January 30, 2020

AMANPOUR:
Hello everyone and welcome to “Amanpour and Company.” Here’s what’s coming up folks. Every four years, democracy begins in Iowa countdown to the Iowa caucuses, former democratic presidential contend to Gary Hart joins me. He helped make this first contest so vital and we have not seen the peak [inaudible] epidemic yet. Fear gone viral. The global struggle to contain the Corona virus loss. We are going to fail if we do not become more inclusive and we don’t say enough is enough. The first African American chief prosecutor in st Louis suing her own city on Michelle Martin talks to Kim Gardner.

NARRATOR:
“Amanpour and Company” is made possible by Rosalind P Walter Bernard and Irene Schwartz, Sue and Edgar walk-in Haim, the third Candace King Weir, the Anderson family fund, the Sheryl and Phillip Milstein family, Charles Rosenbloom, Jeffrey Katz and Beth Rogers. Additional support has been provided by and by contributions to your PBS station from viewers like you. Thank you.

AMANPOUR:
Welcome to the program everyone. I’m Christiane Amanpour in London. The U S presidential campaign has been well underway for months now, but come Monday we will finally hear from voters. The Iowa caucus is the first election contest of 2020 and potentially the most important for the democratic nomination since its emergence. Iowa has, along with New Hampshire, helped to narrow down the field. And indeed the last four democratic winners in Iowa are Gore. John Kerry, Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton all went on to win their party’s nomination. Former Colorado Senator Gary Hart helped shape the Iowa caucus into the important contest that it is today. As George McGovern’s campaign manager back in 1972 he saw the power of a strong showing there as a launchpad to New Hampshire and the subsequent contest and as a presidential candidate himself in 1984 he came second there and he mounted a serious insurgency claim against the Democrats, establishment favorite Walter Mondale. And Gary Hart is joining me now from Denver, Colorado. Welcome to the program. Thank you very much. Okay. So let’s ask, because you know, it is too many people really, you don’t know that part of the country and who see it’s a small state, mostly rural, rural, not as diverse as the rest of, uh, of, of much of the United States. Why is it the first best indicator of what’s happening, certainly to the democratic party?

GARY HART:
Well before 72, everything focused on New Hampshire and Senator McGovern was the dark horse candidate from South Dakota. The principal leader was Senator ed Muskie from Maine. So New Hampshire is a lot closer to Maine than it is to South Dakota. Uh, an expert told me that there were caucuses in Iowa. No one paid any attention to them. So I said, we’re going to compete in those caucuses against Senator Muskie. And in that competition, grassroots volunteer based as Senator McGovern came out very well and position him self as a credible candidate going in to New Hampshire. And thereafter, the Iowa caucuses were first in the nation instead of New Hampshire. Two over years later, I was in the same position as a candidate. And the front runner, as you mentioned, was former vice president Mondale. And by running second ahead of very famous American John Glenn, that positioned me for a week later victory, a surprise victory in New Hampshire.

AMANPOUR:
Yeah. And we’re seeing these amazing pictures of, of, of you bad through the ages that you’re now talking about. So it’s really, it’s really interesting and it, it’s, it’s um, you know, quite sort of, I mean a little quirky given, given Iowa, but here’s the thing for, for viewers, certainly our international viewers, but also many around the United States who might know, not know the precise difference, um, not just in name, but in substance of what a caucus is and a primary, can you just tell us what it is and why the caucus process is so unique and, and, and important

GARY HART:
in the, in the early days, in the 70s, I think the country was basically divided among the States between primary primaries where voters go to the polls and vote. And as in a normal election and half the country was, were caucus States where party members got together in a neighborhood and cast their votes for their favorite candidates. And then all of those caucuses, local caucuses were added up and candidates were ranked by how many grassroots supporters they had in these neighborhood meetings. So it’s, it’s a variation on the same theme. It’s, it’s bringing people out either to vote directly or to participate with their neighbors in selecting a candidate.

AMANPOUR:
So I was obviously very, very proud ever since you made it. So, so front and center on the political agenda and on the political scene, very proud of its status and very proud of, you know, what it likes to say, this is where real people will make decisions for the first time in a, in a real important race for the presidency. But as you know, and as I alluded to, it’s not really representative of the United States as a whole nor of the democratic party. I just want to play you a soundbite from no longer candidate Houlihan Castro who complained about the diversity issue. Let’s just listen. In fact, it is a tweet. And he said, I was asked today in Iowa about the order of our primaries. I appreciate how seriously Iowa and New Hampshire take their role as first in the nation, but we’ve changed in the 50 years since order was established. And I believe it’s time. Our primaries reflect our nation’s diversity. So of course, you know, he objects obviously to the lack of racial diversity. Iowa is 90% white, which is not reflective of the nation, nor of the democratic party. Just to address how it’s changed since you first, you know, how, how the facts have changed, the demographics have changed since you first put it on the map.

GARY HART:
Well, clearly all across the country, minorities, uh, are much more visible and active. And that’s a wonderful thing for our democracy. Uh, women are now much more active than they were. Young people are participant participating more than they did in the old back room days before the system opened up after 68. Uh, I think you could find a state that more approximated the demographics of the nation. One of those might be Colorado itself. That would come closer to the proper democratic, uh, profile if you will, of the country. But I don’t think the system’s going to change anytime soon.

