February 26, 2020

CHRISTIANE AMANPOUR: Hello, everyone, and welcome to “Amanpour and Company.” Here’s what’s coming up.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

NINA TURNER, NATIONAL CO-CHAIR, SANDERS 2020: Change is coming, and it’s going to be President Bernie Sanders.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

AMANPOUR: Confidence from the Sanders camp heading into the South Carolina Primary. I speak to campaign co-chair, Nina Turner.

Then, fighting for truth and justice and against sexism, Prosecutor Jill Wine-Banks, the author of “Watergate Girl,” protecting the rule of law then

and now.

Plus —

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REP. DAN CRENSHAW (R-TX): I was there because I knew and understood if I didn’t fight them there, they would have the time and space to plan another

9/11.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

AMANPOUR: Walter Isaacson speaks to Republican congressman and Afghan war veteran, Dan Crenshaw.

Welcome to the program, everyone. I’m Christiane Amanpour in London.

After surviving all the incoming fire from the South Carolina Debate, one thing is for sure, Bernie Sanders is the strong front-runner now and he’s

got a target on his back as all the others try to take him down, launching broadsides like this one from Mayor Pete Buttigieg.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

PETE BUTTIGIEG (D) PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: If you think the last four years has been chaotic, divisive, toxic, exhausting, imagine spending the

better part of 2020 with Bernie Sanders versus Donald Trump. Think about what that will be like for this country.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

AMANPOUR: Now, Senator Sanders was slammed for his stance on guns, the price of his signature policies and the news that Russia may be interfering

on his behalf, and all of this before the first commercial break. Despite the pile-on, though, Sanders support is still surging.

Meanwhile, the latest polls show that Joe Biden is hanging onto his lead in South Carolina. And today, he got a major boost, an emotional endorsement

from House Majority Whip, James Clyburn. He is the highest ranking African- American in Congress and the leading Democrat in the state.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REP. JAMES CLYBURN (D-SC): I can think of no one with the integrity, no one more committed to the fundamental principles that make this country

what it is, than my good friend, my late wife’s great friend, Joe Biden.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

AMANPOUR: Now, after South Carolina’s Primary this weekend, it is big Super Tuesday contest next, which will likely cull the herd of candidates.

Former Ohio State senator, Nina Turner, has been a passionate supporter for Bernie Sanders since the 2016 race and she is now national co-chair of his

presidential campaign.

When she joined me earlier from the very raucous South Carolina Minister’s Breakfast, I asked her about the confident mood inside the Sanders camp.

Nina Turner, welcome to the program.

NINA TURNER, NATIONAL CO-CHAIR, SANDERS 2020: Thank you so much for having me.

AMANPOUR: So, I can hear that you’re hoarse. You’ve probably spoken yourself hoarse in the aftermath of your candidate’s exceptional showing.

Obviously, he has done something that no other candidate has done of any party, won the popular vote in the first three straight competitions,

contests. And you have built a very diverse coalition now, you’re on the way to building a very diverse coalition. How confident are you feeling

now?

TURNER: I’m feeling very confident and I’m surely glad you laid it out he has made history in a way that no one else has, Republican or Democrat. And

really what it shows is that this movement, the Bernie Sanders movement, our movement, because the senator always says, it’s not about me, us, is

percolating throughout this nation so much so that the first three states believed in the mission of Senator Bernie Sanders, which is to change the

material conditions of the working day people of this nation. So, we are really excited and really pleased.

AMANPOUR: So, let me ask you this, because he’s obviously made dramatic inroads into the Latino community. He did incredibly well in Nevada, and

obviously, you’re looking to a Super Tuesday hall as well with so many Latinos represented, but also in the African-American community. The latest

new polling from Ipsos and Reuters has Senator Sanders surpassing Vice President Biden among African-American voters with 26 percent support.

Can you say now that you’re confident in this weekend’s primary in South Carolina that he will win the African-American vote?

TURNER: Well, we’ve been working very hard to earn the votes of the black community and the senator has been to over 50 events in this great state.

Also, not — and that doesn’t even include people like me, one of his national co-chairs or people like Brother Danny Glove or Dr. Cornel West,

Philip Agnew, you name it. We have had a swath of people who have been working in this state for a very long time, from baby events, to small

events, really getting to know this community to sharing the vision of Senator Bernard Sanders and also hear about their hopes and their dreams.

And so, we have worked so hard to win this primary.

AMANPOUR: OK. So, you’ve talked about events and I have to say, obviously, that you are at an event right now because we can hear, I think it’s

Senator Amy Klobuchar in the background, you’re addressing a religious breakfast there. So, we’ll just put that aside.

But let me ask you this. Because, you know, Senator Sanders has, in fact, spent decades of his career as an outsider, as an agitator. You know, he is

an independent, he ran for office as an independent, and he prides himself on being ideologically quite determined and quite rigid. So, people, and

it’s not just in the Democrat establishment, it’s everywhere, are wondering because there are no real clues, how will he govern.

TURNER: He will govern with strength. He will govern with courage. People don’t have to guess where Senator Bernie Sanders is because he always makes

it known and it really is his consistency and truthfulness, which is a hallmark of who he is and why people — even people who don’t 100 percent

agree with all of his policy positions, they do agree that he is a man of courage and conviction.

As we know, at one point in time in the Congress, Senator Bernie Sanders was known as the mimic king. We know most recently he got a Yemen war

resolution passed, Christiane, in one of the most polarized environments in that Congress ever. We know that with Congress and Jim Clyburn, he was able

to put money into the ACA to fund community health centers which served some of the most vulnerable people in our community.

So, he is going to serve with integrity. He is going to lead with integrity. He is not going to capitulate on the people’s agenda. And the

people are lined up with Senator Bernie Sanders. You know, almost four years ago what the senator was talking about was seeing radical and out of

play. But now, every single debate by example that the Democratic Party has ever had this election cycle is animated by that vision.

