June 25, 2020

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

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I call on these early governments to abandon its annexation plans.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

AMANPOUR: The U.N. speaks out as Israel charges ahead with plans to unilaterally annex parts of the West Bank. I ask former Israeli foreign

minister, Tzipi Livni, and Palestinian legal adviser, Diana Buttu, if this is the final nail in the coffin for peace.

Then —

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DONALD TRUMP, U.S. PRESIDENT: I want to thank the first lady for having done such a beautiful job.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

AMANPOUR: A power broker hiding in plain sight. Pulitzer prize-winning reporter, Mary Jordon, on how the first lady came to wield the most

influence over her husband in the White House.

And —

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DJ PATIL, FORMER U.S. CHIEF DATA SCIENTIST: As we think about how to manage COVID into this next phase, we really need drastic new approaches.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

AMANPOUR: America’s former chief data scientist, DJ Patil, on how he plans to help states fight the next wave.

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

A serious violation of international law is how the U.N. chief, Antonio Guterres, is describing Israel’s plans to annex parts of the West Bank

starting July 1st. His warnings echo those of U.S. Democrats, the Arab League and the E.U., who are all urging Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu

to reconsider. But after weathering three close elections this year, a corruption scandal and being forced into a unity government with his

political rival, Benny Gantz, Netanyahu is desperate to cement a legacy.

Occupied by Israel since the 1967-’68 war, the West Bank has been the sticking point in peace talks between Israel and the Palestinians for

decades. The U.N. and the international community have long called for a two-state solution, which would see the creation of an independent

Palestinian State alongside the State of Israel. President Trump broke with that tradition, releasing his own plan, that Palestinian leaders warn would

lead to an apartheid system.

Now, after initially green lighting the annexation plan, the White House is now sending mixed signals. So, with me to discuss all of this is the former

Israeli foreign minister, Tzipi Livni, who was also Israel’s peace negotiator. And in a moment, I’ll be speaking with Diana Buttu, who’s been

a legal adviser to the Palestinian side. But first we got to Tzipi Livni.

Welcome to the program.

So, Tzipi Livni, I want to know what you think of this plan to annex major parts of the West Bank, as much as 30 percent, according to the prime

minister, and what it means for what you have always believed in, and that is a two-state solution.

TZIPI LIVNI, FORMER ISRAELI FOREIGN MINISTER: I believe that annexation of around 30 percent of the West Bank, the meaning is basically giving up

hopeful peace in the future. I believe that this is completely against the interest of Israel. I, myself, believe in the idea of two states where two

peoples living side by side hopefully in peace and security.

And by doing this type of unilateral step, the meaning is basically that we — Israel would reach and pass the point of no return and this is something

that those of us, also Israelis, Palestinians and others, and those who believe in peace based on the idea of two states for two peoples, for us

this is something that is completely a huge historical mistake.

AMANPOUR: So, you call it an historical mistake and you say that it will affect and negatively impact on Israel itself. Beyond the fact that there

won’t be, as you say, any return to the possibility of a two-state solution if this annexation goes on, how will it exactly negatively impact Israel?

LIVNI: Israel, the reason or the (INAUDIBLE) of the State of Israel, the basic values of the State of Israel, the identity of the State of Israel is

being a Jewish democratic state. In order to keep these values living in harmony, not in contradiction, we need to have a Jewish majority.

Annexation now is without many of the Palestinians living in the West Bank, but in the future, without the possibility or hope for a state of their

own, the next thing would be one-state between Jordan River and Mediterranean Sea, and the meaning would be annexation of millions of

Palestinians.

And since I believe Israel is a democracy, the meaning is also voting rights, one-state, binational state, ongoing conflict. And in the end, this

could lead to losing the identity of Israel as a Jewish democratic state. And this is completely against what I believe in, what my parents believe

in, what is written in the declaration of independence of the State of Israel.

AMANPOUR: So, Tzipi Livni, I want to ask you this because it just sounds so catastrophic for Israel that I wonder why the prime minister and his

advisers would even want to attempt this. I mean, if you’re talking about a possibility of a choice between a one-state solution in which Israel would

no longer be the majority and the Palestinians would be the majority or a one-state solution in which Israel would not be a democratic state, because

it would oppress and deny full rights to the Palestinians, like in an apartheid system, what is it about that that Benjamin Netanyahu doesn’t

understand?