AMANPOUR:
Well, since you put Iowa on the map, maybe you can start a movement for Colorado being the first one. But beyond that, um, let me ask you, do you think then it is still an accurate reflection of or an accurate place to winnow the field and sort of create a presumed front runner? And I guess I want to ask you in terms of my Bloomberg, I mean somebody like him, yes, a late entrant into the race is not competing either in Iowa or New Hampshire and he’s going to wait until super Tuesday. How do you just talk to that issue? Like he’s a very important candidate in terms of money issues and all the rest of it, but he’s just going to avoid them.

GARY HART:
Well, there have been dramatic changes in American politics. As you well know in recent decades, the introduction of social media, of um, small dollar contributions, Barack Obama pioneered in getting financing through small dollars, uh, through the internet. That’s another revolution. But, but sooner or later candidates have to submit themselves to the voters, either in caucuses or in primaries. And I don’t, there was one factor that I feel very strongly about given my experience. And that is the first in the nation States should be small. If you started the contest with 14 super Tuesday States or California or New York, it just means that dark horse candidates like myself with very little financing have very little chance. So I would just advocate if it’s not Iowa and New Hampshire, that it be another small state. And once again, I submit them. Colorado is a possible,

AMANPOUR:
I know you’re not an interested party at all in that. Um, let me ask you just to say it. Why not? Um, who do you think is going to win the Iowa caucus for the Democrats?

GARY HART:
Oh, I’m, I’m terrible at predicting if I don’t believe the polls. I think they give you a rough estimate. But I know Iowa and New Hampshire well enough to know that days before the caucus are the primary people still haven’t made up their mind. And that’s particularly true when you start with a field of 14 or 16 and it gradually narrows down to seven or eight. That’s still a lot of candidates in my year. I think there were four or five of us, maybe six and that that narrowed down to two or three very, very quickly after New Hampshire. So you’ve got a big field, you’ve got changing ways of campaigning from those days, which weren’t too long ago. So, uh, all you, all you have to go on are the polls and they’re not terribly reliable. Clearly, vice-president Mon vice president Biden is in, in near the top, if not at the top, but things are going to change dramatically.

AMANPOUR:
Okay, well let me ask you this, because Bernie Sanders is also very near the top, if not at the top. Um, according to the polls, and this is the twos different wings of the democratic party right now, the more moderate and the more progressive wings. And I want to know whether you feel the same sort of [inaudible] as many democratic voters are telling pollsters. They feel that they just want to get the best person who can win the darn thing. You know, who can beat Trump in their words? Let me just play for you a couple of soundbites from voters who are expressing, you know, their their concerns.

VOTER SOUNDBITE:
I’m on team Pete because he has the greatest chance of defeating Donald Trump in the upcoming presidential election. I’m a registered Republican. I, uh, I will vote for him. Of course, I’m crazy about it. Knowable. This is no time to take a risk. We need our strongest candidate. So let’s nominate the Democrat Trump fears the most. Vote Biden. Beat Trump.

AMANPOUR:
So what to your mind, given all your experience in all these years, does electability mean today looking at America, looking at the face of the map, looking at president Trump’s base and his ability to really fire up and the fact that he wasn’t unexpected the last time?

GARY HART:
Oh, it’s far in a way, the dominant concern of Democrats, I think an awful lot of moderate Republicans and then dependence as well in, I hate to keep going back into his history, but in 84, the issue was who could defeat Ronald Reagan? And many Democrats felt that he was about as far right as you could get. That is until today. And um, it was important to people. Uh, I was a competitor throughout the nomination race because an awful lot of Democrats that were looking for new leadership, younger leadership, it was a generational divide then much more than it is now. But the overwhelmingly the issue is not what’s your economic plan? It’s how do you defeat Donald Trump? And that’s, that’s going to determine who gets a nomination.

AMANPOUR:
Okay. So this is really interesting because, um, let’s say there are issues that perhaps a lot of democratic voters and a lot of people can, can rally around. For instance, the idea of the climate, young people are very mobilized by the idea of fracking and fossil fuels. As you know, Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren have, you know, really reached out to their voters saying, we’re going to ban fracking overnight. A Biden has said you can’t do something like that overnight. The Lieutenant governor, Democrat of the swing state of Pennsylvania says, guys, if you say you’re going to, you know, band overnight an issue, as controversial as it may be, but as such a job provider overnight, you’re going to have a hard time beating president Trump. So let me just play again another, another round of, of, of soundbites about this issue and get you to comment.

ACTIVIST:
I’ve looked at your climate plan. Why doesn’t it ban fracking?

BIDEN:
Because you can’t ban fracking right now. So you got to transition away from this. You’re going to ban fracking all across America right now. I would love to. I’d love to too. I’d love to make sure we don’t change any with gas periods now is it possible?

AMANPOUR:
So a climate activist confronting Joe Biden saying let’s do it now and him explaining why and as I said in many of the swing States, fracking is a major issue. Major issue. What would your advice be at this point on issues like this?

