Return to Transcripts main page
Amanpour
Interview with Governor Andy Beshear (D-KY); Interview with "Black Box Diaries" Director Shiori Ito; Interview with "The Tech Coup" Author and Stanford Cyber Policy Center Fellow Marietje Schaake. Aired 1-2p ET
Aired February 10, 2025 - 13:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
[13:00:00]
PAULA NEWTON, CNN ANCHOR: Hello, everyone, and welcome to "Amanpour." Here's what's coming up.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
NEWTON: Do you believe a U.S.-made car then would be more expensive?
ROB WILDEBOER, EXECUTIVE CHAIRMAN, MARTINREA: Yes. For sure.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
NEWTON: As new steel tariffs ramp up President Trump's trade war, a closer look at a Canadian company impacted and how tariffs will hurt Americans.
Then to a frontline state in this economic battle, Kentucky Governor Andy Beshear joins the program.
Also, ahead --
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SHIORI ITO, DIRECTOR, "BLACK BOX DIARIES": I'm scared, but all I want to do is talk about the truth.
NEWTON: -- "Black Box Diaries." The Oscar nominated documentary about the sexual assault case that shocked Japan. I'm joined by Shiori Ito, the woman
at the heart of that case who also directed the documentary.
And --
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
MARIETJE SCHAAKE, AUTHOR, "THE TECH COUP": The power grabbed by tech companies at the expense of democracy often happens in less visible ways
than what we're seeing now.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
NEWTON: -- is the U.S. in the midst of a tech coup, former Dutch politician and author, Marietje Schaake, raises the alarm in conversation
with Hari Sreenivasan.
And a warm welcome to the program, everyone. I'm Paula Newton in New York, sitting in for Christiane Amanpour.
Well, you know, Trump likes to say tariffs are, quote, "the most beautiful word." Are things about to get ugly. China's retaliating tariffs on $14
billion worth of U.S. imports are coming into effect today. And just one week after reaching an agreement to delay a trade spat with neighbors
Canada and Mexico, the president announced this on Sunday.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
DONALD TRUMP, U.S. PRESIDENT: We'll also be announcing steel tariffs on Monday
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: On this, tomorrow?
TRUMP: Monday, yes. Tomorrow.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: What countries will those go on?
TRUMP: Everybody. Steel.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Including Canada and Mexico?
TRUMP: Yes. Any steel coming into the United States is going to have a 25 percent tariff.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: What about aluminum, sir?
TRUMP: Aluminum too.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
NEWTON: Now, as America's largest supplier of steel, it's something that could hit Canada particularly hard. Now, the wielding of tariffs as a
legend is sending jitters through companies in Canada. And of course, it's something that I saw firsthand in this report from the manufacturing
heartland of Ontario. People even told me they are changing how they view their American neighbors. Listen.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
NEWTON (voice-over): It's on this factory floor in Canada that Donald Trump's demands for fair trade are being tested.
NEWTON: What are these over here?
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: For the Silverado.
NEWTON (voice-over): These are parts for the Silverado, a GM truck made in Canada, the U.S., and Mexico, and they're made by Martinrea.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: These are 1,000-ton stamping presses.
NEWTON (voice-over): A global auto parts supplier with thousands of workers in all three countries. Trump tariffs would strike at the very
heart of this business and its workers in North America, says Executive Chairman Rob Wildeboer.
NEWTON: President Trump would say, why Mexico? Why Canada? Why can't you just make it all in the U.S.?
ROB WILDEBOER, EXECUTIVE CHAIRMAN, MARTINREA: I don't know anyone in our company that wants tariffs between Canada, the U.S., and Mexico. Because we
work very well as a unit. We take care of our people everywhere and we make great parts in every jurisdiction. And, quite frankly, we benefit from
that. We've got some great plants in Mexico, in the United States, and in Canada.
NEWTON: Do you believe a U.S.-made car then would be more expensive?
WILDEBOER: Yes. For sure. For sure.
NEWTON (voice-over): That's the math, he says, a calculation made every day here as the threat of tariffs hang over one of the most prized
manufacturing industries on the continent. Canada's auto industry directly employs at least 130,000 people in dozens of towns and cities, including
Martinrea's facility in Vaughan, Ontario, just outside of Toronto. They depend on these stable jobs, as do workers at this Martinrea facility in
the U.S. State of Kentucky.
WILDEBOER: I'll put my U.S. hat on, right? Because we are an American supplier. We're a Canadian supplier. We're a Mexican supplier. But we have
twice as many people in the United States as we do in Canada.
[13:05:00]
And in a number of communities, we're the largest employer. So, Hopkinsville, Kentucky, Jonesville, Michigan, and others, we're a big deal.
We're a big deal locally, we take care of a lot of people. And I would say a lot of those people probably voted for President Trump. They like this
message of lower inflation, more jobs, stronger economy. But with the tariffs and so forth, they're getting higher inflation, less jobs, weaker
economy.
NEWTON (voice-over): Despite that pitch, even employees here know what they're up against in the Oval Office. And some told us they approve of
Canada standing up to the threat.
NATIK JARIWALLA, MARTINREA EMPLOYEE: It's going to hurt anyhow. It's like, either you deal it right now or in the future.