LIVNI: Well, we are talking about two completely visions, two completely national GPS, if you like, for the State of Israel. While my priority is

keeping Israel as a Jewish democratic state, and I don’t want to leave to my children or grandchildren the choice between being a Jewish state or a

democracy. There are those in Israel that their focus or their priority is greater Israel, is the land of Israel, the historic land of Israel,

including the West Bank, which is for them, for us, Judea and Samaria.

So, while I believe in the rights of the entire land, my focus is on the State of Israel. So, what they are trying to do now is, in a way, to get

more and more of the land, the historic land as part of Israel’s sovereignty. I think that maybe some of them believe that in the future,

the Palestinians would be satisfied with the kind of autonomy of living in (INAUDIBLE), you know, within the West Bank, surrounded by Israel. I

believe that it’s not sustainable, and the idea of if somebody is giving you the opportunity — I mean, if the United States is willing or will give

you the opportunity to do so, it doesn’t mean this is the right thing to do.

And talking a bit about the United States, the whole idea of Trump plan was that it would be basis for negotiations. The whole idea was not just

unilateral annexation. And therefore, I believe it’s not over and we’ll see also what would be the position of the United States and their

administration, but as an Israeli, representing what I believe the vision of the State of Israel, it’s wrong.

AMANPOUR: And we wait to see exactly how the United States finally comes down on this because there’s lots of sort of mixed messages. But let me ask

you this because, as usual, there are a group of senior military and security officials, some of them are retired former officials, who have

come out against this idea of annexation. They believe like you do.

But they have an extra component to their belief. And that is that it might mean Israeli parents being faced with putting their sons and daughters in

uniform, back into combat if there’s an uprising, if there’s violence, if there’s military occupation of the West Bank. And they have come up with,

you know, a public service campaign, which says, look us in the eyes, and it’s addressing the prime minister, admit that you have no idea how

unilateral annexation will end.

Do you think that they’ve actually gamed it out, Tzipi Livni? Do they know how it will end? I mean, you already see the Palestinians withdrawing

support. There may be a collapse of the Palestinian authority if, indeed, this happens, or their legitimacy will end. Can you see Israel having to

military occupy, you know, the West Bank?

LIVNI: You know, I can add to what I just said, we deal about the vision, a list of added reasons why not to do it. One is security. And I, myself,

am a mother of two sons, that both of them were in combat units and I can speak about the legitimacy of the State of Israel amongst nations. I can

speak about the future relations with Arab and Muslim states, that by doing so maybe we can destabilize the situation.

So, altogether, there are lots of reasons why not to do it. But I started about — speaking about the vision of the State of Israel. You know,

because sometimes, unfortunately, we need to fight, we need to fight against terror, we need to have our children in combat units and doing what

is need needed against terror or, unfortunately, in military operation and wars, but we all need to know when this is happening, it’s because there

was no other alternative, other choice.

And now, it’s important to say to Israelis also, listen, it doesn’t serve our interests even before we are talking about all the security issues. But

I completely agree with all these generals and security experts saying, listen, it’s not — it doesn’t serve the interest of Israel also in terms

of security, because in a way, it’s like giving up the hope for peace. And in a way, sentence our children to live in an ongoing conflict with the

Palestinians, with the civil population there, with terror. And this is, of course, another important reason why not to do it as well.

AMANPOUR: So, Tzipi Livni, you said, and I think many do believe, people who believe like you do that this could be the point of no return. On the

other hand, Joe Biden, former vice president, who wants to be president, said if he wins, he will reverse any unilateral annexation, certainly

reverse any U.S. support for anything like that. Do you hold out any hope that even if this goes ahead that come November and the months afterwards,

if there’s a different administration, it could, in fact, be reversed?

LIVNI: It’s going to be much more complicated, because we are not just talking about what would be the U.S. position on annexation. By doing so,

it would be very complicated in the future according to the Israeli law to reverse — to rewind the clock or to reverse this process, to reverse the

wheel. Because after doing so, in order to change it, there’s a need, according to the Israeli law, for a referendum and it’s going to be much

more complicated.

And more than that, if right right-wing, far right and the settlers in Israel would continuing building more settlements there, so it would become

really also impossible not just from a legal point of view, but also the realities on the ground would make it quite difficult, not to say

impossible.

So, listen, I don’t give up, never, but this is a time to say before we are doing this, before Israelis are taking this step — that step, don’t do it.

AMANPOUR: OK. One-word answers, Tzipi Livni, do you think he will do it, your prime minister?