AMANPOUR: Nina Turner, you are correct in that the Democratic Party has moved further to the left and adopting policies that Bernie Sanders has

espoused for much of his career. But, and there is a big but, that he calls himself a Democratic socialist. And when it comes to members of the

Democratic Party, the votes and the polls just show that the people are not there.

According to NBC News “Wall Street Journal” this month, 19 percent of voters have a positive view of socialism, while a majority, 53 percent,

have a negative perception. PBS News Hour in a later poll says only 28 percent of adults have a favorable view of socialism, while 58 percent say

they have an unfavorable one.

Are you concerned, and you must have thought about this because the opposition wants to run against a socialist or a communist, as already the

Trump campaign are calling him, have you thought about how you’re going to push back on that if he becomes the nominee, and frankly, throughout the

rest of this nominating process?

AMANPOUR: Absolutely. You know, that word is being bantied about to scare people. But when you talk to people about what democratic socialism really

means, it’s about government of the people, by the people, and for the people. And for example — and Christiane, I’ve traveled all over this

country and I’ve had yet to have anybody say to me that we don’t like democratic socialism in terms of what does that mean for changing their

material conditions.

When people talk about needing health care, being either underinsured or uninsured, that is democratic socialism when the senator is saying that in

this country we need to take the lead and join our other sisters and brothers and other industrialized nations and see Medicare for All as the

moral imperative that it is and not commodify it.

When he talks about making sure that the pharmaceutical industry is not able to continue to charge Americans higher prices for the drugs that

people need to live, that is what democratic socialism means. And when the senator stands up and talks about a legal system that is racist, that is

built on the backs and the bodies of black men in particular, and that when he gets into office, he is going to change that, that is democratic

socialism. To stand up in the United States of America and say that everybody is entitled to clean water, clean air, clean food, that is

democratic socialism.

The reverend doctor, Martin Luther King Jr. was a democratic socialist. He endited this nation on materialism, poverty and racism and said that we

need to do a new thing. So, all — simply all Senator Bernie Sanders is saying is that the system is rigged and that he will come into that White

House and change it so that people don’t continue to suffer in the way that they are.

So, it is not controlled by Wall Street. That it is not controlled by the fossil fuel industry and other corporate interests that hold people down.

That is the kind of conversation that we are having with people all across the country. And as we can see by the first three contests, the people of

Iowa, the people of New Hampshire, the people of Nevada, are not worried about that.

AMANPOUR: Let me just play what Pete Buttigieg, the other mayor on the stage last night, and then we’ll talk about it.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

PETE BUTTIGIEG (D) PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: The time has come for us to stop acting like the presidency is the only office that matters. Not only

is this a way to get Donald Trump reelected, we’ve got a House to worry about. We’ve got a Senate to worry about and this is really important.

Look, if you want to keep the House in Democratic hands, you might want to check with the people who actually turned the House blue. 40 Democrats who

are not running on your platform, they are running away from your platform as fast as they possibly can.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

AMANPOUR: I think it’s Mayor Buttigieg behind you right now. So, address what he’s saying and what others in the party fear.

TURNER: You know, in 2018 when there were two mayoral — not mayoral, two gubernatorial candidates, one in Michigan and the other one in Wisconsin,

and they are not — they are middle of the way Democrats, and they sought out Senator Bernie Sanders, the campaign on their behalf, and they won.

So, what does that say? That says that when you stand side by side with Senator Bernie Sanders and we talk about what the real needs of the people

are, people will respond. And so, just as now Governor Whitmer of Michigan had no problem with Senator Sanders campaigning for her in the general

election, I don’t think that any Democrat should have anything to worry about, because we are going to continue to build the coalition of black and

brown and poor people, Asian-American people, indigenous people, gay, straight, people, religious, nonreligious people, the rainbow mosaic of

humanity to go up against the worst president in modern history, and that is President Donald J. Trump. So, we can win this and we will win this.

Democrats have nothing to worry about.

AMANPOUR: You have just, you know, laid out kind of a mobilization that you hope. But the thing is, what about voter turnout? You know, the Iowa

caucuses was lower than expect, just 3 percent up from 2016. And, you know, the increase was concentrated in the more well-educated areas. You know,

these are not necessarily the people you’ve just described to me, poor people, you know, disadvantaged, Latinos and African-Americans in some

cases.

And there was no sign of a Sanders voter surge in New Hampshire or Nevada. Only slightly higher than in 2016. Given the stakes as you’ve outlined of

who your opponent could be in the general, what are you doing to try to increase that voter turnout? Why do you think it’s not happening now yet?

TURNER: Well, we’re organizing all over the country and voter turnout among young people did increase in Iowa, also in Nevada, first time

caucusgoers, gravitating toward Senator Bernie Sanders. He received 66 percent of the vote in that caucus for age group 17-29.

So, we are continually talking to people and getting them engaged, because we have to continue not just to talk about what it takes to defeat

President Donald J. Trump, we have to have a vision about what is possible. We have to have a reframing about what is possible, and that is exactly

what Senator Bernie Sanders is doing. We are building that broad-based coalition that will be necessary to defeat President Donald J. Trump.

And you’re absolutely right, the senator says all the time that if the voter turnout is high, we will win. And so, that is in our sights at all

times, because the democracy demands that people participate. And that is exactly what we want.

You know, Christiane, the polls that came out right after this — right after the South Carolina debate show two things. When the question was

asked, who was best positioned to defeat President Donald J. Trump, even though his colleagues threw everything at him, the kitchen sink, the house,

the building, everything at him, the people who were polled said that Senator Bernie Sanders is best positioned to beat Donald J. Trump.

When the question was asked, who performed the best on that debate stage, even though everything was thrown at him, Senator Bernie Sanders came out

on top.

