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 the North Carolina GOP has centured Senator Tom Tillis for supporting LGBTQ rights.
We have a really interesting show today.
Flatformers Casey Newton talks to us about the increasingly bleak outlook for Twitter's financial future. Then we'll talk to las Cheris aired about her run against an anti choice state senator in the Virginia State House. But first we have Washington Post columnist and friend of the pod George Conway. Welcome back to Fast Politics, my fan favorite man of the hour and also person who just told me it was just like Donald Trump.
We'll talk about shit later.
This is bullshit, your friend of mine, George Conway, Let's.
Go okay, And you always say nice things about me, but the only reason why you have me on is you couldn't get anyone else.
It's not even true.
I am like the like, oh shit, we have twenty minutes to fill. No, I'm going to text Conway.
I'm telling you it's not true. And in fact, let me say.
Such great guests in the United States, I mean, you're George.
The thing is, it's hard to find someone who is a lawyer, very very smart, entertaining, and also knows all the players.
I don't know all the players.
You wish you didn't know all the players.
I was on CNN the other night and they brought in I guess it was Jim Trusty. I had no idea who he was. I had to leave, unfortunately, because I thought it would have been fun to kind of parry with him.
But Jim Trusty is now out right, he is now.
That was the night of the indictment when he was still going on TV kind of defending Trump but also incriminating him, and then the next morning he and the other guy resigned.
So let's talk about this first federal indictment ever of a president. First indictment of a president, right, I mean, there is nobody who else has gotten indicted of an ex president.
There's this guy, Donald J. Trump. He got indicted in New York.
Right, But I'm saying this is the first federal Yeah, first federal Yes, So we had the first state and that was.
Actually Donald Trump beat himself. He's the first and second president president, the third and fourth president to be indicted. I mean, it's really amazed. He's really just nobody. I mean, sir, you have, sir with tears in my eyes. I say, sir, no one.
But let's just talk about a second.
The first indictment was this Alvin Bragg indictment in New York State.
It was a little bit untested, right it was.
I mean, it's kind of a stormy case. So could go you know, it could go either way. They go, yes, stormy case. It's the stormy yes, but it.
Also involves Stormy rough Jemy Daniels. It's a New York state case that has a sort of federal tentacles, which he should have been brought as a would have been a better federal case correctly, and there is talk with the New York indictment that the first case about inflating asset value might have been a better case.
I am more complicated. It's very complicated. I mean, look, the thing about this case, the one that was just brought in Florida is I've always said that it represents the shortest distance between Donald Trump and Orange jumps here because it's a factually, I mean, they have a mountain of evidence. I mean, the volume of evidence is.
Forty seven pages photos.
It's a definitive evidence, so I mean, that's the only sort of hard thing that's sorting through all the evidence. But it's a very simple story and a very easy story to tell. It's like it's almost as easy as a nickel and dime drug bust case. The only kind of wrinkle, really, the only two wrinkles on it is that one is well three the amount of evidence it's
so strong, which is harmful to drump. The second is there are classified document procedures that are required to be followed in a case like this that make the case a little more complex to handle because you can't present the classified documents in open court, and the agencies had to review the documents to make sure that they're okay with even the limited use of the documents secretly on the court.
And we still don't know if those documents will be released, though the dj is asking for them to be released to the jury.
Really so they will. I think the way this is going to work is that those documents will be shown or described to the jury, but in a manner that does not reveal them to the public. The jurors as a matter, because they have to see the evidence. They are entitled to see the evidence. They don't need security clearances. The judges need of security clearance, but the prosecutors and every court official and all the defense lawyers of which he has none right now need to have security clearances.
And the third wrinkle is he got lucky on the draw and drew this judge who kind of helped him out the first time around when he brought a frivolous lawsuit to try to block the investigation or slow or he's she is.
The judge who appointed the Special Master, or Judge Eileen.
Cannon, and then got completely obliterated.
By the Eleventh Circuit, which is a conservative and.
The chief judge was on Trump shortlist for the Supreme Court. I mean, he's a great guy. I know him, and he's a very conservative judge, and he was Attorney General of Alabama and he was a friendly with Jeff Sessions on a Sessions ally. He is just he believes in the rule of law. And you could see that in that opinion that completely obliterated Judge Cannon's reasoning and appointing the Special Master.
So there is a fantasy out there that Judge Cannon could somehow be removed.
Is there a world in which that happens.
I think it's a low probability event. I mean it's possible, I don't think it's likely. I think there is a decent argument for it, because I think the way she handled the Special Master litigation was sufficiently lawless, as reflects did by the fact this conservative panel of the Eleventh Circuit.