LIVNI: I know that Netanyahu really wants to do it, as you said, as he (INAUDIBLE). But I think that mostly now it depends on the position of the

U.S.

AMANPOUR: All right. Well, in that case, thank you very much for joining us, Tzipi Livni. And now, I’m going to bring in Diana Buttu who has been a

legal adviser and spokesperson for the Palestinian side.

Welcome to the program, Diana Buttu.

Let me ask you what I asked Tzipi Livni. Do you believe that a unilateral move to annex as much as 30 percent of the West Bank, which also includes

the Jordan Valley, will be a nail in the coffin for a two-state solution?

DIANA BUTTU, FORMER LEGAL ADVISER, PALESTINIAN LIBERATION ORGANIZATION: It’s already been a nail in the coffin for quite some time. And the reason

we’ve seen that this has been a nail in the coffin for quite some time is that over the course of the past five decades, we’ve seen that successive

Israeli administrations, including Tzipi Livni, have put into place measures to bring more and more settlers into the West Bank.

We now have over 600,000 Israeli settlers, making up about 25 percent of the population of the West Bank with different laws that are applied to

Israeli settlers that are applied to Palestinians. There’s a word for that, and that is apartheid. And the only difference we’re going to see now is

the formalization of apartheid rather than what’s going on for the past 53 years, which is the de facto apartheid that we’ve been living and

witnesses.

So, yes, this is the final nail. It’s just a pity that it’s taken such a long time for the international community to realize this, and we’ve been

saying it for such a long time.

AMANPOUR: So, you mention, and you’re absolutely correct that almost every, if not every Israeli government did increase settlements, which the

U.N. calls illegal and there are U.N. resolutions about how the situation should be resolved. However, some of those governments also, as Tzipi was,

they believed in peace and believed in a democratic two-state solution and they worked to that end.

This would, seems to me, according to what she said and what you’re saying, would completely just get rid of that idea altogether. So, what then are

the stakes for the Palestinians? What then happens? How do you envision the Palestinians in the West Bank and in Gaza?

BUTTU: Well, you know, although there’s been a peace process that’s been in place for a long period of time, none of the Israeli governments have

done anything to actually decolonize, they haven’t reduced the number of Israeli settlers, they’ve increased the number of Israeli settlers. And so,

what this leaves Palestinians with is one of two choices, either pushing for an end to apartheid, which is what is happening now, or pushing for

economic sanctions to be applied against Israel. It’s one of those two scenarios.

If the world believes that there should be a two-state solution, it means that Israel needs to face accountability, it needs to be held accountable

to the international community, through the imposition of economic sanctions. And if they don’t believe that, then we have to go in a

different force of declaring it what it is, which is apartheid, and pushing for one person, one vote.

What’s very troubling in all of this is that Israel is getting a pass at claiming that it can be a Jewish state for democracy when we know it can’t

be. Given the fact that there are so many Palestinians who are living in this country, we’ve seen that all that Israel has done over the years is

impose more and more laws to ensure that there is Jewish privilege rather than ensure that there is equality.

And I think now we’re facing the cost where people are saying, it’s now time to be pushing for one-state, one person, one vote rather than pushing

for this fiction of two states.

AMANPOUR: OK. And you did hear Tzipi Livni say that she did believe there would be a threat to the idea of a Jewish democratic state under a one-

state. But I understand that you — I understand what you’re saying now about a one-state, one vote. But, you know, whether that’s — whether

anybody is going to support that, we’ll wait to see.

But in the meantime, you talk about sanctions on Israel, but the Palestinian authority seems to be, I don’t know how to put it, self-

inflicting Palestinian harm on its — financial harm on itself as a way to “teach Israel.” So, they’ve stopped accepting their tax revenues, which

under the current system Israel collects and then gives it to them. They have stopped a lot of cooperation on the security side with the Israeli

security forces, as they normally do under the current system. They’ve stopped — they’re stopping more than $100 million per month of aid to the

impoverished Gaza Strip. What is this designed to do other than hurt ordinary Palestinians?

BUTTU: Christiane, I think I’m going to correct you a little bit there, Christiane, in terms of what that things that are happening here. Yes, they

have stopped security collaboration with Israel, because I think it’s important to keep in mind that it’s not the job of the Palestinian

authority to serve as Israel’s security subcontractor. It’s actually opposite. Israel is supposed to be doing everything in its power to protect

Palestinians, not to harm Palestinians. That’s what international law says.

