Read Full Transcript EXPAND
> HELLO, EVERYONE, AND WELCOME TO 'AMANPOUR & COMPANY.'
HERE'S WHAT'S COMING UP.
IT ALL NEEDS TO BE LAID OUT AND THE AMERICAN PEOPLE NEED TO HEAR FULL STORY.
DESPITE PUBLIC IMPEACHMENT HEARINGS, AMERICAN'S VIEWS.
ON THE MATTER HOLDS STEADY.
WE HEAR THE CASE FOR THE PRESIDENT FOR HIS 2020 LEGAL ADVISER JENNA ELLIS, AND THE CASE AGAINST HIM FROM THE FORMER U.S.
SOLICITOR GENERAL, NEAL KATYAL.
PLUS --
POWER USED IS POWER ABUSED.
PAT MITCHELL'S CALL TO ACTION.
THE FORMER HEAD OF CNN AND PBS OPENS UP ABOUT HER RISE IN MEDIA AND WHY SHE CALLS HERSELF A DANGEROUS WOMAN.
AND --
GET ON THE GROUND.
WHY IS HE UNDER ARREST?
GET BACK IN THE CAR OR YOU'RE GOING TO JAIL TOO.
EMMY-AWARD WINNING WRITER LENA WAITHE BRING VIEWERS ON A TRAGIC CAR RIDE IN HER NEW FILM.
'QUEEN & SLIM.'
> WELCOME TO THE PROGRAM, EVERYONE.
I'M CHRISTIANE AMANPOUR IN NEW YORK.
> PRESIDENT TRUMP JOINS MILLIONS OF AMERICANS HEADING OUT FOR THE THANKSGIVING HOLIDAYS.
FIRST, GETS TO PARDON A TURKEY WHILE HIS JUSTICE DEPARTMENT FIGHTS ANOTHER LEGAL CHALLENGE.
THAT FORM WHITE HOUSE COUNSEL DON McGAHN MUST TESTIFY BEFORE CONGRESS ABOUT THE MUELLER INVESTIGATION.
PRESIDENTS ARE NOT KINGS, THE JUDGE WROTE, PUNCHING A WHOLE IN -- A HOLE IN THE ADMINISTRATION'S BROAD CLAIMS OF IMMUNITY.
NOW, REMEMBER, THIS IS ABOUT THE MUELLER INVESTIGATION INTO RUSSIAN ELECTION INTERFERENCE, BUT IT MIGHT HAVE AN IMPACT ON THE CURRENT IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY INTO UKRAINE.
DESPITE TWO WEEKS OF PUBLIC HEARINGS INTO THAT ON CAPITOL HILL, A NEW CNN POLL SHOWS THAT AMERICANS ARE HOLDING FIRM TO THEIR ORIGINAL VIEWS ON IMPEACHMENT.
IN OTHER WORDS, THERE HAS BEEN NO CHANGE IN PUBLIC OPINIONS SINCE OCTOBER.
HALF OF AMERICANS STILL SAY THAT TRUMP SHOULD BE IMPEACHED AND REMOVED FROM OFFICE, WHILE 43% STILL SAY HE SHOULD NOT.
IN A MOMENT, WE HEAR THE CASE FROM FORMER ACTING ASSISTANT GENERAL NEAL KATYAL.
FIRST, WE HEAR A DEFENSE FROM TRUMP 2020 LEGAL ADVISOR AND CONSTITUTIONAL LAWYER JENNA ELLIS.
SHE'S JOINING US FROM WASHINGTON.
JENNA, WELCOME TO THE PROGRAM.
THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR HAVING ME.
AS I JUST SUMMED UP, WE'RE GOING TO HEAR AN OPPOSING VIEW.
BUT FIRST AND FOREMOST I WANT TO GET YOUR VIEW AS TO WHAT IS YOUR BEST CASE, IN OTHER WORDS, TRUMP'S BEST CASE AGAINST IMPEACHMENT.
YEAH, WELL, THIS IS CLASSIC BURDEN SHIFTING TO THINK THAT THE PRESIDENT NEEDS A DEFENSE BECAUSE THE DEMOCRATS HAVE TO PROVE THEIR CASE.
ANYONE WHO COMES FORWARD WITH ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT HAVE TO SHOW WHAT WE CALL IN THE LAW A PRIMA FACIE CASE.
THEY HAVE TO FULFILL THE BURDEN WHATEVER THE CHARGES ARE, THEY HAVE SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE TO MOVE FORWARD WITH A TRIAL.
A LOT OF THE AMERICAN PUBLIC SIMPLY BELIEVE THAT IMPEACHMENT IS A PURELY POLITICAL PROCESS.
IT'S ACTUALLY NOT.
JURISDICTION IS GIVEN TO THE HOUSE IN ORDER TO LOOK AT THE ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT AND IT MOVES FORWARD TO A TRIAL IN THE SENATE.
BUT THAT'S ONLY A JURISDICTIONAL QUESTION.
IT HAS TO WORK IN TANDEM WITH ARTICLE II SECTION IV WHICH LAYS OUT EITHER TREASON, BRIBERY, OR OTHER HIGH CRIMES AND MISDEMEANORS.
SO THE CONDUCT THE HOUSE IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY WAS LOOKING INTO WITH PRESIDENT TRUMP, WE HEARD FROM A LOT OF WITNESSES WHO REALLY DIDN'T WITNESS ANYTHING, AND THE VERY KEY QUESTIONS WHEN WITNESSES WHO WERE ACTUALLY ON THE JULY 25th PHONE CALL WITH UKRAINE, THEY SAID NO TO BRIBERY, NO TO ANY SORT OF CRIMINAL CONDUCT.
SO THE DEMOCRATS HERE HAVE NOT PROVED THEIR CASE.
THEY ARE SAYING THAT THIS IS PURELY POLITICAL AND THAT'S THE ONLY REASON THEY'RE MOVING FORWARD.
AND A UNITED STATES SITTING PRESIDENT CANNOT BE IMPEACHED SIMPLY BECAUSE AN OPPOSITION PARTY IS IN THE MAJORITY AND WANTS TO OUST HIM FROM OFFICE.
THAT IS COMPLETELY AGAINST WHAT THE FRAMERS DESIGNED IN THE U.S.
CONSTITUTION WHEN THEY ALLOWED FOR IMPEACHMENT OF A SITTING PRESIDENT.
SO LET'S TAKE YOUR POINTS POINT BY POINT.
NOT ALL OF THEM, OBVIOUSLY, BUT THE LAST COUPLE YOU MADE.
ON BRIBERY, AS YOU MENTIONED, YOU DID HEAR ONE TRUMP APPOINTEE.
IT'S HIS GUY.
YOU KNOW, A BILLIONAIRE DONOR, AMBASSADOR SONDLAND WHO SAID THERE WAS A QUID PRO QUO.
AND THEN YOU HEARD -- HE SAID IN HIS OPINION.
SO I JUST WANT TO ASK YOU.
I'M GIVING YOU THIS CHANCE TO TELL US.
THE DEMOCRATS, THE OPPOSITION CLAIM THAT THE QUID PRO QUO IS SOMETHING THAT IS GIVEN IN RETURN FOR SOMETHING.
ANOTHER WAY TO SAY BRIBERY.
YOU'VE MENTIONED THE WORD, YOU KNOW, BEING CRUCIAL HERE.
BUT THEY DEFINE IT REFERENCED IN THE CONSTITUTION AS, QUOTE, SOLICITING A BENEFIT TO INFLUENCE AN OFFICIAL ACT.
THE BENEFIT, IN THIS CASE, THEY SAY, DIRT ON HIS 2020 POLITICAL OPPONENT IS TIED TO OFFICIAL ABILITIES.
-- ACTS.
ONE WOULD BE THE WHITE HOUSE'S, THE OTHER WOULD BE HOLDING UP OR CONDITIONING THE HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS OF DOLLARS IN MILITARY AID TO UKRAINE.
DO YOU ACCEPT THAT INTERPRETATION?
NO.
I DON'T THINK THAT'S -- THERE WAS NO QUID PRO QUO AND, AGAIN, AMBASSADOR SONDLAND AND OTHERS THEY SAID THAT WAS SIMPLY THEIR OPINION AND THEIR SPECULATION AS FAR AS WHAT HAPPENED.
BUT THE TWO PEOPLE ON THE PHONE CALL, PRESIDENT TRUMP AND PRESIDENT ZELENSKY BOTH SAID THERE WAS NO PRESSURE AND THEY -- AND UKRAINE DIDN'T EVEN KNOW THAT THERE WAS A TEMPORARY HOLD ON AID.
THE UNITED STATES PRESIDENT HAD THE ABILITY TO SET FOREIGN POLICY AND UKRAINE IS THE THIRD MOST CORRUPT COUNTRY IN THE WORLD.
TO MAKE SURE IT GOES THROUGH THE VETTING PROCESS, ULTIMATELY AID WAS RELEASED WITH NO CONDITIONS AND THE PRESIDENT INVITED ZELENSKY TO THE WHITE HOUSE THREE SEPARATE TIMES.
WITH NO CONDITIONS ATTACHED.
THERE'S NO ACQUITTED, THERE'S NO PRO, NO QUO.
DEMOCRATS CAN SHOW IN ORDER TO FULFILL, AGAIN, THEIR PRIME FASCIA CASE.
THIS IS SOMETHING THAT IS ABSOLUTELY JUST BEING HYPED UP IN THE MEDIA AND THE DEMOCRATS ARE PULLING -- THEY'RE SHOWING FOCUS GROUPS TO SEE WHAT THE AMERICAN PEOPLE WANT AND WOULD RECOGNIZE IN TERMS OF WHAT POLLS BETTER.
SO THIS IS NOT ACTUALLY A LEGAL CASE.
LET'S NOT LEGITIMIZE IT AS THAT.
THIS IS SIMPLY ABOUT THE DEMOCRATS GOING AFTER THE 2020 ELECTION AND TRYING TO SCARE YOU AND ME FROM VOTING FOR PRESIDENT TRUMP.
THAT'S WHAT THEY'RE AFTER.
JENNA, OBVIOUSLY, IT'S NOT STRICTLY A LEGAL CASE.
IT'S A POLITICAL CASE.
THAT IS EXACTLY WHAT IMPEACHMENT IS ABOUT.
IT GOES THROUGH THE CONGRESS.
BUT IN THIS CASE, IT'S VERY PARTISAN, AS WE KNOW, AND YOU KNOW THAT YOU SAY THERE WAS NO ACQUITTED, NO PRO, NO QUO.
HOWEVER, THE PRESIDENT'S OWN WORDS, YOU KNOW, WERE A FAVOR.
COULD YOU DO US A FAVOR?
AND THERE WERE MORE THAN TWO PEOPLE ON THE CALL.
MANY OF THEM TESTIFIED IN FRONT OF CONGRESS THAT THEY STRONGLY BELIEVED THERE WAS A QUID PRO QUO.