NEWTON (voice-over): And it's not just Canada, Trump is challenging the very template of free trade right around the world. The European Union can
see what's coming their way. It has one of the largest trade deficits with the U.S. It, too, says it will respond firmly to any tariffs.
But it is Trump's tough talk about an economic takeover of Canada that cannot be reconciled.
TRUMP: What I'd like to see, Canada become our 51st state.
NEWTON (voice-over): It's triggered an uncommon anti-American backlash in Canada that may have legs.
(MUSIC PLAYING)
NEWTON (voice-over): Booing the U.S. anthem, boycotting American products, all of it, so far, seems to have staying power.
DON PEPPER BURLINGTON, ONTARIO RESIDENT: Well, I think it's ridiculous. We've been friends for years, traded for years. And then, all of a sudden,
this happens.
NEWTON (voice-over): For Martinrea's executives and its North American workers, tariffs could still be a reality within weeks, putting at risk a
profitable business and good paying jobs in the U.S. and beyond. They are asking President Trump, why mess with that?
(END VIDEOTAPE)
NEWTON (on camera): Now, as you heard there, the impact of the tariffs isn't just outside of America's border, but very much within the borders of
America, potentially hitting states like Kentucky very hard.
Joining me now for this and so much more is the Democratic governor of Kentucky, Andy Beshear, and I want to welcome you to the program.
GOV. ANDY BESHEAR (D-KY): Thanks for having me.
NEWTON: All right. These are numbers I do not have to remind you of, but Kentucky exported more than $9 billion in goods to Canada in 2023 alone,
nearly a quarter of the state's total goods exported. You know, you have mentioned before Kentucky's two Republican senators, Mitch McConnell and
Rand Paul, have both said, look, these tariffs do not make sense.
So, first, let us know what kind of an impact you believe it will make on your state. And, you know, you heard me speak about that company. You saw
the company, Martinrea, in that report. I know you've been to their facilities there in Kentucky. I mean, what do you say to people in your
communities who I know will tell you, we'll bring more of those Canadian jobs to Kentucky?
BESHEAR: Well, I think people in our communities are now seeing how damaging these tariffs are going to be. Tariffs are going to increase the
price of everyday goods on all Americans, which is the antithesis, the opposite of why they may have voted for Donald Trump.
I believe Donald Trump is currently the president because the last group of movable voters thought he would be more focused on bringing down prices
than his opponent, but he has done everything but that. You look at his number of EOs on culture war issues, so many more than anything on the
economy.
And you're right, when you look at my state, Canada is our number one trading partner, almost a quarter of all of our exports go to Canada. And
Canada has been such a good partner to the United States and a good friend in virtually everything we've done, not only does it not make it economic
sense, but it's sending the wrong message to the world.
But let me break it down as simply as I can. Tariffs on Canada will increase prices at the pump. Tariffs on Mexico will increase prices at the
grocery store. And both of those will hit the American people hard.
NEWTON: But, Governor Beshear, is the president or anyone around him, even Republicans, really listening? I mean, two of three of all Kentuckians
voted for Donald Trump and his approval rating seems to be holding.
BESHEAR: Well, Donald Trump talked about a lot on the campaign trail. He didn't talk about raising prices on the American people. He talked about
the exact opposite. And I think some people thought that he'd be trying to make deals to decrease prices instead of using our economy as a bargaining
chip with these tariffs to try to get non-economic concessions.
You said earlier, and I'm grateful, that Senator Mitch McConnell and Senator Rand Paul are two Republican senators are speaking out against
tariffs. So, you have Rand Paul, Mitch McConnell, and the Democratic governor of Kentucky all agreeing tariffs are a bad idea, and it's for a
simple reason, tariffs are a really bad idea.
[13:10:00]
NEWTON: Now, if you aren't getting through to the president, at least just not yet, or even those two Republican senators, you know, we were looking
in my report on the fact that American whiskey, bourbon from Kentucky being taken off the shelves. Now, that was halted for now, but obviously, the
threat is there if this trade war continues. Do you believe business people from Kentucky are now looking at the president's moves on tariffs a little
differently? And could they possibly get through to the President?
BESHEAR: I hope they can, and they are absolutely seeing the harm of tariffs, and that's everything from our bourbon industry. You know, 95
percent of the world's bourbon is made in Kentucky, but all the bourbon worth drinking is made in Kentucky.
NEWTON: Noted. Noten.
BESHEAR: Yes, at the same time, you know, you look at 95 and that important number, 30, like you talked about, the percentage points that
Trump won Kentucky, but zero is the number of bottles of Kentucky bourbon that could be on the shelves in Canadian liquor stores. How that would hit
our people, how it would hit a really proud industry, it could be devastating.
But then, look at our small businesses, and they are just as worried. When they look at where their supplies come from, when they look at years of
inflation already causing them difficulty, they're looking at this and they're saying, why on Earth are we threatening tariffs on a place like
Canada in a way that could make life tougher for us in America?
NEWTON: And yet, the president did outline this issue with fentanyl at the border. Canada is saying that it's going to spend upwards of a billion
dollars to police the border. It will appoint a drug czar, a fentanyl czar at the border there. This is a topic obviously near and dear to you,
especially given the retching effects of the opioid crisis in Kentucky, even as attorney general, you had a lot to do with this.