GARY HART:
Well, of course there a string of them. It’s not just fracking, it’s climate change, it’s trade, it’s um, uh, Wars in various parts of the country. It’s terrorism list goes on overwhelmingly, once again, the key voters are looking for a, someone who can defeat Donald Trump. Local issues will be important in those local primaries and caucuses. And um, I think there are ways in which you can address as people are today and that even in my generation, we’re addressing those local issues in what you don’t alienate. It’s very divisive, but you don’t alienate half of the state by the position you take. Clearly abortion, clearly gun control are so-called wedge issues that divide people and people on one side or the other want you to definitely support their position. And sometimes that’s not very easy.

AMANPOUR:
And I want to just, yeah, I want to sort of move over to the foreign policy area too because you spent a lot of your time heavily, heavily involved in that. So I guess just one of the big things that this administration has just done is unveiled a peace plan for the middle East, which,

GARY HART:
you know, I mean

AMANPOUR:
there are many people who think it’s just an Israeli plan. Um, and there are many people who are questioning, is this a basis for negotiations or is it a diktat? What is your view of what the administration is on veiled given America’s long term role as a mediator there?

GARY HART:
Well, first of all, it is a campaign document. I don’t think primarily it is a serious foreign policy proposal. Uh, the Palestinians have dismissed it forth with, uh, can it be imposed upon them? Of course, it’s always been possible to

GARY HART:
suppress the Palestinians for a while anyway, but that’s an invitation for continued conflict for the Israelis. So, um, the timing, the way this was presented, it’s, it’s very hard to critique the proposal with first of all, without seeing it, it took three years to put together. I have still to S to see a map of that region that shows what land is being traded for, what it is [inaudible] pro Israel. And that more than anything else makes it a campaign document. But even Israelis, as we well know and the Jewish American community are, are deeply divided over how to bring peace to that region. You can either negotiate it or you can impose it. This seems to be to be a plan to impose it, which will mean there’ll be no peace.

AMANPOUR:
And I guess I want to ask you finally since I have you here, I mean look, your 1988 campaign was famously a derailed by a personal transgression for which you apologized and faced up for and dropped out of the race. What do you miss when you look back? Do you feel that your life, your political life has been fulfilled or unfulfilled? What do you wish you could have brought to the country as president?

GARY HART:
Well, first of all, you’ve reminded half of the American people who didn’t remember that experience so long ago. Uh, what, what happened that controversial weekend was explained by leading journalists in the Atlantic of November, 2018 it was a setup by the late Liat water whose partners were at the time, Paul Manafort in jail and Roger Stone headed to jail. And on his death bed, he apologize for an awful lot of black mischief. He, uh, he, uh, apologized to a friend of mine for setting up that weekend. But for better or worse, American journalism still hasn’t caught up with that fact. You can, you can get rid of a credible leading presidential candidate by mischief and that’s what was done.

AMANPOUR:
Well, I, I think it’s a very salutary lesson for what we’re faced with today to be very Frank, um, given, given the, you know, dirty tricks, but I do want to know whether you regret a policy opportunity or, or, or some kind of is, are there any regrets that you have? What would you have liked to have been able to do had you won the presidency?

GARY HART:
I have only one regret, and that’s trusting people who shouldn’t have been trusted.

AMANPOUR:
All right. Gary Hart, thank you very much indeed for joining us on really this important issue of Iowa and what it means for the presidential campaign. Thank you very much indeed. Now, Iowa is also an important state to China’s president. It’s using pink because he visited there in his thirties as a young up and coming communist party official and again in 2012 as leader today, she is focused on growing health emergencies in his own country as he tries to confront that Corona virus outbreak. The illness originated as we know in Wu Han central China, and it’s since spread throughout the world, at least 170 people have died and about 8,000 had been infected inside China. And those are just the confirmed cases, fear and paranoia about the virus arising. So with me now, a CNS, chief medical correspondent, Sanjay Gupta and James Miles, China editor for the economist. I’m gentlemen, welcome both to the program. We’re going to talk both about what it means to China and also the medical and the world at large. Uh, Sanjay, I want to turn to you first. First because one thing happened today that changed the trajectory. The United States has now reported its first case of person to person transmission of this virus, uh, without travel to China by one of the victims. South Korea has also reported that. So here are two nations which have seen a different form of transmission. Tell me what it means, Sanjay, for, for this outbreak.

SANJAY GUPTA:
Yeah, and I think there are now six countries, including China, where we’re seeing evidence of human to human transmission. The United States, as you point out Christianne uh, just reporting this a couple of details. Uh, the person who this was transmitted to within the United States was the spouse of someone who had traveled to China and, uh, developed symptoms, then went to the hospital and was in isolation. So it sounds like this woman transmitted the virus to her husband while she was symptomatic. Then she went to the hospital. Now he’s in the hospital. I mean, look, uh, it’s, it’s concerning because we are getting more and more information about this virus. First we thought it was, uh, solely coming from animal to human transmission, then it became clear human to human. Uh, and now it’s human to human in other countries. If you go back to 2003 Christianity in the United States, just to give some context, during the SARS outbreak, at that time there were eight patients in the United States who had, uh, who had been infected, but they were all travel related. There was no evidence of human to human transmission. So clearly this seems to be more transmissible as evidenced by the fact that that human to human is happening elsewhere and by the numbers, which already have surpassed SARS overall.

AMANPOUR:
So just before I get to, um, get over here to talk about actual, you know, China and what it’s doing there, I just want to ask you, because in our set up, we heard a doctor in full surgical Mars basically saying, we have not yet reached the peak of this thing, of this epidemic from hard. What do you think it might look like given the numbers now? Is it in your medical opinion like SARS or Zika or Ebola or those other things?