I GUESS I'M TRYING TO ASK YOU, ALSO, ABOUT HOW YOU'RE GOING TO LAY OUT THIS DEFENSE.
OR HOW HIS SIDE WILL LAY OUT ON THE DEFENSE YOU MENTIONED, WHICH IS HIGH CRIMES AND MISDEMEANORS.
LET ME, AGAIN, YOU KNOW, QUOTE ONE OF THE PRESIDENT'S KEY ALLIES.
THE BUSINESS OF HIGH CRIMES AND MISDEMEANORS.
THIS IS MIKE PENCE.
HE WAS A CONGRESSMAN IN 2008.
THE BUSINESS OF HIGH CRIMES AND MISDEMEANORS GOES TO THE QUESTION OF WHETHER OR NOT THE PERSON SERVING AS PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES PUT THEIR OWN INTERESTS AHEAD OF PUBLIC SERVICE.
NOW, OTHERS, AND INCLUDING MY GUEST FOLLOWING YOU, BELIEVES THAT IN SAYING I WOULD LIKE YOU TO DO US A FAVOR, THOUGH, HE PUT HIS OWN INTERESTS, I.E., HURTING HIS POLITICAL RIVAL ABOVE THE PUBLIC INTEREST.
DOES NOT THE PENCE RULE, AS WE READ, APPLY IN THIS CASE TO THE PRESIDENT.
PENCE IS HIS VICE PRESIDENT
WELL, FIRST I WANT TO CLARIFY THIS IS NOT JUST A POLITICAL PROCESS.
WE DON'T HAVE IMPEACHMENT SIMPLY SO THAT THE OPPOSITION MAJORITY PARTY IN THE HOUSE CAN OUST A SITTING PRESIDENT TO MANIPULATE THE CONSTITUTION, AND TO WHATEVER DEFINITION OF HIGH CRIMES AND MISDEMEANORS THEY PREFER.
THIS IS NOT A COMPLETELY POLITICAL PROCESS, AND WE SEE THAT IN THE CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION AND THE DEBATES THAT HAPPENED IN THE LEGISLATIVE HISTORY THAT WE HAVE.
BUT TO YOUR POINT, IF THIS WERE SOMETHING THAT THE PRESIDENT HAD ACTUALLY DONE, IF HE HAD DONE SOMETHING THAT WAS AN IMPEACHABLE OFFENSE, WE WOULD BE HAVING A DIFFERENT QUESTION.
BUT ASKING AN ALLY TO LOOK INTO THE POTENTIAL CORRUPTION OF A FORMER SITTING VICE PRESIDENT, THAT GOES DIRECTLY TO THE HEART OF SOMETHING THAT THE UNITED STATES PRESIDENT SHOULD BE CONCERNED WITH.
WHY AREN'T WE CONCERNED ABOUT POTENTIAL CORRUPTION OF JOE BIDEN?
THAT IS AN ABSOLUTELY LEGITIMATE REQUEST.
AGAIN, THERE WAS NOTHING THAT WAS ATTACHED TO IT.
THERE WAS NO DISCUSSION ON THE PHONE CALL AS PRESIDENT TRUMP SAID, IT WAS A PERFECT PHONE CALL.
THERE WAS NO DISCUSSION ABOUT THE AID.
PRESIDENT ZELENSKY WAS ONE OF THE TWO PARTIES TO THE PHONE CALL.
YES, THERE WERE SOME PEOPLE LISTENING IN.
I MENTION THERE HAD WERE TWO PEOPLE ON THE PHONE CALL, ONLY TWO PARTIES TO THE CONVERSATION.
THEY ARE THE TWO THAT MATTER.
PRESIDENT TRUMP AND PRESIDENT ZELENSKY.
WHEN PRESIDENT ZELENSKY IS SAYING HE DIDN'T KNOW THAT FOREIGN AID WAS BEING HELD, THEN THAT SHOWS THERE IS NOTHING THAT IS IN EXCHANGE FOR SOMETHING ELSE.
IT ALSO HAS TO BE A CORRUPT EXCHANGE FOR SOMETHING ELSE.
THE UNITED STATES CAN ASK OUR ALLIES LOOK INTO CORRUPTION AND THE UNITED STATES PRESIDENT CAN SET FOREIGN POLICY IN DETERMINING WHETHER OR NOT THE AID IS GIVEN.
THOSE ARE TWO COMPLETE SEPARATE CONTINUE OPERATIONS THAT THE SITTING U.S. PRESIDENT AND CERTAINLY HAS THE AUTHORITY TO DO.
I MEAN, JUST A FEW OF YOUR KEY POINTS THERE.
IT HAS TO BE CLEAR THERE'S ABSOLUTELY ZERO EVIDENCE ANYWHERE, ANYTIME, THAT VICE PRESIDENT BIDEN HAD ANY QUERIES ABOUT CORRUPTION AGAINST HIM.
SO THAT IS A NEW INTRODUCTION INTO THIS PROCESS.
THAT'S ONLY BECAUSE -- WELL, I WANT TO SAY THAT'S ONLY BECAUSE THE GOP MINORITY DID NOT GET ANY OF THEIR WITNESSES AND ANY OF THEIR SUBPOENAS.
SO THERE WAS NO DUE PROCESS DURING THE HOUSE SUBPOENA AND DURING THE HOUSE --
ARE YOU SUGGESTING THE PRESIDENT TRUMP'S DEFENSE WILL REST ON ACTUAL, FACTUAL KNOWLEDGE AND SUSPICION OF CORRUPTION BY VICE PRESIDENT BIDEN?
IS A THAT WHAT YOU'RE SUGGESTING?
I'M SUGGESTING THERE NEEDS TO BE -- THAT'S NOT A NEW CAN OF WORMS.
I THINK THAT WAS CONTEXT WALLY ESSENTIAL TO UNDERSTANDING THE NATURE OF THE JULY 25th PHONE CALL.
YOU HAVE TO TAKE EVERYTHING IN CONTEXT.
WHEN YOU LOOK AT WHAT IS ACTUALLY HAPPENING AND YOU LOOK AT THE TRANSCRIPT, YOU HAVE TO TAKE IT IN CONTEXT.
WHAT THE DEMOCRATS TRIED TO DO AND WHAT ADAM SCHIFF TRIED TO DO BY SHUTTING DOWN ALL THE GOP REQUESTS, IS TO ISOLATE THAT AND MANIPULATE IT INTO HIS PREFERRED NARRATIVE.
I MEAN, HE EVEN SHOWED THAT WHEN HE READ A FICTITIOUS TRANSCRIPT LIKE THEATER IN THE OPENING OF THIS.
THEY KNOW THAT IF THERE IS ANY SORT OF CONTEXT GIVEN AND IF THE GOP IS ACTUALLY ALLOWED TO CALL THEIR WITNESSES AND SHOW THE CONTEXT, THEN THE AMERICAN PEOPLE WOULD UNDERSTAND PRECISELY WHAT HAPPENED AND THAT DOES NOT RISE TO THE LEVEL OF AN IMPEACHABLE OFFENSE.
VERY QUICKLY, AS YOU KNOW, IT'S THE WHITE HOUSE WHO IS STONEWALLING AND THE STATE DEPARTMENT AND OTHER INSTITUTIONS ON TERMS OF HANDING OUT -- HANDING OVER, ALL SORTS OF DOCUMENTS, NOT TO MENTION WITNESSES.
I WONDER WHETHER YOU THINK YOU WOULD ADVISE AS A CONSTITUTIONAL LAWYER DON McGAHN TESTIFYING AS THE JUDGE HERSELF SAID SHOULD HAPPEN TODAY.
DON McGAHN AND THAT WHOLE TESTIMONY IS COMPLETELY SEPARATE TO THE IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY.
WE HAVE TO UNDERSTAND THAT PRIVILEGE AND ATTORNEY/CLIENT PRIVILEGE AND WHITE HOUSE COUNSEL PRIVILEGE AND EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE ARE HALLMARKS OF THE AMERICAN SYSTEM TO MAKE SURE THAT THERE IS A SAFE GUARD IN PLACE TO MAKE SURE THAT THE PRESIDENT OR ANY CLIENT CAN HAVE A CONVERSATION THAT IS OPEN WITH HIS COUNSEL WITHOUT FEAR OF THAT BEING DISCLOSED ONLY FOR PRIVACY REASONS.
I MYSELF AM AN ATTORNEY.
I'VE HAD MANY CLIENTS AND BEING ABLE TO CONFER WITH THEM AND MAKE SURE THEY KNOW THAT PRIVILEGE IS ATTACHED IS VERY IMPORTANT.
IT'S NOT TO WITHHOLD OR HIDE CRITICAL INFORMATION.
IT'S TO MAKE SURE THAT ATTORNEYS CAN DO THEIR JOB.
McGAHN IS A SEPARATE ISSUE, BUT THAT'S WHY PRESIDENT TRUMP HAS BEEN SAYING WITH THE SENATE TRIAL, IF THE DEMOCRATS WANT TO MOVE FORWARD WITH THIS SHAM, THEY HAVE NO BASIS WHATSOEVER FOR ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT.
BUT THE IF THEY DECIDE TO MANIPULATE THE PROCESS AND MOVE FORWARD, HE'S SAYING FOR A SENATE TRIAL, BRING IT ON.
HE'LL GET ROBUST DUE PROCESS AND BE COMPLETELY EXONERATED.
BEFORE I MOVE ON, AND I HAVE TO MOVE ON.
I NEED TO PLAY YOU THIS BACK AND FORTH THAT SENATOR JOHN KENNEDY HAS GONE THROUGH, AS YOU KNOW, TO CHRIS WALLACE AND FOX NEWS.
HE CATEGORICALLY BASICALLY SAID THAT IT WAS UKRAINE INTERFERING AND NOT RUSSIA, AS ALL AMERICANS INTELLIGENCE AGENCIES HAVE DISCOVERED.
IT WAS RUSSIA IN THE 2016 ELECTION.
AND NOW A COUPLE OF DAYS LATER HE HAS RETRACTED THAT.
LET'S PLAY HIS RETRACTION.
CHRIS IS RIGHT.
I WAS WRONG.
THE ONLY EVIDENCE I HAVE, AND I THINK IT IS OVERWHELMING, IS IT WAS RUSSIA WHO TRIED TO HACK THE DNC COMPUTER.
I SEE NO INDICATION THAT UKRAINE TRIED TO DO IT.
JENNA, DOES THAT CHANGE?
I MEAN, DOES THAT SORT OF PULL THE RUG UNDER SOME OF YOUR FEET.
YOU'VE BEEN SAYING THE DEFENSE ON THE REPUBLICAN SIDE HAS BEEN THAT IT WAS UKRAINE AND THAT'S WHY THE PRESIDENT WAS JUSTIFIED.