AMANPOUR: OK. Nina, you talked about the kitchen sink. And again, you are heroically, you know, talking to me over a very determined political appeal

behind you. But the kitchen sink includes Senator Sanders’ comments on Castro. It includes his past comments on the Sandinista regime in Nicaragua

and it includes these bits of his past that you would think by now he would have a very robust answer to. It was again piled onto him last night.

How are you going to address the fact that he praised the literacy program in Cuba or many of the other things?

TURNER: What Senator Sanders said about the Cuba literacy program is no different than what President Barack Obama said about Cuba’s literacy

program. Senator Bernie Sanders has never lifted up an authoritarian government. There is a lie and it is misnomer. All he said was that that

literacy program was a strong program. If people go back and roll the tape, hashtag receipts, President Barack Obama said exactly the same thing.

So, this whole outrage and this hypocrisy really leaves a lot to be desired. Senator Bernie Sanders on the stage last night talked about how

this country, in some cases, has become engaged in destabilizing other countries and must own up to that. But never has he lifted up authoritarian

governments at all, ever.

And so, he made it very clear to President Putin, for example, that he’s not going to lay at his feed and coddle him. That when he’s president of

the United States of America, he will make sure that President Putin doesn’t meddle in our election cycle, that — our elections. That is night

and day different than the president that we have in the White House right now who loves the ground that President Putin walks on.

AMANPOUR: Well, listen, I mean, you’ve given a robust answer to that. So, I do actually want to ask to you to — because you’ve kind of responded,

but I want to play for you what Mayor Bloomberg said what you just mentioned, the interference against by the Russians as identified by the

Intelligence Community in the United States. This is what Mayor Bloomberg said.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

FMR. MAYOR MICHAEL BLOOMBERG (D-NY), PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: I think that Donald Trump thinks it would be better if he’s president. I do not think

so. Vladimir Putin thinks that Donald Trump should be president of the United States and that’s why Russia is helping you get elected, so you’ll

lose to him.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

AMANPOUR: Well, I guess, you know, this week, we all knew that Russians were going to interfere again. What is the front-runner strategy to

distance himself from the notion that the, you know, Russians want to interfere on his behalf?

TURNER: Well, you know, it is really shameful that the federal government threw Donald J. Trump and his Republicans have not done more to protect our

elections. That is our responsibility, from foreign powers and domestic powers. Anybody that would try to meddle in our democracy, it is our job.

And so, HR-1 was passed in the House of Representatives and the Republicans, under the leadership of Senator Mitch McConnell, refused to

move on that. Within that bill is election protection. So, the person that benefits the most from dissension, intention and distortion at the hands of

the Russians is President Donald J. Trump. And all of this confusion lays at his feet. He is the one that is not standing up to President Putin and

the meddling.

Senator Bernie Sanders has been very clear that Putin gets nothing here when he becomes the next president of the United States of America. He

supports what the House of Representatives passed and urged the Republicans in the Senate to pass the same thing.

AMANPOUR: You know, I’ve talked about the Democrats who are worried about him, but there are obviously other Democrats and senior senators, like

Gillibrand of New York, Udall of New Mexico, who are looking at what Sanders is building and likes it very, very much. So, there are others in

the party who are not as panicky as some.

But here’s the thing, if Bernie Sanders does not become the nominee, will Bernie supporters vote for whoever the nominee is? You remember there was

controversy in 2016. Will they, this time, vote and come out, actually, not just not vote but come out in order to beat President Trump, which is what

you say is the overarching goal?

TURNER: Well, it’s certainly a misnomer. Senator Bernie Sanders, as you know, was right there by Secretary Clinton’s side. He was very clear in

2016 that he was would support the nominee. It was only the two of them running when all was said and done and he did just that, appearing at

numerous events. I think it was over 39 events on behalf of Secretary Clinton.

He made it very clear to his supporters that is what he wanted them to do too. More Senator Sanders supporters supported Secretary Clinton in 2016

than her supporters supported then-Senator Barack Obama when he was running for president in 2008. So, I want to make sure that we get those facts

correct. The senator, if he is not the nominee, which I believe he will be the nominee, but if he is not the nominee, he has already made it public

that he will support whoever the nominee is and he will continue along the course of encouraging his supporters to do the same thing.

My question becomes, if Senator Bernie Sanders is the nominee, will the other candidates tell their supporters to support Senator Bernie Sanders?

This cut both ways. It does not solely rest at the feet of Senator Bernie Sanders. Democrats in general who have been polled made it very clear that

they want to defeat President Donald J. Trump. And so, I believe in that declaration that there will be a coalition of supporters within the

Democratic Party to defeat President Trump.

AMANPOUR: OK. You leave me with no option but to ask you the last, last question because the question is, will others support him?

So, Bloomberg has said, out-and-out, if he is not the nominee, he will support whoever is the nominee. But your campaign has said that they

wouldn’t take any financial or material support from Bloomberg. Do you stick by that or why not take the support that you say you want from the

other candidates?

TURNER: Listen, we have — we need campaign finance reform in this country. And Senator Bernie Sanders is running on the money and the fuel of

the people. Our average donation in this election cycle is $18.56. And 99 percent of the people who have donated to this campaign can donate over and

over and over again.

What Senator Bernie Sanders is doing, not just in words, but also in deed, is showing that the only special interests he will have is not billionaires

and multi-millionaires, not the lobbyists who get to write the rules in the Congress right now or buy off the Congress right now, his only special

interest will be the everyday people of this nation, people who live in South Carolina, people who live in Ohio and Nevada, Iowa, you name it, all

over this country. That is his special interest. And in order for that to remain absolutely true, there is no need for him to take money from Mayor

Bloomberg.

AMANPOUR: Nina Turner, thank you very much indeed. One of the co-chairs of the Bernie Sanders campaign. Thank you.

TURNER: Thank you so much.

AMANPOUR: Now, there was plenty of criticism of Tuesday’s debate, including the fact that it took a full 83 minutes before a question on the

surging coronavirus. Here everyone agreed, calling on the Trump administration to reverse its proposed cuts to the CDC and to provide more

support.