But because nobody has held Israel accountable, it’s been the opposite, where everybody is now placing blame on the Palestinian authority, as

though the Palestinian authority is a state. It’s not. It’s simply an attitude that has been — that was designed to be in place for a mere five

years and that was the end of it. And yet, here we are, now 27 years later, and people are saying, why isn’t the Palestinian authority stopping all of

this? They should have stopped it a long time ago.

Instead, we have to put the ball in its proper court, which is to hold Israel accountable. Israel is the one that’s supposed to be providing for

Palestinians, they’re supposed to be caring for Palestinians, they’re supposed to be making sure that as an occupier that all of our needs are

met. Instead what they’ve done is tried to do the exact opposite, to try to get us off our land, to steal Palestinian land, to gun us down, to shoot to

kill. And that is where the — this is where the problem lies.

When the world begins to recognize that this is an occupation and that Israel has to be held accountable as an occupier, then we’re going to see

some movement. But until that time, you can keep blaming the victim, but that’s not going to get us any further.

AMANPOUR: Well, as you know, that is a consistent refrain that we do actually hear from, certainly, the Trump administration and others. You put

it as blaming the victim. They say well, we’ve never been able to strike a deal with the Palestinians. They always say no, even when we give them, you

know, such a huge amount of, you know, offers. Land and policy, et cetera.

And I spoke, as you probably remember, to Jared Kushner when they unveiled the peace plan and he was saying that, you know, this is a route to an

independent state with a huge amount, I think something like $50 billion. This is what he said to me at that time.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

JARED KUSHNER, SENIOR WHITE HOUSE ADVISER: So, it’s a big opportunity for the Palestinians, and, you know, they have a perfect track record of

blowing every opportunity they’ve had in their paths, but perhaps their leadership will read the details of it, stop posturing and do what’s best

to try to make the Palestinian people’s lives better.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

AMANPOUR: So, Diana, I think I actually talked to you after that interview. And I want to ask you to react in today’s reality, because we’ve

seen even the Palestinian authority trying to get people, you know, on the occupied West Bank to come out and have sort of a rally against this

annexation plan. They could barely raise a couple dozen people. So, again, where do you think the future for the Palestinian people lies?

BUTTU: Well, it’s very interesting that Jared Kushner is pulling out some Israeli talking points and pushing them forward. Look, the Palestinian

cause is not about money. This isn’t a question of giving us some sort of crumbs and saying you can call it a stake. It’s an issue of international

law and of justice. And what — in all of these proposals that have ever been put forward there’s never been a single proposal, I was part of it,

that actually aim to end the occupation. All it aimed to do was repackage it. They aimed to repackage it and give us money along the way.

And Palestinians are not for sale. What we want is our freedom. We want our dignity. We want to live like every other people around the world. Sadly,

we have this administration that doesn’t even view us as being worthy as being — to have our own freedom or our own dignity and our own lives. And

instead, they are propping up a regime of government that continues, in this day and age, year 2020, to want to rule over the lives of people who

have never voted for them. That is apartheid, and we simply want an end to it.

AMANPOUR: So, I want to ask you about, again, the people, because I remember the First Intifada which eventually led to the Madrid Peace — I

mean, it was part of what finally led to a political engagement, Madrid and then, you know, all the others.

Now, you know, people say, well, if this happens, this annexation is going to cause another uprising, another Intifada. On the other hand, those who

support the annexation say, well, hang on a second, you threaten that and you scaremongers say that was going to happen when the U.S., the Trump

administration changed its recognition of the capital from — to Jerusalem, move the U.S. embassy, et cetera, et cetera. And there wasn’t unrest.

Again, how do you think that if annexation starts unilaterally, at all, how will the people respond?

BUTTU: Well, they’re going to respond in the way that they responded for the past seven decades, which is to hold firm to their rights. Look, I

think it’s important, Christiane, to make sure that this is not a question of violence or stability, it’s a — or whether it causes violence or

instability, it’s a question of whether this is illegal. And it is. The settlements are illegal. We know that.

It’s the settlements that should be removed, not the other way around. It’s not that Palestinians should be forced to somehow accommodate Israel’s

plans, Israel’s annexation, Israel’s settlements, it’s that the settlements should be removed and Palestinians be allowed to live in freedom. And

unless we go down that path that’s recognizing what is wrong, which is the settlements, and recognizing that annexation is illegal, we’re going to

continue to have this conversation.