IN DOING WHAT THE DEMOCRATS SAY IS A QUID PRO QUO.
I SAID NO SUCH THING ABOUT THE 2016 ELECTION.
IF YOU'RE TRYING TO DO THE GOT-CHA MOMENT.
NO, JENNA.
NO, WHAT I'M SAYING --
TO SAY --
LET ME -- LET ME FINISH --
-- HAVE USED THAT OVER AND OVER AGAIN.
I'M MERELY SAYING AS A DEFENSE OF THE PRESIDENT, DOES THAT CHANGE THAT PARTICULAR PLANK.
AS A DEFENSE OF THE PRESIDENT, MY CONSISTENT DEFENSE AND THE WHITE HOUSE'S CONSISTENT DEFENSE HAS BEEN THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP DID ABSOLUTELY NOTHING WRONG.
WITH UKRAINE BEING THE THIRD MOST CORRUPT COUNTRY IN THE WORLD, WITH A BRAND NEW PRESIDENT THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP HASN'T INTERACTED WITH BEFORE, WE DON'T KNOW HIS VIEWS AND POLICIES TO TEMPORARILY HOLD AID FROM BEING DISBERSED -- DISBURSED WAS PURELY SQUARELY WITHIN A REASONABLE ACTION OF THE PRESIDENT.
PURELY WITHIN THE SCOPE OF HIS POWER.
AND WHETHER OR NOT OTHER PEOPLE WHO CAME AND TESTIFIED DISAGREED WITH HIS FOREIGN POLICY DECISIONS, THAT IS NOT AN IMPEACHABLE OFFENSE.
THE DEMOCRATS HAVE ABSOLUTELY NOTHING.
AND PLAYING A CLIP AND SHOWING A RETRACTION OF SENATOR KENNEDY HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE MERITS OF THIS CASE.
JENNA ELLIS, THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
AND NOW FOR AN OPENING VIEW, WE TURN TO THE RENOWNED LEGAL EXPERT, NEAL KATYAL, FORMER ACTING U.S.
SOLICITOR GENERAL.
HE HAS ARGUED IN THE SUPREME COURT NEARLY 40 TIMES AND HE HAS WRITTEN A NEW BOOK, 'IMPEACH: THE CASE AGAINST DONALD TRUMP.'
NEAL KATYAL, YOU HEARD WHAT IS LIKELY TO BE THE PRESIDENT'S DEFENSE THAT NEITHER BRIBERY HAS BEEN PROVED, NEITHER HIGH CRIMES OR MISDEMEANORS, AND THIS CALL WAS A PERFECT CALL ACCORDING TO THE PRESIDENT AND HIS DEFENDERS.
WHAT WOULD YOUR COMEBACK TO THAT BE BASED ON FACTS?
HEAVENS ME, IF THAT'S WHAT WE HEARD IS THE DEFENSE OF PRESIDENT TRUMP, I THINK HE'S IN SERIOUS TROUBLE.
I WROTE THIS BOOK TO EXPLAIN WHY BECAUSE IT'S A SIMPLE 150-PAGE BOOK WHICH EXPLAINS WHAT TRUMP DID AND WHY IT IS SO BAD.
AND IT BEGINS WITH A NOTION OF WHAT'S THE IMPEACHMENT ABOUT?
IT'S ABOUT WHEN THE PRESIDENT PUTS PERSONAL INTEREST ABOVE THOSE OF THE AMERICAN THAT PENCE STANDARD THAT YOU REFERRED TO.
AND THEN YOU ASK --
THAT WAS IMPORTANT, IT WAS?
HE COULD SAY THAT WAS IN 2008 AND I DON'T BELIEVE THAT ANYMORE.
EXACTLY.
AND THEN YOU ASK YOURSELF, AND JENNA SHOULD ASK HERSELF THIS QUESTION.
IF PRESIDENT OBAMA DID ALL OF THIS, WOULD YOU BE SAYING ALL THIS LEGAL GOBBLEDYGOOK ABOUT BURDEN SHIFTING AND THIS AND THAT?
HECK NO.
THERE'S NO WAY THE AMERICAN PEOPLE WOULD STAND FOR IT IF IT WERE THE PRESIDENT OF THE OTHER PARTY.
I THINK EVERYONE HAS TO ASK.
THIS IS ABOUT THE RULE OF LAW.
WE'RE GOING TO HAVE DIFFERENT PRESIDENTS.
IF WE SAY THIS IS OKAY, I NEED A FAVOR, THOUGH, AND HOLDING UP AID AND ASKING A FOREIGN GOVERNMENT TO GET DIRT ON YOUR POLITICAL RIVAL, THAT'S CHEATING IN AN ELECTION.
THAT'S QUINTESSENTIALLY WHAT IMPEACHMENT IS ABOUT.
SHE SAYS THERE ARE NO FIRST-HAND WITNESSES TO IT.
FIRST OF ALL, PRESIDENT TRUMP'S OWN GUYS LIKE AMBASSADOR SONDLAND DID SAY THIS IS WHAT HAPPENED.
THE PRESIDENT HAS ISSUED AN UNPRECEDENTED GAG ORDER BARRING EVERY EXECUTIVE BRANCH EMPLOYEE FROM GOING AND TESTIFYING AND GIVING DOCUMENTS, OR E-MAILS OR ANYTHING.
HE LOOKS LIKE HE HAS SOMETHING TO HIDE.
IN THAT CASE, DO YOU BELIEVE -- THERE ARE A COUPLE OF QUESTIONS YOU BROUGHT UP AND THAT JENNA BROUGHT UP.
BE SHE BELIEVES THIS IS A LEGAL PROCESS AND NOT ENTIRELY A POLITICAL PROCESS.
WHAT DO YOU THINK?
100% RIGHT.
AND THE ONE THING I AGREE SHE SAID YOU CAN'T IMPEACH A PRESIDENT SIMPLY BECAUSE THE OPPOSITION PARTY WANTS THEM OUT.
PRECISELY.
I'LL BE THE FIRST PERSON TO SAY ABSOLUTELY NOT.
OUR FOUNDERS WOULD BE, AS WELL.
IF SHE THINKS THAT'S WHAT THIS IS ABOUT, I THINK SHE'S LIVING IN SOME ALTERNATIVE FACT AND REALITY.
INTERESTINGLY YOU SAID WHAT WOULD HAPPEN IF THE SHOE WAS ON THE OTHER FOOT.
IF YOU DID THIS OR DIDN'T DO THIS NOW, WHAT WOULD IT MEAN?
IT'S EXACTLY WHAT PRESIDENT TRUMP HAS SAID.
IF WE ALLOW THIS TO HAPPEN, WHAT WILL IT MEAN FOR PRESIDENTS DOWN THE LINE.
THIS COULD JUST OPEN UP A WHOLE CAN OF WORMS.
GOD, YOU KNOW, PRESIDENTS WON'T BE ABLE TO GET SECRET HELP FROM FOREIGN GOVERNMENTS TO HELP THEM IN THEIR RE-ELECTION CAMPAIGNS.
YES, THE PRESIDENT'S HANDS WILL BE TIED IN THAT SPECIFIC WAY.
AND I THINK EVERY AMERICAN SHOULD WANT THAT.
YOU'VE LAID OUT TREATIES ON THIS.
WE'LL COME TO THE SPECIFICS BUT I WANT TO ASK ABOUT TODAY'S NEWS AND WHETHER YOU THINK IT WILL HAVE ANY IMPACT.
THAT IS THE JUDGE WHO, AS WE'VE SAID, RULED THAT THE PRESIDENT IS NOT A KING AND THAT HIS COUNSEL, HIS SPECIAL COUNSEL, DON McGAHN STATED THAT THE PRIMARY TAKE AWAY FOR THE PAST 250 YEARS OF RECORDED AMERICAN HISTORY IS THAT PRESIDENTS ARE NOT KINGS.
THAT WAS COMMENTARY AROUND THE RULING THAT THE PRESIDENT'S PERSONAL LAWYER, DON McGAHN, SHOULD TESTIFY BEFORE THE HOUSE.
RIGHT.
THERE'S TWO IMPLICATIONS.
NUMBER ONE, IT'S A REJECTION OF THE TRUMP MANIFESTO BECAUSE HE'S PRESIDENT HE HAS ABSOLUTE POWER.
HE CAN'T BE INDICTED OR INVESTIGATED.
EVIDENCE CAN'T BE TURNED OVER.
THIS JUDGE, JUDGE JACKSON, VERY RESPECTED JUDGE SAID ABSOLUTELY NO TO ALL OF THAT IN A 120-PAGE OPINION.
AND THE SECOND THING, IT DOES SAY THAT HIS FORMER EMPLOYEES, LIKE McGAHN, HAVE TO COME AND TESTIFY.
AND THAT MAY YIELD MORE INFORMATION.
AGAIN, I TOTALLY DISAGREE WITH YOUR GUEST, JENNA, A MOMENT AGO SHE WAS TALKING ABOUT THE ATTORNEY/CLIENT PRIVILEGE AND THIS IS ABOUT THE NEED FOR ATTORNEYS TO BE ABLE TO TALK TO THEIR CLIENTS.
SHE SHOULD KNOW THERE IS NO ATTORNEY/CLIENT PRIVILEGE FOR GOVERNMENT LAWYERS.
I WORKED IN THE GOVERNMENT.
I THINK EVERYONE IN THE GOVERNMENT UNDERSTANDS THAT.
THAT'S COMPLETELY OFF BASE WITH THE PRESIDENT WAS SAYING BECAUSE I'M PRESIDENT, I HAVE A SPECIAL PRIVILEGE AND NONE OF MY ADVISORS CAN SAY ANYTHING TO A COURT OR TO THE CONGRESS AND THAT IS FUNDAMENTALLY UN-AMERICAN.
AND WHAT DO YOU SAY TO PEOPLE WHO SAY THE DEMOCRATS AND THEIR SUPPORTERS ARE NEVER-TRUMPERS AND THEY'RE PARTISAN AND THIS IS ENTIRELY PARTISAN.
YOU YOURSELF ARGUED MANY CASES, AS I SAID, BEFORE THE SUPREME COURT.
YOU'VE ALSO BEEN A LEGAL ADVISER AND ARGUED FOR THE DEMOCRATICALLY-LED HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES WHEN IT CAME TO THE CENSUS.
GIVE US AN IDEA.
I NOTICED THAT THE STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIALS, A PROFESSIONAL CAREER, FOREIGN SERVICE WENT OUT OF THEIR WAY TO SAY THAT, YOU KNOW, THEY SERVE WITHOUT FEAR NOR FAVOR OF ANY PRESIDENT.
ABSOLUTELY.
IF THIS WERE A CASE, BECAUSE OF POLITICS, I WOULD BE THE FIRST PERSON TO SAY WE CAN'T DO THIS.
THAT'S NOT APPROPRIATE.
THAT'S FOR THE BALLOT BOX.
