Return to Transcripts main page
Amanpour
Interview with Venezuelan Opposition Leader Maria Corina Machado; Interview with Retired IDF Major General Guy Zur; Interview with Antitrust Division Assistant Attorney General Jonathan Kanter. Aired 1-2p ET
Aired August 13, 2024 - 13:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
[13:00:00]
CHRISTIANE AMANPOUR, CNN CHIEF INTERNATIONAL ANCHOR: Hello, everyone, and welcome to "Amanpour." Here's what's coming up.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
MARIA CORINA MACHADO, VENEZUELAN OPPOSITION LEADER: The regime is at its weakest position ever. They have lost total legitimacy.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
AMANPOUR: What next for Venezuela? Maduro cracks down amid accusations of stealing the latest election. I reach the opposition leader, Maria Corina
Machado, in hiding.
Then, the specter of full-blown regional war hovers over the Middle East. A ceasefire between Israel and Hamas could spread calm. But will it happen?
And who's standing in the way?
Also, ahead --
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
JONATHAN KANTER, ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL, ANTITRUST DIVISION: The court found that the antitrust laws not only do apply, but that Google engaged in
conduct to break the antitrust laws.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
AMANPOUR: -- the United States versus Google. Assistant Attorney General Jonathan Kanter talks to Walter Isaacson about one of the biggest tech
trials in decades.
Welcome to the program, everyone. I'm Christiane Amanpour in London.
Democracy is putting up a strong fight in Venezuela, but its sitting strongman, Nicolas Maduro, is cracking down hard.
A brutal operation called Knock-Knock has rounded up as many as 2,000 politicians, journalists and activists, and more than 20 have been killed,
according to the opposition just weeks after he declared himself the victor of an election that's widely believed to have been stolen.
Venezuelans are still protesting against Maduro's reign, and, this Saturday, they're calling for a mass global demonstration of international
solidarity.
The key figure of this movement is Maria Corina Machado. She was prevented from running for president, but she backed a compromise candidate who
rallied voters and was declared the winner by many election observers.
The story of how a mobilized force of democracy workers managed to collect evidence that her party had won far more votes than Maduro is
extraordinary. I have been speaking to Machado from Venezuela. And, for safety reasons, we are not able to say exactly where.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
AMANPOUR: Maria Corina Machado, welcome to our program.
MARIA CORINA MACHADO, VENEZUELA OPPOSITION LEADER: Thank you very much.
AMANPOUR: Now, you are one very brave woman. We're obviously not saying where you're coming from because you are in hiding. You are in Venezuela,
at the time when the president is really going full blast on arresting dissidents, Operation Knock-Knock, coming for them.
I assume you're one of the victims or one of the targets. Are you not afraid?
MACHADO: Well, at this point, Christiane, everyone in Venezuela is afraid for losing our freedom or even our lives.
But above all, we are committed to make the truth prevail and popular sovereignty expressed in our votes be respected and get a transition to
democracy peacefully and orderly, so that our kids can come back home.
AMANPOUR: So, let's start a little bit at the beginning.
It's clear from everything we read that the Maduro regime was absolutely convinced they were going to -- that they were going to win and are even
complaining that, hang on, we were betrayed because the poor people, the people in different neighborhoods, our usual supporters, betrayed us. They
said they were going to vote for us.
What happened? What happened at the last minute?
MACHADO: Well, I think what happened started months ago. A social movement with very, very deep roots started emerging.
It has its moment. It's a movement for redemption and liberation, in which women, mothers are in the first line. And we were able to demolish all the
areas that the regime had created among Venezuelans, dividing us in every single idea, black and white, rich and poor, left and right.
And we managed to come together around common values, the family, our dignity, our freedom, justice, the fact that we want our kids back home, as
I said before. This is -- I would say this is the center desire that unites Venezuelans together today.
So, the regime lost total touch with reality and they lost their social base. And we came over with the movement, with no resources, totally
censored, persecuted. Our top campaign managers are either in prison or taking asylum in an embassy.
And we were able to get this epic journey take place. And, that day, millions of Venezuelans, on July 28, came out courageously, and over a
million of them had specific tasks to defend the vote. And it was simply extraordinary, what they did.
AMANPOUR: I mean, it certainly was extraordinary, and it certainly, as I say, caught them all off guard.
[13:05:00]
So let's just clarify, because you are the leader of the opposition, but they banned you from running. Therefore, you backed a different candidate.
You backed Edmundo Gonzalez. And what you have done, I believe, is train an army of volunteers to actually go out, find the tallies, the actual vote
tallies, to show the actual truth of what happened.
Describe that operation for me, because, as you know, the Maduro regime, the attorney general is accusing you all of lying and of having falsified
those results.
MACHADO: Well, the fact is that we have terrible experience, previous experience.
Maduro has put in place sham elections for decades, dozens of them. So we decided that, this time, it was going to be different. We would have the
proof of our victory. So we started over a year ago identifying people, training them, giving them inspiration and increasing the will to fight, so
that we could be in every single polling center -- there are 15,797 of them -- and every single polling station. It's over 30,000.