I mean, look, the facts are clear, Canada, it's really infinitesimal what it carries across the border into the United States compared to Mexico. At
the same time, though, does the president have a point that more can be done, especially if you look at the roots of trafficking and the fact that
you want Canada to do something about it before it's a problem?
BESHEAR: Well, I believe that border security is national security, and I believe we have to have strong borders. Like you mentioned, as attorney
general, I sued more opioid manufacturers and distributors than any other A.G. in the nation because we were hit the hardest. In Kentucky, we've all
lost people we love and we care about first through opioid addiction, now fentanyl being as powerful as it is, but Canada is not the cause for that.
They're not.
You look at the numbers, and what we are doing is threatening a strong, important relationship for our national security and for our economy. And
at the end of the day, again, I believe the president was elected to bring down prices. And if his actions cause an increase, make it harder for the
American people to pay bills at the end of the month, I think there's going to be a big feeling of betrayal, and it's going to come pretty early.
NEWTON: And yet, president saying that, look, if it doesn't have -- if in your belief as well, that it doesn't have anything to do or doesn't have
much to do with the issue of fentanyl at the border, is it the 51st state question? Prime Minister Justin Trudeau thinks that's a real thing. Do you
believe it's a real thing? Do you think the president would go that far?
BESHEAR: Well, it seems like the president brings it up a lot, but I think it's silly. Canada is a strong ally. It is a proud country. It has marched
into so many different parts of the world right next to the United States.
So, important for our economy, and we've always been able to work out differences like friends and like allies. And I have great concern about
the impact this could have on our longstanding relationship. So, to the people of Canada, this is not how the people of the United States feel.
This is what our current president is talking about, but we are a lot more than one president.
NEWTON: I do want to turn to the effects of the executive orders and the Trump administration just in a little bit more than two weeks here, about
40 percent of Kentucky's budget, again, don't have to remind you, come from federal grant funding. That's about 200 -- pardon me, $22 billion and it
goes to everything helping new mothers, child care, your medical facilities.
There was a day there was a lot of confusion in the first week of the Trump administration. How did that affect Kentucky? And are you worried it will
affect those crucial funds going forward?
BESHEAR: Yes, that day was difficult and should have never happened. They shut off Medicaid for most of that day. That is hundreds of thousands of
Kentuckians and tens of millions of Americans that could have been going in for doctor's appointments.
[13:15:00]
There could have been waiting on critical surgery. The damage that that could have caused if it had continued further would have been measured in
human lives. You look at other grants that are out there on research and what they're about to do to proud universities that are trying to find that
next drug that can help someone with diabetes, that next breakthrough in cancer. You look at threatened funding that could dry up dollars for
special education within our states. These are all really important programs.
And listen, are there problems in the federal government? Sure. Does the federal government need to be fixed? Yes. But what you see right now is an
attempt to break it. And that's wrong. There are too many people out there counting on these programs, not to give them a handout, but to give them a
hand up.
NEWTON: But a pointed --
BESHEAR: And with a booming economy as we see right now, we can place people in good jobs when we give them just that extra bit of help.
NEWTON: But a pointed question, Governor, what can you do about it? It doesn't seem like much is being done, and that threat still hangs over your
state and others.
BESHEAR: Well, certainly, court action is one step that many A.G.s have taken, and you're going to see us join many of those court actions moving
forward. When Congress passes a law that creates a program and then they fund that program, the president can't choose to not carry it through. It's
his constitutional duty to do so.
I know because when I was attorney general, our governor tried the same thing. He tried to do cuts to our universities that were in opposition to
what our General Assembly had done, I sued and we won. Now, this president has exceeded his legal authority. Many of his actions are violating the
Constitution, and we're going to be there in the courts to make sure that we are standing up for our separation of powers, but most importantly, that
we're standing up for our people.
You know, this can all get caught up in the legal framework that's so important to our country. But what's most critical is what these cuts or
freezes would do to hardworking Americans that rely on certain programs.
NEWTON: But so much of that damage would be done before people realize what's happening. I do want to go back to the guardrail, the legal one that
is written in the Constitution in terms of the way the powers of government in the United States are divided.
And yet, on Sunday, you had Vice President J. D. Vance saying judges aren't allowed to control the executives legitimate power. He was openly
questioning the judiciary's power in those court rulings. As you said, you are a University of Virginia law graduate, you are a former attorney
general. What happens if the Trump administration basically thumbs its nose at these court rulings?
BESHEAR: Well, J. D. Vance wasn't listening at Yale Law School, apparently, because he knows better. And he absolutely knows better. But
they're trying to push through thinking that the courts won't stop them and won't enforce their orders. And I have faith that they will and for the
future of our American democracy, they need to.
At different times, executives have tried to overreach and Congress has tried to overreach. The courts have to be there to enforce the separation
of powers or where the structure of government that's made the United States the beacon to the world for so many years. And in the end, the Trump
administration needs to take a breath and knock it off.
Like they can do a lot. They have so much authority, they can do a whole lot without trying to trample over that separation of powers, without
trying to illegally cut different programs that are so important. Again, they can get to the work of fixing things. What they can't do is break
things in direct contradiction to statute.
NEWTON: But again, if they do not adhere to any of the court rulings, what can Democratic governors -- what can the Democratic Party do?