So I mean they just completely, as I said, just obliterated her and castigated her, reasoning she was doing something there that those judges who, despite them being Conservatives or Republicans on the Court of Appeals, were doing, which is judging she was doing something other than what a federal judge is supposed to do, and that I think is a basis for recusal. That said, it's just I don't think she is going to do it, and I'm not sure that a Court of Appeals at this point, at
this stage would force her to do it. I think if she did anything remotely resembling what she did in the prior litigation, then you might see the prosecutors bring that if they can, before the Court of Appeals, and in the course of that ask the Court of Appeals in correcting whatever error she may make. In correcting whatever error she make. They could ask the Court of Appeals to reassign the case on remand to it judge.
But right, but that's miles away.
That's miles away that I would take a trip to Atlanta and back.
So right now, though Trump is looking for lawyers, can you explain to us what's happening there?
Yeah? I mean basically, Trump historically and traditionally has gone through lots of lawyers and lots of lawyers. Very few lawyers actually are dumb or corrupt enough to work for him. I mean he had I remember he actually asked me for advice and assistance in finding a lawyer for the Lawler investigation. And basically most of the lawyers he got in touch with refused to represent him. Some very very good lawyers and he was able to get a couple
of okay lawyers to help him. He went through the lawyers of the first appeachment, you didn't the second impeachment. You had this ragtag team of Bizarro from Bizarro World. And then for this investigation he had Alena Haba, the parking garage lawyer, where's the Halter tops or whatever?
Yeah, she's great, the one whose friends was rooting.
Well, no, that's the other one. That's Lindsay Halligan.
Wait, who's the parking That's no, this.
Is jenn Alena. That's another bad lawyer. Okay, there's jen Alice Alina Habba was the one originally handing the Egene Carol case and she has offices in Bedminster.
Yeah.
And then there's this other woman who's just like out of law school. But she oh, yes, very attractive. I believe very much Trump's type. And I don't mean that in any sexistlay. I just know.
I mean this is how Trump operates. This is not a comment on the women, but I'm Trump no.
Right, and she's got her. And the problem is all the lawyers are witnesses against it, and this re court for digital to Columbia, and before handling the grand jury, Supenas ordered these lawyers to test spot because you cannot use lawyers to conduct a crime or a fraud, and Trump was doing exactly that, and therefore the privilege dissipates the attorney client privilege. So basically, the only lawyers who weren't witnesses I think were these two guys who resigned
the day the indictment was unsealed. So he's got to find new lawyers. And not only does he needs to find good lawyers, he really needs to find lawyers with experience in handling classified document criminal litigation because there's a lot of knowledge on the procedures that you need to have.
And these lawyers also have to have security clearances, right, I mean, you can't just go drive out to West Palm Beach and find some lawyer who represents parking garages there and take her into federal court in Miami to litigate this case.
Even if she has the look did the television lawyer?
Look here, she's hot.
So now he's going to have to find those lawyers.
And yesterday he gave a speech he was should we be surprised at all?
Defiant?
He will never be, he will never quit, and he said something. There was a tweet by a journalist I respect who said it was breaking news, Trump will not with draw even if convicted. And my response to that was, that's not news. Now we know that we know exactly what Donald Trump's going to do. I mean, it's interesting that he finally went out and said it, but we know he wants to take as many people down with him if he has to go down as possible.
Right.
I was thinking, actually, when I was reading about that Georgia rally that he did, the eighty minute speech he did last night, I was thinking, to myself.
A lot of evidence in there. He keeps generating more evidence for Jacksmith, right.
And I was also thinking, to myself, this is exactly what George Conway said would happen. You, I said, this is exactly what he said would happen. He's going to destroy the Republican Party and perhaps the const with it, or.
Thinks that I've been saying that are going to happen, which I hope I'm wrong mostly right. A one which I have already right, and I'm glad that I'm right, is that he's going to be indicted multiple times. I think he's got at least one or two more annintments to go. The second is he's going to get the nomination anyway. I hope that doesn't happen, but I think I fear that it will. The third is, and I hope it doesn't happen, but he's certainly trying to do it,
is that he will foment violence. And the fourth is and I hope this does happen, is that he loses the general election, but at great cost to himself, his party, in possibly the country. So those are my predictions, and I hope I'm wrong. As the two, three and four. Oh and they also get pre trial release. He's going to get bail.
Oh, I mean, do you yeah? Of course, don't you think?
Yeah? So any I mean, I.
Wanted to ask you about this because I thought there was a moment after this indictment drop that felt like the moment after January sixth, where I thought, really detailed federal indictment.
Perhaps this is the moment.
And it did not happen, of course, because Republicans continue to offend him. But I was surprised at just how so South Dakota enitor Frank Rounds, who you never hear from the unprecedented action of indicting in federal court a former president who is also a current candidate for president cannot be taken lightly as it is inherently political and will have a lasting impact on our nation.
I mean, what the hell is going on here?
Man?