And we trained them. We worked with all political parties, civil society, volunteers. Everybody was volunteered. And we managed to have people in
every single one of them, not only inside as what they call polling monitors or witnesses, but actually to have groups of citizens, volunteers
around the center protecting them, bringing them food or water or coffee.
And it was an incredible journey. We started monitoring the process in the morning. We realized that there were threats to take our monitors out. So,
we had the communities push for them to get back in. And so they did. And, at the end of the day, at 6:00, when the stations start to close, we
started receiving information through an application, an app, an app that read the Q.R. codes, the tally sheets that were printed had.
So we had the right by law to get a copy, that is, an original copy, an original document, from every single electoral machine. And so we did. Many
of our volunteers were persecuted, but we had the support and cooperation of members of the armed forces that were protecting these -- the electoral
process.
So we were able to gather them to take them to safe places around the country. They were scanned, digitalized, and put into a Web page. This is
the first time this has ever happened in Venezuela. So, everyone can...
AMANPOUR: Well, it really is extraordinary. I mean, the story that you tell, the documents that you were able to redeem and publish is -- as you
say, it's the first time it's happened, and it tells a story in black and white.
I want to just play for you -- because I want to know what you think is going to happen next. And I want to go back to an interview I did with
Maduro back in Caracas in 2014 about democracy.
Here's what -- here's a little bit of that conversation.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
AMANPOUR: Are you concerned about forfeiting your democratic legitimacy?
NICOLAS MADURO, VENEZUELAN PRESIDENT (through translator): What concern -- my concern is to strengthen democracy.
These accusations have been made for 15 years, and they crashed against the reality of Venezuela. Tell me the country in the world with 19 elections in
the 15 years.
(CROSSTALK)
AMANPOUR: But it's not just elections, sir. You know that. You won your election, but it's not just elections. I'm talking about what happens in
governance, of the accumulation of power after election.
MADURO (through translator): Well, it is important to have elections in democracy.
AMANPOUR: Of course. But it's also important what to do after those elections.
MADURO (through translator): We have a democracy strengthened at all levels.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
AMANPOUR: So that was 10 years ago, and it appears that he's saying the same stuff, that we are the protectors of democracy.
So what do you think will happen next? Is there any negotiation? Is there any way that you see as a transition out of what appears to be a stalemate
right now, with a violent crackdown?
MACHADO: Yes, I would say that today is a totally different moment from then.
The regime is at its weakest position ever. They have lost total legitimacy. And what they have done is unleash a campaign of terror,
persecution. I mean, even last yesterday, the fact-finding mission from the United Nations denounced that there are patterns of crimes against humanity
in what they are doing right now, over 2,000 people detained, 24 killed.
So, what -- they are going against our people, which are right now in hiding all over the country. But he's losing more and more support and
getting more and more isolated in the country. We now have the legitimacy because we won, and the world recognizes that we have won.
So, Maduro, I think, right now is not reading correctly his own options. We are certainly willing to move ahead into a negotiation process in which we
are willing to give Maduro and the regime the guarantees so that this could move smoothly, orderly, as fast as possible.
AMANPOUR: What guarantee? What guarantee?
MACHADO: Well, there's a wide option for different people, and we certainly don't think we get -- should get into detail before a negotiation
starts.
What I'm saying is that we are certainly willing to do it. We will start, as a first point, with a recognition of popular sovereignty expressed on
July 28. And we will -- certainly are willing to call for the whole country, even the Chavista (INAUDIBLE), to come together in rebuilding
Venezuela and stopping migration.
One thing I would like to mention, highlight, Christiane, just between July 28 and August the 5th, migration through Brazil increased seven times,
seven times. So, we need to stop this. And the only way we can do that is to give a future of prosperity and freedom for our kids in their country.
AMANPOUR: So -- so...
MACHADO: And that's what we are working on right now.
AMANPOUR: I mean, would -- I know you're not going to go into details, but is amnesty one of the things that you would offer, put on the table?
MACHADO: I think it's too early to get into details.
AMANPOUR: OK. OK.
[13:10:00]
So, but here's the other question then. You have said since the election: "The regime could never have imagined that our movement would grow in
numbers and slowly take over the entire voting base of Chavismo. The poor and rural people who fueled Hugo Chavez's meteoric rise are now
disillusioned and have taken control of their future."
So, do you believe that is enough pressure that would cause him to actually enter negotiations? Or, as you have said, he has the military. They have
declared themselves loyal to him. He has Cuban intelligence. He has the support of other nations who you just mentioned.
What is stronger? Where does he place his bet?
MACHADO: Well, I think, as I said before, he's not doing a correct evaluation of where he's standing. His situation is unsustainable.
I mean, Venezuela will fight until the end, and we will keep on getting stronger and stronger. We will maintain our pressure in the streets. We
call for a worldwide manifestation this Saturday. We expect it will be more than 100 cities around the world and many dozens of cities in Carac -- in
Venezuela as well.
And we will and we are reaching out to international community to press Maduro and to show him that there is unanimously a position in the E.U., in
the Americas regarding that he has to let go and accept the terms for negotiation -- negotiated solution.