BESHEAR: Well, if we reach that point, we'll reach that point. But I believe that they will abide by court orders. It would create more of a
constitutional crisis than we've certainly seen at any point in my lifetime. We are seeing them obey -- at least obey, for the most part, the
orders that stop the freezing of funding, we're seeing them obey some other orders that are out there. Federal court has a lot of sanctions that they
can put in place, and we're going to need our judiciary to do its job.
But let me just add, Congress should be doing its job, too. You know, the members of Congress, Republican and Democrat, take an oath to the
Constitution, and they should be standing up for their authority as Congress. The fact that the Republican majority is just rolling over and
saying, you can ignore anything we've passed. I mean, that is an abdication of duty. That's an abdication of their role in this government. And it's
time for them to step up too and say, you know, sure, we support you and we're behind you, President Trump, if they are, but you have your job and
we have ours, you can't do our job, and were going to stand up for our role in this government.
[13:20:00]
BESHEAR: But that, again, may be up to pressure that voters themselves put on those representatives. You know, I want to point out, I noticed you were
in a local supermarket the other day. Everyone's got egg prices, $7 for a carton is crazy. They're projected to rise 20 percent more this year. Thats
according to the U.S. Department of Agriculture.
You know, Democrats point out that Trump's agenda will do nothing to lower prices. You've articulated that for the last few minutes as well. Yet, some
say that Republicans use this culture war on so many issues to convince their voters to actually vote against their own economic interests. What's
the tipping point that you see? Because you know as well as I do, a lot of the voters that voted for you, as well as Donald Trump, do believe that
what he's done, vis a vis the culture war is warranted.
BESHEAR: Well, I believe the reason that I'm a Democratic governor in what's perceived as a red state and that Donald Trump ultimately won in
Kentucky, is that they believe that we were more focused on their everyday concerns, their job, and whether or not they make enough to support their
family, their next doctor's appointment, the roads and bridges they drive every day, the school they drop their kids off at and public safety in
their communities.
I believe that that those last group of voters were convinced, and I don't think rightfully, but were convinced, that the former vice president was
distracted by culture war issues. What we see now is Donald Trump seems obsessed by them. Again, he's got more EO's on trans or DEI issues than he
has on the economy.
And I think we saw a recent poll where 66 percent of Americans said he hasn't done enough to lower prices. Most presidents get a period of time
where people try to give them the benefit of the doubt. But these risky games he's playing with tariffs, with the prices of so many goods, have
already saying, you can only talk about egg prices so much, I think was a quote that he said, is turning a lot of Americans off.
But to all Americans out there, the best way to help make sure we get this right is use your voice. You know, with social media right now, if you're
in the grocery store and prices are going up, make sure you get it out there. Make sure you raise your voice about your concerns, because this is
ultimately your government.
NEWTON: I do note your criticism as well as the Democratic strategy on those culture wars. We will continue to follow the Democratic response to
this as well as yours. Andy Beshear, thanks so much. Appreciate it.
BESHEAR: Thank you.
NEWTON: Next now to a critically acclaimed documentary that merges the power of journalism with the Japanese MeToo movement. "Black Box Diaries"
tells the harrowing story of Shiori Ito, pardon me, a journalist investigating her own sexual assault, offering a shocking expose of sexism,
injustice, and the ties that bind in Japan's political culture. Listen.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SHIORI ITO, DIRECTOR, "BLACK BOX DIARIES": I'm scared, but all I want to do is talk about the truth.
ITO (through translator): I have no memory of that night. When I woke up, I was being raped.
ITO: Many people already witnessed what kind of negative reaction I've got.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE (through translator): There's no evidence, so your case is difficult.
ITO: Our justice system is not working.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Without these recordings, no one would believe what I heard.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
NEWTON: Directed by Shiori Ito herself, the film is nominated for best documentary feature at next month's Academy Awards and is streaming now on
Paramount Plus.
Shiori Ito joins the show now live from Los Angeles. But we do want to warn everyone watching parts of this conversation you may find distressing. I
welcome you to the program. Your film is so deeply personal.
This was obviously a long and difficult journey for you as a young woman really trying, fighting your way to get some modicum of justice. For the
benefit of our audience, in your own words, can you tell us your story?
ITO: Yes. Thank you so much for having me. Well, it's my story of experience, of sexual violence, but this film is not focusing on what
happened, it's -- this film is highlighting what happens after. How do we survive as a survivor? How did I have to investigate my own case when
police or Japanese media couldnt touch on that? So, it's the perspective as a journalist, but also, the perspective as a survivor of sexual violence.
[13:25:00]
NEWTON: And yet, in pursuing those two things, it is your career as a journalist is very much at the forefront. You show footage of that night in
2015 when you met a high-profile journalist for some career advice. You were an intern. So, much of us can relate to that. You were an at Reuters
at the time.
You know, we hear in those early phone calls how investigators, they just dismissed you as not having enough evidence that even waking up during the
act and you describing that to them, it just wasn't enough. And then, you decide to go public two years later.