THAT'S FOR 2020.
BUT WHAT THIS IS ABOUT IS A PRESIDENT WHO IS REALLY TRAMPED -- TRAMPLED ON OUR NOTIONS OF THE RULE OF LAW.
AND I'M SOMEONE WHO SUPPORTED THE PRESIDENT ON SOME STUFF, MUCH TO THE CONSTERNATION OF MY PARTY, FOR EXAMPLE, COMING OUT FOR NEIL GORSUCH.
I'M NOT SOMEONE WHO THINKS OH DEMOCRATS ARE RIGHT OR REPUBLICANS ARE WRONG EVERY TIME.
BUT THIS IS ONE WE CAN'T THINK OF THIS POLITICALLY BECAUSE WE'LL HAVE FUTURE PRESIDENTS AND THE YARDSTICK WE USE HERE, THE RULES WE LAY DOWN HERE WILL SET THE COURSE OF CONDUCT FOR FUTURE PRESIDENTS.
BUT THE THING IS, RULES HAVE BEEN LAID DOWN.
THIS IS THE FOURTH TIME THIS KIND OF PROCESS IS GOING ON.
ANDREW JOHNSON, WE HAD NIXON, CLINTON, AND NOW TRUMP.
IT BOILS DOWN TO, I GUESS, YOU TELL ME, HOW ONE INTERPRETS AND WHAT THE STANDARD IS FOR HIGH CRIMES AND MISDEMEANORS.
TO THAT END, LET ME PLAY FROM REPUBLICAN CONGRESSMAN WILLIAM HEARD WHAT HE HEARD AND SAID.
AN IMPEACHABLE OFFENSE SHOULD BE COMPELLING, OVERWHELMINGLY CLEAR, AND UNAMBIGUOUS AND NOT SOMETHING TO BE RUSHED OR TAKEN LIGHTLY.
I HAVE NOT HEARD EVIDENCE PROVING THE PRESIDENT COMMITTED BRIBERY OR EXTORTION.
I ALSO REJECT THE NOTION THAT HOLDING THE VIEW MEANS SUPPORTING ALL THE FOREIGN POLICY CHOICES THAT WE HAVE BEEN HEARING ABOUT OVER THE LAST FEW WEEKS.
SO, YOU KNOW, HE'S NOT ALWAYS A REFLEXIVE PRO-TRUMPER BUT THIS IS WHAT HE'S SAYING.
TODAY THAT SEEMS TO BE WHAT THE REPUBLICANS ARE SAYING.
IN CONGRESS.
I THINK WE HAVEN'T HAD THE TRIAL YET.
TO SAY WE HAVEN'T HEARD THE EVIDENCE IS PUTTING THE CART BEFORE THE HORSE.
THIS THING IS MOVING --
BUT YOU HAVE.
YOU HEARD A LOT OF EVIDENCE.
WHAT OTHER SEVEN-DAY FORECAST -- EVIDENCE IS THERE?
I THINK THERE'S MORE.
JUST THE JULY 25th TRANSCRIPT ALONE ENOUGH TO IMPEACH.
I THINK THAT'S THE POINT OF THE TRIAL IS.
WHEN THOSE SENATORS TAKE THEIR OATH, THEY HAVE TO SWEAR A SPECIAL IMPEACHMENT OATH TO LISTEN TO THE EVIDENCE.
WHEN YOU LISTEN TO THE EVIDENCE, WHEN YOU READ THE TRANSCRIPT, WHEN YOU LISTEN TO THE WITNESSES AND THE WITNESSES THAT MAY COME BEFORE THE SENATE THAT WE STILL HAVEN'T HEARD FROM BECAUSE OF THE PRESIDENT'S GAG ORDER, I DO THINK THAT ALL OF THEM -- ALL OF THAT IS MOVING IN THE SAME DIRECTION.
THE WHISTLE BLOWER'S REPORT HASN'T BEEN DISPROVEN IN ANY CAPACITY, INDEED, THE CASE AGAINST THE PRESIDENT FROM WITNESS AFTER WITNESS, AND THAT INCLUDES, BY THE WAY, A BUNCH OF REPUBLICAN WITNESSES, AND THE PRESIDENT'S OWN ADMINISTRATION -- PEOPLE.
HIS OWN APPOINTEES THEY'RE PUTTING THE KNIFE IN THE PRESIDENT'S BACK.
SO TIME WILL TELL.
WE'RE VERY EARLY IN THIS.
WE'RE ONLY ON CHAPTER ONE.
I THINK YOU'RE REFERRING TO PARTICULARLY GORDON SONDLAND WHO SAID EVERYBODY WAS IN THE LOOP.
WE DID THIS AT THE PRESIDENT'S DIRECTIVE.
BUT PEOPLE WHO DO YOU THINK COULD COME FORTH?
EVERYBODY WHO DEFIED THE PRESIDENT TO TESTIFY BEFORE CONGRESS AND AGREED TO THE SUBPOENAS HAVE BEEN HEARD.
THE OTHERS ARE NOT ACCEPTING.
SO FAR -- BUT THEY COULD BE CALLED IN THE SENATE AND IT'S UP TO THE CHIEF JUSTICE TO RULE ON THAT.
BUT THEY WILL HAVE THE HOUSE PROSECUTORS WILL HAVE THE SUBPOENA POWER IN THE SENATE AND WE COULD HEAR FROM JOHN BOLTON, THE NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISER, WE COULD HEAR FROM SECRETARY OF STATE POMPEO, FROM ACTING CHIEF OF STAFF MICK MULVANEY, AND MOST INTERESTINGLY FROM THE PRESIDENT HIMSELF.
HE'S KIND OF INDICATED HE WANTS TO TESTIFY.
SO FAR HE'S BEEN AFRAID OF TELLING THE TRUTH TO THE AMERICAN PEOPLE, BUT IF HE'S SO SURE THIS CALL IS PERFECT AND BUVLGS LET HIM TELL THE AMERICAN PEOPLE THAT.
WHAT ABOUT THE LAST TIME THIS -- WELL, THE NIXON PERIOD WHERE THE SENATE HEARINGS, BASICALLY, THE COMMITTEE SAID THAT THEY THREATENED PEOPLE WHO DIDN'T COME TO THE SUBPOENA TO TESTIFY WITH JAIL.
PRESIDENT NIXON SAID, YOU KNOW, WE'RE NOT GOING TO CLAIM EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE.
COULD SOMETHING LIKE THAT HAPPEN IN THIS CASE?
YES.
I'M GLAD YOU RAISED THIS.
I WROTE AN 'NEW YORK TIMES' OP-ED ABOUT THIS LAST WEEK.
PRESIDENT NIXON SAID I'M NOT GOING HAVE MY WITNESSES COME.
ANY EXECUTIVE BRANCH EMPLOYEES.
YOU'RE EXACTLY RIGHT.
WHAT HAPPENED IS THE HOUSE SAID OKAY.
WE'RE GOING TO START JAILING THOSE WITNESSES.
AND THAT LED THE PRESIDENT TO BACK DOWN.
THIS PRESIDENT, SO FAR, IS OUT NIXONING NIXON.
HE'S DOING SOMETHING -- HE'S STONEWALLING EVEN BEYOND THE HIGH WATER MARK.
WHICH UP TILL NOW WAS RICHARD NIXON.
I WOULD LIKE TO PLAY A LITTLE BIT OF -- IT'S OLD NOW AND PEOPLE HAVE SEEN IT.
I WANT TO GET YOUR TAKE ON IT.
THIS WAS AN EXCHANGE BETWEEN ABC'S GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS AND PRESIDENT TRUMP ABOUT ELECTIONS AND THE INTEGRITY OF ELECTIONS.
NOT ONLY DO WE HAVE THIS BUT WE'RE GOING INTO ANOTHER ELECTION WITH, YOU KNOW, THE HOWS AND THE PREVIOUS ONE NOT BEING FULLY PREVENTED FOR THE NEXT TIME.
LET'S JUST PLAY THIS.
YOUR CAMPAIGN THIS TIME FOREIGNERS, RUSSIA, CHINA, SOMEONE OFFERS YOU INFORMATION, ON AN OPPONENT, SHOULD THEY ACCEPT IT OR CALL THE FBI?
I THINK MAYBE DO BOTH.
I THINK YOU MIGHT WANT TO LISTEN.
THERE'S NOTHING WRONG WITH LISTENING.
IF SOMEBODY CALLED FROM A COUNTRY, NORWAY, WE HAVE INFORMATION ON YOUR OPPONENT, OH, I THINK I'D WANT TO HEAR IT.
YOU WANT THAT KIND OF INTERFERENCE IN OUR ELECTIONS?
IT'S NOT AN INTERFERENCE.
THEY HAVE INFORMATION.
I THINK I WOULD TAKE IT.
SO, TO BE FAIR, HE SAID YOU LISTEN AND YOU CALL THE FBI.
IS THERE SOMETHING TERRIBLY WRONG WITH THAT?
TRUMP IS NOT A POLITICIAN.
HE'S A BUSINESSMAN.
I THINK THERE'S SOMETHING SO DEEPLY WRONG WITH THAT.
AT THIS POINT, HE'S THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES.
TO DO THAT, I THINK THE REASON I USE THAT EXACT QUOTE IN THE BOOK.
I START A CHAPTER THAT WAY.
IT ILLUSTRATES THE FALLACY WITH THE REPUBLICAN ARGUMENT, WHICH IS WAIT FOR THE 2020 ELECTION.
THAT'S LIKE SAYING, OKAY, WE ARE PLAYING A GAME OF MONOPOLY AND I'M ACCUSED OF CHEATING.
MY SOLUTION IS OH, OKAY.
LET'S RESOLVE WHETHER OR NOT I CHEATED BY PLAYING ANOTHER GAME OF MONOPOLY.
THAT MAKES NO SENSE.
I SERVED TWICE IN THE GOVERNMENT.
I CAN TELL YOU IF SOME FOREIGN DIRT WAS OFFERED TO ME, THE FIRST THING YOU DO IS SAY I'LL CALL YOU RIGHT BACK.
YOU HANG UP AND CALL THE FBI RIGHT AWAY.
YOU DON'T INVITE IT.
AND THIS PRESIDENT INVITED IT NOT JUST IN THAT INTERVIEW BUT ALSO WITH RESPECT TO CHINA MORE RECENTLY.
HE WAS ASKED DID YOU DO ANYTHING WRONG WITH UKRAINE?
NO.
I DID NOTHING, I'LL DO THE SAME THING WITH CHINA.
I HOPE CHINA HAS DIRT ON THE BIDENS.
THAT CAN'T BE A RESPONSIBLE WAY FOR A PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OR LOW-LEVEL OFFICIAL TO BEHAVE.
AMERICANS DESERVE BETTER THAN THAT.
NEAL KATYAL, FORMER ACTING ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL, THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR JOINING US.
