welcome to First Look Washington Post lives onstop shop for news and Analysis I'm Jonathan Kart associate editor at the Washington Post literally seconds ago minute not seconds minutes ago a ruling came down from Judge Scott McAfee in the Georgia um case where district attorney fonnie Willis uh had her standing as the lead prosecutor in the case against Donald Trump's election interference in the Georg in the Georgia election results in 2020 to have her removed because of an improper relationshi
p with one of her prosecutors handed down his decision um the district attorney can stay on the case fonnie Willis can stay on the case but the judge ruled there's no actual conflict but he did say that quote there was quote an appearance of impropriety but he also said this in his in in his ruling without sufficient evidence that the district attorney acquired a personal stake in the prosecution or that her financial arrangements had any impact on the case the defendants claims of an actual con
flict must be denied and so with that the judge gave um the district attorney a choice removed Nathan Wade the prosecutor in question with whom she had uh a previous relationship or remove the entire prosecution team and open up the case to being delayed even further as a result of having to find a whole new prosecution team and so we will await district attorney Willis's response to the judge's ruling and what her decision will be again the big news out of Georgia uh district attorney Fon Willi
s has not been disqualified from the case but has been given a choice by Judge Scott McAfee remove Nathan Wade from the case or remove the entire prosecution team and so with that we'll keep our eyes on uh keep our eyes on that now we turn to what we were originally going to talk about and that was Tik Tock this was a bad week for Tik Tok and it's 170 million users in the United States but how bad Drew Harwell technology reporter at the Washington Post might have an answer Drew welcome to your d
ebut appearance on First Look yes thanks for having me although maybe we should just talk about the fonny Willis news I don't know maybe maybe TI Tok is old news compared to that no I have no thoughts on that yeah I figured so Drew let's stick to the topic at hand the bill has often B been mislabeled as a ban but it's actually just calling for the forced sale of Tik Tok um due to alleged National Security risks what exactly are the National Security risks well you know Tik Tok is owned by a comp
any based in China called bite dance it runs you know one of the most popular social media Platforms in the US and in this country we have always had American based social media platforms something we've always I guess taken for granted Facebook Instagram X formerly Twitter and so you know Tik Tok coming onto the scene brought a lot of Suspicion about you know could bite dance as as a company based in China be warped by Chinese government influence we know that in China um censoring the Internet
is just part of the law the Chinese government demands things of private companies um and you know the Chinese government shapes the Internet by putting out propaganda censoring facts and so a lot of the suspicion came from could Tik Tok be be shaped in the same way to to be to to that point though you know it's been many years that Tik Tok has been in the US we never have really gotten real evidence of Chinese government censors propagandist you know um the the government shaping what we see o
n on Tik Tok in the US and talk for its Point says we are not influenced by the Chinese government we're not owned or controlled by the Chinese government we're a private company based on you know Western you know owned by Western investors with a lot of American employees so it's just been a long running um debate over H how real this threat really is so the bill overwhelmingly passed the house 352 to 65 it was it has a more daunting task um of passing the Senate with um Kentucky Senator ran Pa
ul again threatening to block any consideration of the bill meanwhile the top Democrat and Republican on the intelligence committee chair Mark chairman Mark Warner and ranking member Marco Rubio have voiced support for this legislation how difficult will it be to get it passed in the Senate I think it's going to be pretty hard um you know in the Senate the indications we're getting are that it's going to be either slow walked or you know uh stopped in its tracks by by people like senator Paul wh
o has been long time you know uh defender of of Tik Tok on libertarian grounds saying the government should not come in based off zero evidence and punish a private company that is a speech platform let us not forget I mean 170 million accounts in the US use it for as a new source to to politically organize for education and for bad stuff too but you know it it encompasses a lot of different free expression things that have always been protected in this country so I think in the Senate it's goin
g to hit a big roadblock and um you know President Biden has said he would sign it if it ever clears con Congress to get to him but we should remember too that a couple years ago um former president Trump tried a really similar campaign in his effort which is based on an executive order was stopped in the courts by multiple judges including you know Trump appointed judges who basically said we need more evidence from the government what we've seen so far is is phrased in the hypothetical and you
know this is something that would have real First Amendment impact so let's get more evidence so you know they may run into a land M uh Minefield in the courts as well so let's keep on that um so is what the government is what this bill tries to tries to do is it even constitutional I mean what will the legal challenges um to its implementation be if it were to pass yeah I think that's an important question and you know when when we have seen it from those two federal judges acting on the on th
e Trump EO and and last year as well in Montana where um the state passed its own Tik Tock ban and a federal judge in that case said um that ban violated the constitution in more ways than one his words he said this was not only a First Amendment concern this was you know the government shutting down a speech platform it didn't like but it was also you know getting into um rules that we've just never sort of welcomed in this country um stuff like Bill of attainer issues where you know C can the