SANJAY GUPTA:
Well, this, this appears to be, uh, more, more contagious, more transmissible than SARS just by looking at the numbers. But you know, Christianne they’re there. That’s obviously bad news, but think of it in the full context. Okay. So, uh, first of all, there’s much more awareness of this virus now and there’s more testing. So by virtue of those two things, not surprised that the numbers have been going up as significantly as they have, but also there may be many people Christianne who either have no symptoms or very mild symptoms who may not be getting tested at all. So then that increases the overall denominator. If you, in this ratio, if the number of people who have died or become quite ill doesn’t rise at that same level, that means the, the mortality ratio, they fatality ratio could actually start to drop. And that’s a good thing. I, I hope that makes sense. But you know, a lot of people, if they have mild symptoms, may not be getting tested at all. And that will mean that the, the overall, uh, seriousness of this for most people may not be there.

AMANPOUR:
Yes. And, and that’s what people are worried about in the beginning. That they could be symptomatic without showing the symptoms. Let me turn to James Miles. China editor for the economist. Um, has the Chinese communist party government presidents using pain, have they done everything that they should be doing to, to, to tell the world what’s happening, to share information, to do what they need to do in the infected parts? Well now it’s, Oh, it’s spread everywhere there.

JAMES MILES:
Well, that would seem to be the case now, right from the beginning, uh, international experts were praising China for the way that it had been, uh, open in terms of sharing what it knew about the virus, uh, itself with the rest of the world. And that contrast with the way that it handled the SARS epidemic in 2003 when it waited a very long time before giving these kinds of details to the world health organization and other experts. But a lot of questions are being asked in China about whether the authorities have taken far too long to inform the public about the potential dangers of this virus spreading their own public, their own rights. Uh, and, uh, particularly on the ground in all hand where the epidemic appears to have broken out. Uh, they knew, uh, that, uh, this virus had been identified, they’d reported it up to the central authorities in December, but subsequently failed to, uh, inform people in all Han that this was happening. And, uh, to take precautions and it took quite a long time. But for that to happen.

AMANPOUR:
And we hear sort of anecdotes reports about certain local officials who got punished and slapped down for, you know, for, for, for trying to take this up the chain of command.

JAMES MILES:
Well, interestingly, um, local officials in all hands have actually publicly taken responsibility. Uh, it’s not clear exactly for what, however, and in the course of saying, uh, in the case of the mayor of Wuhan that he’d be prepared to resign. Uh, he’s also interestingly finger at the central authorities saying that he wasn’t able, in fact to release some of this information because it needed central approval first. Uh, so, so there’s a bit of a tussle I think going on between central and local Gulf,

AMANPOUR:
But also very interesting about, about the, the state of political play in China and how it’s changed dramatically since size and all those. But can I just ask you what I mean? We hear, I mean, we know that they have closed down, they’ve quarantined more than 60 million people, right? Wuhan, as you correctly pronounce it. We all say Wu Han, um, is in Hubei province and have essentially closed it down. That’s like 60 plus million people. What country can do that?

JAMES MILES:
Well, it’s a staggering number. I mean, that’s like the population of Italy or, or South Africa. And never before have we seen an attempt on this scale to quarantine, uh, a population, uh, during, uh, during an epidemic. Uh, and this is, uh, a very important part of China. Uh, Ooh. Han is is a place where, um, a lot of the countries, uh, car industry is located. It produces more than 4% of China’s GDP. It’s a major transportation hub. So this has enormous consequences, not only for the 60 million people living there who are living in, in very difficult circumstances right now, uh, but also potentially for China’s economy.

AMANPOUR:
I mean, as all this quarantining is happening, there’s obviously must be somewhere a race on to create a vaccine to try to get a vaccine. Um, I understand China has shared or very early on the DNA of this virus, so other medical experts around the world can get a handle on it. But what do you know about, you know, how far along is a vaccine and what would that do at this point?

SANJAY GUPTA:
Yeah, I mean, there’s sort of three parallel tracks that are happening. Uh, first of all, given that China did share the, the genome of this virus that was quite helpful in, in developing the diagnostics, the testing if you will, and that testing continues to improve so that eventually they’re going to get that testing to what they call point of care. So these various places where people are are being screened, they could have testing that can be done much more quickly. That’s obviously very helpful in terms of mitigating the spread. The second thing, you know, during SARS they started back in 2003, started looking at various existing antivirals including Cristiane antivirals for the HIV AIDS, uh, drugs as well, seeing if they had some sort of impact on the Corona virus. And those trials are underway as well. So antivirals and testing as far as vaccine, that’s a longer term trajectory. Um, you know, typically what I’m hearing is at least three months to get through phase one trials. Phase one trials are to look at the safety of a vaccine. Now they might show within those phase one trials that there’s some efficacy as well, that it seems to work. And in certain situations they may release the vaccine early if it’s shown to be safe. And there’s some at least evidence that it works, but that’s months away. And you remember with SARS, ultimately they started making a vaccine as well, but they never ended up using it because the, the, the outbreak started to curb on its own. And with some of the, the public health strategies taking effect, they didn’t need the vaccine. But those three things are currently underway. Uh, Christian,

AMANPOUR:
let’s put up this map that we have of all these countries that have now reported cases of, of infection. And just ask you again from a medical perspective, quarantining this number, tens of of people at the epicenter in China. Uh, Russia has now said that it’s closing its far Eastern border with China. Um, you know, the Hong Kong has declared, I think a travel ban to China and it looks like we’re told a ghost town much of Hong Kong because they’re concerned is the quarantine. I mean, it’s vital, right?