I just want to show everyone just a little more of the documentary. Listen.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
ITO: I have a chance to talk about the truth, what happened to me two years ago, which have been -- I feel, which has been ignored. This could be
a big change in my life and some others, or many others. And I not sure -- I'm scared and I'm not sure if I could be responsible for that. But all I
want to do is talk about the truth.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
NEWTON: I was so startled when you took those moments in the documentary to look straight into the camera. It must have been a difficult decision to
go public with this story, and I'm wondering how you're dealing with all the fallout now, even though, obviously, there's a lot of acclaim for what
you've done as well.
ITO: Well, first two years for me was just documenting what was happening in front me, and I suspect there was possible coverup. But after two years,
I decided to go public because I wanted to ask to reinvestigate this case and possibly asking for other journalists to ask this tough question for
these people who stopped the arrest. But it didn't happen in the way I hoped. So, that's why I had to just keep documenting.
And honestly, I didn't know if I want to make a film that time. But I have to say, if there was an, you know, investigation and made media who asked
this question straight away directly, I don't think I had to go through all of this.
So, it's been a difficult journey, but I'm very happy now I could share this story to the others. Because this is just one experience, one of my
story, and there are thousands or millions more out there that we don't know that has been maybe covered up or silenced.
NEWTON: Yes, unfortunately, likely more. I mean, a 2020 Japanese government survey found that 95 percent, the vast majority of survivors,
they just never report any of these assaults to police. You know, some don't tell anyone at all, obviously, because of they themselves feel that
did I do something wrong? They feel shame. Can you explain the barriers that you face, the very personal ones and the toll it took on you?
ITO: Well, I don't think this is just Japanese culture, but because, yes, in our culture and society, talking about sexual violence have seemed quite
taboo, and there are strong stigma against survival of sexual violence.
So, just speaking up about my own case, just question people, why is she talking about such a shameful thing? And it was just right before the MeToo
movement happened here in state. So, it was hard to let people know why we need to highlight these cases and why we have to hear, listen the survivor
point of story because, like you said, only 4, 5 percent goes to report the case. And just to report, it doesn't mean that the case would be taken
afterwards. It's hard.
When I went to police, they told me, these things happen a lot, so you should just forget about it. And that's how it is. I had to also reenact
with life size doll when four different policemen were taking photo of me reenacting the sexual assault.
And when we think this can happen, if you go to police, of course it's too much. You can't go on and talk about your case. But that's why we have to
know what -- and what -- which time, which level do we get silenced? It's not just by society, but it's a structural system that's silencing us.
NEWTON: Yes. In fact, you describing how you were assaulted was brutal enough, but then, again, you -- saying that you had to reenact it,
triggering it all over again with these investigators.
[13:30:00]
You know, it did occur to me that some people watching this documentary in Japan might actually be more intimidated by coming forward, as redeeming as
your story might be.
ITO: Well, it's been difficult, actually, to screen this film in Japan. I think after -- thanks to MeToo movement, I think we cover much more cases
about sexual violence. But when the case comes with power corruption, it's still quite difficult to cover. And again, this is not just Japanese story,
it's very universal. So, we've been able to screen our film over 57 countries, but not yet in Japan.
NEWTON: And that says something in and of itself. You know, the man you accused, Noriyuki Yamaguchi, was a prominent figure, as we said. He wrote
the late Japanese PM Shinzo Abe's biography. Yamaguchi maintains his innocence to this day. We have to say, he was never convicted of a crime.
And, you know, what really struck me in the press conference that he gave, which you attended, he said, quote, I really regret what happened, because
she suffered a lot. How did you interpret that comment?
ITO: I actually, when -- while he was giving a statement at a press conference, I joined as well to listen to his side of story as a
journalist. So, I still remember that moment hearing him saying -- you know, he is sort of saying, yes, I regret because I got PTSD towards
(INAUDIBLE), but he also say, so did I. So, me too.
And that was really a wake-up point for me that, you know, talking about truth is so difficult. And there are multiple side of the story, but yet,
the reason why it's so hard to talk about sexual violence is because, legally speaking, it's hard to prove. And that's why I named this film
called "Black Box Diaries" because these police and prosecutors always saying, you know, this sexual violence happens behind a closed door and
it's in black box. No one knows what happened.
But that's not true. Through my investigation, I could -- I post -- I found people who remember right before me going to the hotel, how I tried to get
off from the taxi, how I, you know, looked in the CCTV when he was pulling me away to the hotel room. So, it's just the matter of how legally we need
to update our law, the definition of rape is not still down on consent in Japan.
NEWTON: Yes, it is not consent, in many cases, it's the violence that needs to be proven. I mean, look, you have had support, of course, but
you've also faced a lot of shocking slander and the backlash at home. National media barely covered the story at first. Investigators kept giving
you excuses. You had to push them, both investigators and witnesses.
Now, you addressed why you felt you had to do this. Let's listen to that for a moment.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
ITO (through translator): The police initially refused to accept my victim's report. Stating the current law makes it difficult to investigate
sex crimes. And that Yamaguchi is a prominent figure. Washington Chief of Tokyo Broadcasting System.
Since the incident, I've focused as a journalist on seeking the truth. I had no other choice. If I were to face myself as the victim, I would be
crushed mentally.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
NEWTON: You know, looking back the way you approached this as a journalist, did it help you or do you think it held you back? And what kept
you going? As I said, you had to do so much of the legwork yourself.