Like, It's one thing to see a Jim Jordan die on this hell, but Frank Rounds.
It's crazy, And I mean, they're basically two approaches that Republicans, most revolving women taking. One is they were criticizing the indictment before they even read it, right, And the other thing is that they're remaining silent. I mean, only very few people are out there banging the drumas saying this is bad and this shows that he's on fifth for office. I mean, like Chris Christy a little late in the day,
but yeah, good for him and Asa Hutchinson. But the rest of them are just cowards and they're doing something that's very harmful and dangerous the country because they are forsaking the rule of law for this one man. They would not hesitate, and they would be right if they did. If a Democratic president, if Hillary Clinton had done what this guy had done, and they talk about Hillary, but Hillary didn't do one one hundred thousand of what happened here.
If some Democrat or liberal had done one fifty of what Trump has been shown to have done in this indictment, with indisputable, irrefutable evidence, they would be calling for basically multiple life terms for that person and something they'd be right.
Right, No, I mean that's a problem. So I want to ask you, as we are now in this sort of the indictments out. People have read it. It's forty seven pages, it has these photos, it's very organized, it has a lot of details. Tuesday, he will go into the courthouse in Miami.
He will get he'll be a rained rain. I have to plead not guilty.
Sing.
Heil plead not guilty.
He'll go in with his lawyers.
Well, if if he has lawyers, he's still got to find lawyers with security clearances.
Right, because he can't have normal lawyers.
Right.
Well, I guess he could have somebody without a security clearance for the initial appearance in the arrangement, but to actually defend the case and look at the documents, which you'd have to do if you're conducting a competent defense, he's going to have to get somebody who's competent then has a security clearance. I don't know if he's going to be able to do that.
So that's sort of where we are. I mean, I'm sure he'll be able to do that. I'm sure he'll be able to find someone.
I think probably. I mean, he always managed to pull up somebody somewhere. But you got to say he's running out of options. He's got to be running out of options.
And this must also be getting very expensive.
Yeah, but remember this asshole raised a quarter of a billion dollars by lying about January sixth that he can use for his legal defense. So a quarter of a billion dollars he couldn't possibly spend that one formal defense. There's nothing, he has no defense, So what's there to spend money on? Okay, So then what do you think the timetable on this is. It's federal.
Jack Smith wants it to go quickly, but it could it's still probably going to be a year.
Right, Well, Look, a good judge, which we unfortunately it's not clear that we have, who understands the seriousness of the case and would realize that this has to be given priority for the sake of the country, for the people, and even for the defendant, and would give this case priority. And because of the security issues, you just can't have
this case drag out. And so a good judge, like if you had one of these judges in the District of Columbia who's familiar with classified document litigation, or in the Eastern District of Virginia and very smart type kind of judges that you have up there, or like the judge Egene Carrol had in her case Judge Lewis Kaplan, who was just extremely smart and very able and very
efficient and fast. You can get this case. I think the trial in a year or slightly less, right if the judge really just dealt quickly with pre trial motions and didn't put up with any bullshit and let things go up. If there were appeals, let them go up, and Appeals handles those quickly, which I think they will do because they did it in connection with the Special Master litigation where Judge Cannon was basically unceremoniously and brutally
reversed by a conservative panel Eleventh Circuit last year. I think that this case could be brought to Drash and Guy. I think that's the one problem. I think that's the biggest problem with the draw of the judge is that she has that power to slow things down if she chooses to exercise it in that way. I don't know what she's going to do. I don't really understand her thinking and what she did the last time around. I mean she has that's where her discretion is maximal. She
could slow this down. It wouldn't take pretty much because there's just gonna be a lot of pre trial motions, and the Trump people are going to do everything they can to slow it down because that's the only play. They don't actually have a substance of defense factually legally upon the merits.
One last question and then we're out of time.
Does this make Trump more likely to be the nomine I've thought.
That it might. I don't know that it does, because I do think there is a Trump fatigue that is also setting in among Republicans, even along more some of the diehard Republicans. So I think there are some people who are much more optimistic than I am, who think that people are going to get tired of this, and when they vote in the primaries in New Hampshire and the caucases in Iowa and the South Carolina primary, they're going to pull a curtain behind them and pull the
lever for somebody other than Donald Trump. But the problem there is you've got so many people running. I don't think there is anybody with the stature or the credibility among those people who have been besotted with lies from Trump and box news now for the better part of four to six years or more, who are going to sufficiently get behind one alternative that Trump could be defeated and Trump could win the nomination well less than fifty percent of the vote because it's designed to let the
front run or run away with it. So I think he probably will get the nomination. But I also think, and as I said, I think he's going to ferment violence. I do think he's going to do a lot of damage to himself and to the Republican Party and to the country and continuing his question for the presidency. But he will continue that question no matter what. Just like he said yesterday, thank you, Thank you, George Conway.