THANK YOU.
> NOW POLARIZATION IN OUR POLITICS, TRIBALISM IN OUR SOCIETIES, THESE ARE CHALLENGING TIMES.
MAYBE EVEN DANGEROUS TIMES.
AND THAT CALLS FOR DANGEROUS WOMEN, SO SAYS PAT MITCHELL.
SHE ROSE THROUGH THE MEDIA RANKS TO BECOME HEAD OF CNN PRODUCTIONS AND THE FIRST FEMALE PRESIDENT OF PBS.
A LIFE LONG ADVOCATE FOR WOMEN AND GIRLS, SHE LAUNCHED TED IN 2010.
SHE REVEALED HER LATEST TITLE WITH A SPEECH THIS YEAR AT THE UNIVERSITY OF MIAMI.
I'VE BECOME A DANGEROUS WOMAN.
[ CHEERS ] AND I'M HERE TODAY TO INSPIRE YOU TO BECOME DANGEROUS TOO.
WHY?
BECAUSE WE ARE LIVING IN DANGEROUS TIMES, AND SUCH TIMES CALL ON US TO BE BOLDER, MORE DARING, BRAVER IN OUR SOLUTIONS AND RESPONSES.
SO THE NEW BOOK IS CALLED 'BECOMING A DANGEROUS WOMAN.'
PAT ANTI-SEMITISM JOINING ME HERE.
GOOD TO SEE YOU.
ALWAYS GOOD TO SEE YOU.
LET'S FIGURE OUT HOW YOU CAME TO THAT TITLE.
I KNOW THAT -- I MEAN, YOU SAID IT.
YOU'VE LAID IT OUT.
IT'S A BRILLIANT TITLE.
BUT DOES IT COME WITH A CERTAIN -- CAN EVERYBODY BE A DANGEROUS WOMAN OR DO YOU HAVE TO HAVE LIVED A BIT?
I THINK ANYONE CAN BE.
I THINK DECLARING MYSELF A DANGEROUS WOMAN AT 77 FEELS A BIT DANGEROUS.
BUT IT ALSO FEELS RIGHT.
I FEEL THAT WE ARE MAYBE, ESPECIALLY WOMEN OVER 50, BUT NOT EXCLUSIVELY, WE ARE WELL PREPARED FOR THIS.
WE'RE BETTER RESOURCED, BETTER CONNECTED, WE'RE LIVING LONGER AND HEALTHIER, WE'RE NOT RETIRING, WE'RE REWIRING.
LOOK AT WHAT WE ARE GOING IN THE -- DOING IN THE WORLD.
WE ARE LITERALLY REDEFINING WHAT AGE, LEADERSHIP, AND RISK TAKING CAN LOOK LIKE.
SO I WROTE THE BOOK, NOT ONLY TO RECALL THE STRUGGLES AND THE CHALLENGES THAT STILL EXIST, BUT TO POINT TO THE ROLLBACKS ON THE RIGHTS AND FREEDOMS THAT MANY OF US SPENT OUR LIVES FIGHTING FOR.
TO CHANGE THAT, TO SHIFT THE DIRECTION, TO CHANGE THE POWER PARADIGM THAT GOT US INTO THESE DANGEROUS TIMES, I BELIEVE WE HAVE TO BE BRAVER, BOLDER WITH, TAKE BIGGER RISK, AND, YES, BE DANGEROUS.
HOW DID IT COME TO YOU?
WHERE DID THAT LINE COME FROM?
WHAT WAS HAPPENING?
YEAH, I'M NOT SURE ABOUT THAT.
I WAS SITTING IN A CIRCLE OF VERY IMPRESSIVE LEADERS, AND EVERYONE WAS INTRODUCING THEMSELVES.
HAVE YOU BEEN IN THAT MOMENT WHERE THEY SAY YOU HAVE 30 SECONDS, THREE LINES TO SAY WHO YOU ARE?
AND I HAD NO TITLE FOR THE FIRST TIME IN MY LIFE.
I WASN'T RUNNING ANYTHING.
I DIDN'T HAVE AN ORGANIZATION.
I KEPT THINKING WHY DO I HAVE TO EXPLAIN WHY I'M HERE IN THE CIRCLE OF ACTIVISTS AND LEADERS.
SUDDENLY WHEN IT CAME MY TURN, I HEARD MYSELF STAND UP AND SAY I'M PAT MITCHELL AND I'M A DANGEROUS WOMAN.
I THINK, THOUGH, IT CAME FROM THE WAY I'VE BEEN FEELING WATCHING YOUR PROGRAM TODAY AND EVERY DAY.
THERE'S SO MUCH AFFIRMATION AROUND US THAT WE ARE LIVING IN DANGEROUS TIMES AND HOW DO WE GET BEYOND THEM?
HOW DO WE SHIFT THIS DIRECTION TO BETTER TIMES?
WE CAN'T DO IT THE WAY WE'VE DONE IT BEFORE.
WE CAN'T BE COMPLACENT.
WE CAN'T FEEL SAFE.
WE CAN'T ACCEPT THE STATUS QUO.
WHY WOMEN?
I'M INTERESTED IN THIS.
YOU'RE NOT SAYING THIS AS A THROW AWAY LINE OR A NICE TITLE FOR THE BOOK.
YOU, OBVIOUSLY, HAVE A VIEW FROM ALL OF YOUR ACTIVISM BEING, AS I SAID, THE PRESIDENT OF CNN PRODUCTIONS, THE FIRST FEMALE PRESIDENT AND CEO OF PBS.
YOU'VE WALKED THE WALK.
PLUS ALL YOUR ACTIVISM AROUND THE WORLD.
WHAT DO YOU THINK THAT DANGEROUS WOMEN BRING THAT DANGEROUS MEN MIGHT NOT?
ALONG WITH USING MEDIA AND EL EVALUATING WOMEN'S STORIES AND CHALLENGES, I'VE WORKED ALL OVER THE WORLD WITH WOMEN AND RECENTLY I HAVE REALLY OBSERVED A PHENOMENON THAT I DO BELIEVE WILL LEAD US ALL THESE DANGEROUS TIMES.
I'VE BEEN CONVENING WOMEN LEADERS FROM ACROSS POLITICAL DIFFERENCES, ACROSS BORDERS, RELIGIONS, CULTURES, AND WATCHING THEM PROBLEM SOLVE TOGETHER.
I'M NOT SAYING ONLY WOMEN CAN DO THIS, BECAUSE, LIKE YOU, I'VE SEEN WOMEN IN WAR ZONES AND PEACE NEGOTIATIONS.
BUT IT'S INTERESTING BECAUSE IN PEACE NEGOTIATIONS, IT'S OFTEN WOMEN, WHETHER IT'S IN NORTHERN IRELAND, LIBERIA, WHEREVER IT IS, THERE IS ACTUALLY A QUANTIFIABLE FEMALE FACTOR.
ABSOLUTELY.
AND I OBSERVE THIS AS A REPORTER AND DOCUMENTARY FILM MAKER BACK IN THE LATE '80s IN EXACTLY THOSE CONFLICTS AND OTHERS.
I WISH I HAD KNOWN ABOUT HOW YOU WOULD DO IT LATER, CHRISTIANE.
IN THESE CONFLICT ZONES, I OBSERVED WOMEN LOOKING BEYOND THE DIFFERENCES.
AND SAYING ON THESE THINGS WE CAN CONNECT, CARING ABOUT OUR FAMILIES, OUR HUSBANDS, OUR WORK, OUR FUTURE.
AND CLAIMING IT, EVEN IF IT MEANT FORCING THEMSELVES ONTO TABLE OF NEGOTIATIONS.
ACTUALLY, WOMEN IN EVERY ROOM WHERE DECISIONS ARE BEING MADE ABOUT OUR LIVES AND OUR BODIES IS ABSOLUTELY ESSENTIAL.
WE CAN SEE WHAT HAPPENS WHEN WE ARE NOT.
AND NOT JUST WOMEN BUT COMMUNITIES OF COLOR.
MARGINALIZED COMMUNITIES WHO ARE THE MOST IMPACTED.
BY THESE DANGEROUS TIMES.
JUST COINCIDENTALLY, AGE COMES INTO IT.
AND I THINK THAT'S PART OF WHAT LIBERTIES YOU TO BE DANGEROUS AND TAKE RISKS AS YOU SAID.
SO JUST ON THE SHOW, ON DIFFERENT ISSUES, I THINK SHE'S ONE OF YOUR MENTORS AND HEROS IS JANE FONDA.
I TALK TALKED TO HER RECENTLY FOR INSTANCE, ABOUT WHY SHE STILL THROWN HERSELF OUT OF HER COMFORTABLE PLACE IN CALIFORNIA FOR SEVERAL MONTHS TO COME AND REALLY GET WITH THE CLIMATE PROTESTERS AND EVEN TO THE POINT OF ARREST.
THIS IS WHAT SHE SAID TO ME.
I THINK THAT WHAT THE STUDENTS ARE DOING IS SO INSPIRING.
YOU CAN'T HELP BUT WANT TO SAY YES.
WE GRANDMOTHERS, WE OLDER PEOPLE ARE GOING TO STAND NEXT TO YOU, LOCK ARMS, AND TRY TO CREATE A FUTURE FOR YOU THAT IS LIVABLE.
AND SHE WAS ARRESTED AND SHE HAS BEEN SEVERAL TIMES.
BUT THE INTERESTING BRIDGE BETWEEN GENERATIONS SHE'S MAKING.
ACTUALLY, JANE WAS THE FIRST TO SAY THAT WOMEN OVER 50, WE'RE NOT ONLY THE FASTEST GROWING POPULATION, BUT HAVE THE POTENTIAL FOR BEING THE MOST POWERFUL POPULATION WAS HER WORD.
AND I JUST TAKE THAT ONE STEP FURTHER AND SAY WE CAN BE THE MOST POWERFUL POPULATION BY BEING THE MOST DANGEROUS POPULATION.
TO THAT POINT, THREE AMERICAN WOMEN, AS WE SEE ON THE DEBATE STAGE, EVERY TIME THERE IS ONE, BETWEEN 55 AND 70 YEARS OLD ARE LEADING PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATES.
KAMALA HARRIS, AMY KLOBUCHAR, ELIZABETH WARREN.
YOU'VE GOT CHRISTINE LA GUARD WHO HAS GONE FROM HEADING THE IMF NOW PRESIDENT OF THE EUROPEAN CENTRAL BANK.
NEW EUROPEAN COMMISSION PRESIDENT, URSULA FROM GERMANY.
SHE'S 61.
AND THE U.S. SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE, NANCY PELOSI, IS 79.
IN THE FIGHT OF HER LIFE NOW.
WHETHER SHE WAS A MAN OR WOMAN.
IT IS INTERESTING BECAUSE YOU'RE SAYING, AS WELL, YOU KNOW, THE NEW WOMEN IN WASHINGTON HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO REDEFINE WHAT POWER LOOKS LIKE.