SANJAY GUPTA:
Well, let, let, let me make, let me make two points on this. One is that first of all, you know, James talked about the fact that there’s more transparency now with regard to what we’re hearing from China as compared to SARS. That that’s probably true. But I do want to point out that the, the recent data that’s coming in the medical journal show that in fact the first patient that was diagnosed on December 1st not middle to end of December as we first heard from the Chinese media and from the Chinese officials at that time.

SANJAY GUPTA:
So it was quite a bit earlier and days and weeks matter when you’re talking about an outbreak. So weeks earlier there was a patient that was diagnosed with an unknown virus, a novel virus number two, that patient had no interaction known interaction with the, with the animal market. So there may have already been some evidence that either that person got the virus somewhere else or there was already evidence of human to human transmission. And three is that there’s an incubation period. That means there’s a period of time between the time someone is infected to the time that they developed symptoms. So many people have have left before that quarantine was in place. Um, you know, the, the horses are out of the barn so to speak, and people are developing symptoms as they get to their other countries. So I don’t, I don’t know that the quarantine is necessarily that effective right now.

SANJAY GUPTA:
It’s a risk reward relationship. It’s obviously very disruptive from a social standpoint. Uh, is it going to have the impact that people, uh, expect? It may not. It may just in fact, uh, make it more likely that people within these areas that are locked down are going to spread the virus among themselves without doing a tremendous amount to mitigate the spread around the world.

AMANPOUR:
Wow, that is so interesting. So back to you, James. Um, well we, you know, Wu Han is a very important manufacturing hub, right? That that whole province, um, and it comes at a time in 2003 when saws was, was around, I think the Chinese GDP accounted at 4% of global GDP. Now it’s like 16%. I mean, it’s huge. So what’s getting in and out? What’s working? What’s not? How is it affecting on a daily basis, the economy, macro and the economy micro. I mean, how are people doing?

JAMES MILES:
Well, they have to bear in mind that this has coincided with a huge national holiday. When of course, many people would not be working anyway, would be celebrating the holiday in their homes. Um, but that holiday, um, should have ended, um, and it’s been extended for three more days. However, many businesses, uh, have announced extensions of it for a few more days even after that. So what we’re talking about, um, uh, much of the country’s, um, industry, uh, being effected by this, what will happen is that, uh, after the holiday ends, when traditionally, uh, tens of millions of people would return from the countryside to their jobs in urban areas, whether in service industries or whether in manufacturing, uh, many of those people won’t be able to return until the authorities give a green light. Uh, not because the government is specifically saying, don’t come back, um, necessarily. But, um, simply because, uh, you know, local officials are making it clear that traveling around is not a good idea. Uh, but anyway, uh, factories won’t be working and people won’t be returning to work as normal.

AMANPOUR:
And as you study this whole, I mean, it’s a big global picture. China is a big part of the global economy. Do you, is it too much to, to think that it might affect, might affect China’s already kind of more sluggish growth? The world’s growth? I mean, everybody’s looking at China and worries about it now, this on top of it economically.

JAMES MILES:
Well, absolutely. And we worried enough in 2003 when, as you say, China’s share of global GDP was only about 4% is much, much bigger now. Uh, and, um, everyone is looking at, uh, China’s economy. Uh, the Hong Kong stock market has taken a huge hit, uh, as a result of that. And that’s clearly an indication that many investors are worried about the longterm impact of this. But you should recall what happened in 2003. There was a huge hit, then a China’s growth almost came to a halt in 2003. Uh, and I think we can expect a similar sharp slow down this time. Uh, but there was also a very rapid rebound in 2003 once it became clear that SARS was no longer spreading, uh, people returned to their normal lives, of course, and businesses resumed, uh, work and of course really ramp things up because they wanted to make up for lost production. And the government had a tools at its disposal by building infrastructure and so on that could boost economic growth. And of course there was a lot of pent up consumer demand so people were spending a lot.

AMANPOUR:
So it could almost be a weirdly kind of a stimulus.

JAMES MILES:
Well, it could, although there is a difficulty of this time and that is on the, uh, infrastructure spending side. Uh, the government has done so much of it in the past decade or so building railways and roads and another, uh, large projects that, that really, there really isn’t much sort of spare room in that, in that domain.

AMANPOUR:
All right. And of course we’re right in the middle of the U S China trade, you know, tussle. So I wonder how it plays into that. Finally, I’m back to you, Sanjay, as a doctor. What are you, I mean, what do you think when yet another one of these may epidemics breaks out? I mean, what, it, it’s just strange to think that this incredibly proficient, scientifically developed world–and China really is–still can have these outbreaks, whether it’s, you know, Ebola or SARS or this or whatever it might be.