I really appreciate you.
Always a lot of fun. And call me the next time you can't find anyone else.
Would you stop.
Casey Newton is a reporter, platformer, and co host of the podcast hard Fork Welcome back to Fast Politics, Casey Newton him, Molly, very excited.
To have you here.
Thanks, excited to be back.
We're all going to be murdered by AI robots right.
Discuss to be determined, but I think the pace of development there is definitely cause for concern.
So explain that to me, because I can't figure out if I'm too worried or not worried enough.
I think it's honestly hard to tell. I think what we know is that these systems are getting better really quickly, and we don't have a great understanding of how they work. So we know some things about them, but they are improving at a rate that has surprised even some of the people who are working on them. And so the fear is that they will keep getting better at the current pace and at some point they'll just kind of
tip over into super intelligence. And if we don't really understand how they work, we might be at a disadvantage to them somehow.
Yeah, Oh, so that they could actually like they could actually just kill us.
I mean, they probably wouldn't just start killing us, you know, I mean instead of like sort of skipping all the way to that scenario. I think there are some other others in between, Yeah, Like I mean, for example, we know these things will be pretty good at spreading misinformation.
You'll be able to simulate an infinite number of propaganda campaigns and figure out which ones are the best at influencing a simulated group of people, and then you could take that sort of winner and use it in the real world, or another one that keeps a lot of AI safety experts up at night is what if these tools get really good at designing bioweapons and then all of a sudden, anyone with internet access can figure out
how to something like that. So there are a lot of steps along the road to AI annihilation that don't even really involve the AI creating killer robots. It's just about the tools that they will put into the hands of people.
Right, No killer robots is always good news, though there's certainly a lot to worry about there. I want to get to something else in a minute, but I just want to for one more second.
Will AI?
I mean one of the things, as with my own anxiety, is about AI. The writer skills is on strike right now. One of the things they do not want is for their writing to be used as an AI teacher. I mean, how worried should we writers be about You'll notice I do not ever say content create. I've completely weaned off of calling it content finally, like three years too late. But how worried should we be about the idea that writing will no longer be.
A skill that people give a shit about.
I think the writers are right to be worried that the studios will want to automate more of their labor ome and to reduce the amount that they have to pay them. So I think that's a totally valid concern. It's worth going on strikeover. You know, I would say respectfully that a lot of Hollywood films are pretty formulaic, and one thing that AI is good at is looking
at formulas and re creating them. I also suspect, by the way, that even screenwriters will find that AI is a valuable thought partner, and they'll say, you know what, I want to write a romantic comedy, like, give me fifty ideas for how one might start. So I think there's potential there for it to be a creative tool. But to the extent it becomes more useful, I do think it could lower the price that studios are willing to pay writers. So I think it's going to be a really kind of tense fight.
Yeah, that's really bad. It's also quite bad. So I want to ask you about this piece you wrote, the Platforms give Up on twenty twenty lies, what exactly is going on here?
Because it seems really bad.
Yeah. I think it's really bad too. There was this moment after the twenty twenty election the January sixth attacks, where the platform said, Okay, election denihilism is providing the fuel for a violent movement, and for that reason, we're going to remove election lies. So you can't go on Twitter, you can't go on Facebook, you can't go on YouTube and say the twenty twenty election was stolen, And one
by one they all gave up on that policy. Twitter was the first that actually preceded Elon Musk taking over. They basically only enforced that policy for about a year after Joe Biden was inaugurated. Facebook, when they restored Donald Trump to the platform earlier this year, said that they were no longer going to remove those lies. I think because they thought there's no way that Trump will be able to run for president and use our platform if we force them to tell the truth about the twenty
twenty election. And then on Friday of last week, YouTube said, you know what, We're not going to enforce these lies either, and so Trump is or whoever else is free to say that the twenty twenty election was stolen. So we've gone from a world where the platforms were, in my view, doing the right thing and they're now all doing the wrong thing. Yeah, why I think there are a couple of reasons. I think one, this is just a capitulation to the reality that Republicans lie constantly about the twenty
twenty election. It's essentially, you know what we tech nerds would call a distributed denial of service attack. Essentially, they hit you with so many lies that the platforms throw their hands up and say, well, we're just not going to enforce this anymore. I also think the Republicans taking over the House and launching a bunch of bullshit investigations has scared the platforms because they don't want to have their executive sitting in the hot seat having to answer
questions about why they're removing twenty twenty election lies. I think there's probably some feeling there that they think that the potential for violence has decreased, and so it's just not as dangerous to lie about twenty twenty as it used to be. So I think those are some of the reasons. I just don't really find any of them very compelling.