YEAH.
AND THERE'S A RECORD NUMBER WHO HAVE RUN AND AND WON A NUMBER OF ELECTIONS.
I'M GLAD YOU POINT TO THOSE OUTSTANDING EXAMPLES OF WOMEN ON THE DANGEROUS SIDE.
I DON'T BELIEVE BECOMING DANGEROUS IS LIMITED TO AGE.
BECAUSE ALL ACROSS THE AGE SPECTRUM FROM THE TEENS THAT INSPIRED JANE AND SO MANY OF US.
GRETA THUNBERG, FOR EXAMPLE.
YES.
AND THE ELDERS MAKE MARY ROBINSON AND OTHERS WHO ARE STEPPING UP AND STILL LEADING MOVEMENTS.
WE'RE SEEING THAT BEING DANGEROUS, MAKING A DIFFERENCE, TAKING RISK IS NOT RELATED TO AGE.
IT'S RELATED TO OUR DETERMINATION.
TO MAKE A DIFFERENCE BY BEING IN THE WORLD.
OKAY.
SO THAT'S PROBABLY TRUE.
EVERYBODY INTERNALIZES IT IN A DIFFERENT WAY.
IT IS PROBABLY NOT RELATED TO AGE, BUT PERHAPS WE DON'T HAVE THE ABILITY TO UNDERSTAND THAT UNTIL WE GET TO A CERTAIN AGE.
TO THAT END, I TALKED TO ANNETTE BENNING AND SHE HAD A THOUGHT ABOUT THAT, TOO.
LET'S PLAY IT.
I FEEL MORE LIBERATED AS I GET OLDER.
IT'S ONE OF THE GREAT GIFTS.
NOBODY TOLD ME ABOUT THAT.
THERE'S A WHOLE INDUSTRY BUILT AROUND US NOT WANTING TO ACCEPT GETTING OLDER, A LARGE INDUSTRY.
SO WE'RE ALL INCULCATED WITH THAT SORT OF POINT OF VIEW.
BUT IN FACT AS ONE GETS OLDER, I FEEL FREER.
SHE SAID WHO KNEW.
I NEVER KNEW THAT, IF I HAD KNOWN THAT WHEN I WAS YOUNGER, IT WOULD HAVE BEEN HELPFUL.
IT WAS A TOUGH THING TO GET TO THAT PLACE WHERE I DIDN'T CARE WHAT OTHER PEOPLE THOUGHT OR SAID.
I GREW UP IN THE RURAL SOUTH WHERE GIRLS WERE ENCOURAGED TO TALK LESS AND SMILE MORE.
SO GETTING TO THE PLACE WHERE I FELT I COULD SAY WHAT I REALLY FELT AND BELIEVED, IT WAS A LONG JOURNEY.
I'M JUST ENCOURAGING WOMEN AND I'M SEEING GIRLS EMBRACE IT MUCH EARLIER NOW.
WHICH IS WHY I'M HOPEFUL, BY THE WAY, THAT WE WILL MOVE OUT OF THESE DANGEROUS TIMES.
AND THERE IS A BATTLE TO BE FOUGHT.
THERE'S A NEW BOOK OUT ON A COMPLETELY DIFFERENT ISSUE ON ECONOMICS CALLED 'THE VISIBLE WOMAN' THAT SAYS ALL THE METRICS THAT WE USE, MEN, WOMEN, CHILDREN ARE BUILT AROUND MEN'S REACTIONS TO CERTAIN THINGS WAY BACK, MANY YEARS AGO, EVEN THE TEMPERATURE OF CORPORATE BUILDINGS.
RIGHT.
AND BOARD ROOMS.
ALWAYS COLD IN BOARD ROOMS.
YES.
I MEAN, THIS STILL A SOCIETAL STRUCTURAL NORM TO BUST.
BUT WE WON'T BUST THAT BY JUST KNOWING THAT IT'S NOT RIGHT.
IT HASN'T GOTTEN US TO A GOOD PLACE.
AND WHEN THE RESEARCH SAYS VERY CLEARLY THAT IF YOU MAKE THOSE BOARDROOMS AND THE MANAGEMENT AND THE COMPANIES AND THE GOVERNMENTS MORE FAIRLY REPRESENTATIVE OF THE PEOPLE THAT YOU'RE SERVING, THE RESULTS ARE GOOD.
I MEAN, YOU GET BETTER BOTTOM LINES, BETTER GOVERNANCE, HAPPIER CUSTOMERS AND CITIZENS.
AND THAT IS WHERE WOMEN CAN, AS I LIKE TO SAY, PLAY THE WOMEN'S CARD.
PLAY THE RACE CARD.
ADVOCATE FOR EVERY PERSPECTIVE, INSIGHT, IDEA, AND INNOVATION THAT WE CAN GET INTO A ROOM THAT WILL SHAPE A BETTER POLICY, HELP US CLAIM OUR POWER, AND MOVE OUT OF IT, USE IT, AND CHER IT.
-- SHARE IT.
ON THAT NOTE, PAT MITCHELL, THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR BEING HERE.
> NOW FROM ONE DANGEROUS WOMAN TO ANOTHER.
LENA WAITHE IS AN EMMY AWARD WINNING WRITER.
ANOTHER.
LENA WAITHE FOLLOWS A BLACK COUPLE AFTER AN AWKWARD FIRST DATE ENDS IN UNEXPECTED BLOODSHED.
ON THE WAY HOME DURING A ROUTINE TRAFFIC STOP, THE SITUATION ESCALADES AND A WHITE POLICE OFFICER ENDS UP DEAD.
WITH THE COUPLE ON THE RUN FROM THE LAW, THE STORY EXPLORES THEMES OF TRAUMA, FREEDOM, LEGACY, AND HOPE.
OUR ALISYN STEWART SAT DOWN WITH LENA WAITHE TO TALK ABOUT IT.
WELCOME.
THANK YOU FOR HAVING ME.
IN THE FILM, WHAT WAS IT ABOUT PUTTING THIS COUPLE ON THE FIRST DATE?
WHAT WAS IT ABOUT THAT BEING A FIRST DATE ALLOWED YOU TO DEVELOP THE CHARACTERS?
UMM, WELL, THAT WAS SORT OF THE INITIAL IDEA.
THAT WASN'T ME.
BLACK MAN, BLACK WOMAN ON A FIRST DATE, THEY'RE ON THEIR WAY HOME AND THEY GET PULLED OVER BY A POLICE OFFICER.
SO THAT PART WAS ALREADY BAKED IN.
IT JUST SORT OF, I THINK, ADDS TO THE CINEMATIC ELEMENT OF IT.
BECAUSE IT MAKES IT A MORE INTERESTING THING.
IF YOU'RE PITCHING A STORY -- IT WOULD BE COOL IF THEY'RE A COUPLE BUT THEN WE HAVE TO CATCH UP TO THEM IN TERMS OF THEIR LANGUAGE, IN TERMS OF THEIR HISTORY, THEM BEING -- THEM NOT KNOWING EACH OTHER ALLOWS THE AUDIENCE TO GET TO KNOW THEM AS THEY GET TO KNOW EACH OTHER.
SO IT MAKES FOR A MORE INTERESTING EXPERIENCE.
AND THE DATE DIDN'T GO WELL, WHICH IS REALLY INTERESTING.
DOESN'T GO BAD, DOESN'T GO GREAT IN THE MIDDLE.
JAMES SAID THAT TOO.
IT'S NOT GREAT.
IT'S NOT HORRIBLE.
SOMEWHERE IN THE MIDDLE, I THOUGHT IT WAS INTERESTING.
YOU WOULDN'T KNOW, LIKE, IS IT GETTING BETTER?
THINGS THEY START TO WARM UP TO EACH OTHER IN THE CAR, WHITE SUPREMACY HITS.
SO IT'S A ROUTINE POLICE STOP.
I'VE BEEN IN THE CAR WHEN A WHITE MAN HAS BEEN STOPPED BY THE COPS.
I'VE BEEN IN THE CAR WHEN A BLACK MAN HAS BEEN STOPPED.
TWO VERY DIFFERENT EXPERIENCES.
VERY DIFFERENT, YEAH.
WE KNOW THE EXPERIENCES SADLY FROM THE NEWS.
DID YOU DRAW FROM ANY PERSONAL EXPERIENCES?
I HAVEN'T HAD A VIOLENT EXPERIENCE WITH THE POLICE BUT I'VE BEEN PULLED OVER BEFORE.
BUT I DON'T DRINK.
I'VE NEVER HAD A SPEEDING TICKET.
SO I SHOULDN'T BE NERVOUS WHEN I GET PULLED OVER BY A POLICE OFFICER BUT THERE'S AN INNATE FEAR THAT HAPPENS, I THINK IF YOU'RE A PERSON OF COLOR GETTING PULLED OVER BY THE POLICE.
NOT JUST BLACK PEOPLE.
IT'S LATINO, NATIVE AMERICAN, ANY PERSON THAT IS NOT WHITE, I THINK YOU HAVE A BIT MORE NERVES WHEN YOU GET PULLED OVER BECAUSE YOU DON'T KNOW HOW IT COULD END.
IT COULD BE LIFE OR DEATH.
IN WRITING THE CHARACTER OF THE POLICE OFFICERS, HE'S SO CLEARLY EVIL.
HE'S ABOMINABLE.
I DON'T KNOW IF THAT'S TRUE.
YOU DON'T THINK SO?
NO.
NO.
I THINK THAT, YOU KNOW, IT'S IMPORTANT THAT, YOU KNOW, WHEN HE GETS IN THE CAR AND THIS IS ON THE PAGE THAT YOU SEE A PICTURE OF HIS FAMILY ON THE DASHBOARD.
HE HAS A WIFE WAITING FOR HIM, TWO KIDS WAITING FOR HIM.
HE'S NOT A MONSTER.
HE'S A PERSON THAT IS DOING HIS JOB.
HE'S A PERSON THAT MAY HAVE PRECONCEIVED NOTIONS OF PEOPLE OF COLOR, POSSIBLY.
AND THERE'S ALSO A POINT IN WHICH HE MAY FEEL DISRESPECTED.
BUT DANIEL AND I HAD A CONVERSATION WHERE SAYS SOMETIMES A BLACK PERSON RESPECTING THEMSELVES CAN COME OFF AS A DISRESPECT TO A WHITE PERSON.
UNINTENTIONALLY EVEN IF IT DOESN'T MEAN TO BE.
SO WHAT I FOUND WAS THAT IT'S NOT ABOUT HERO OR VILLAIN.
IT'S A MOMENT.
IT'S A MOMENT OF YOU DON'T RESPECT MY AUTHORITY SO YOU DON'T ACKNOWLEDGE I'M A POLICE OFFICER.