ITO: You know, I can't believe, you know, this happened to me, 2015, and today, 2025, it's been 10 years that I've been facing my own case, and I
think, in a way, being a journalist helped me because I could question these things, and I could distance myself as a survivor, and that was how I
survived. My survival was to ask questions, to seek --
NEWTON: Oh, I believe we have lost Shiori. She was discussing there -- in fact, we might get her back. Apologies.
ITO: Am I back?
NEWTON: It's something -- yes, keep going. Apologies. Go ahead.
[13:35:00]
ITO: No worries. I was just saying that I think every survivor has different way to survive. And for me, was to ask question, to seek justice.
So, you know, after speaking up about my case and asking these questions, I've been told I'm very brave and we should all speak up. But not in old
society, not in every culture would accept that.
You know, the first thing you have to do is to survive. So, it's not for everyone, but for my own case, I had to do it because I wanted to know what
happened to me and what was the possible cover up. How did that happen? And until today, I haven't get answer how this cover up happened. Why arrest
was stopped. The reason. So, I am keep asking these questions through this film.
NEWTON: I do want to get to something that was so painful. Your mother was outside the courtroom the day that, you know, you talked about this ruling.
It was a positive ruling for you. But of course, this was so difficult for your family, and you made that clear throughout, as did your family. How is
your relationship with them now? And I have to confess, so much of what I watched about this provocative documentary is I watched it as a mother, and
not a journalist, forgive me for that.
But, you know, as I was watching it, you know, your family wants your happily ever after. That's what they wanted for you.
ITO: It was extremely hard for them, especially with the Japanese society background mindset, you know, Asian family. They were afraid what kind of
life I would get if I talk about my own experience of sexual violence. And today, it's still difficult because this film hasn't yet been screened in
Japan, but my family are supportive these days.
It's -- my sister especially, she's much younger than me, and I was trying to think about her always when I speak up because this -- I wish this would
never happen to my little sister. But it was difficult for them to see my name was the, you know, label with rape victim. For them, I'm just sister.
For them, I'm just daughter.
But it was interesting when Times Magazine named me as most influential people of hundred. My sister finally think I'm cool.
NEWTON: Oh. Clearly a higher purpose to your work there. Shiori Ito, I really want to thank you for what obviously continues to be a difficult
conversation for you. And we'll continue to follow your story. We so appreciate it.
ITO: Thank you.
NEWTON: Thank you. Now, if you or someone you know is a victim of sexual assault, there is help. If you're in America, you can call 800-656-HOPE to
reach the National Sexual Assault Hotline. It's confidential and available 24/7.
Next, how Silicon Valley has it become too powerful? Our next guests believe so. And in an effort to advocate for more regulation of tech
companies, she pivoted from serving in the European Parliament to Stanford University's Cyber Policy Center.
Maricha Shooka joins Hari Sreenivasan to discuss what the tech titans grip on Washington means for democracy.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
HARI SREENIVASAN, CNN INTERNATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Paula, thanks. Marietje Schaake, thanks so much for joining us.
You have a book out recently, it's called "The Tech Coup: How to Save Democracy from Silicon Valley." I think a lot of people are thinking about
this, if they saw the images from the inauguration, where just flanking the president on one side were some of the richest human beings on the planet,
all from the tech sector. When you saw that what crossed your mind?
MARIETJE SCHAAKE, AUTHOR, "THE TECH COUP" AND FELLOW, STANFORD CYBER POLICY CENTER: I was actually very disappointed that they would cozy up to the
political leadership by funding and by sitting on the front row while the policies are so controversial and while there's a lot of illegitimate power
now in the hands of tech CEOs, like Elon Musk. And it feels very opportunistic of all these CEOs to just join that crowd and have no regard
for, you know, separation of powers, rule of law, lack of conflict of interest that, you know, we're now clearly seeing in what is unfolding
since the inauguration.
SREENIVASAN: You know, when you came up with the title for the book, people probably asked you whether the word coup was over the top. Do you
feel that it's justified now?
[13:40:00]
SCHAAKE: Well, I actually felt it was justified already because the power grab by tech companies at the expense of democracy often happens in less
visible ways than what we're seeing now. And in many ways, the synergy, the overlap between the interests of the tech CEOs and the Trump administration
is just the next phase of this tech coup. It makes it more blatant, more cynical, more radical, but it's an extension of the power grab that tech
companies have been doing in visible and invisible ways for a while now.
And where we just see a lack of countervailing powers, a lack of independent oversights, and I fear that the U.S. is going exactly in the
opposite direction of what we need against strengthening a democratic governance and providing a balance against this outsized power of
corporates in the tech sector.
SREENIVASAN: So, give me an example of how this is a threat to democracy, right? Because we're both old enough to recognize when, for example, the
Arab Spring, not too long ago, and other different movements around the world, and we looked at these things in our hands as these amazing tools to
try to increase access to democracy all over the globe. We now have the ability to share our opinions and we could -- you know, literally people
took to the streets with it. So, how did that turn? I mean, you outlined this in the book.