So, for me it’s not a question of whether it leads to violence. I don’t want to see violence, obviously. But that shouldn’t be the equation. The

equation should be, is this legal or is it illegal? We know it’s illegal. And this is why Israel should face economic sanctions.

AMANPOUR: Diana Buttu, thank you very much, indeed. Thanks for joining us on this really important matter.

And now, we turn to an unauthorized biography, that is the talk of Washington. She’s first lady to one of the most divisive presidents in

American history, yet for many, Melania Trump has remained a mysterious figure. In her new book “The Art of Her Deal,” Pulitzer prize-winning

reporter, Mary Jordan, sets out to uncover the real Melania, and the picture she paints is of a political power broker who holds serious sway in

the White House. And Mary Jordan is joining me now from Washington.

Welcome to the program, Mary Jordan.

MARY JORDAN, AUTHOR, “THE ART OF HER DEAL”: Hi, Christiane.

AMANPOUR: You’ve just been listening to — yes, you used to be a foreign correspondent and you’ve been listening to this dilemma that’s in the

Middle East again. And now, we’re going to talk more about the personal side of the Trump administration. So, I just want to ask you what made you

want to do a book, a profile, on Melania Trump? What was the impetus for that?

JORDAN: During the 2016 campaign, I said, wow, if Donald Trump wins, his wife is an immigrant and center of this campaign was an anti-immigrant

stance, right, build the wall. And so, I was calling around and I was asking Melania and the Trump campaign information about how did she view

it, since it was difficult for other people. I mean, Trump’s whole plan was to make it more difficult for other people like Melania. And in fact, in

this administration, it’s harder for people like Melania to come in.

And they wouldn’t even say who her lawyer was. They would give no information. And the more you asked the more you realized that there was a

huge void of information. So, I just wanted, you know, how do you view Melania Trump is how you view her husband, and that, for so many people is

you love him or you loath him. And the book is not for or against. It’s just filling in this bizarre vacuum of information about someone that we

know what she looks like, but who is she?

AMANPOUR: So, let me — before I get to who is she, I just want to pick up on the first issue that you’ve just raised, and that is the immigration

thing and the citizenship. As President Trump was railing against chain immigration, you write and it’s been, you know, written before, because it

was a news story, that her parents and, I think, sister and others did get their status, their citizenship at about that time, right?

JORDAN: The same week that her parents got their U.S. citizenship with the help of Melania, very same week, he went and had a rally screaming about

people that brought family members over. And when I was doing this, I think there was kind of an outcry about that. And when I was doing the book, I

found out she had also brought her sister in, who is now a permanent resident. This is exactly (INAUDIBLE) must be curtailed, that there’s too

many of these people. He calls it chain migration. She calls it bringing her family in.

AMANPOUR: So, look, what is her value added in terms of the public figure and in terms of her influence on President Trump? And what does she want?

What does she want in life, in her marriage, in politics? Because, as you say, you know, love her or hate her, depending on what you think of her

husband. And more to the point, she is a bit of a sphynx. So, it’s maybe not even love her or hate her but just try to figure out who she is.

JORDAN: Try to figure her out, right. You know, I think she’s consequential. You know, we write about who the defense secretary is and

who different people in the cabinet is. Well, it turns out — you know, I’ve talked to over 100 people that she’s the one who, if you want to be

hired at the White House and you don’t want to get fired, you have to be on Melania’s side. You know, she was critical in this election of Mike Pence

during the campaign as the vice president.

And he (INAUDIBLE) an interesting reason, it came down to three candidates, Chris Christie, former governor of New Jersey, Newt Gingrich, former house

speaker and Mike Pence from Indiana. She met for two days with the Pences, and Trump asked her to do that because he trusts her. He says all these

other people have different agendas, but not Melania. So he (INAUDIBLE) personal decisions. And she said to him after looking at who could be the

number two for him, she said, you know, pick Pence, because he’s not that ambitious as the other two. He’ll be content to be number two. The others

will be gunning for your job. And, you know, we all know that Donald Trump doesn’t do co-stars. And so, he took that advice.

AMANPOUR: It’s really interesting, too, because it makes you ask, you know, is that also a self-reflection? Is she that ambitious or is she, you

know, the person who, you know, finds herself in a situation, you know, goes along with it and it meets her needs? And I ask you this because one

of the big reveals, obviously, is answering what the whole world wanted to know when President Trump was inaugurated, started out in the White House,

and she didn’t join until June, that’s about five or six months later. And the whole world thought it was because her son, Baron, had to finish his

school year in New York. But you say no, it’s because she was candidly reupping her prenup.