How long it will take, nobody knows, Christiane. For the sake of our people, we are working really hard to be as fast as possible. But the
important thing is that there's no way back. We will not give up. We will prevail.
And this is a total different moment in which Venezuelan society is united, and the world, the democratic world, is behind us.
AMANPOUR: And so are you satisfied with the reaction of the democratic world, whether it's in Latin America, where you are, whether it's in
Europe, the United States?
What are you asking them all to do?
MACHADO: We're asking them to, first of all, recognize what the Venezuelan people did, recognize the truth, make popular sovereignty be respected,
and, therefore, recognize Edmundo Gonzalez as president-elect.
And we are moving in that direction. Right now, what many countries are doing is still urging Maduro so that they present the actual tally sheets,
the official numbers. I mean, the Electoral Council hasn't showed one number. They declare Maduro president with a napkin.
So -- but I think that time is getting to an end. I mean, it's obvious they're not going to present tally sheets because they prove what we have
right now and that what have been scrutinized, I have to say, by scholars, academics, the different institutions, the Carter Center, which made a very
clear statement regarding that Maduro's called -- so-called results aren't true.
So I think the international community has to increase that pressure, has to increase the cost of repression, Christiane, because what it's going
right now is horror. It is horror. We're seeing as young people are took out of their houses. Houses are marked with a cross at their doors.
Journalists have been detained. Four of them have been accused of terrorism. This is happening as we speak. But we're not going to stop. And
we need the international community not only helping us, giving incentives for the regime to go, but making him understand that it's going to be
costlier and costlier as every day goes by to stay in power, surrounded by the military and exercising violence on innocent people.
AMANPOUR: And, finally, is it your understanding that the United States offered incentives to get him to essentially respect the rules of the
election and accept whatever the result was?
MACHADO: We will certainly need the United States on our side for incentives to be real, important, significant, and credible threats as
well.
And I have to be -- I have to say that I'm thankful to the Biden administration, as well as both parties at Congress. Venezuela has been a
bipartisan issue because of its critical importance for national security of the U.S. and for the security of the hemisphere.
So, I expect this to keep going in this sense, but to get more and more support, and that the American society and the whole world understand how
critical is this opportunity and that we have a real, real opportunity to solve it peacefully in the short term.
AMANPOUR: Maria Corina Machado, thank you so much, indeed, Venezuelan opposition leader.
Thank you very much.
MACHADO: Thank you.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
[13:15:00]
AMANPOUR: Next to the Middle East, which is on edge, of course, expecting a response from Iran after Israel's twin assassinations of Hezbollah and
Hamas leaders a few weeks ago. The one thing that could defuse some of this tension, an Israel-Gaza ceasefire deal.
In a joint statement ahead of this Thursday's negotiations, leaders of the United States, Britain, France, Germany and Italy have urged the parties
on. We expressed our full support for ongoing efforts to de-escalate tensions and reach a ceasefire and hostage release deal in Gaza. There is
no further time to lose. All parties must live up to their responsibilities.
Now, these leaders also-called for unfettered distribution of aid and demanded Iran stand down it's military threats against Israel. But on the
eve of this round of talks, Israel public criticism and evidence are directed against Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. The Haaretz newspaper
says that he's, quote, systematically foiled hostage talks.
Correspondent Jeremy Diamond joins us now from Haifa in Northern Israel. Jeremy, welcome back to our program. So, what do you think this time?
You've heard the international leaders, Israel's allies, urging everybody, including Israel, to go to these talks. Is there a feeling that they will
actually happen, and in good faith?
JEREMY DIAMOND, CNN JERUSALEM CORRESPONDENT: Well, it certainly seems like Israel will attend these negotiations, whether or not they can actually
close out this agreement is an entirely different question.
Look, I've been covering this war over the last 10 months, and over that period of time, we've seen round after round of negotiations. We've seen
optimism that a deal might be close, and other times when that optimism has absolutely collapsed. And so, it is very hard to anticipate exactly which
direction these talks are going to go in.
[13:20:00]
What I can tell you, though, is that an unprecedented amount of pressure is being brought to bear currently, including by the United States, as well as
the Egyptian and Qatari mediators on both Hamas and as well as on Israel.
And I think there's no question that the Israeli prime minister recognizes that should a deal not materialize out of this and should he be responsible
for those talks collapsing, that there's a very real possibility that the United States and President Biden himself will actually put the blame
squarely on the Israeli prime minister's shoulders should they feel that he is deserving of it. Whereas in the past, they have largely said that the
ball was in Hamas's court, that Hamas hasn't come through here.
So, what's happening this week, in addition to the pressure, is you're having working level delegations, technical teams trying to work through
the details with the United States, Egypt, and Qatar, trying to put together what they've described as a bridging proposal to present to both
parties on Thursday, and effectively say, look, this is how we meet in the middle, this is how we get to a deal. And also noting that the time is now
or never effectively to try and reach that ceasefire agreement.
AMANPOUR: And now, or never, why? Because they keep saying that. Is it because they think that a ceasefire deal would in fact, you know, lower the
heat from Iran, so to speak?