government pass a law specifically targeting one company based off of things it's done in the past we've you know that's again a part of the Constitution that we've always sort of gone against and so Tik Tok has basically said this bill is a ban it is a for sale like you said the the rules of it are are such that Tik Tok would have to sell it within 180 days six months which is not a lot of time considering this is a company that's probably going to be worth hundred billion do has all of these e
ntanglements and for which China has said they would block it under export control measures so it's going to get really constitutionally tricky and and we've you know some of the people we've talked to this week have said we would not tolerate the government shutting down a newspaper a radio station based off of the these kinds of grounds so is it okay for them to shut down a social media platform that has a really sort of similar function in in American life and and Drew real quickly last quest
ion given what you said about China's view on on all this um is it even real istic that former treasury secretary Steve minuchin um says he's trying to assemble a group to make a bid to buy Tik Tok you know we've reached this phase in the Tik Tok news cycle where a bunch of Rich guys come out and say they want to buy it it's not up for sale just yet again because of the Congress and courts issue um he would need a lot of money but I know there are other rich people who are also saying they they
want to buy it I think at this point you know the the hurdles are are very high I mean China they like the US they have the right to block uh sales of specific technologies that they say are vital to National Security they you know after Trump alluded to Banning it many years ago they they put the kinds of algorithms that are that Tik Tok is based off on an export control list so I think you know the the price tag is not out yet um the the rules are not out yet so I think you know maybe he's sal
ivating over the prospects but I don't think it's up up for grabs just yet Drew Harwell techn ology reporter at the Washington Post thanks for thanks for coming to First Look Nice debut appearance yes thank you so much for having me have a good weekend and time for the opinions Roundtable let's go to the opinion site of the Washington Post where we will find Washington Post associate editor Eugene Robinson there on the bottom and on on top there Washington Post columnist raes punuru Eugene raes
welcome back to first look thank you Jonathan talk about a breaking news morning um we have to talk about the ruling coming out of Georgia Judge Scott McAfee ruling that uh district attorney Fon Willis can stay on the on her big Georgia Rico election interference case but she has a choice to make remove Nathan Wade the the prosecutor um she had a previous relationship with or remove the entire prosecution team uh so raes let me start with you just your initial thoughts and again reminding everyo
ne this just broke within the last 15 minutes so um whatever you hear is fresh thoughts right uh so my initial thought is that this Choice isn't really much of a choice at all um the sort of obvious decision for Willis to make is to remove Wade from the prosecution uh and then the case can go on um and it uh is not I think a great episode in her career but if the prosecution ultimately succeeds then it's it becomes a little bit more of a footnote Dean yeah absolutely Rous right look she brought
this problem on herself right I mean it was it was poor judgment um uh to to hire na way um and and then start a relationship with him um and she should have known that and so I think the Judge made what seems to me I listened to a lot of the hearings and it seemed to me a reasonable a reasonable ruing that technically there's no conflict of interest here and and nobody um there's no evidence that that for pecuniary reasons she hired Nathan Way line her own Pockets or go on B vacation to b or or
whatever but there's an obvious appearance of conflict of interest or or impropriety or it's just having done something really boneheaded and so um so let's and let's get rid of that and and it's it's true I mean she basically you know he basically didn't give fny Willis much of a choice she's going to have to uh say goodbye to Nathan Wade as part of the prosecution team or else if she totally withdraws and that you know they'd have to find who's going to prosecute this case it would certainly
take months uh to to try to get a new a whole new prosecution together so I I think she'll do the obvious will this this decision do do you think legally uh damage to the overall RICO case because let's remember this this is a bit of a this is a sideshow compared to the actual case that was brought by The Fulton County DA e um to me to me I I not necessarily we haven't heard the case right let's let's hear the case and hear how how she intends to excuse me use the RICO statute um to get convicti
ons here and uh she's gotten some pleas already which is um you know significant and and but but let's hear hear the case and I I don't think this affects it I think it is kind of a sideshow if uh she doesn't get the big convictions of the major defendant that she wants um then I think people will look back and say boy this is this was one of maybe um maybe a series of screw-ups but but people will remember this and if she conin fix then uh I think it will be a foot down ran let me get your fina
l thoughts on this on this topic yeah I don't think the damage here is legal so much as it's political and that damage is already done so obviously this is a case that's sort of at the intersection of Law and politics and the um likelihood that a conviction here would actually alter anybody's opinion of trump has gone down I think because it'll be easier to dismiss on the part of people who are sympathetic to Trump all right let's talk about um Tik Tok the conversation I was having with Drew Har
well um Ras you had a column yesterday um where your conclusion is that the vote in the house proves the Republican party is not a trump cult do explain well first uh while I don't want to uh to throw the post fine headline writers under the bus um my my basic Point here is that it at least complicates the story about how much republicans in Congress are in lock step with Donald Trump how much they take his orders because he came out against the legislation or at least made remarks that sounded