JORDAN: Well, it was also very handy for Baron. So, that was part of it. But the big news there was that, you know, Trump famously says he’s the

best negotiator. No one can make a better deal than I can. He said that over and over again. And he said, you know, it’s all about leverage. When

you have something the other person wants.

And what was so interesting is it’s very clear that Melania waited until she had leverage. This was the moment when he really needed her, because he

hated the gossip about their marriage was on the rocks. You know, I remember that she swatted his hand away during this time at a tarmac in

Israel. She was kind of vacant. He wanted her to come down, join him in the White House.

And at the same time, she’s putting pressure on him to get a better prenup, a better financial deal. And the people that I talked to said she really

got what she wanted. And she said what she wanted was an equal stake for Baron to the older three kids.

AMANPOUR: Obviously looking out for her son, as a mother would, and obviously having a lot of leverage.

But I want to ask you, because there’s a lot in the book and there’s lots that people think that she’s a moderating influence on her husband, et

cetera.

But there are, in very important cases, where she has backed up some of his worst instincts, including the whole terrible Obama birther scandal, where

they launched this movement of questioning where he was born, his nationality, et cetera.

And back in 2011, Melania was on “The Joy Behar Show,” and this is what she said about that.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

MELANIA TRUMP, FIRST LADY: In one way, it would be very easy for President Obama just show it, and because it’s not only Donald who wants to see it.

It’s American people who voted for him and who didn’t voted for him. They want to see that.

JOY BEHAR, “THE JOY BEHAR SHOW”: But it’s on display in Chicago. We have seen it on the Internet. We have seen it. It’s not the same as yours. But

it’s a certificate of live birth.

M. TRUMP: We feel it’s different than birth certificate.

BEHAR: All right.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

AMANPOUR: So, Mary, I wonder what you think of that and whether you found other sort of contradictions in her character.

JORDAN: Well, I talk at length about that interview. I’m so glad you aired that, because, basically, she calculates, does things when it’s good for

her.

And she calculated, after the Stormy Daniels and Karen McDougal — all those revelations, new details of which she learned when everybody else

learned them, and she was furious. But, by the way, a furious Melania is not — she doesn’t throw lamps and yell. She just disappears.

But she calculated, look, if I stay with them, what do I get, and, if I leave, what do I get? That’s what I have heard from many people who are

right close to the couple, who socialized with them or worked with them over the years.

And she decided that she gets more out of it if she stays.

AMANPOUR: And it’s really interesting, because she has been the longest woman with him, so to speak, of all his wives. She spent the longest time

in that role. She’s the third wife.

And Larry King, when he was at CNN, had the two of them on just around their wedding. And they talked about — he asked her and Donald at that

time about infidelity and how they both would handle it. Just listen to this, because it makes — it comes up again afterwards, after the “Access

Hollywood” tapes.

So just listen to this first.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

LARRY KING: Do you worry about women and him being attracted to them?

M. TRUMP: No, I don’t worry about that at all.

KING: Do you worry about men?

M. TRUMP: I know who I am. And if a man doesn’t want to be with me or I don’t want to be with a man…

KING: Goodbye and good luck.

M. TRUMP: That’s right.

KING: Do you worry about her with men?

DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: No. I know her. That’s the rock.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

AMANPOUR: So she was very, very clear about what she would do if she discovered infidelities.

And yet, after “Access Hollywood” tape came out, she obviously did a round of interviews, including with Anderson Cooper, and she had a slightly

different take. Here’s what she said:

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

M. TRUMP: I’m very strong. People, they don’t really know me. People think and talk about me, the — like, oh, Melania, oh, poor Melania.

Don’t feel sorry for me. Don’t feel sorry for me. I can handle everything.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

AMANPOUR: So, will the real Melania stand up, Mary, or are they not in conflict, those two?

JORDAN: No, I think they’re not in conflict because, at the time she said the earlier statement, that was what was best for Melania to say. And at

the time when she talked to Anderson Cooper, that’s what she was supposed to say.

I think, in many ways, people don’t realize, because she’s so quiet, and he is a nonstop blabber, and that he’s so impulsive, and she’s such a chess

player, that they’re different.

But what I found is, they’re quite alike. And they’re both obsessed by image and the creation of a brand. And that, by the way, doesn’t

necessarily — the things they say to create this image aren’t always true for either of them.