SCHAAKE: Well, you're absolutely right that the promise of the internet, the World Wide Web, mobile technologies, social media was also one of
democratization, that it would lift up unheard voices, allow people to document and share human rights abuses. But what has happened is that
corporate interests, profit interests, scaling interests, investor goals for shareholders have just prevailed, and that democratic governments in
the meantime have neglected, advocated their responsibility to make sure that governance decisions were designed to make sure that democracy would
be achieved through the use of technology.
Too much trust was put in market forces. And now, we see that tech companies know so much about us, develop products and services that really
challenge the role of states, think about critical infrastructure or offensive cyber capabilities, intelligence capabilities that tech companies
now have.
And so, there's just been a disbalance that has emerged where the companies are extremely powerful, and they're not acting within a democratic mandate,
within a democratic oversight. In many ways, they're overtaking the role of governments.
SREENIVASAN: This seems, at least in America, to have happened under the watch of multiple administrations, Democrat and Republican, right? I mean,
what did we not see coming? Initially, in terms of regulation, we had a very light touch. We wanted to encourage innovation. We wanted to have
1,000 flowers bloom, et cetera. And at what point could we have perhaps crafted a different path?
SCHAAKE: Well, I think for a long time, there's been an over romantization of what Silicon Valley was, what it could mean. The narrative was very much
about disrupting powerful incumbents, about, you know, small companies challenging the big actors, guys with their laptops in garages on flip
flops. But these companies scaled very quickly. They very quickly became the incumbents.
And they're not only selling a product, but they're also integrating ever more data, ever more functions, ever more insights and dependencies in our
lives, the lives of our governments, of our citizens. In our national security, they play a critical role.
And so, I think the romanticized narrative has just been believed for too long. And there has not been a recognition of what a power grabbed by these
companies could mean. And indeed, it's been Democratic and Republican led governments that have just allowed these companies to grow
disproportionately and without the sufficient guardrails that are needed to protect people.
SREENIVASAN: You know, it's interesting when -- you're right, that startup in the garage is what we think about of Silicon Valley. But when you sort
of saw amassed next to the president there, you saw the scale of how huge these companies are. I mean, it seems like there's maybe a half dozen or
more super players that are integrated into what they like to call the tech stack of the government.
SCHAAKE: Exactly. The dependencies are enormous. The wealth is enormous. And the potential for abuse of power is enormous. Look at what Elon Musk is
doing through X now, through his personal wealth, supporting far-right parties in Europe. He is basically going into the U.S. government without a
mandate, you know, without the kind of accountability that belongs to people who have the kind of access that he and his supporters or his staff,
whatever the proper term is now, have by going into government agencies, into the tech infrastructure and tweaking that all in the name of
efficiency.
[13:45:00]
But outside of what is typically a rule of law-based approach to giving people power but also making sure that they are subject to oversight that
they are, for example, approved by Congress, which is not the case.
And so, I think if this would happen in any other country than the United States, people would clearly see there's a conflict of interest. This is
blurring the lines. This does not fit in a democratically run states. But now that it's happening in the U.S., I think people are just paralyzed and
shocked at what is happening.
But that paralysis cannot last too long. There really needs to be an anchoring back in the U.S. Constitution to make sure that this kind of
access and potential abuse of power, conflict of interest doesn't go on as we see it happening today.
SREENIVASAN: There have been periods in America where we've had kind of a different era of now we're calling them broligarchs, but we had the Robert
Barrons, the gilded age, we had the Andrew Carnegies, the Vanderbilts, right? And I wonder that was a time where they exerted their influence over
the U.S. government for favorable tariff regimes, monopolistic practices and so forth.
And I wonder if you can help our audience understand the conflicts of interest that exist with, say, Elon Musk, Mark Zuckerberg, Jeff Bezos, the
kind of the titans that we are seeing have greater access to the power of the White House.
SCHAAKE: Many of them actually supply government, the government of the United States, but also many governments around the world with critical
services, like cloud computing, as you mentioned, with software suites, with cybersecurity protections.
And so, there's a huge dependency there, but it also means that these companies know a lot about our societies, about the government. And now,
apparently, Elon Musk is in the heart of the U.S. government with access to all kinds of sensitive data. And so, I think that dependency through
contracts, through potential, you know, use of the sensitive information that these companies have access to creates a conflict of interest.
There are regulatory bodies that Elon Musk is now making decisions about, you know, making so-called efficiency steps that actually have direct
oversight over his companies. The same with Mark Zuckerberg, who is now pushing Donald Trump to consider competition fines as a trade barrier.
These kinds of, you know, whispers or actions that are much more direct, you know, using the U.S. government as a lever for individual business
interest is, I think, as clear as it gets when it comes to a conflict of interest.
SREENIVASAN: The president, for the record, has said, you know, last week that there's no cause for concern about this conflict of interest with Elon
Musk. If there is one, then we won't let him get near it. What's the problem with perhaps Donald Trump's understanding of that?
SCHAAKE: Well, I mean, we've heard the president saying many things that were not accurate in the past. So, you know, just because he says it
doesn't make it true. So, I think the problem with it is that Elon Musk is gaining access to highly sensitive government data and systems, making
consequential decisions about jobs, about budgets, about operations without a mandate that is typically given to people with such access to these
systems.
And on top of the fact that he's basically operating with a parallel power structure. So, it doesn't have to rescind authority over his companies, for
example, is not subject to the same ethics or accountability rules that an official government appointee would be through oversight of Congress, for
example. But it's also just very radical steps with real consequences for people around the world.