DIAMOND: There's no question that the regional tensions are playing into that pressure for a deal to happen now. We were already witnessing that
pressure starting to come to bear as we approach the number of nearly 40,000 Palestinians who have been killed in Gaza. So, that is also part of
the calculus as well as we've watched the international criticism of Israel rising and rising and rising.
But the question is, as far as the regional tensions, will we even get to these talks on Thursday? We have been watching over the last few days, as
there are growing indications that Iranian retaliation, which has been threatened for nearly two weeks now, in the wake of the assassination of
Ismail Haniyeh, Hamas' political leader, while he was visiting the Iranian capital, we've watched as the U.S. and Israeli assessments indicate that
retaliation could come now in the coming days.
And should it come before those talks actually materialize on Thursday, depending on the scenarios, depending on exactly what that retaliation is,
depending on the scope and scale of it, whether it actually kills any Israeli civilians or soldiers as a result of it, it could determine whether
or not those talks actually happen on Thursday.
Because if there are civilian casualties in particular, make no mistake that will spiral this region further down the path of escalation, perhaps
into all-out war. And then, of course, we will be talking about things far more serious even than a ceasefire in Gaza.
AMANPOUR: And briefly, where you are in Haifa, there have been, this weekend, real demonstrations by the Israeli hostage families, really, I
mean, demanding that something finally be done to get all of the rest of them back. Give me a sense of the pressure that the government is facing
from Israelis themselves and particularly these families.
DIAMOND: I mean, just last week, the Hostage and Missing Families Forum, which represents so many of these hostage families, put out a statement
saying that Netanyahu is the one who is obstructing a deal. We have seen multiple leaks over the course of the last couple of weeks from Israel's
security establishment, noting that the Mossad director, David Barnea, who leads these talks, the Shin Bet director, who is an essential part of them
as well, were effectively saying to Netanyahu behind closed doors, if you don't want a deal, just tell us, rather than adding these 11th hour demands
that he has been inserting into these negotiations.
Now, that being said, there is a sense that there may be a shift on the horizon. Over the weekend, Netanyahu's allies were signaling to other
Israeli government officials as well as to journalists that Netanyahu was finally ready for a deal, and that he will move for a deal regardless of
the consequences that it brings to bear on his right-wing governing coalition.
But ultimately, this is a question of political will. Does Netanyahu want a deal? Will he move forward with one? And the same question, of course, can
be asked of Yahya Sinwar, Hamas' leader, who has now been elevated as the head of Hamas' political bureau as well. Both of these men now hold the
cards. It is clear that there are differences, but it is also clear that they are far closer than they have ever been in terms of the proposals on
the table. The question is, can they cross the line as this next round of talks is expected to begin on Thursday, Christiane.
AMANPOUR: Indeed, Jeremy. And of course, everybody's watching. Thanks for that. And for more on the security perspective, retired IDF Major General
Guy Zur is joining me now from Tel Aviv, I believe. Welcome to the program.
Major General, you just heard what Jeremy said. Do you think from everything you know that Netanyahu is ready for a deal now?
GUY ZUR, RETIRED IDF MAJOR GENERAL: Well, I think that the situation now in Gaza Strip is that we achieved most of the challenges that we had to
achieve on the Hamas.
[13:25:00]
The Hamas is an organization that should be eliminated because of its atrocities and crimes, barbaric crimes. And, of course, also the seniors of
Hamas should be killed, all of them. But after 10 months, we need to bring back the hostages. It's the most moral step that we need to do now, and we
will be able to eliminate Hamas in the future.
Now, this is the main -- maybe the biggest challenge of leadership, the leadership test of Netanyahu. Netanyahu now between his political
continuity, as he understands it, and the need to bring back the hostages that every day their life is shortened. I hope that Netanyahu will choose
the interests of Israel, which are to bring back the hostages.
I'm not sure, but I hope that what he will choose. I believe that if he will ask other parties to keep him in a regime for a few months in order to
keep his regime because the extremists will leave the government. I believe that they will put their force in order to keep him, in order to bring back
the hostages.
AMANPOUR: That's interesting. That's an interesting political shift because many commentators believe that, you know, Netanyahu is totally
beholden to this far-right group. And that's one of the reasons why none of this progress that you're talking about has happened.
And as you know, you just heard from Jeremy, the demonstrations continue by the hostage families. And 115 of them are still in Gaza. It's not sure how
many are still -- have been killed or died? But listen to Itay Chen, an advocate for the hostages. His son, Ruby, was murdered and he spoke to Wolf
Blitzer this weekend.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
ITAY CHEN, FATHER OF SLAIN IDF SOLDIER ITAY CHEN: We are optimistic because we have no other choice, but we are positive that this is the time,
this is the window of opportunity because of the political window, both in the United States and in Israel to get this done. And we need everybody.
Everybody focus to get this deal done.