American federal health officials are warning that it is only a matter of time until it spreads.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DR. ANNE SCHUCHAT, CDC PRINCIPAL DEPUTY DIRECTOR: Now, it’s not so much a question of if this will happen anymore, but rather more a question of

exactly when this will happen, and how many people in this country will become infected and how many of those will develop severe or more

complicated disease.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

AMANPOUR: Now, since the initial outbreak at the end of 2019, more than 80,000 people have been infected on every continent on the planet, except

Antarctica, which is now reporting cases. Global markets are plunging. While in Italy, tens of thousands of people are on lockdown as they

struggle to contain the virus in the heart of Europe.

Coming up tomorrow, more on what President Trump is planning to do about it as world leaders desperately attempt to mitigate the effects of this

outbreak.

Turning now to a unique moment in American history. In 1974, one extraordinary young lawyer stood at the intersection of the Watergate

scandal and the women’s movement. Jill Wine-Banks, then just 30 years old, was an assistant special prosecutor in the Watergate investigation, the

only woman on the team that took down the highest-ranking White House officials. Despite facing pervasive sexism, Wine-Banks was a fighter. As we

can see in this 1975 interview.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: And need I be corrected in the assumption that the matter of your being — I know you don’t like the phrase, a lady lawyer. A

lady lawyer came up time and time again.

JILL WINE-BANKS, AUTHOR, “THE WATERGATE GIRL”: Well, I had a variety of problems because I was a woman. I do object to the term lady lawyer. I’m a

trial lawyer or a criminal lawyer or a litigator. I am not a lady lawyer. There is no such thing as a lady lawyer.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

AMANPOUR: Fighting words, and Wine-Banks takes us inside the struggle for democracy and the rule of law in her new book “The Watergate Girl” and

she’s joining me now from New York.

So, Jill Wine-Banks, that was a pretty good way to set up this interview. And yet, you did call your book “The Watergate Girl”.

WINE-BANKS: I did, because it captures the era in the same way that being called lady lawyer captures the era. I was called a girl back then. The

newspapers described what I wore before what I asked in court. And so, it does seem to capture that era and bring us back to a time which we’re not

that far from, even though 40 years have passed. I’m hoping that we can get past this.

AMANPOUR: So, tell me how this lady lawyer, you know, moniker that was attached to you, how did it manifest in court? How did the other side treat

you? How did the judge treat you?

WINE-BANKS: Oh, there are so many examples. They’re too numerous to mention. I mean, Leon Jaworski called me lady lawyer no matter how many

times I asked him not to. And he would say, but I’m so proud of you and I want people to know. And I said, Leon, you’re introducing me in person.

They can see if you say I’m lawyer. And he just kept on doing it.

In court, I had sexist comments put to me when I was cross-examining Rosemary Woods. Judge Sirica interrupted with, now, ladies, we have enough

problem in this courtroom without two women arguing. And, you know, the blood drained from my face, but you can’t say anything to the judge. You

just to keep on going.

And there were many examples of that. One of the defense lawyers said, oh, what an attractive juror that is, she’ll be competition for Jill. And I

called him on that. You can’t speak back to the judge, but you can to a defense lawyer. So, there were a lot of examples.

AMANPOUR: Yes. And you’re talking now about the Watergate case where you were —

WINE-BANKS: Yes.

AMANPOUR: — one of the prosecutors. So, just tell me when you had this, you know, oh, the last thing we need is two women — are two ladies

arguing. You said, you know, the blood drained from your face. Yes, you were insulted, but is that because you think it also put you at a

disadvantage against either the jury, but also the Nixon lawyers?

WINE-BANKS: It does put you at a disadvantage, because you need the trust of the jury. You need them to believe you and to trust you. And anything

that demeans your position takes away from that. And so, I’ve had — way before Watergate in trials, a lawyer would take my elbow to help me step up

to the bench for a bench conference or would sniff at my neck and say, nice perfume, loud enough for the jury to hear. And those are things — and

you’re in a tough situation, because as a woman, you have to be careful not to be so assertive that you’re viewed as — I don’t know if I can say this

on television, but you’re viewed negatively, as overly aggressive.

AMANPOUR: Does it rhyme with rich?

WINE-BANKS: Yes, it does.

AMANPOUR: Indeed.

WINE-BANKS: You’ve got it. Exactly. So, it’s a tricky situation as to how you talk back. And I’ve used a lot of different strategies in dealing with

sexism, and sometimes you have to be nice about it, sometimes you have to bring a man in to help you.

When I was general counsel of the army and was trying to pass legislation that would eliminate the Women’s Army Corps so that women would be

available to the regular army and to all the general positions that would be available if they were in the regular army, I used a front man,

literally a man, because if it was me it looked like a woman’s issue. If it was him, it looked like a personnel issue.

And so, there are times — Jeb Magruder, one of my Watergate witnesses, was sobbing in my office and I thought he had actually been raped in jail

because he was so upset. And I knew he would never tell me. So, I brought in one of the oldest members of the team, an IRS agent who worked for us,

and asked him to please go in and find out what was wrong. It turned out that Jeb just didn’t like being in jail and the lights were on all night,

he couldn’t sleep well. But if it had been something like rape, I knew that Jeb would never tell me, a woman. And so, I used a man to get the

information I needed.

On the other hand, witnesses often tell a woman much more than they would a man because they think women are more sympathetic and empathetic and that

works to my advantage.

AMANPOUR: Indeed, it does. I want to go back to Rosemary Woods because that was quite something. She was obviously — well, she was Richard Nixon

— President Nixon’s executive assistant and you had to cross-examine her over the famous, I believe, 18 minutes of the tape that finally you had

access to were missing. You know, where were these 18 crucial minutes?

WINE-BANKS: Yes.