SREENIVASAN: Look, there's going to be people that listen to this conversation and say, look, these CEOs are doing exactly what they should
be doing to try to protect their interests, their corporate interests, their shareholder interests. I'm quoting from a recent column in The New
York Times from Julia Angwin, and she just points out, for example, in the European Union, Google has been fined $8.6 billion in the past decade.
Apple is liable for $13.5 billion in tax bills in Ireland after losing a court case. And Meta was recently fined about $830 million by the E.U. The
European Commission will soon level a fine in the millions against X, right?
So, doesn't it make sense for these individuals to cozy up to whoever's in power and say, hey, listen, can we, as the United States, exert some
leverage on these old allies of ours to make sure that we are not overly regulated in these other markets?
[13:50:00]
SCHAAKE: Well, the fines that you mentioned are a lot for people like you and I, but they're not that much for these billion-dollar companies. So,
even though these are impressive fines, they are just part of the cost of doing business for most tech companies. And we have to ask ourselves
whether that's sufficient.
But antitrust, having rules about fairness in the economy are based on century old laws that also exist in the United States. This is not a
typically European phenomenon that goes after U.S. companies. In fact, E.U.-based companies may also be subject to competition and antitrust cases
and fines. They can appeal. And then, ultimately, there's a verdict with possible sanctions.
And so, I think, you know, if you look at what the FTC has been doing under the Biden administration, the idea that too much power concentration
doesn't only hurt the economy and innovation because they can stifle that, but also impacts democracy, has impact on the right to privacy, for
example, was something that we shared across the Atlantic.
It's just with the Trump administration that these tech CEOs, like Mark Zuckerberg, for example, feel emboldened and say, hey, competition
sanctions should actually be considered a tariff. They should be considered part of the trade war that is now expected to be unleashed by Donald Trump,
with all the negative consequences that that's going to have. And so, indeed, the tech CEOs are very opportunistic, but that doesn't make their
claims justified in any way, shape, or form.
SREENIVASAN: You were a member of the European Parliament, and in the book, you lay out kind of different paths that we could have taken, and,
well, maybe we should kind of pivot to what are the steps that we should take.
SCHAAKE: Well, I think it's crucial to get more transparency into how the inner workings of tech companies impact our society. So, think about
algorithmic amplification when it comes to social media, think about the public interest in understanding A.I. models, which, you know, is now often
shielded by A.I. companies as a trade secret, but we really need to have capacity to, for example, research A.I. models much more deeply as
academics, for example.
But I also think it is key that governments, when they use technology to perform, you know, tax services or investigations through the police, that
they have the same kind of transparency and accountability that they would have if they would not have outsourced these tasks to tech companies.
What we often see is that there's a different treatment of, let's say, surveillance practices on the part of police when they are done directly by
police forces, or when they're outsourced to tech companies. And so, having that kind of public accountability is critical, but also, to bring in
independent expertise in a legislative body so that the lobbyists that are spending, you know, hundreds of millions of dollars to influence our
lawmakers are not as successful. So, that lawmakers have access to independent expertise on technology when they make laws.
SREENIVASAN: You were on stage with Eric Schmidt, the former CEO of Google, back in 2019, and something you said struck me.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SCHAAKE: It's very clear that tech companies cannot stay on the fence in taking a position in relation to values and rights. I personally believe
that a rules-based order serves the public interest, as well as individual and collective rights and liberties that companies benefit from, but that
everybody has a role to play to also contribute to the common interest and to strengthen the resilience of our democracies.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
SREENIVASAN: That was 2019. Have we gotten closer, further away from what you were interested in then?
SCHAAKE: Much further away, unfortunately. I mean, I think we've basically lost the United States for the foreseeable future when it comes to
legislation. We've lost the companies when it comes to articulating respect for certain fundamental values, like human rights and democratic rights,
for example.
And so, I really think this is a time for those who don't want to be represented by Elon Musk and the other CEOs who are sitting in the front
row to speak out. I think it is a time to really recalibrate around constitutional principles. It's really around those very, very basics in
the United States now that the defenses have to be organized.
And it also means that the regulation of technology from a democratic point of view is happening in Europe. That is really the only place where a
significant market is putting democratic guardrails around how A.I. and other technologies can be used in our society.
And so, that is also going to be a space to watch in terms of, you know, how safety standards are being developed, how companies can mitigate the
risks that their models may present both in the short-term and in the long- term. And I think that will also be critical for trust in A.I. and technology itself.
[13:55:00]
I mean, that really cuts both ways. You can't just look at regulation as a burden, it also helps to develop trust, a level playing field. So, fair
treatment for all companies. And I think that that is actually very, very important, even more so than it was in 2019.
SREENIVASAN: The book is called "The Tech Coup: How to Save Democracy from Silicon Valley." Marietje Schaake, thanks so much for joining us.
SCHAAKE: Thanks for having me.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
NEWTON: I want to thank you for watching the program. Now, if you ever miss a show, you can find the latest episode shortly after it airs on our
podcast. And now, remember, you can always catch us online, on our website, and on social media.
I want to thank you for watching. I'm Paula Newton, and goodbye from New York.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[14:00:00]
END