IF YOU DON'T ACKNOWLEDGE YOU'RE A CIVILIAN, YOU DON'T HAVE THE POWER IN THE SCENARIO.
I'M ARMED.
YOU'RE NOT.
HE'S ALSO TECHNICALLY OUTNUMBERED.
EVEN THOUGH IT'S TWO -- NEITHER ONE OF THESE PEOPLE HAVE A GUN.
HE TECHNICALLY FEELS LIKE HE'S IN DANGER.
WHEN SHE GETS OUT OF THE CAR.
SHE SAID I'M REACHING FOR MY CELL PHONE.
HE CAN EITHER TRUST THAT OR IF IT'S A LIE.
HE HAS A POSITION OF POWER, THOUGH.
CORRECT.
HE HAS THE POWER OF POSITION.
CORRECT.
MY POINT IS WHY HE THOUGHT --
DOESN'T SAY.
HE SAYS GET BACK IN THE CAR.
SHE DOESN'T.
YOU KNOW WHAT I'M SAYING?
TO ME, THAT SCENE, AND I WROTE IT A BUNCH OF TIMES, WAS TO MAKE SURE THAT THE AUDIENCE CAN SAY, WELL, HUH.
OKAY.
I GET THAT.
WAIT, I DON'T -- I KIND OF SEE WHY HE DOES THAT.
I KIND OF SEE WHY SHE WANTS TO RECORD IT.
IT'S ALL THOSE THINGS, LIKE, IT'S ALL HAPPENING VERY FAST.
THAT'S THE OTHER THING, TOO.
THINGS HAPPEN SO QUICKLY.
YOU'RE GOING OFF INSTINCT.
THERE ARE NO HEROS OR VILLAINS IN THE MOVIE, I FEEL.
LET'S TAKE A LOOK AT THE CLIP.
LET'S DO IT.
YEAH.
COULD YOU PLEASE HURRY UP?
WHAT DID YOU SAY?
IT'S JUST COLD.
PUT YOUR HANDS ON YOUR HEAD AND GET ON THE GROUND NOW.
ARE YOU SERIOUS?
GET ON THE GROUND.
GET ON THE GROUND.
WHY IS HE UNDER ARREST?
GET BACK IN THE CAR OR YOU'RE GOING TO JAIL, TOO.
I'M AN ATTORNEY AND DEMAND TO KNOW WHY THIS MAN IS UNDER ARREST.
SIR, SIR, SIR.
WE DON'T HAVE TO DO THIS.
WHY IS HE UNDER ARREST?
WHAT IS YOUR NAME?
GET BACK IN THE CAR.
WHAT IS YOUR BADGE NUMBER?
I'M NOT GOING TO TELL YOU.
GET BACK IN THE CAR.
GET BACK IN THE CAR.
WHY IS HE UNDER ARREST?
WHAT IS YOUR BADGE NUMBER.
SIR, SIR, IT WAS A TURN SIGNAL.
I AIN'T DONE NOTHING WRONG.
I'M REACHING FOR MY CELL PHONE.
KEEP YOUR HANDS WHERE I CAN SEE THEM.
I'M REACHING TO RECORD THIS.
GET IN THE CAR.
I'M REACHING FOR MY CELL PHONE.
THEY GO ON THE RUN.
UH-HUH.
BECAUSE THEY'VE LOST FAITH IN THE SYSTEM.
RIGHT.
WELL, SHE REALLY HAS.
SHE TRULY HAS.
RIGHT.
SHE'S TRYING TO EXPLAIN TO HIM YOU NEED TO LISTEN TO ME.
I LIVE AND WORK IN THIS SYSTEM.
I KNOW WHAT THIS CAN BE.
RIGHT.
WHAT DID YOU WANT TO EXPLORE ABOUT WHEN WE LOSE FAITH IN THE SYSTEM GIVEN OUR CULTURE NOW?
RIGHT, RIGHT.
I THINK THE SYSTEM RARELY WORKS FOR THOSE WHO ARE OTHERED.
YOU KNOW, THE SYSTEM ISN'T NECESSARILY BUILT TO KEEP THE PLAYING FIELD LEVELLED.
IT'S TO SERVE THOSE WHO, YOU KNOW, OFTEN ARE THE POWER OR THE MAJORITY.
AND THE SYSTEM DOESN'T HAVE THE BEST TRACK RECORD WITH PEOPLE OF COLOR.
PARTICULARLY BLACK PEOPLE IN THIS COUNTRY.
SO IT'S HARD TO TRUST IT.
IT'S HARD TO KNOW THAT WE'LL GET, YOU KNOW, OUR PROPER DAY IN COURT.
WE'LL GET A FAIR TRIAL, WE'LL HAVE A JURY OF OUR PEERS, AND JUST IT CAN BE TRICKY FOR US.
AND HER BEING A LAWYER WHO LITERALLY HAS MADE A LIVING OUT OF GETTING PEOPLE -- PROBABLY MOST PEOPLE OF COLOR OUT OF JAIL, OFF DEATH ROW, SHE SAYS THE SYSTEM EVERY DAY AND WATCHES IT NOT REALLY WORK IN OUR FAVOR VERY OFTEN.
THERE'S A LOT OF HISTORY IN THIS, I THINK.
I CAN TELL YOU SPENT TIME THINKING ABOUT HISTORY OF POLICE WORK, HISTORY OF THIS COUNTRY.
THERE'S AN UNDERGROUND RAILROAD VIBE ABOUT AS THEY FLEE.
YEAH.
SLAVE RUN-AWAY NARRATIVE.
RIGHT.
THEY GO FROM NORTH -- SOUTH
RIGHT.
FROM OHIO.
IS THAT WHY YOU PUT IT IN OHIO?
I PUT IN OHIO BECAUSE THE DEATH PENALTY IS LEGAL THERE AND LAST STOP FOR THE CANDIDATES.
THERE'S A COUPLE OF REASONS WE DID THAT.
THERE WAS A LEVEL OF AMERICANA THAT WAS THERE.
SORT OF LIKE MIDDLE CLASS OR WORKING FOLKS TRYING TO LIVE A VERY SIMPLE LIFE.
AND THAT'S ALSO WHAT IT WAS, IN MY MIND.
NOW THAT YOU PUT IT ON THE PAGE, I WANT SO SHOOT IT THERE.
WE DID SHOOT IT IN CLEVELAND.
IT WAS REALLY COLD AND WE WERE OUT THERE IN THE ELEMENTS.
BUT, YEAH, THAT WAS THE REASON WHY I PLACED IT THERE FOR THEM TO START.
I'VE SEEN OTHER INTERVIEWS YOU LIKEN THE TWO CHARACTERS TO MALCOLM AND MARTIN.
UH-HUH.
AND THAT THEY SHIFT.
THEY EVOLVE.
THEY SWAP PLACES A LITTLE BIT.
WERE YOU THINKING OF THOSE TWO LEADERS?
ABSOLUTELY.
JUST BECAUSE OF WHAT THEY MEAN TO US AS A COMMUNITY BUT ALSO HOW THEY BOTH WANTED THE SAME THING BUT HAD DIFFERENT WAYS ON HOW TO GET THERE.
BOTH VALID AND BOTH EXTREMELY INTELLIGENT MEN.
BOTH VERY SPIRITUAL IN DIFFERENT WAYS.
BUT, YOU KNOW, BOTH VALID.
BOTH EQUALLY IMPORTANT.
AND I SORT OF SPEAK TO THE FACT THAT WE CHOOSE WHAT KIND OF BLACK PERSON WE WANT TO BE EVERY DAY.
WHAT DO YOU WANT TO BE?
DO YOU WANT TO SHOW UP AS MLK?
DO YOU WANT TO SHOW UP AS MALCOLM X?
SOMETIMES IT CHANGES, DEPENDING ON THE DAY.
WHEN YOU GET PULLED OVER, ARE YES, SIR, NO, SIR.
WE HAVE TO MAKE THOSE DECISIONS.
WE DON'T GET TO JUST BE OURSELVES.
WE HAVE TO MAKE CONSCIOUS DECISIONS ABOUT HOW WE WANT TO SHOW UP EVERY DAY.
THAT WAS REALLY WHAT I WANTED TO SHOW IS THAT QUEEN IS VERY LOGICAL.
SHE IS NOT A BELIEVER.
SHE BELIEVES THAT IN ORDER TO MATTER, YOU HAVE TO BUILD THE WORLD.
YOU HAVE TO BE EXCELLENT.
AND, AGAIN, THAT'S VERY VALID.
HER IDEOLOGY.
BUT I BELIEVE SLIM'S IDEOLOGY IS JUST AS VALID TO JUST EXIST IN THE WORLD, TO HAVE LOVE, TO HAVE CHILDREN, TO GROW OLD, TO MAKE AN HONEST LIVING.
I THINK WE SOMETIMES DEVALUE THAT WAY OF LIFE.
AND I THINK I WANTED TO HONOR IT AXIAL.
AS THEY ARE TRYING TO FIGURE OUT WHERE THEY'RE GOING TO BE AND HOW THEY'RE GOING TO GET THERE.
THEY'RE CONSISTENTLY WELCOMED BY VARIOUS COMMUNITIES.
UH-HUH.
THEY ALMOST SEEM SURPRISED.
RIGHT.
WHICH I FOUND INTERESTING.
WHY DID YOU WANT TO HAVE THEM BE SO SURPRISED THEY WOULD GO INTO A BAR AND THE BARTENDER WOULD BE I GOT YOU?
I'M NOT GOING TO TURN YOU IN.
YOU GUYS ARE SAFE HERE.
YEAH.
I THINK BECAUSE SOMETIMES WE AS BLACK PEOPLE FORGET HOW CONNECTED WE ARE TO EACH OTHER.
AND WE SOMETIMES DON'T ALWAYS BELIEVE IN OUR COMMUNITY.
WE SOMETIMES THINK AS INDIVIDUALS AT TIMES.
THE TRUTH IS, WE'RE A PART OF THIS GREAT BIG FAMILY.
NONE OF US KNOW WHO IS RELATED TO WHO OR WHAT BECAUSE, YOU KNOW, THE RECORDS AREN'T ALWAYS WELL KEPT AND PEOPLE, YOU KNOW, FAMILIES WERE SEPARATED AND AN SOLD.
WE HAVE NO IDEA WITH WHO OUR COUSINS ARE.
WE HAVE NO IDEA WHO WE'RE CONNECTED TO.
WE HAVE NO IDEA WHICH ONE OF OUR ANCESTORS MAY HAVE FALLEN IN LOVE WITH ANOTHER.
YOU JUST DON'T KNOW.
SO THE WAY I LOOK AT IT IS WHETHER WE LIKE IT OR NOT, WE'RE ALL CONNECTED, WE'RE ALL FAMILY IN A WAY.
IT ALSO SPEAKS TO THE FACT THAT THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN BLACK PEOPLE SPECIFICALLY AND THE POLICE HAS BEEN EXTREMELY TURBULENT AND FRAUGHT WITH ANGER AND VIOLENCE AND INJUSTICE.