Trump has said that he’s taller than he is, from little things like that to bigger things that are just not true. And she also has said things like she

had a college degree, when she didn’t, that she was one of the highest paid models, when she wasn’t.

AMANPOUR: And that she spoke five languages, when she doesn’t, apparently.

In any event, it’s really fascinating.

Mary Jordan, thank you so much for joining us.

Now, new coronavirus infections have soared to record highs in six American states, including the three most populous states, Texas, California and

Florida.

The governor of California, Gavin Newsom, is pleading with his residents to take precautions.

Our next guest, D.J. Patil, has written a report on lessons learned to get ready for the next wave. He became America’s first chief data scientist

under President Obama, and he is currently head of technology for a health care company, but he is taking unpaid leave to help California fight the

pandemic.

And here he is talking to our Hari Sreenivasan us about how crunching the numbers will be key to mitigating this virus.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

HARI SREENIVASAN: Thanks, Christiane.

D.J. Patil, welcome.

You have been volunteering with the state of California and you have been consulting with other state governments over the past three months, trying

to help them tackle the data around COVID.

What have you learned so far?

D.J. PATIL, FORMER U.S. CHIEF DATA SCIENTIST: Well, the fascinating thing is that the number of people that have all come to work on COVID problems.

This is just such a unique period of time.

And the governments need new technologists. They need data, people — they need all the help that they can get.

Really, what I have taken away from this effort is that we’re, one, at the very, beginning early on COVID. Two is that, as we think about how to

manage COVID into this next phase, we really need drastic new approaches, and much of that is the need to be data-driven. We’re seeing this happen in

companies. We’re seeing this happen in so many different sectors, but it’s how do we use data in novel ways to really power the next wave of the

response.

SREENIVASAN: You took a leave of absence from your current job to work with the state of California. Why?

PATIL: Well, the company that I work for is called Devoted Health. And we’re responsible for more than 17,000 senior citizens.

And when I watch what’s happening with COVID, as we watch for our population, it’s very clear that they’re in the bullseye. And we need to do

everything that we possibly can. As we were working to safeguard and make sure that they’re getting everything they need, it was very clear that not

enough was happening at the state level or the federal level.

And so, as we thought about it, we thought what’s the most useful thing that I can do with my time would be to help the state and help — and by

helping California, with 40 million people, we would develop systems and ideas that would then go to other states that would then help our

population, because COVID doesn’t, frankly, care about geographic boundaries, as we know.

So the idea is really to kind of help lift up the entire system to support our population, as well as everyone else’s.

SREENIVASAN: Now, we’re seeing numbers in California start to track back up. Did they do something wrong?

PATIL: I think what we’re finding is, once again, the part about that we’re early in COVID, trying to understand what’s happening.

Two is, opening up the economy has consequences. Not everyone opens up safely. We have had groups where people go out to restaurants and bars, and

they’re really close in proximity, and they’re not taking COVID seriously.

And we’re starting to hear those stories where a friend, group of friends went, and a big percentage of them all came down with COVID. We’re also

seeing the limits of what different counties and approaches can do.

So, you can have one county that says, we’re not going to take COVID seriously. We may think of it as a hoax. We’re not going to at force masks.

We see other places where they take it very seriously. One of the interesting things is, why is the San Francisco Bay area doing better than

L.A.

And in that first run-up for watching what COVID was having the impact on the U.S., one of the things that was seen for — particularly if you look

at restaurant data receipts, is, seven to 10 days before the state-at-home orders were put in place, people already had stopped going to restaurants.

People just said, look, this isn’t safe. They decided themselves, rather than having someone decide for them. Other parts of California, L.A.

included, have not, or did not have that happen.

Also, the industry, the tech community largely said, workers, stay at home. So, the Bay Area was already largely sheltering in place for a certain

portion of the population, and that dramatically helped things out.

So, what is — what do we need to do next to that is learn from one county to another. And, luckily, the mayors of the cities are actually starting to

share that. But this also comes down — this aspect of, the more we attack the public health care officials, the less chance we have to actually

getting these lessons learned and implemented.

SREENIVASAN: Are you hearing that frustration from the public health officials, the mayors, the county commissioners that you’re talking to and

working with right now?

PATIL: Well, the place I hear it the most is from the public health officials, who are all questioning whether this is worth it.