SANJAY GUPTA:
Well, you know, several things that come to mind. First of all this, this, um, a continuous connection between animals and humans, uh, in, in close proximity. Most of the viruses that we’ve been talking about for the last several decades, uh, and really even going back further than that, have made this jump from animals to humans. And most, most times it’s innocuous. Uh, it doesn’t really cause any disease or, or pathology at all. Uh, sometimes it does. Uh, there’s been seven Corona viruses that have made the jump to in the past have caused problems, SARS and mirrors. Um, uh, that, that’s one thing that really, really strikes me. The other thing is that even without some brand new antiviral or, or vaccine standard public health strategies do work isolating individuals as opposed to quarantining entire, you know, communities or, or tens of millions of people that like is happening in China now seems to work corn, uh, you know, sort of isolating those individuals, being very diligent about tracing those contacts. Ultimately, if you look at what happened with SARS, which lasted from November, 2002 before it was contained in July of 2003 and had to point to what really brought it to a halt. Some of it was just seasonal changes of happens with viruses. The same with cold and flu, but a lot of it had to do with just smart public health strategies. As I mentioned, there wasn’t a new vaccine, there wasn’t new antivirals that came into play. It was tried and true public health strategies. And I think that’s what’s gonna ultimately work here as well.

AMANPOUR:
And a really important word for boosting public health and not denying them funds and resources. Sanjay Gupta. Thank you very much, James Miles. Thank you very much indeed. And we turn now to police violence in st Louis, Missouri. The city was at the epicenter of the black lives matter movement in the summer of 2014 after the fatal shooting of the 18 year old Michael Brown in Ferguson. Now Kim Gardner, the city’s first African American chief prosecutor is investigating police violence there. She’s filed a lawsuit against the police union and the city of st Louis itself in accusing them of quote, racially motivated conspiracy to deny the civil rights of racial minorities. The police union and the city both deny the accusations and Kim Gardner sat down with our Michelle Martin to explain why she’s doing the lawsuit and why it’s so important.

MICHEL MARTIN:
So can attorney Kim Gardner, thank you so much for speaking with us today. Thank you for having me because you decided to run as the city’s top prosecutor and I know for example, that you called for more accountability for police officers who have been violent, who have used excessive force. You’ve also called for not prosecuting a lower level drug offenses. You just talk a little bit more about specifically what did you, what did you determine as your platform and running for this job?

KIM GARDNER:
Well, my platform is to look at crime as a public health crisis. We have to be about harm reduction and public safety. And that’s a prosecutor who is a minister of justice to pursue justice is not merely convictions. And in line with that is also preventing crime and preventing individuals go further into the criminal justice system. And that’s my platform. So to address the root causes of fuels of hopelessness, which fuels the criminal justice system. So we have to address the economic disparities in the city because that drives individuals to the criminal justice system. That’s why we look at alternatives to give people opportunities to get themselves out the crime continuum that causes mass incarceration, which we know has caused devastation and destruction to all of our communities. That’s why I have looked at holding police accountable because how we build trust with individuals in the criminal justice system or holding people accountable is you have to build trust with the community.

MICHEL MARTIN:
So when did the um, resistance to your, your policies start?

KIM GARDNER:
Day one when I walked into the office.

MICHEL MARTIN:
How did you see that? How was it expressed to you?

KIM GARDNER:
Before taking office, it was a suppressed by conversations with the police union who basically said that police will no longer do their job because they’re afraid of the message of um, how we have to address accountability for our law enforcement officers. It was expressed by individuals resistance to one disqualify my office from certain cases because of certain individuals who did not like the way. Um, we were implementing reforms in the office. It was looking at how we brought in very Institute a national organization to address the pretrial and bail crisis in our communities. Um, how we review cases, how we, um, looked at our data and how we were really looking at who we charge, what we charge, um, how I implemented the policy of a hundred grams of lists, not bringing low-level marijuana cases and prosecuting those cases to, that causes more mass incarceration so we can focus on violent and serious crimes. We try more cases than any other jurisdiction. That was a big impediment that police started putting out there that somehow we’re letting drug dealers and violent individuals pray on the community and this is this misinformation that when I took office that was put out there that somehow I don’t know how to do my job.

MICHEL MARTIN:
Did anyone say this to you directly? For example? I mean, how did this communication with other folks in law enforcement take place? I mean, did anybody from the police union, did you meet with them? I mean, did you meet with the command officers and say, this is the new approach that we’re taking and this is why it’s in our best interest. Did, did anybody say to you directly that we don’t agree with you and we’re not going to do this? Or was it communicated in other ways?

KIM GARDNER:
It was communicating by the police union representatives that the police felt like they cannot trust me as the new prosecutor because they felt like that I’m not going to go after individuals that prey on the community. I’m just going after police. And that was surely after the case. It was a, um, when I took office, you know, we inherited the Stockley case and we had pursued that case to trial. And at that point there was many different, um, officers who failed to turn over certain, um, information, who started to not want to bring cases, making it difficult to do their jobs because they felt per the police union that somehow I was going to prosecute police more than prosecute individuals that commit crimes.

MICHEL MARTIN:
Could you, could you just provide a screenplay of what the Stockley case is for people who aren’t familiar with it?

KIM GARDNER:
Jason Stockley was a police officer that shot and killed Anthony Lamar Smith and we had a bench route, which, um, ultimately kicked off more protests about the way it was handled because, um, Anthony Lara SIF Smith was killed by a gun that the only DNA on the gun was officer Jason Stokley’s DNA.