AMANPOUR: And you had to cross-examine her. And she gave you a story about all these sorts of contortions or how it happened. And you had it

reenacted. Tell us the story because we have this picture of famous the Rosemary Woods stretch.

WINE-BANKS: It was an amazing example of what we would call in America the Perry Mason moment, when you catch the witness on the stand lying.

And it doesn’t happen, except on “Perry Mason” on television. It doesn’t happen in real court. But I heard her description. I knew it couldn’t be

true. She described pushing the wrong button, keeping her foot on the pedal, and reaching almost six feet away to get a telephone call.

It just was wrong. And when I asked her to demonstrate in the courtroom, her foot came off the pedal. She could not even point to the headphones,

let alone reach for the phone, without her foot coming off and the erasure stopped.

And she said: But it’s different in my office. I did it there. I did it there. And I said, well, then, Your Honor, maybe we should adjourn to her

office and let her demonstrate there.

And for reasons unbeknownst to me, the White House didn’t object, the judge didn’t object, and we went off to the White House. And she demonstrated

where the White House photographer took the picture that became evidence in the courtroom and in the public court.

It was a turning point against Richard Nixon. Rose Mary Woods was much more than a secretary. She was a real adviser to him. And she was taking the

blame for him.

I tried to portray her fairly in the book and had problems, because none of the people who knew her and loved her would talk to me. They felt that I

was the enemy.

But, since going on the book tour, I have been in touch with one of her relatives, who has shared some wonderful stories with me. And maybe there

is a magazine article or maybe there is an addendum to the second edition of the book, because I–

AMANPOUR: Oh, you must, because that’s really interesting.

WINE-BANKS: Yes.

AMANPOUR: We will eagerly await that, because it was such an important relationship between you two women in court and her role in what

eventually, you know, took down Richard Nixon.

But I want to ask you, because you talk about evidence, and you explain how important — obviously, that White House also didn’t want to provide the

evidence, and then they did.

This White House has refused to provide the evidence in their Senate trial. So, just explain to me, A, obviously, the importance, and, B, how you got

it the last time around.

WINE-BANKS: It’s very different.

The stonewalling that happened in the Nixon administration pales in comparison to what we’re experiencing now. We subpoenaed tapes, very

carefully selecting tapes that we knew we could argue were criminal conversations and not protected by any kind of privilege.

And we succeeded in court. And the White House refused, even after a court order. And then the public reacted in a way that was astounding. As a

result of that, the president did a U-turn and said that he would give us the tapes.

Then he said, whoops, there’s two missing. Then he said, oh, and, by the way, after a hearing on those first two, there’s a third with an 18-and-a-

half minute gap. And he pointed the finger at his loyal assistant who had been with him for the time since he had gone to the Senate.

And it was unfair to her, but he really threw her under the bus. And then we had the hearing, and people turned against him. We then had a trial

subpoena for even more tapes.

But it’s not just the tapes that are significant. We were given access, for example, to the White House calendars and meeting schedules, which were

very helpful to us, for example, on how did we identify exactly what tapes did we want.

We knew what meetings the president had. We knew who was in them. We knew the timing. We knew what preceded it. So, getting even just the calendars

was very significant to our investigation.

And President Trump is refusing any of that. And he’s gone beyond it, because he’s interfering with oversight by Congress. It’s not just criminal

investigations he’s stonewalling. He won’t let people come from his administration to testify about his taxes or about children in cages.

So, that’s a much more serious thing. If Congress can’t conduct oversight hearings, then it is being eviscerated of its rightful role in the

Constitution.

AMANPOUR: Now, back to you, as a female lawyer, and when you started in law school, you were one of only a small, small handful of people, a real

minority, compared to your male counterparts.

Nationwide, women made up only about 3 percent or 4 percent of the legal profession. And, of course, for you, in the back of your mind during

Watergate, was, if you mess up, well, that’s a real, real problem for the rest of the women who want this.

We just heard Ruth Bader Ginsburg, the associate Supreme Court justice, speak to the journalist Bill Moyers. And she talked about role models, or

the lack thereof, when she was coming up through this profession.

Just take a listen.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

RUTH BADER GINSBURG, ASSOCIATE JUSTICE, U.S. SUPREME COURT: My mother was a constant encourager, telling me, be independent, whatever else you would

do.

It would be nice if you met and married Prince Charming, but be prepared to fend for yourself.

(LAUGHTER)

GINSBURG: The real woman who was a heroine for me was Amelia Earhart.

I can’t say that I had women judges as a model, except Deborah in the Bible, because women weren’t on the bench. Even when I started law school,

women were only 3 percent of the lawyers across the country.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

AMANPOUR: So, very, very quickly, I mean, that’s something amazing from Ruth Bader Ginsburg.

How much pressure did you feel to do a good job because there were so few role models out there?

WINE-BANKS: It’s like being the older sister. You feel an enormous pressure to make sure you don’t screw up, so that you don’t hurt it for all

other women.

I think it’s one of the greatest compliments that, when I left as general counsel of the Army, my successor was a woman, which meant that I clearly

hadn’t screwed up and that they trusted women to do it.

My role model was — I had two, one was a man, one was a woman — was Nancy Dickerson, Nancy Hanshman at the time. And I saw her. She spoke at the

University of Illinois when I was a freshman in the Honor Society.

And I thought, she was so glamorous, and I loved what she did. And my undergraduate degree is journalism. But the reason I became a lawyer was

because girls, as we were then known, were offered jobs on what was then called the women’s page, talking about, tea was served, and Ms. Smith

poured.

And I wanted to do foreign affairs. I wanted to be you.

(LAUGHTER)

WINE-BANKS: And I couldn’t, because it wasn’t an opportunity for me.

AMANPOUR: Well, you have done a lot, lot better and much more consequential.

Jill Wine-Banks, “The Watergate Girl,” thank you so much for joining me.

WINE-BANKS: Thank you.