And I would even urge the prime minister of Israel, that claims he is the best negotiator, he knows how to get a deal done, he knows how to stand for
what is correct for the State of Israel, I would urge him, Mr. Netanyahu, please get on a plane this Thursday. We see the prime minister of Qatar
involved directly in these talks. I would urge him, get on a plane. We will be very thankful to see you negotiate and bring our loved ones back home
after 10 months of this agony.
WOLF BLITZER, CNN ANCHOR: So, you want Netanyahu personally to go to either Cairo or Doha, Qatar and negotiate on behalf of Israel?
CHEN: He is the prime minister. He was responsible for what happened on October 7th. And he claims that he knows to do the best negotiation
possible. Show up, do your thing, bring our loved ones back home. It's about time.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
AMANPOUR: So, Major General, that advocate is throwing down the gauntlet and saying put up or shut up to his own prime minister. Do you agree that
they are pursuing the right amount of pressure? Do you agree with that pressure on Netanyahu from the families?
ZUR: Yes, I agree with every word that he said. Netanyahu must bring this deal and bring the hostages home. I think that the majority of Israel, out
of some extremists, wants it. And I think that the majority of Israel doesn't believe that he will do it. But I hope that he will do it. We must
bring them home. It's the most important thing now of our strategy. We have to define our strategy, and this should be the first pillar of our
strategy.
Then, we have to look at the stronger problems of Israel than Hamas, Hezbollah and Iran, and to start to deal with them and to define what our
strategy is these challenges.
AMANPOUR: OK. So, there are a few questions. I just want to ask you because you're a former major general in the IDF and you have been tasked
with the security of your nation. Do you think it was smart to assassinate Ismail Haniyeh, who was also, if you want to draw distinctions or maybe you
don't, between the various types of Hamas leaders, he was at least their negotiator? What signal did it send that you killed the negotiator? Does it
mean you kill negotiations as well?
[13:30:00]
ZUR: Well, I think basically that all of them should be died.
AMANPOUR: Fine.
ZUR: But I'm not sure that -- first of all, we didn't take responsibility for this assassination. So, if Israel did it, I think that all of them
should be dead. But I'm not sure that this was the right time to do it because we have to put ahead in the first degree the hostages. So, anything
that will -- you know, be some problem with bringing the hostages home, we don't need to do it.
AMANPOUR: OK. So, the next question is, you have heard reports of your defense minister, Yoav Gallant, having a difference with Netanyahu over the
best way to continue the war against Hamas. You say all of them should be dead. He says that there is no possibility of so-called total victory,
because Hamas isn't about one or two leaders, it's constantly -- you know, the head keeps growing again and multiplying, the hydra, as soon as, you
know, neutralize one or the other.
So, again, what is total victory? Is it possible as Netanyahu says or is it not as Gallant says?
ZUR: There isn't any total victory, especially because we didn't got the Biden solution to make some coalition that will replace the regime of
Hamas. So, because of the fact that we didn't replace the regime of Hamas, Hamas will continue to be the controller in the Gaza Strip and they will
recruit all the terrorists from the use of Gaza Strip.
If we want to eliminate Hamas, we have to change this regime. But we didn't do it in this war. So, there will be no prevail, no total prevail, but
bringing back the hostages and be sufficient with what we got until now and in the next stage with Hamas. Because he will start again, we will
eliminate him by changing this regime. Without changing the regime of Hamas, there will not be any prevail.
AMANPOUR: Let me ask, because you said you had bigger threats than Hamas, Iran, you said, Hezbollah, you said. So, let's say that you think that Iran
is your existential threat. As you know, many in the security establishment in Israel believe that it's the unresolved Palestinian situation that
remains the existential threat.
But people like Thomas Friedman, other friends of Israel are saying that if it is Iran that's the threat, why doesn't Netanyahu actually agree, like
all the allies have urged him, including the Arab allies who he wants to, you know, make friends with, to make progress on a two-state solution. And
by doing that, then you get the whole group of people who you need, a big coalition, as you say, and that would isolate Iran. But he refuses to do
that. In fact, he does the opposite.
ZUR: I think that the two-state solution in Israel, it's not the time to deal with it because it's a very, very big debate in Israel and the 7th of
October made less and less people who believe it. But still, I think that the threat from Iran and the Hezbollah, it's not the only -- it's not the
threat only on Israel. It's this evil ring of Iran and Russia and all the - - all this path is a threat on the western world, on the liberal world.
So, we can make a coalition without putting the solution only with two- states. But yes, we need to say that in the future, we will split between. Israel as a country and the Palestinian as an entity. What will be this
entity? Will it be a state or will it be some independent entity? This is for long-term negotiation.
[13:35:00]
The one who put the two-states now as a condition to go forward with the coalition is playing the wrong game because in Israel there is a big
refusal for this solution, unfortunately, because I believe that it will be the solution in the end of the day, there isn't any other solution. But
it's not the time after the 7th of October to deal with it.
We can take a lighter step ahead, which says that in the future we will find a way to separate the community, to separate between these two
nations. And then, how we do it, we will decide in the future.
AMANPOUR: OK. In the meantime --
ZUR: But it shouldn't be the --
AMANPOUR: In the meantime --
ZUR: It shouldn't be the -- you know, the condition. OK.