MICHEL MARTIN:
Would it be accurate to say you kind of feel that you walked into a hostile environment? Would that be, would that be accurate?

KIM GARDNER:
I feel then I walked into a hostile environment, but I felt like because of the reform efforts and the message of holding everyone accountable under the laws of the state of Missouri, I felt like somehow it was an attack on them against us and us as the people versus some law enforcement officers, not all. And I believe that message was, um, basically, uh, talked about and put out there by the police union, particularly Jeff Roorda.

MICHEL MARTIN:
Well, who’s the head of the police union there? His technical title is so business manager. Let’s talk about the lawsuit. Um, it’s highly unusual. In fact, some consider it to be, some think it may be the first time an elected official has used the statute, which was designed to address the KU Klux Klan. Uh, and in some cases the cooperation between law enforcement and the KU Klux Klan, or the infiltration of the client into some law enforcement entities. You’ve sued by name, the head of the police union and a number of other individuals to tell us about it. How did you decide that this was the course of action you needed to take?

KIM GARDNER:
It’s not about me. It’s about the people is about stopping the reforms that the people elected me as the prosecutor of the city of st Louis to do in the city of st Louis. This is the powerful few that have coordinated and colluded together to stop these efforts. And this is about the perpetuation of a system that we know has caused harm to the community. And because this is an unusual type of situation in st Louis, we had to take the unusual measures of standing up and doing what’s right. We have to make individuals uncomfortable that they can not usurp the power of the will of the people. And that’s why this suit is important.

MICHEL MARTIN:
But why a lawsuit? I mean some might argue that this is a matter of political skill and that you’re a failure to get buy in these various entities.

KIM GARDNER:
You would know that their entrenched interests, you’d know that they have a certain point of view and that that’s what you were elected as a political figure to do is to create a political solution to these issues. So why a lawsuit? This is about equal justice under the laws and the city of st Louis. This is about the people and their power and their voice being silenced by the powerful few and the best course of action is to seek the laws of the federal courts. That’s how we have history of equality in this country, is to seek that equality through the courts. Everyone deserves equality under the laws of this law, this country as well as the state of Missouri, and it’s about equality is no one in the city of st Louis that will not tell you about the racial divisiveness in this city.

KIM GARDNER:
Even the ethical society of police talked about that this is suit is needed and the claims in there or substantiated and there are the black police union that was formed for racial equality on the police department. This is the, not about everyone in st Louis. This is about the powerful few that have Kola colluded together to toward the afters of the people and we have to do that. You’ve called it a racist conspiracy to thwart the reforms that you have been elected to advance. Jeff Roy to whom you’ve mentioned the business manager for the st Louis police officer’s association. He’s also named, he’s a named party in your suit. Um, denies that this is about racism. I’m sure this is not news to you. He said, we’re not criticizing her because she’s the first. We’re criticizing her because she’s the worst, the worst prosecutor in the United States.

KIM GARDNER:
And then he goes on to say that, uh, the walls are closing in on this corrupt official and she’s doing what every corrupt official does. She’s pushing back on those walls. He calls this and I’m going, uh, editing a little bit here. He says, this is the last act of a desperate woman who simply wants to silence her critics. And your response to that is, my response to is Jeff Roy, I should not have a platform to spew his racial divisiveness. He is a disgrace. Fire police, police officer. There was fire from the police department where he came from, from making a false police report. So why would we give this individual a platform to even talk about anything of credibility? Because he has none. This is the individual light that they can see your suit. So he does have the right to respond. Right? Well that’s because he represents the, the some men and women in the police department. That’s why he’s naming this suit. But he’s allowed unchecked to say these racially divisive rhetoric that even when former and other black prosecutors, women came down to support myself, he told us to go back to where we come from. That rhetoric is not allowed. That’s in line with this kind of rhetoric of racial divisiveness that fuels the racial divide in this city. And the, the, the city itself is named in the lawsuit. Is that, is that correct? Why is that?

MICHEL MARTIN:
Yes. Why, why is that?

KIM GARDNER:
The city has, with the small few work to impede legal representation from our office in terms of, uh, a special investigation that we all know about that has, that is more about the people and, and stopping, um, legal representation that everyone has a right to legal representation inside my office as well as the, uh, elected prosecutor doing their job day to day. So that is why the city’s involved. Um, there is, um, instances where the city is a part of, um, bringing certain claims to start off a special prosecutor investigation, which, um, we have some questions about, but those are facts of the case that are at issue. And that’s for the lawsuit to decide.

MICHEL MARTIN:
Well, the end of course, you know that the, the, the mayor of spokesperson for the mayor on, on the mayor’s behalf, uh, quote unquote vehemently denied what it considers to be meritless allegations levied against it and expects to be fully vindicated. Um, so I’m sure you’re aware of that response as well. But I guess the question I have is that you are elected by the same people who elected these officials. And I, I’m just, I’m just wondering how it is.