pretty negative about it and yet only 15 House Republicans voted against the legislation uh which I thought was an interesting data point and it tells us something about Congressional Republicans but it also tells us something about trump it tells us about really how easily swayed he is given that Trump when he was president in 2020 signed an executive order that went further than this legislation does um Jean you your thoughts that's no that's exactly right I mean remember Trump wanted to get r
id of of ticktock basically entirely and so now he wants to keep it um I think that that switch was maybe too fast even for the House Republicans uh I you know I think the the the cult label still does apply given the number of house members for example just one example who seem to have switched their views on Ukraine um and any number of issues According to which way Trump goes as far as Tik Tock itself is concerned I I have to confess I'm I'm not a big Tik Tok user um uh but uh if I don't thin
k we're the demographic yeah I think it's a demographic but um I look there there was kind of a um an implied deal here right the the the idea that you you can't um ban Tik Tok because it's it' be like Banning a newspaper um uh and so okay um then maybe we we won't ban Tik Tock or Force the sale but um why not then it's logical to force social media companies to act like Publishers and to take responsibility for what's published on their platforms right and to be um to be open uh vulnerable to t
o to liable and defamation suits the way for example The Washington Post is if we publish things that are uh untrue and defamatory so uh I would make that trade off I I think we we'd be better off if we kept Tik Tok and held uh social media platforms accountable well you know ra raes on that point isn't that the problem the United States doesn't have doesn't have laws that take into account the social media media age that we're in wouldn't Would we not be talking about this Tik Tock legislation
had we had a a a uh a 21st century social media um uh what's the word I'm looking for legal infrastructure well I think that um there just there are a lot of thorny um complicated issues related to social media and the law uh and so let's say we'd updated it 10 years ago we'd probably still need another update now I do think that Tik Tock poses both some concern that are common to social media but also some that are very specific to its ownership and the geopolitics of the US and China uh and so
me of the things right I mean people complain that Tik Tock is affecting public opinion in in ways that are congenial to Chinese interests I think the bigger problem is the potential of data capture uh for use by um the Chinese regime and that I think is a that really separates this from say Facebook or Twitter or X or whatever we're calling it uh Jean let's talk about the political ramifications of all this Tick Tock talk um I'm just wondering the the Biden Administration has said that hey Cong
ress you pass the bill and get it to me I'll sign it however the Biden campaign has actually used Tik Tok videos to reach young people so how is this not hyp critical hypocritical please explain this to me well it's certainly inconsistent I got an email yesterday you know C from the Biden campaign celebrating one month on Tik Tok right so that that doesn't that doesn't make uh sense uh it it that says number one uh something about at least what the campaign thinks is the usefulness and the reach
um uh and penetration of Tik Tock um and um and maybe that's you know maybe that's a good thing or a bad thing but they clearly think uh that it's a useful tool for reaching people I assume presumably young people um and so it is dissonant to to to say the least to to you know celebrate being on the platform while at the same time saying yeah I'd sign a bill uh essentially that essentially takes the platform away or forces sale in an unrealistic time frame I I do think that that rsh um raises t
he key question and I just don't know enough about it the data harvesting harvesting question I I mean nobody should want um potentially hostile foreign government um harvesting the kinds of data that potentially I guess they could Harvest through Tik Tock I I'm not expert enough in Tech uh to know a if that's going on and B whether you know how big a threat that is but that clearly is a is a matter of concern um a dissonant inconsistent this has been the sorus let me get you on another angle th
e political angle here and that is you know as we all know of the 170 million users in the United States a lot of them probably vast majority of them are young people they' probably really be really disappointed if it was no longer available in the form that it is now but here's the twst could Trump's opposition to this congressional action despite his action as president improve his standing with young voters you know it partly depends on whether Trump sounds that note repeatedly um and he migh
t not want to because in some ways it sort of undermines his brand I mean he's supposed to really tough on China and for America First and a strong leader and here he's uh he's flip-flopping in the direction of uh the interests of a Chinese company um the other thing to keep in mind is first of course this has to pass the Senate but then there's 180 days in the legislation for the sale to happen uh which creates enough time that that you could um push this past the election in terms of any actua
l impact on users all right let's switch gears um and I think this will be the last topic we talk about and that is the extraordinary speech yesterday on the floor of the Senate by Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer calling for new elections in Israel uh in in a scathing rebuke of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu we have a clip from that speech Let's listen of course the United States cannot dictate the outcome of an El of an election nor should we try that is is for the Israeli publi