AMANPOUR: And our next guest is hoping to be reelected to the House of Representatives this November.

Congressman Dan Crenshaw of Texas was a Navy SEAL who wears an eye patch after being struck by shrapnel in Afghanistan eight years ago. So health

care is high on his list of priorities, especially as his own mother died of breast cancer when he was just 10 years old.

Crenshaw spoke to our Walter Isaacson in his home state of Texas about that and other election issues which are on his radar.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

WALTER ISAACSON: Congressman, thanks for joining us.

REP. DAN CRENSHAW (R-TX): Oh, great to be with you.

ISAACSON: You were, famously, a Navy SEAL, five tours of duty, 10 years. After you lost your eye, you went back for two more tours of duty.

Tell me now, do you think we should still be in Afghanistan?

CRENSHAW: I was in Afghanistan in 2012. And the question is, why was I there, all right?

So, we were attacked in 2001, and I was there in 2012 getting blown up. Why was I there? Well, I was there because I knew and understood that, if I

didn’t go fight them there, they would have this time and space to plan another 9/11.

We have been telling the American people for a very long time — and we meaning the left and the right — we have been telling the American people

for a long time that there’s a mission accomplished sign at the end of the tunnel.

ISAACSON: Right.

CRENSHAW: It’s like, what does mission accomplished look like?

And people have gotten frustrated as a result. They think we’re fighting endless wars and that we need to bring the troops home.

But the reality is, these are just slogans. They’re just slogans. There’s actually not a place you can look to around the world where we just left.

And, if we did leave, it didn’t turn out well.

We didn’t leave Japan. We didn’t leave South Korea. We didn’t leave Germany. And what happened? Not bad things. Good things. That’s what

happened.

So, you — we have to start being honest with people about why we send troops there. And people are frustrated with nation-building. I get that.

And I agree with it. I don’t think you can nation-build in Afghanistan. But you do need some kind of force there to continue to build up the fragile

government that we have left in place, as well as to counter the terrorists that inevitably reside there.

And it’s come time that we’re just very honest with people about what the mission is. The mission is to prevent another 9/11. And, in fact, every day

that we don’t have another 9/11 is a good day.

People too quickly forget what happened then and why it happened. It didn’t happen because we were in Afghanistan. It happened because we were not in

Afghanistan. That’s the truth. And I don’t know why that argument isn’t made more often.

ISAACSON: And that applies to Syria as well?

CRENSHAW: Yes. Yes. It does.

I mean, you know my thoughts on Syria. I wrote about it. And I felt that we had a very economic force there, in the sense that we were getting a lot

for what we were paying for. We had very few troops, and they were doing a very specific mission.

And that’s, frankly, the right balance. And maybe nation-building is going too far. And Americans don’t like that. I think that’s clear.

But doing nothing doesn’t have to be the option either.

ISAACSON: You’re here at Rice University today for a Health Innovation Summit that you’re a part of. Explain to me what that’s doing.

CRENSHAW: So, this is our second annual Healthcare Innovation Summit.

And, needless to say, Houston is a hub of innovation and medical breakthroughs. You have the Texas Medical Center here. And so what better

place than to highlight some of the people and some of the technologies that are up-and-coming?

So I designed this kind of like a TED Talk.

(LAUGHTER)

CRENSHAW: And I want to recognize some people who’ve done some amazing things in health care, and we want to reward them.

And we want to let others talk about what they’re doing and tell the public, because we invite everybody. Tell the public what they’re doing.

ISAACSON: So this Health Innovation Summit at Rice, it’s somewhat personal for you, right?

CRENSHAW: It is. It’s personal from a family perspective.

I lost my mom to cancer when I was 10 years old. And before she died, she was actually patient number one for a brand-new treatment called Taxotere.

And they just started trials. And she didn’t make it, all right, because she was part of that first contingent of patients.

But that trial, that innovation and that investment, that led to countless other cancer drugs that a lot of people now survive because of.

And so, when I give an award to somebody, like I’m going to do, the award is called the Susan Carol Crenshaw Award. And it’s indicative of the fact

that innovation saves lives, and we can’t sacrifice that.

ISAACSON: One of the problems here in Texas is that you have got the largest number of uninsured kids.

When you look at policy now, what should Texas be doing to make sure more kids get insured?

CRENSHAW: Yes, the insurance markets are broken, and they have gotten way more broken under Obamacare. Prices have skyrocketed. We were told that,

hey, if you like your doctor, you can keep them. We were told that premiums were going to go down. And none of that happened.

So, when we look at this problem, we have to look at, what’s the number one problem that we have? It’s affordability. It’s affordability. It’s cost.

It cost too much, so you can’t get insured, because you’re not going to pay that astronomical premium. So, we have to be looking at policies that drive

down costs, so that we can afford these premiums, so that everybody can get access to them.

Drug pricing, that’s a big one. So that’s a big driver of health care costs. What else? E.R., emergency room costs, right? People aren’t getting

primary care.

So what do we do to fix that? One of my big projects in Congress and that we’re constantly working on and trying to figure out how we can expand is

direct primary care. So, this is a model that’s actually somewhat popular in Houston.

And I want to make it more popular throughout the United States. We’re talking about a price of a primary care doctor per month that’s about the

price of a cell phone bill. OK? And then you get unadulterated access to that doctor, right? There’s no insurance, there’s no third party. You just

have access to your doctor.

We’re trying to reignite the relationship between the doctor and the patient. It’s affordable. It keeps people out of the emergency rooms.

You’re engaging in preventive medicine, all right? And it’s easily accessible. So there’s some ways to do that.

Maybe it’s subsidizing the poor through HSAs. Maybe it’s looking at Medicaid programs. We’re exploring those ideas. But there’s ways to do this

here in Texas. And I’m working with Texas think tanks as well that are looking for what is the right state policy and then what’s the right

federal policy to allow the state to do that?