KIM GARDNER:
I like do the mayors elected, but the, the city counselor is a point is appointed by the mayor and the public safety director is appointed by the mayor. So it’s two people elected the mayor and myself, but the rest of the people are appointed by the mayor. So they’re in the mayor’s cabinet. But let’s go back. So what she said, it was really a frivolous that was the first statement was frivolous by her sports person, but it was characterized is married to lists. But I would say that I don’t believe the ethical society of police department who supports this lawsuit, who says that there are racial divisiveness and animus within the police department and their ranks, that it’s not frivolous. And so I think that the mayor needs to understand and, and knows about the racial divide in the city of st Louis.

MICHEL MARTIN:
You are a part of a, a group of reform minded prosecutors who’ve been elected in recent years. But I was wondering why it is that, um, it was a group of African American women prosecutors who came to support you, but there are men who share your views about the best way to approach crime. There are African American men, there are biracial men, there are white men who share these views. And I was just curious like why were they not among the people who came to support you, uh, as this lawsuit was filed and as you’ve been under attack? I mean it doesn’t, in a way you’re kind of reinforcing the idea that it’s about identity and not about the ideas?

KIM GARDNER:
It’s really the sisterhood that we have for being the first African American female prosecutors. Um, in our respective jurisdictions. It’s a sisterhood because we are under attack different from even our other colleagues that are in the reform movies. We’re not saying that they’re not under attack, but the attacks are different to African American female prosecutors. These women understand the challenges of the intersection of race and gender. When you are an African American female prosecutor, your discretion of how you look at doing your job is challenged at every cost and the way you’re characterized where you’re characterized and where you are, your, your face is put on. Um, different characters is different than our male counterparts. And that is why they came to support me because they know the attacks. Attacks are real. I mean, we are demonize. We, um, just today I got a letter, you know, people ask me what, why am I doing this? Cause it’s not about me, but I got a letter which basically, and I’ll read this, we are going to get you out of there. One of the other and the other. You are the, you’re a lowlife, crooked lion in B, stop wasting our taxpayers. You, you can’t do your job right? Get out in nothing but a black slit plus no brains, just air and so was today. You just got that today. Just got that today. So these are why they came down because they get the hate mail like this. They get the threats on their family, they get their children disseminated to the public so people know where their children are going to school. They get the death threats, they get the stops by police and there’s, they’re, they’re stopped for long periods of time. They, it is this vitriol that no one wants to talk about when it comes to African American female prosecutors. And it is different from our male counterparts. We’re not saying that they don’t get a tax, but it’s not the same way.

MICHEL MARTIN:
All the things you’re talking about, um, have such deep historical roots, right? Is it, does, do you, do you feel that even if you prevail in this lawsuit that that actually achieves the cultural change that you’re looking for?

KIM GARDNER:
The best disinfectant is light and we have to show light on the racial injustice that’s been perpetuated by the small few. And this is what the suit is about. This is about the people the people want change. We started this conversation around this country post Ferguson. We are the ones that started the conversation. A reforming a broken criminal justice system, showing the racial divide, showing the inequities of how, when you have individuals that perpetuate, um, division in the communities. What that does, we are the, the ground zero for the reform efforts. But it’s, it’s sad that these reform efforts are hampered in this region. And what’s more disturbing is there is silence that has taken place in the city of st Louis. There’s silence in the legal community that knows the injustice that tells me that keep fighting is silence inside those police departments that want change but are afraid of the powerful few who continue to silence and to impede and to, to discount.

KIM GARDNER:
But this is what they’re doing using me as an example, that if you go against the status quo, this is a modern day night ride and we all know what that is. Well, we know our history. If that’s the case though, if you’re saying that they don’t really represent the majority of the department, if they don’t really represent kind of the center of gravity of this police department, why don’t they vote these people out of office if that’s the case. But we are always talking about a small food, just like we talk about a small few of these calls and a crime in our city and we characterize our whole city by a small few, just like a small few calls and our problems in the police department. But those small few can affect the whole bunch if we do not continue to eradicate the injustice and the racial divisiveness that we, we know and the ethical side of the police have agreed this taking place in the st Louis metropolitan police department.

KIM GARDNER:
If we don’t continue to have the good people stand up and fight, we’re going to have the small few to impede progress. The stagnation of people wanting to come to st Louis to want to live, work and play in the community that I know is great, that has great things, great people, great entities here. We have great opportunities but we’re going to fail if we do not become more inclusive. And we don’t say enough is enough. We don’t. We see the injustice but we have to stand up and if I have to stand up for the people I will and the people asked me to fight, they didn’t ask me to stand still and keep things the same and that’s why this suit is important.

MICHEL MARTIN:
Attorney gardener, thank you so much for talking with us.

KIM GARDNER:
Thank you for having me. I appreciate you.

AMANPOUR:
And that was a vital conversation about standing up for human rights locally, nationally, and globally. And finally, as many continue to mourn the death of basketball legend Kobe Bryant and his daughter, Giana dads around the world are sharing photos of themselves with their own daughters. Kobe Bryant was hugely proud of being a father to four daughters and described himself as a girl, dad inspiring that very hashtag he coached Jianna who dreamed of one day continuing her father’s legacy by playing in the women’s NBA. And Coby himself had said some female players now were good enough to join the NBA, survived by his wife, and three of their daughters. Coby will be remembered as a loving father and champion of women in sport. That’s it for our program tonight. Remember, you can always follow me and the show on Twitter. Thanks for watching. I’m and porn company on PBS and join us again tomorrow night.