AMANPOUR: Yes. You've made yourself clear. In the meantime, I want to ask you about the toll this is taking on Israel itself and its moral standing.
You've seen the report from (INAUDIBLE) about rape, tortures in Israeli military prisons, which have been leaked. Palestinians with serious
injuries to their rectums have exposed some of this alleged behavior.
What do you think should happen in a country that holds itself out as the most moral army, the most moral country, the democracy of that part of the
world? What do you think should happen to any soldiers who have been found to engage in this kind of torture and abuse?
ZUR: We have common values with the liberal countries in the world. So, every soldier that does something that is not legal to a terrorist or other
enemy should be punished very hard in order to broadcast to our soldiers and to strength the moral of our soldiers. No doubt about it. It's
unbelievable that we got to this place. But it's still a minority of extremists that we should take them out of our society.
AMANPOUR: Well, that's clear. Major General Guy Zur, thank you very much indeed for talking to us.
And we turn now to the world of big tech. In a landmark case in the United States, a federal judge has found Google guilty of U.S. antitrust
violations. It's a staggering defeat for the tech company that could upend decades of dominance and potentially reshape how millions of Americans get
their information online.
The Assistant Attorney General Jonathan Kanter joins Walter Isaacson to discuss the verdict and what comes next.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
WALTER ISAACSON, CO-HOST, AMANPOUR AND CO.: Thank you, Christiane. And Jonathan Kanter, welcome back to the show.
JONATHAN KANTER, ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL, ANTITRUST DIVISION: It's wonderful to be here.
ISAACSON: You had a really big victory in your Department of Justice antitrust case against Google. It's the biggest antitrust case in at least
20 years. And the judge ruled this past week that Google is a monopolist, and it has acted as one to maintain its monopoly. But let me read you
something else that the judge said. He said, it has hired thousands of highly skilled engineers, innovated consistently, and made shrewd business
decisions. The result is the industry's highest quality search engine.
So, what's the problem here? It got a monopoly by being the best. What are you going after him for?
KANTER: We want companies not just to attain power by being the best, but we want them to try to compete and maintain their position by trying to be
the best, not engaging in contracts or monopolistic behavior that prevents them and insulates them from competitive pressure.
Ultimately, we believe that all companies, whether they're big or small, do better and deliver more for the public when they have other companies,
competitors nipping at the heels. It's the fundamental basis for our market system in order to have a market unique competitors. And so, we want
competition driving companies like Google and all other companies to do better and to deliver more.
ISAACSON: So, what did it do that was anti-competitive?
KANTER: The court decision explains a whole range of conduct, but generally, it falls into the category of paying partners to make Google the
exclusive default or the exclusionary default, meaning that rather than saying, use us because we're the best, we're going to go to our partners
and we're going to pay, in some instances, tens of billions of dollars a year to keep them from working with rivals.
ISAACSON: It's sort of like what Standard Oil did a hundred years ago in that great antitrust case was try to prevent competitors, even though it
gave a very good and less expensive product.
[13:40:00]
KANTER: Yes, history has a tendency to rhyme. And so, if you look at the issues that came up in our case here against Google, they resemble many of
the same issues that were present in Standard Oil, and many of the same issues that were present in U.S. v. Microsoft.
And so, ultimately, the monopoly playbook is one that repeats itself over and over again, and it's important for us to enforce the antitrust laws
when we see that playbook come to fruition.
ISAACSON: You talk about U.S. v. Microsoft about 20 years ago. In preparing for this, I talked to Joel Klein, who had your position back then
and brought that case. And he said one of the major things was that Microsoft at the time, because that was -- they were going after, was
leveraging its monopoly in one field, meaning operating desktop system, to get dominance in other fields. Is that relevant to this case?
KANTER: Well, the Microsoft decision was cited throughout the court's opinion in U.S. v. Google. And that was the last major -- frankly, the last
monopolization case of the United States Department of Justice brought for filing U.S. v. Google. So, these cases do not come along very often.
They're very resource intensive, and they're historic.
And so, the legal principles that were established in Microsoft, of course, we're highly relevant to this case. Many of the same characteristics that
were present in U.S. v. Microsoft were also present U.S. v. Google. In particular, the importance of network effects or feedback effects.
The idea in U.S. v. Microsoft was, do the antitrust laws apply to the technology industry? The PC computer industry? And the answer to that
question was unequivocally yes. Same kinds of questions came up in U.S. v. Google, do the antitrust laws and can they apply in a world of the
internet, a world where products and services are given to consumers for free in exchange for advertising? The answer once again was unequivocally
yes. The court found that the antitrust laws not only do apply, but that Google engaged in conduct to break the antitrust laws.
ISAACSON: Ever since the Sherman Antitrust Act and the Clayton Act more than a century ago, there have been two prongs to antitrust theory. One is
harmed to consumers. Do you raise -- does the consumers get harmed because they have to pay more because it's a monopoly? But the second is something
like harm to competition, even if a product is free, like Google search is free, and for that matter, Microsoft bundled a browser for free, it doesn't
directly harm consumers, but it harms competition. Why should that be part of antitrust law?