So, we really do have some pretty interesting ideas out there.

ISAACSON: But that would cut out the insurance companies?

CRENSHAW: Yes, this is for primary care.

So if you’re going to solve health care as a — in general, you have got to start with primary care, right? That’s your first touch point in health

care. Who is your doctor? Do you even know your doctor’s name? A lot of people don’t, because they have lost that relationship, because the

insurance company is driving your health care, or the government is driving your health care.

None of these things are good. You want to start with a doctor that you trust. And this is why I’m such a big fan of direct primary care as a

model. Again, it already exists. It’s really great.

We’re talking about a Web site that you go to. You put in your zip code, and you have a list of doctors. We’re talking 75 bucks a month, and you

have total access to that doctor. That’s what people are looking for some, especially my generation.

You want to be able to go on an app and find a doctor that way, make your choice, and find them. And then choose your insurance. Maybe your doctor

helps you choose what insurance works for you. Let’s make insurance more portable. Let’s make it cheaper, have more choices.

And let’s not rip away the insurance that you might already like from your employer via Medicare for all.

ISAACSON: But if you have that primary care system that you talked about, and you don’t have insurance, what happens when that primary care doctor

says, you need some serious medical–

(CROSSTALK)

CRENSHAW: I’m not claiming that this solves the insurance problem. I’m claiming that there’s a lot of steps we need to take.

If we’re going to be — if we’re going to be smart about this, there’s a lot of steps we need to take to make insurance cheaper, so that you can buy

the insurance. Right now, you can’t afford that. OK?

But, now, if you’re so poor that you can’t afford it, you are eligible for Medicaid and things — and programs like that. So, also, it’s kind of like

this notion that we don’t have any sort of subsidies or any sort of public options is false. We do, right? And they target the right people.

So what I’m talking about is primary care, which is your first touch point with health care.

ISAACSON: But, if you did that, wouldn’t it make sense to expand Medicaid, which has not been done in Texas?

CRENSHAW: Well, I’m not a Texas legislator.

But the — but the argument is pretty strong against that. What you’re doing is inviting more — more federal — more federal involvement in your

Medicaid system, and potentially making it completely unsustainable, fiscally speaking.

That — that — that’s why Texas has been reluctant to do that.

ISAACSON: Has your opinion guns changed at all over the past couple of years, because of the number of mass shootings we seem to have had?

CRENSHAW: In the past couple of years, we have had less shootings than we had over the past 30 years, so, yes.

ISAACSON: And mass shootings too?

CRENSHAW: And we have had more — we have had more guns than we have ever had. So, it depends on how you want to torture the data, right?

You can make any argument you want. Is more guns being in the hands of society actually causing mass shootings, or is there a deeper problem, a

deeper cultural problem that’s occurred ever since the Columbine shooting?

Ever since the Columbine shooting, we have had sort of copycat crime, where somebody who’s disturbed and unhappy and angry, they look to this model.

They look to this horrible, dramatic model of a shooting. And they want to do that. And if they can’t do that, maybe they will do a mass stabbing or

drive a truck through somebody.

You’re seeing these copycat crimes happen. We used to have guns in schools, right? People used to take their hunting rifles to school. We didn’t have

this. So why is that?

And — and I wish we would stop being overly emotional about how we’re trying to assess this problem and realize that it’s a very hard problem.

But — and it might feel good to ban some kind of weapon that’s responsible for less than 3 percent of all deaths.

But the question is, is it going to do good? And the answer is very much, I think, pretty obvious that, no, it won’t. It might make you feel good for a

little bit, until the next crisis happens. And then you will — what are you going to do? You are going to infringe on more people’s rights to

defend themselves?

The thing is, every time you have a shooting, and you want to implement a certain policy to prevent that shooting, you have to be able to tie that

new policy to the shooting itself. And you can’t do that in any of these, on any of these cases.

I mean, and I have looked into this. Like, literally, none of these cases would the Democrats’ gun control measures be able to be tied back to that

shooting that we’re all angry about. And so that should be your first level of analysis.

And if you can’t do that, then maybe we were asking the wrong questions to begin with.

ISAACSON: What do you think is — are the main causes of this?

I mean, what can we do?

CRENSHAW: Gun violence in general?

ISAACSON: Gun violence in general, especially random shooting?

CRENSHAW: Yes. And that’s what gets people upset, right, because — and you have got to distinguish between these things.

So, crime as a whole has gone down dramatically. It’s going up lately because of some of our bigger cities have — and then the reforms that

they’re making, which are not generally good.

But, overall, crime has gone down a lot. When there are shootings and a lot of gun violence, it’s generally criminal-related, drug-related, gang-

related, OK? That’s a certain problem set that we have to solve, usually solved through better law enforcement practices.

Then there’s these dramatic shootings that are random. And a better way — I think a better word for the mass shooting that you’re trying to describe

is a randomized shooting. It’s almost like a terrorist attack in some ways.

It’s indiscriminate. And, therefore, it’s scary. It’s extremely scary, because you never know what can happen. So what can you do about it?

I think you have to look at the ultimate cause. And the cause was — ever since Columbine, ever since Columbine, there’s been this copycat crime. So

is it better mental health practices? Is it — is it — is it more investment and the right kind of practitioners at our schools?

Is it better investment in school safety, so that somebody can’t actually access a school? Here in Houston, I think we do that quite a bit. Like, I

can’t access to school, not without an appointment. And maybe that’s — maybe that’s the right way to do it.

So — and a lot of those solutions have to be localized. Some school districts are fine with arming some teachers who are maybe ex-veterans,

things like that. Other school districts aren’t. That’s not — that’s not a policy that should really be coming from the federal government down to the

local level.

ISAACSON: Yes, you are a Republican from Houston, and you’re in the lead, in some ways, on environmental issues for the Republican Party, you and

Congressman McCarthy and others.

Explain to me your bill and what you would do on environmental issues.