BUT ALSO YOU GO BACK TO THE DAYS OF CIVIL RIGHTS MOVEMENT.
YOU SEE YOUNG COLLEGE KIDS, YOU KNOW, PARTICIPATING IN SIT-INS OR PROTESTING.
WHO IS HOLDING THEM DOWN?
WHO IS SICCING DOGS ON THEM?
WHO'S BEATING THEM WITH BE A TOPS?
-- BATONS.
NOT NECESSARILY, YOU KNOW, JUST CIVILIANS BUT POLICE OFFICERS.
WHEN YOU'RE A YOUNG BLACK KID AT SCHOOL AND YOU LEARN ABOUT THE CIVIL RIGHTS MOVEMENT, YOU SEE THE FOOTAGE BUT THE NEXT DAY THEY BRICK IN A POLICE OFFICER AND SAY THIS IS YOUR FRIEND, IF YOU NEED HELP.
YOU CALL A POLICE OFFICER.
SO IT'S ALMOST LIKE A VERY ODD THING TO DIGEST.
DISCONNECT.
YEAH.
EVEN AS AN ADULT, YOU'RE LIKE, HUH.
SO IT'S SO INTERESTING ABOUT WHAT POLICE REPRESENT TO BLACK PEOPLE.
SO THAT'S WHY I KNEW THE STORY NEEDED TO BE TOLD.
IF THERE WAS A STORY ABOUT TWO BLACK PEOPLE KILLING A POLICE OFFICER IN SELF-DEFENSE OR NOT.
I KNEW THAT BLACK PEOPLE WOULD HAVE AN OPINION ABOUT THOSE PEOPLE.
SOME PEOPLE WOULD THINK OF THEM AS HEROS.
SOME PEOPLE WOULD THINK THEY'RE CRAZY.
SOME PEOPLE WOULD THINK THEY'RE VIGILANTES.
SOME PEOPLE WOULD THINK THEY WOULD DO MORE HARM THAN GOOD.
I KNEW THERE WOULD BE A DIFFERENCE OF OPINION BUT I WANTED TO SHOW THAT.
I WANTED TO SHOW HOW THEY WALKED AROUND AND HOW SOME BLACK FOLKS EMBRACED THEM AND SOME DID NOT.
BUT I DID WANT TO SHOW THAT SENSE OF COMMUNITY AS WELL BECAUSE IT EXISTS.
THERE'S A NUANCE TO THE POLICE FORCE AS WELL, WHICH IS IMPORTANT TO POINT OUT.
FOR SURE.
I CAN'T DISMISS THIS AS AN ANTI-COP MOVIE.
EVERY SINGLE CHARACTER IS HUMAN.
WHEN YOU WERE THINKING ABOUT CASTING, JODI TURNER SMITH IS FAIRLY UNKNOWN TO EVERYONE.
IS THAT INTENTIONAL TO HAVE AN UNKNOWN?
ABSOLUTELY.
DANIEL SORT OF CAST HIMSELF IN THE MOVIE, THANKFULLY.
HE READ AN EARLY DRAFT.
HE READ IT BEFORE I WAS ABLE TO GET IT TO MALINA.
JUST BECAUSE OF THE TIMING.
HE AND I HAD DINNER, HE ASKED WHAT I WAS WORKING ON.
I TOLD HIM THE LOG LINE AND HE SAID I WANT TO READ THAT.
HE WAS HE WANTED TO READ WHAT I WAS WRITING.
AND THEN I GOT AN EMAIL TWO DAYS LATER SAYING I AM SLIM.
I WAS LIKE MAN THAT'S FLATTERING AND AWESOME.
HOLD ON.
I HAVE TO GET MOLINA TO READ IT.
SHE READ IT AND HE WAITED AND WHILE WE WAITED FOR HER TO READ IT.
SHE CALLED ME AND SAID I WANT TO DIRECT THIS AS MY FIRST FEATURE.
AMAZING.
SHE WAS LIKE I DON'T SEE HIM AS SLIM.
I DON'T THINK OF HIM AS SLIM.
I SAID, FUNNY, I DIDN'T THINK OF HIM EITHER.
BECAUSE YOU GET 'GET OUT' ON YOUR MIND?
I DIDN'T MIND THAT.
FOR HER IT WAS INGRAINED INTO HER BRAIN SHE WAS LIKE I DON'T THINK THAT GUY IS SLIM.
JUST SIT WITH HIM.
AND SHE DID.
SHE SAID I'LL GIVE HIM FIVE MINUTES.
SHE WENT AND SAT WITH HIM AND THAT TURNED INTO FIVE HOURS.
SHE CALLED ME AND SAID I HOPE YOU STILL LIKE HIM, I WANT TO OFFER HIM THE PART.
IT'S LIKE GREAT.
SO THEN WE HAD OUR SLIM.
BECAUSE HE'S SO KNOWN, WE WERE LIKE WE HAVE TO BRING IN AN ACTRESS.
IT WAS ONE OF OUR DEMANDS ON OUR LIST.
NOT JUST FINAL CUT BUT AN ACTRESS WITH BROWN SKIN.
AND EVERYBODY AT UNIVERSAL DIDN'T EVEN BLINK AN EYE.
THEY WERE LIKE OKAY COOL.
SO THAT BEGAN OUR CASTING DIRECTOR WAS IN THE FIRST BATCH OF WOMEN THAT CAME TO US.
WE WERE LIKE, ARE WE CRAZY TO THINK AS IF WE ALREADY FOUND OUR GIRL.
CARMEN IS LIKE, SHE SAID USUALLY THE BEST ARE IN THE FIRST BATCH.
SHE CAME IN AND READ WITH DANIEL AND IT WAS MAGIC INSTANTLY.
WHERE YOU GOING?
FIND SOMEBODY WITH A PHONE TO CALL MY FAMILY.
IF YOU DO THAT, THEY'LL KNOW WHERE WE ARE.
GREAT.
WHAT IF THEY KILL US?
DON'T SAY THAT.
THERE'S NO GUARANTEE THEY WON'T.
YOU'RE A BLACK MAN THAT KILLED A COP AND TOOK HIS GUN.
I'M NOT A CRIMINAL.
YOU ARE NOW.
WAS THERE SOMETHING IN THIS PROCESS THAT WHEN YOU MADE THIS FILM AND YOU WERE TALKING TO THE TEAM YOU SAID, YOU KNOW, THIS HAS TO HAPPEN FOR THE FILM TO GET MADE.
WHAT WAS SOMETHING THAT WAS A HARD NO.
THIS CAN'T HAPPEN.
I DIDN'T WANT TO TAKE NOTES FROM WHITE PEOPLE.
THEY ALL AGREED TO THAT.
THEY WERE LIKE, UNDERSTOOD.
WE DON'T WANT TO DO THAT.
WE HAD COMPLETE AUTONOMY.
WE HAD TO HAD HAVE FINAL CUT WHAT WAS ON THE SCREEN.
WHAT WAS THE ISSUE WITH NOTES FROM WHITE PEOPLE?
THIS IS OUR STORY.
TOLD THROUGH MY LENS AND MY VOICE AND MY PEN.
AND WE DESERVE THAT.
THEY HAD CALL THEIR MOVIES AND YOU KNOW, THE KING'S ENGLISH FOR DECADES.
WE HAVE A BROKEN ENGLISH, TOO.
WE HAVE A LANGUAGE, AS WELL.
I THINK IT'S TIME FOR FOLKS TO HEAR OUR VOICE AND SEE OUR WORLD THROUGH THE LENS PURELY.
WHEN DID YOU MAKE THE MOVIE?
THIS YEAR.
I KNEW IT WAS URGENT, THAT WAS ONE DEMAND.
I WAS GOING TO ASK.
THE WAY THINGS MOVE NOW.
YEAH.
THE WAY THINGS MOVE IN THE CULTURE.
YEAH.
THE MOVIE YOU WANTED TO MAKE, IF YOU TOOK OVER A PERIOD OF TIME, COULD BE A DIFFERENT MOVIE.
ABSOLUTELY.
I WAS LIKE WE HAVE TO DROP IT.
BECAUSE OTHERWISE IT'LL BE TOO LATE.
I WAS LIKE WE HAVE TO GET IT OUT THERE.
AIR PEOPLE ARE READY FOR IT.
I HAD NO IDEA MORE TRAGEDIES WOULD HAPPEN SINCE WE FINISHED WORKING ON THE SCRIPT, SINCE WE FINISHED FILMING IT.
OUR WHOLE MISSION IS SHOW PEOPLE HOW HUMAN WE ARE SO MAYBE THEY'LL STOP KILLING US.
THE IDEA THAT WHITE SUPREMACY HAS BECOME, FOR SOME PEOPLE, I THINK THEY BELIEVE IT'S GONE AWAY.
THE IDEA IT'S SO BOLD AND BALD FACED NOW.
NOW, YEAH.
THERE'S NO HIDING.
THERE'S SOME VALUE IN THAT BECAUSE IT LETS PEOPLE KNOW THAT THIS NEVER REALLY WENT AWAY.
RIGHT, ABSOLUTELY.
I THINK THAT THIS PRESIDENCY REMINDED US OF THE COUNTRY WE LIVE IN.
AND I THINK IT WAS SO SHOCKING.
TO EVEN WHITE LIBERALS.
THEY WERE LIKE WHAT IS GOING ON?
IT'S ALMOST LIKE BLACK PEOPLE -- THERE'S A FUNNY 'SNL' SKIT.
THE BLACK PEOPLE ARE LIKE NOT SURPRISED.
THEY'RE LIKE, YEAH, THIS IS AMERICA.
THAT'S WHY I LOVE DONALD GLOVER'S SONG.
THIS IS AMERICA.
IT'S LIKE LYNCHINGS.
LIKE, YOU KNOW, RACISM, JIM CROW, WHAT IS MORE AMERICAN THAN THAT?
I THINK THAT PEOPLE ARE DEFINITELY, YOU KNOW, LETTING THEIR TRUE COLORS BE SEEN NOW.
BUT, AGAIN, IT'S JUST A REMINDER.
IT'S A REMINDER THAT THIS IS A WOUND THAT HASN'T HEELED AND WE KEEP IGNORING IT.
.
LENA WAITHE, SO GOOD TO MEET YOU.
SO GOOD TO MEET YOU.
> AND AN IMPORTANT TAKE AND COUNTERINTUITIVE DECIDING HOW YOU WANT TO SHOW UP WHEN YOU ARE BLACK IN AMERICA OR A MINORITY.
THAT'S IT FOR OUR PROGRAM TONIGHT.
FIND OUT WHAT'S COMING UP ON THE SHOW BY SIGNING UP FOR OUR DAILY PREVIEW.
VI GO TO PBS.ORG/AMANPOUR.