It is so incredibly crazy that they've just made this decision. One of the things that strikes me is this RFK Junior town we have el on. So, I mean, I think that it's important when we talk about this. RFK Junior is a creation of Bannon. Right, He's not a real Democratic candidate. The goal here is to kind of get the left leaning into Penance to abandon Biden. I mean, I think Bannon has identified this sweet spot of anti vas left leaners who could be lured into this candidate.
Maybe Elan and that crew very excited to platform him.
I mean, just talk to me about that. Yeah.
I mean the thing that I have been focused on with RFK is that if he were any other person, he would not have access to Instagram certainly, Right. Instagram doesn't let you show up every day and say vaccines kill. That, of course, is basically rfk's whole shtick, right, is just trying to scare people away from getting vaccinated. And in fact, he did lose his Instagram account in twenty twenty one, but then he announced he was running for president, and presto,
he's back on the platform. Because if you want to spread a bunch of obnoxious lies, it turns out there's a loophole where by running for president, you can get back on the platform and say whatever you want. So this is just another I think, really disturbing case of a platform that had done the right thing that walked it back out of a desire to platform all the presidential candidates.
Elon has a sort of group of groupies. They have become the Twitter power users. Will you talk a little bit about who they are? And they're sort of tech pros, but they're actually not really like the primer, they're kind of sort of ancillary hangers on too, right.
Will you discuss?
Yeah?
I mean, I think what I have observed is that once Elon Musk destroyed the old verification system and started to let people buy their blue checks for eight bucks a month, a very particular sort of person bought those checks. It was somebody who was a bit big Elon Musk fan, somebody who wanted heightened visibility on Twitter, and somebody who is okay with it transforming into a right wing social
network with essentially no content moderation standards. And so now if you look at the replies of any tweet, what you see is a bunch of folks who are mostly right leaning, who have those paid blue checks, and they kind of spread their ideology. And so if you look at any tweet, you're sort of more likely to see a right wing point of view than you were, you know, three or six months ago. So I think that's that's kind of the core dynamic, and it's one of the reasons that Twitter is falling apart.
Talk to me about where Twitter is right now with advertisers and users, etc.
So advertising revenue is down about fifty nine percent is the last reporting that we've read on that subject. It seems kind of low to me, Like, I'd love to know why forty one percent of advertisers are still there. That's kind of what we know on the revenue front. Musk continue to say that the platform is roughly at a break even rate, but I just kind of don't
believe it. They've lost so much ad revenue. Their subscription program is not making any significant amount of money, and it seems like usage of the platform has been in a sort of gentle decline. So you know, it isn't as if people have abandoned it entirely, but as it becomes more of a kind of right wing media network, it's it's declining in influence and more people on the left in the middle are just seeking out alternatives. So it's not totally dead yet, but in terms of like
you know, how quickly can you kill a platform. It's pretty fast for someone who only bought the thing last October.
What I think is so interesting about Elon buying Twitter was he bought it for the influence, right, because if not, you could buy true social and save forty billion or more.
That is the thing he is killing off, right.
Yeah. I mean, there's just no doubt that Twitter is less influential than it used to be. I'm not sure, honestly how much he cares he I think he loved it just sort of as a megaphone for himself, and if the entire platform died around it, that was really never going to be any skin off his nose because he would still have his you know, one hundred million plus followers. I'm not somebody who believes that there was a that there is a grand plan here. I don't think there really ever was.
I think the grand plan is to is that overconfidence is a hell of a drug, or like I think you're a genius because you you know, you've done some smart stuff, or you've been very lucky, depending on you know, who's who's describing it. But I don't think there's some huge conspiracy here. But this will affect the twenty twenty four elections.
Yes, although I think there's still time to build up other platforms and other media networks, you know, Like I think that because of how Twitter has declined over the past six or eight months, already, media attention is starting to splinter onto other platforms. They're looking at Macedon, They're looking at Blue Sky. Instagram is going to launch a kind of Twitter clone.
When does that happen.
I think it'll be before the election, for sure, so kind of like keep an eye out for that. But the media ecosystem is fragmenting again, and Twitter just is no longer at the center of the conversation.
Right It does seem like that. I mean, I'm on Blue Sky. I like it a lot. I mean I think it's good.
It's fun like it. It has a quirky energy to it. You know, people are actually having fun there, which I think is almost entirely not true of Twitter anymore. You know, I don't know that it will be Yeah, I don't know that that Blue Sky is going to be the big winner in all this, but it's like fun for right now, and I'll take it.
When does Blue Sky sort of open its doors that's a good question.
I think they're still trying to figure out some pretty tough questions around how do you enable content moderation. But Blue Sky's kind of a weird company. It was always intended to be kind of a proto type that, like other developers would come in and build their own clients for. But people were so ready for an alternative because Twitter
is in decline that it blew up pretty quick. So they're trying to figure out I think, Okay, how do we actually let millions of people in this thing without it all falling apart?
