i we just elect some people who really do
(46:25):
not are not able somehow to let votes happen in Congress,
and we just let things happen at all, and we're
stuck there, and you know, some of the other stuff
is a distraction. We need to deal with the incredible
wealth and balances in our time, and people who get
distracked from that, I think are taking us away from
the real problem in our in our times.
Speaker 1 (46:44):
Tim. I hope he'll come back.
Speaker 3 (46:46):
It's been a pleasure anytime.
Speaker 1 (46:50):
No, no, Rick Wilson, Yes, you know what time it is.
It's fuckeray time, It's fuck great time. Rick Wilson, Do
you do you have a moment of fuckery?
Speaker 4 (47:01):
I have probably what is like the pinnacle of the
moments of fuckery for a long time, and that is
Steve Whitkoff and Jared Kushner privately negotiating with Putin, and
by that I mean taking bribes from Putin, and by
that I mean being paid off by Putin, and by
that I mean serving as Putin's dirty little whos in
order to part out and break up Ukraine. The Russians
finally have figured out their best negotiating strategy, and that
(47:23):
is to bribe Donald Trump through Jared the bagman of
the family, and to bribe Donald Trump through Stephen Whitkoff,
who they have been negotiating using the Russia's plan to
parcel up Ukraine. And to kill it off. They're not negotiators,
they're undertakers. The bad faith that's going on here is astounding.
I was told that the Ukrainian hearing or the Ukrainian
(47:43):
meeting over the weekend with Ukrainian delegation was essentially Rubio
and others insulting them, saying, fuck you, take the deal,
or we'll leave you, or you're gon, We're gonna leave
you out to dry. And they go into Putin's office
with the Golden knee pads on and leave with sacks
of cash, either physically or more metaphor. It is unbelievably
insanely corrupt. Witcoff now has been reported we have his
(48:06):
voice on tape released by European Intelligence Service. We have
Witcocks saying I'm gonna teach you how to manipulate Trump
so we can keep Trump on your side. Yes, listen,
a prosecutor about five minutes out of law school could
indict that motherfucker for espionage and treason. It is insane,
and I think there's no circle of hell hot enough
for those two guys.
Speaker 1 (48:27):
For wit Coffin, Kushner, Rick Wilson, thank you all.
Speaker 3 (48:31):
We'll see you next week.
Speaker 1 (48:32):
That's it for this episode of Fast Politics. Tune in
every Monday, Wednesday, Thursday, and Saturday to hear the best
minds and politics make sense of all this chaos. If
you enjoy this podcast, please send it to a friend
and keep the conversation going. Thanks for listening.
Host
Molly Jong-Fast
Popular Podcasts
Las Culturistas with Matt Rogers and Bowen Yang
Ding dong! Join your culture consultants, Matt Rogers and Bowen Yang, on an unforgettable journey into the beating heart of CULTURE. Alongside sizzling special guests, they GET INTO the hottest pop-culture moments of the day and the formative cultural experiences that turned them into Culturistas. Produced by the Big Money Players Network and iHeartRadio.
Crime Junkie
Does hearing about a true crime case always leave you scouring the internet for the truth behind the story? Dive into your next mystery with Crime Junkie. Every Monday, join your host Ashley Flowers as she unravels all the details of infamous and underreported true crime cases with her best friend Brit Prawat. From cold cases to missing persons and heroes in our community who seek justice, Crime Junkie is your destination for theories and stories you won’t hear anywhere else. Whether you're a seasoned true crime enthusiast or new to the genre, you'll find yourself on the edge of your seat awaiting a new episode every Monday. If you can never get enough true crime... Congratulations, you’ve found your people. Follow to join a community of Crime Junkies! Crime Junkie is presented by Audiochuck Media Company.
The Brothers Ortiz
The Brothers Ortiz is the story of two brothers–both successful, but in very different ways. Gabe Ortiz becomes a third-highest ranking officer in all of Texas while his younger brother Larry climbs the ranks in Puro Tango Blast, a notorious Texas Prison gang. Gabe doesn’t know all the details of his brother’s nefarious dealings, and he’s made a point not to ask, to protect their relationship. But when Larry is murdered during a home invasion in a rented beach house, Gabe has no choice but to look into what happened that night. To solve Larry’s murder, Gabe, and the whole Ortiz family, must ask each other tough questions.