CRENSHAW: So, my bill is the New Energy Frontier.

My bill is the New Energy Frontier. My bill is — it’s a part of a much larger plan that McCarthy is leading. And it deals with carbon capture as

it relates to natural gas production.

So, carbon capture is a proven technology. And we have plants right outside Houston, whether coal-burning or natural-gas-burning, that, on the natural

gas side, have zero emissions, and they power 5,000 homes. Right?

So it recirculates the CO2 through the plant and powers 5,000 homes. That’s natural gas, oh, my God, fossil fuels and fracking. And it turns out, if

you ban fracking, you actually increase emissions. Why? Because, well, you have to rely on coal-powered fire — coal-powered plants.

There’s — again, there’s a coal-powered plant right outside Houston that takes the equivalent of 350,000 cars off the road every day by carbon

capture. So, we need to be looking at technology that’s functioning, that works, and looking at ways to scale that out.

All right? So, my bill simply repurposes DOE grant money to focus on projects like that. I also want to create a carbon innovation hub, tell us

that, does the fundamental science on what kind of utilization can be derived from carbon dioxide? Why does it have to be a waste product? Maybe

it’s a commodity, not maybe — it is a commodity.

It can be used in cement production, chemical processes, greenhouses, algae farms, enhanced oil recovery. There’s actually a lot of uses. Let’s figure

those out. There’s actually — there’s people out there who theorized that you can create energy right out of CO2.

So, this isn’t science fiction. This is real stuff.

ISAACSON: What else would you do in terms of both climate and environment, besides carbon sequestration?

CRENSHAW: Well, part of that plan is resiliency. So, we need to prepare for rising sea levels.

And a good way to prepare for rising sea levels is not to make your economy poorer, which was like more of the Green New Deal approach. Planting a

trillion trees, the Trillion Tree project, Sounds simple.

People think — people kind of laugh at it at first. It’s not. Carbon sequestration technology, we already have it, as it turns out. It’s called

trees. Plant more of them and lead the way on that. A lot — and there’s a lot of momentum behind that already.

You know, it already happens at a local level. A lot of corporations have signed on to this idea. yes, let’s keep planting. Let’s actually capture

carbon that way. Just in the last few years, President Trump has signed into law pro-carbon capture legislation and in the form of 45Q tax credits,

pro-hydropower legislation, making it easier to permit hydropower, carbon- free.

And pro-nuclear legislation is too. And pro-nuclear legislation is also part of this broader plan. So, it’s an all-of-the-above strategy that

focuses on the actual problem, which is reducing emissions.

The problem is not fossil fuels. The problem is emissions. And if the problem is emissions, then how do we reduce those? We should look at what’s

working worked and what will not work.

And we could just look in the last couple decades to figure that out. So, in the last couple of decades, the U.S. has led the way in reducing

emissions. Why is that?

Well, it’s mostly fracking, almost entirely because of fracking, because natural gas burns cleaner. And we have — we have transitioned a large part

of our energy use to natural gas.

If you look at countries like Germany that basically implemented their own form of a Green New Deal, focusing totally on wind and solar, investing I

think $580 billion on wind and solar, what’s happened to their emissions? They’re stagnant. And not only that, but they’re importing dirty Russian

gas, because when the Russians make the gas, it’s about 40 percent more emissions.

So, the last thing we would want to do is remove market share from the United States’ oil and gas companies, which burn cleaner, because we just

have more regulations, better environmental standards, and give that market share, because it — it has to be a global problem, right?

Give that market share to Saudi and Russian natural gas and oil companies. That doesn’t make any sense. But that’s almost entirely what the left is

advocating for.

Begs the question, is their goal really to reduce emissions?

ISAACSON: Do you think so?

CRENSHAW: No. No, I don’t. I mean, I really don’t.

I think — I think they’re very good at convincing people that it is, but their policies do the opposite. So, it’s — it’s hard to make the case.

ISAACSON: I was somewhat surprised that the Club for Growth and other very conservative fiscal groups were opposing your plan. Why is that? And what

do you say to them?

CRENSHAW: So, they need to read it more closely.

It’s — yes, these are — these things can be expected. No plan gets out there and has zero — zero opposition, of course.

Some of these groups are opposed to any kind of government action in any kind of way, all right? So, you will never please them. But this is — this

— this plan takes conservative principles and the conservative problem- solving framework and looks at a problem and says, let’s solve it.

If this is our goal, how do we actually get there? And how do we get there within conservative principles? And I think this plan meets that standard

very clearly.

ISAACSON: You have talked about mitigation.

What did Houston and what did you learn from Harvey, the storm, and the flooding?

CRENSHAW: Oh, on flood mitigation in particular? Quite a bit.

It’s one of my big focuses. And there are so many elements to that. As it pertains to my district, it’s figuring out where we need more retention.

It’s figuring out where the floodplains are.

The reality is that these places have been floating for a very long time. And we haven’t really done the right kind of infrastructure investment to

do something about it.

We’re long past due on these kind of investments. You can look at maps from the ’50s that say, don’t build here. And yet we built there.

So, we have got a lot of work to do. And there’s enormous studies happening right now. And if you’re going to invest tens of billions of dollars, you

need big studies to figure out where exactly you should invest. What canal do you need to widen and deepen? Where do you need to build the retention?

So, some of these things, we are already doing, right? We’re doing a lot of dredging in San Jacinto. We have been — we have plans to put gates at the

Lake Houston Dam Spillway, instead of just a spillway, and improving the drainage system, which happens at the local level.

There’s a lot of aspects to this.

ISAACSON: Good to talk to you, Congressman. Thank you.

CRENSHAW: Thank you.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

AMANPOUR: That’s it for our program tonight. Find out what’s coming up on the show by signing up to our daily preview. Visit pbs.com/amanpour. Thanks for watching “Amanpour and Company” on PBS and join us again tomorrow night.