Yeah, And I think that's a really good question.
I do wonder like it's so funny because for such a long time I always thought of Zuckerberg as the big villain in the social media space because of the genocide that was organized on Facebook and the anti vax stuff and all of the many ways in which Facebook had done had sort of allowed terrible things and perhaps was a platform for terrible things to take place. But Elon has really made him look good.
Yeah. I mean, you know, at the end of the day, Facebook slash Meta is a pretty normal company. They have content standards, they try to enforce them, They make tons of mistakes and we should talk about those, but like they'd make generally a good faith effort to keep terrible stuff off the platform. And then Elon Must came along and just didn't really care about any of that stuff at all. And so yes, by comparison, the Facebook crew looks great.
I was with.
Someone really smart the other day who said the only way because I've heard a lot of stupid people say this, so but I heard someone smart say this, So then I thought, maybe this is actually a good idea, that the only way to regulate social media. And again, these social media companies have really skirted regulation, maybe for any number of reasons, was to repeal section two thirty. I mean, is that a really stupid idea?
Again? And can you do a two seconds on what section two thirty is?
Yeah, So Section two thirty is the law that prevents platforms in most cases from being held liable for what their users post. So if I defame Molly on Facebook, Molly can't see Facebook. She can only sue me. So that's section two thirty. Your question was who is doing what.
To get rid of section two thirty, So basically that they should repeal section two thirty and get rid of it and remove the protections the Internet companies have for the sort of platform protections and make them like a publisher.
Yeah.
No, I hate this idea so much. So here's what happens when you do that. Okay, what happens when you do that is nobody can publish anything, right, because they're so terrified that they will be sued that if you are a queer person, a person of color, you want to challenge the power structure in any way you want to flirt with saying anything that comes close to breaking
the law gets removed automatically. So like if you want to repeal section two thirty, you are asking the platforms to radically increase their level of censorship to the detriment of social justice movements.
So how do you solve a problem like the platform feels it has no responsibility for what is published on it or has no skin in the game.
Right, I'm in favor of a few things. One mandating transparency. They have to tell us what kind of content they're removing. Maybe you mandate that they look for hate speech and report it. Anything that sort of requires them to look for stuff and tell us what they found. I'm generally in favor of I think there's also some interesting ideas around like, are we really worried that people are posting things that are offensive or are we worried that millions of people are seeing them?
Right?
So, do you want to maybe require that any post over a certain number of views gets viewed by a human within a certain amount of time to determine whether it's still on the platform something like that. So I tend to favor the those kinds of solutions over more draconian stuff. You know, I just accept at the end of the day that if you want people to be able to talk about social issues and politics, like, there is just going to be a lot of stuff that
you don't like. So, you know, I just accept that I'm going to see a lot of stuff that I don't like on social networks. And I'm nervous about letting the government come in and regulating that because once you sort of open up that door, a lot of other terrible things happen. But I do think that there is stuff that can be done around sort of how many people see those posts and what platforms tell us about it.
And then the third thing I would say is let researcher study this stuff right, Like mandate researcher is being able to get access to internal systems that let us see how posts are being ranked and what content is being viewed and that sort of thing.
Is Elon Musk a liar or is he just like kind of aspirational in his truths? And the case and point I want to say is like he tweeted that like they'll be if there are ads at your replies, you'll make money. He's releasing the algorithm for transparency. I mean, did he release the algorithm? And I mean it seems to me like he makes a lot of promises that aren't really true discuss I mean, I'm not inside the guy's head, so it's hard to say.
But like, has he said many many, many many things that have turned out not to be true? Yes, Like I apply basically a ninety percent discount right to everything he says, you know, in my own newsletter. Like if he says something like we're gonna start paying out creators, you know, based on ads and their replies, I don't even put it in my newsletter because my feeling is until it starts happening, I have no reason to believe that it's true. I don't assume anything he says is true.
I'll say that it's like the Donald Trump school of truth, very much truth thing. And then the one last question was their algorithmic transparency when.
They publish their like open source algorithm.
Yeah.
My understanding, you know, based on our conversations with Twitter engineers, was that they did reveal some of their code, but it is not truly a glimpse all the way inside their systems. There are a lot of things that they left out that you would probably want to know if you wanted to fully understand how their algorithm works. So you know, in practice, I don't think it's a bad
thing to release part of the algorithm. I think it's probably good to let outsiders understand how ranking systems work. But in terms of I think what was promised it fell short of that.
Thank you so much for joining us. I hope you'll come back. You're very lively guest.
Oh well, I have a great time doing what I do. Molly so happy to come back anytime.
That's great.
Hi, it's Mollie, and I am wildly excited that for the first time, Fast Politics, the show you're listening to right now, is going to have merch for sale over at shop dot fastpoliticspod dot com.