KANTER: That's the basis of antitrust law. Antitrust law exists to protect the competitive process because we believe that competition, rivalry in our
economy encourages people to do better, encourages people to deliver more, it encourages lower prices, more innovation, greater output. But it's also
important to the diversity of views and ideas when we get our information, especially on the internet, we want to have a range of sources of
information so that we can be a well-informed electorate and citizenry. And so, this is a really important part of why we have antitrust laws in the
first place.
And you're absolutely right. US v. Microsoft did not focus on higher prices. It focused on harm to the competitive process because that impeded
innovation, it impeded market forces from delivering benefits and results to the broader economy. It's exactly what we had here in the U.S. v.
Google.
The one exception, though, is we do have a very important part of the U.S. v. Google case that focuses on price, it's advertising. And so, one of the
key markets had issue in U.S. v. Google was text-based advertising, which you get people buy on search. And these are not just high-priced
advertisers.
Virtually, every company, whether it's a virtual storefront or the corner store in your local area buy search ads, and they buy them in large
volumes. And when the price of ads go up, the prices of the products being advertised go up. So, this is an issue that not just affects the internet
highway, it affects our main streets as well.
ISAACSON: You talk about how this paves the way for innovation, this type of decision, by making sure that there's a lot of competition. When I talk
to my Tulane students and they all want to start businesses, I often say, OK. but what would happen if Google decided to go into that business and
crush you? And that is why we sometimes don't have a whole lot of startups. Can you explain specifically why this would pave the way for innovation?
KANTER: Yes, there's a term of art called kill zones. And so, if you talk to venture capitalists, they'll tell you that if you're in a kill zone,
meaning that the business that you're going to go into can be elbowed out by a large monopolist, you're better off just not investing in that
business in the first place. That is not helpful to our economy and our economic growth.
[13:45:00]
And so, what we want is we want the best ideas, the best innovations, the best products and services to compete on the merits.
ISAACSON: Kent Walker, who's Google's president of global affairs, said of this decision, he said, the decision recognizes that Google offers the best
search engine, but concludes that we shouldn't be allowed to make it easily available.
Is it possible that this case will end up with us getting worse search on the internet?
KANTER: I believe the words of the court, which is the decision stands for the principle that Google is a monopolist and behaves like one in order to
maintain its monopoly competition, whether it's competition among small companies or competition against a very large company yields better
outcomes for everyone. And that's the principle of the antitrust law. That's the principle embedded in the court's decision.
And we're thrilled that the court agreed with our arguments and we look forward to taking this to the next phase.
ISAACSON: And last week's verdict, which Google says it's going to appeal, the judge hasn't yet ruled and you haven't yet presented on what the remedy
should be. What is the realm of what those remedies could be?
KANTER: It's important that we respect the process. And so, with respect to this particular case, I can't comment on what we might request or
suggest to the court. There's a proceeding that will -- the process that will take place. It'll start in September, and we look forward to engaging
with the court.
Generally speaking, outside of this case, there are -- there's a rich body of law that explains what we should think about in the context of remedies,
and U.S. v. Microsoft is a good example, where, in that case, the court both at the district court level and at an appeals level said that remedies
should be forward-looking in nature in the context of an antitrust case involving technology.
And so, making sure that the remedies are meaningful, making sure that the remedies reflect the violation, which, in this case, is monopolization and
deals with the monopoly, and making sure that remedies reflect the market as it exists today on as it will exist in the foreseeable future are
important principles to keep in mind in any case.
ISAACSON: You talked about how this case involved, not just harm to consumers, but harm to the whole competitive process, and that both those
things are important and antitrust law. But let's go back in history, about 40 or 50 years ago there was a major shift, Chicago school, Justice Scalia,
many others saying, let's just focus on price. If it doesn't harm consumers, no harm, no foul.
Is this been a shift to recently with you and Lina Khan and others to get it back into balance with both of those things considered?
KANTER: The shift has been to bring it back into balance with the law. The fact is the law has always been quite clear, and it was recently reaffirmed
by the United States Supreme Court that antitrust doesn't just apply to people who buy things, it can apply to people who offer their labor in the
context of college athletes and then a case involving the NCAA, the Supreme Court explained that antitrust violations geared at people who work are no
different than antitrust violations geared at people who buy.
The antitrust laws have maintained these principles. In fact, we blocked a transaction involving book publishers on the basis that authors would be
deprived of competition for advances for professional original works of authorship. And so, these are really important principles.
Antitrust ultimately focuses on competition. There have been a number of red herrings that put in place about price. Let me be very clear about
this. Price matters. Antitrust cares a lot about the welfare of consumers. It cares a lot about making sure that competition can deliver the best
lowest prices to consumers. And that's something we bring a lot of our cases to focus on and we care about deeply. It's just not the only value
that is embodied in the antitrust laws.
ISAACSON: We live in a really polarized partisan age and almost any issue immediately, there's a split. But what surprises me or in some ways pleases
me on this one is this is a case that was originally brought by Bill Barr, President Trump's attorney general. People like J. D. Vance have praised
you and Lina Khan for doing this. Why is this not become a partisan issue? And to what extent is there some ideological divide here on antitrust
enforcement?