c to decide a public that I believe understands better than anybody that Israel cannot hope to succeed as a pariah opposed by the rest of the world now Jean talk about the significance of majority leaders Schumer's remarks yesterday especially in light of president's President Biden's telling me in an interview uh on Saturday that an invasion of Rafa by Netanyahu would be a red line for him right well President Biden clearly uh has has grown more and more frustrated with with um um Benjamin Neta
nyahu and uh and the way he is conducting this war um I look it was an extraordinary speech by Schumer and I you know it i' I've heard that it was not coordinated with the administration or anything like that but if it if it wasn't I imagine there are a lot of people in the White House who are applauding um because he kind of said what a lot of people in the White House believe um about the current Israeli government and uh it is very significant that it came from the highest ranking Jewish offi
cial in the US government who has been uh a constant um and loyal supporter of the state of Israel and remains a great supporter order of the state of Israel uh and he is able to to draw and demonstrate that line between um you know Eternal support for the state of Israel and uh and perhaps opposition to the current policies of an Israeli government and and I think he drew that line well um and and frankly I don't I think his analysis is is right because I don't think Netanyahu is going to move
in a direction that is positive for either Israel or the Palestinians or the United States and I don't uh believe that even if he wanted to he could do so with his current government and adding to the majority leaders Bona fitas let's not re let's not forget that during the Obama Administration when the the president was negotiating the Iran nuclear deal Senator Schumer was part of the opposition to that deal um because of security um concerns about Israel's security raes Senate minority leader
Mitch McConnell however blasted Schumer's speech uh calling it and I quote grotesque and there was another there was another word I forgot to write it down but it was grotesque and something not complimentary um and the rationale was because Israel is a sovereign um small D Democratic Nation does the minority leader have a point you know I think he has he does have a point but frankly um the the question of whether it's right to interfere in uh in another country's um deliberations is I think a
secondary one here and the bigger question is does this serve us interest and does this make sense and I I'm left in some real doubt about that in part because as tempting a Target as Netanyahu is because he's unpopular at home and he's unpopular here um the reasons he's unpopular aren't War policy or his policy on a two-state solution where I think he really is speaking for the Israeli public which if anything is maybe a little bit to his right uh and so I wonder what you actually achieve here
so far the effect seems to have been to get people who are otherwise opposed to Netanyahu in Israeli politics come to his defense and say Schumer shouldn't get involved um um what do you make what do you make of um leader McConnell's comments Jean um you know I I saw that um description grotesque I didn't quite I didn't quite get that I thought that was an odd choice of of words um I I could see why he would think it was a bad idea U for for Schumer to have made that speech I just happen to disa
gree I I I think um uh I am not convinced that public opinion uh in Israel is as uh Dead Set longterm against a two-state solution although um in short term uh I think it's not a possibility but um I don't think public opinion there is so dead set against some sort of process um some sort of idea of what the day after this war uh will look like and um and I and I do think that Netanyahu is in any event beholden to the far right uh in Israel that's part of his government and I think if he were to
try to move in that direction uh I think his government would fall so um uh so it's a it's a difficult situation but I think Schumer sort of laid out the stakes and laid out the right direction in a way that I hope is constructive all right the the other word was gross and hypocritical U is the other word that leader McConnell said we've got about 90 seconds left and I want you both to answer this question uh for an electorate that seems so turned off by what is now the Biden Trump rematch uh i
f you believe the polling why did both men why did both men Walt to their respective parties nominations remes you go first well I think in Trump's case it's because he has the intense support of a large large minority faction in US politics um which you know was able to dominate the Republican primary process because it's a large intense faction and because other people in the Republican Party are willing to go along with it on the um Democratic side I think it's because you've got an incumbent
president and once if an incumbent president wants to run for reelection it's it's very hard to dislodge him especially when there's no consensus on what the alternative would be and that's why we have these unsatisfactory choices as the GIF would say from my perspective remes from what you just said no lies detected Jean IES is absolutely right um I would add only one thing if if if uh if a Democrat or the Democratic party R RIT large wanted to ask questions about President Biden and whether h
e should run again the time to do that was a year ago uh uh a good year ago it was it's it's not now so he was an incumbent president he wanted to run for reelection and you get to do that if you were an in incumbent president and's absolutely right about Trump and and how he got the nomination yet again you know Ramesh this is this is quite something there's so much agreement with you today this is Fant this is fantastic we'll try to we'll try to have some some some arguments in the taxs next t
ime I'll go negative I promise next time we'll talk about fetal personhood and remes and I will definitely disagree on that so okay Eugene Robinson thank you both very much for coming back to First Look have a good weekend good to be here Jonathan you too for more of these important conversations sign up for a Washington Post subscription get a free trial by visiting wo. stlive w.st SL live also today marks 352 days that Wall Street Journal reporter Evan gershkovich has been wrongfully imprisone
d in Russia his crime journalism I'm Jonathan Kart thank you for watching Washington Post lives first look
Comments