You can now buy.
Shirts, hats, hoodies, and toe bags with our incredible designs.
We've heard your cross to spread the word.
About our podcast and get a to bag with my adorable Leo the Rescue Puppy on it. And now you can grab this merchandise only at shop dot fastpoliticspod dot com. Thanks for your support. La Cherise Aired is the former representative of the sixty third district in the Virginia House of Delegates. Welcome to Fast Politics, La Cherise Aired.
Thanks for having me.
I'm looking forward to our conversation.
So tell me what you're running for.
Yeah, I'm running for Senate District thirteen down in Virginia and a highly competitive Democratic primary against the last anti choice senator here in Virginia.
Okay, so now this is for the Virginia House of Delegates. Explain to our listener a little bit about what the Virginia House of Delegates is. I have actually been there because I have history buff children. But it's very interesting, but it's also important part of Virginia politics.
So I am actually running for Virginia Senates. But I did. Oh, you were in the House of Delegate.
I was in the Virginia House of Delegates, but I'm running for the Virginia Senate now.
And in Virginia.
The House of Delegates is the equivalent to your two term representative body, and your Senate is your four term or year I should say, representative body to make up our the entirety of our general Assembly.
So now explain to me who you're running against and a little bit about who that candidate is.
So there's a lot you could say about my opponent's Joe Morrissey.
I will leave the but he is a Democrat, but he's anti choice.
He is a Democrat, but he is anti choice, and I would say questionable on many of us our democratic values.
But that alone has made for me to.
Really fight hard back against his candidacy, especially in this moment when thinking about number one, the integrity and decency we should want from our elected leaders. But furthermore, while we are battling to hold on to the rights that we have here in Virginia, his stance is just unacceptable.
It is so interesting that there are still anti Chruois demos.
I was like, that's a very narrow lane. I hope it's the last of a dying greed.
Yeah, and especially in a state like Virginia, where it's such an important state for any number of reasons, it's so evenly divided, you have a really problematic governor. I mean, yes, yes, all of the above, So talk to me about those issues.
Yeah, absolutely.
I mean it was very unfortunate that we had a trifecta in Virginia between twenty nineteen and twenty twenty one. And when I was in office during that period of time, we passed so many incredible progressive policies to really undo a decade or more long of Republican rule, to just bring us to a state of normalcy, to protect families and workers and our environments. And at that time there were social unrest, so criminal justice reform, and I think we got a little comfortable. We felt like we had
checked all of these boxes and we were cruising. We were now a blue state will come along. Glenn Youonkin in his red vest spewing sort of a moderate approached in his gubernatorial race, and I think that he moved a lot of people, especially in a post Trump error, But it didn't take long for him to get into office and undo many of those great policies that we move.
Forward, and so now we have to fight back.
We were comfortable, and now it's time for us to get back in the game, get through this next general election where we're fighting to take back the House and take back the Senate, and for me in particular, to fight in a blue district where you have someone who is anti a lot of democratic values and make sure that in two more years from now we take back the governor's mansion.
So let's talk about some of what Youngkin has done in Virginia.
Let's start with yesterday, great perfect So.
This week alone, we are talking about the fact that we have clouds that are orange in New York, even down here in Virginia, you have low air quality alerts around the commonwealth, and you have a governor who is pulling Virginia out of Reggie.
Let's explain what Reggie is.
So Reggie is a policy, one of those amazing policies that we ourselves into the come both added ourselves into again while we have the majority, and it's all about trying to make sure that we're cutting regional greenhouse gases. So Reggie is original greenhouse gas initiative and it's basically one of those efforts to say, if we're going to truly combat what we are experiencing from climate change, this initiative lays out several.
Metrics and approaches to take to do so.
And to think that we have a governor who's going to now pull us out of that initiative and pretend like global warming, climate change is not real, Virginia is not being affected.
On a day where we are literally tixo.
Theoriating the impacts all these things, it's pretty unbelievable.
Yeah, I mean, I have to say we got it first in New York, and I had never The New York Post, which is owned by Rupert Murdoch, a very far right tabloid, was like, blame Canada. But you don't blame I mean, this is climate change is not Canada. I mean, yes, there's a fire there, but climate change made this possible.
We never live like.
This exactly exactly, And so I mean, I think that is the difference between this man who ran as a moderate what has come into office and truly been another maga Republican.
Yeah, it is.
I have to say I've been really surprised at how he has really tacked to the right, even more than I thought he would.
Yes, no, I'm not surprised at all. I think as you started out saying, Virginia is very much a state that has trended blue and or purplish in the past, and he knew in order to be successful he had to run in that way. But now Virginia is suffering because of his presidential ambitions and design to compete against a Trump and a Desantus, and so it's been quite dangerous.
Yeah, I mean that.