KANTER: Because I think it -- this is an issue that resonates with the broader public. People want to make sure that they have the benefits of a
competitive economy because a competitive economy results in greater opportunity, whether it's a farmer who cares about return on investment for
their cattle or somebody who cares about getting affordable access to health care or lower prices at the checkout line of your grocery store, and
everything in between people want opportunity, they want economic freedom and they want choice.
[13:50:00]
And whether it's a conservative or someone on the other side of the political continuum, they don't want any one company or any one ideology
telling them what to think, see, or hear. And I think these are important principles. And it's one of the reasons why they have generated so much
support across the political continuum.
But ultimately, the values of the antitrust laws are about rule of law. The antitrust laws were written by Congress, enacted in 1890, updated many
times since then with the Clayton Act and a number of others. And our job is to enforce the law as we find it, based on the facts, based on the law
as we find it.
And so, if we stay focused on making sure that we are engaging in law enforcement and doing it for the right reasons when the facts support it, I
think we're going to find widespread support, and that's exactly what we've encountered.
ISAACSON: In a recent interview with The Financial Times, you talked about A.I., artificial intelligence, and said, we have to look at what are the
monopoly choke points for A.I. What does that mean?
KANTER: That means that in any industry, especially an industry involving technology and feedback effects that has a transformative impact on our
society, it's important to make sure that we're preserving competitive process, and we're doing so in real-time.
And so, when people talk about A.I., it's no different than when they talk about the internet or they talk about computers, they're using very general
terms for an industry that has lots of different components. And so, when you think about A.I., it's not a single technology, it's a constellation of
technologies from chips and hardware, to software layers, to applications, to genetics (ph), to all sorts of use cases and scenarios.
It relies on data. You have general data, but you also might have industry specific data. You might have healthcare-based A.I. or certain types of
enterprise-based A.I. It's important to make sure that we understand those distinctions, the importance of all those different variations and ensure
that each one of them, each market within the broader umbrella of A.I. has the opportunity to be competitive so that innovators can innovate.
ISAACSON: Well, wait, let me pick on data, because that's the one you use. I mean, should Google have to share its data? Should Apple have to share
the data on the phones?
KANTER: Well, these are important questions, right? And so, I think there are a lot of broader questions, especially around privacy and ownership,
whether data is a public good. But the reality and in this technology driven markets, especially markets that have machine learning is that data
is the oil. It's the oil that makes these businesses run.
They learn by doing on large amounts of data, not just large in terms of what we might consider, you know, a big book or a library. We're talking
about the likes -- of volumes of data likes of which we can't even imagine running through servers placed across the world. And so, if data is
critically important, then it is a fact that we have to understand to determine how the competitive market functions.
And so, if you need access to massive amounts of data to compete, that is a market reality. I'm not saying that it necessitates that companies have to
share, should or should not share data, I'm simply saying it's a market reality that we have to recognize when understanding how competition works.
ISAACSON: You talk about how sometimes the most meaningful intervention is one that happens in real-time. You just said, we have to do this right
away. You know, if you would let -- why not just let the market play out for a while? In fact, Google probably could have lost its dominance in
search by the advent of A.I. Isn't it better to let things settle out before we just barrel in?
KANTER: I think one of the lessons that we've learned is that in technology markets that have massive network effects, markets can tip. And
when they tip, it becomes exponentially more challenging for rivals to compete because of the scale, because to the data that's necessary.
And so, what we want to do is we want to make sure that if it's necessary, and the facts in the law support it, that a little bit of intervention
early on will hopefully eliminate the need for massive intervention or regulation later on. We want the competitive market ultimately to be the
regulator. We want competition. We want companies fighting it out to deliver better and more to encourage and deliver more benefits to entire
society.
If we have monopolies, then we lose those benefits of competition. And then, often we are faced with either regulation or in this case, against
Google or and others, a backward-looking remedy that tries to address 15 years of anti-competitive behavior. It's much harder to do than it is to
eliminate a few small impediments in real time.
So, I think what we've learned is that when it's mandated and it's appropriate under the facts and the law, that a little bit of intervention
early on can hopefully save us from unnecessarily invasive regulation or intervention later on.
[13:55:00]
ISAACSON: Jonathan Kanter, thank you so much for joining us again.
KANTER: Thank you. Pleasure to be with you.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
AMANPOUR: And finally, tonight, the Bosnian Hills are alive with art. A local entrepreneur has re-imagined Starry Night, one of Vincent van Gogh's
most famous paintings as a natural park, featuring lakes and swirls, 130,000 lavender bushes, medicinal and aromatic herbs. The actual van Gogh
painting hangs in New York's Museum of Modern Art. You decide if life imitates art.
That is it for now. If you ever miss our show, you can find the latest episode shortly after it airs on our podcast. And remember, you can always
catch us online, on our website, and all-over social media.
Thanks for watching, and goodbye from London.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[14:00:00]
END