And it's so funny because it's not funny, but it's so odd because that's what's happening in Florida. I mean, you have all these states, even Texas, where you have these governors who really believe that the more they radicalize their state and turn them into many hungaries, the more this will serve them.
And just to bring it back to my opponent, it's been very clear watching this guy and seeing him align himself with Yonkin and on issues regarding education in this district, public schools are really important. Yankin has this desire to
put lab schools all over the place. On environmental issues, on choice in particular, Yonkin has finally come on record saying that he would be in support of putting a abortion ban in place in Virginia, and my opponent has on record publicly stated he would work with Yonkin to put that band in place.
And so I was at a Democrat as a Democrat exactly.
So we have to get to a place where that is unacceptable. We have to get to a place where we're not going to settle for these Democrats in name only that are doing harm to our communities, especially in Democratic districts.
Yeah, that is just incredible.
I mean, it's so shocking to may tell me about what your race looks like, and what you need and when is your primary, et cetera, et cetera.
We are trying to make sure every voter in this Democratic district is both aware of this election that takes place on June the twentieth, that they are aware that they can vote early. Fortunately, we have those great voting laws here in Virginia that we are working to hold on to, but they can vote early up until June
the seventeenth. But also that there is no way we need to keep someone in power like Joe Morrissey, who is proving you won't stand up for our rights, who has proven that he will side with Republicans when it's a convenient for him, and quite frankly, we won't get into the personal life, but frankly, his personal life is disqualifying of him being in a position of power altogether. And so we are organizing, we are knocking on doors, we are making phone calls, and we would love to have.
Any additional support to do those things.
So this is a safe blue seed, and the competition really happens at the primary level here.
Absolutely, this race, this Democratic primary, is the race.
Right.
I want to ask you, why do you think that he's sort of did he has?
He just been in the seat for such a long time.
Well, he has been in office, quite frankly, longer than I've been alive in some form or another.
So there is that.
But I will say for most readers or most of your listeners that are just baffled by this all together, you have to go all the way back to his time as an attorney, where he had a reputation of being that attorney to get I don't want to say criminals, but I will say those who were facing challenging cases off and that made him very popular, that made him grow a brand that was the only thing people knew,
So they never looked at his legislative record. They never looked at what he was doing while he was in the House or in the Senate.
But now that we have gone.
To look and saw just how in effective he has been and how out of sync with democratic values he has been, we're calling it out every step of the way.
Yeah, that's great, And I want to ask to you how important is it on the state level.
What can you guys do at the state level to protect choice?
I mean, we are the last stop. I mean it starts, it ends with legislators. So right now, Virginia passed the Reproductive Health Care Act. Shout out to Congresswoman Jennifer McClellan during her time in the Senate for leading part of that effort. But that is the law of the land in Virginia right now. Prior to that, we did not have that access here in Virginia, and so it is only because of legislation paths at the state level that
we still have that protection in place. In twenty twenty three, we try to cement that protection into our constitution and take a while, guest, my opponent was the deciding vote and decided to take a walk, and that is the only reason we don't have that permanent protection in our constitution right now. So these seats are critical, These seats
are very important. And what's happening at the state level is becoming far more critical because of an action at the federal level and because of what we see happening among the Supreme Court undoing some of the protections that we've long had in place. And so the last stop really is coming down to our state legislatures.
Wow, wow, wow, so important. And I mean I'm sure the state legislature stuff is happening all over the country. So your election is actually in eight days, a little more than a week.
Yeah, So in eight days, all of those olders and seidate District thirteen here in Virginia will head to the polls for Democratic Primary Day. And I am looking forward to getting excited and fire up about protecting both abortion rights and much more here in this race.
Thank you so much, no, thank you so much.
And if there's anyone who'd like to find out more additional information about our race and how to get involved, they can find me at lacharisair dot com and on every social media network.
No moment fut.
Jesse Cannon, Miley, Jong Fest, Everyone's favorite corrupt wrestling coach, Jim Jordan.
He's twisted himself into a pretzel like not these days, which I know is common and wrestling.
Jim Jordan was on Dana Bash's show today. I'm a big fan of Dana Bash. He defended the indefens of all again and again and again, and it was pretty incredible. And at one point she was trying to make the case that if you wanted to lock up Hillary Clinton, then you probably would want to lock up Donald Trump because of Donald Trump's huge quantity of classified documents hidden in his bathroom.
And in the mar Lago ballroom.
But instead, Jim Jordan said, it's totally different because Trump was president and Hillary Clinton was the Secretary of State. And for that false equivalency, Jim Jordan gets our moment of fuck Ray. That's it for this episode of Fast Politics. Tune in every Monday, Wednesday and Friday to hear the best minds in politics makes sense of all this chaos. If you enjoyed what you've heard, please please send it to a friend and keep the conversation going. And again, thanks for listening.