And those are the worst and saddest calls I have, because we need them. And they’re saying, look, I’m in this conversation with my county supervisors,

and they’re not listening to me. I’m getting death threats, and no one’s standing up for me.

And that is just — it just erodes them over time. It just — they just can’t take it anymore. We’re starting to see resignations start to take

place. And, unfortunately, I expect a number of more resignations, not just across the states, but — like the state of California, but across the

country, as a result.

SREENIVASAN: Why, on the modeling end of things, was it so difficult or is it so difficult to figure out where our resources are necessary?

On the one hand, you had requests for ventilators that were unnecessary. On the other hand, you had PPP falling short where it should not have, right?

And in this climate, each of these failings ends up getting weaponized because of the politics of the day.

PATIL: Much of the data that we have relied upon for models is really data that is critically shared between countries. A lot of that is brokered by

the WHO, World Health Organization. That’s actually why it’s so important to remain part of these organizations, because that’s how we share and

collaborate.

The way to think about models is, this is the early days in many ways parallel to weather forecasting. Imagine we had weather models, but we

didn’t really have weather balloons or planes or satellites, and we just had a few people going outside and sticking their finger in the wind and

saying, yes, the wind is blowing to the south today?

We don’t have a sensory network. We don’t have models that are very sophisticated and running on supercomputers like we’d like to think. These

models are rather simplistic. Some of the models just try to fit curves and try to figure out how the line best looks to the data. Others try to model

the dynamics, what are known as mechanistic models.

But the thing that’s there — and this was called for when I was in the Bush administration, and it’s been continuously called on — is that we

don’t have a national center for disease forecasting. We don’t have a collective effort. It’s actually two things.

One, we don’t have a good way of capturing data, getting data that’s through large-scale testing, this electronic testing data, the documents

being fully digital and moved around in an appropriate way and getting that foundation of data.

The second is, we don’t share. We’re not sharing enough of our results. We’re not opening up our data to collaborate, moving things around. The —

during the Obama administration, we had a very strong push to make sure all data, by default, is open and machine readable.

The more states open up the data, the better the quality of modeling will be.

SREENIVASAN: So, what would you tell the president now about this?

PATIL: COVID is real, it’s early, it’s not going to go away anytime soon, and it’s going to need the full force of every aspect of what we have as

the United States to tackle this.

And every day that we move forward without tackling this is an increase in cost of life and economics. We have the ability to both lose the public

health war and the economics war, if we’re not careful. And both are tragedies.

It’s unbelievable that we’re talking about close to — well, well past 100,000 lives, getting to 120,000. We’re seeing estimates getting up there

by October in the 180,000 to 200,000 range. And it’s important to remember that every one — these data points have names. They’re loved ones.

And they’re disproportionately impacting blacks and people of indigenous origin. So, we have got to get ahead of that. And the part that that’s

going to need is to some very classic things.

One is, we all have to be on the same page together. We have to act as a unified force. And that means doing simple things like wearing a mask. I

wear the mask not because I’m protecting myself, but because I want to protect you. I want to be a good, responsible citizen.

Two, we need to really think about, what does it mean to protect the vulnerable? Third, how do we get the infrastructure in place, knowing that

COVID is going to be here for a while? And, frankly, COVID isn’t the big one.

We have to get ready for a pandemic that is far more virulent, because of pandemic influenza or new diseases that are going to be showing up. We have

to get the infrastructure, and it takes time to get that infrastructure. So start laying the tracks down now.

And then, finally, come to the defense of the public health officials. It’s not just public health officials like Fauci, but all the local public

health officials, Amy Acton in Ohio or others, and start encouraging data scientists and technologists to jump in and take their skills to bring it

to governments, to the local county levels, to help support the system in new novel ways.

SREENIVASAN: How would you rate the responses that we have had on — perhaps on a California scale that you have been looking at closely, but

also on a federal level?

PATIL: Well, like, the state level has been one where I think what we have found is, everyone is kind of swarming to the problem.

What I think we get very effectively as a nation in many of the states has been collectively to get — to flatten the curve, which was to really

shelter in place and stay at home.

Why is that so critical? We needed to buy time for our health care system to catch up, to get the beds in place, to get the protective gear in place,

to start getting testing in place, to put all those things in.

We have had to get testing ramped up across the drive-throughs. How do we enable that to be better? What we haven’t done is accelerated that even

more. There’s still testing that’s going on, but how do we make sure that it’s used? We still have challenges in use. We still haven’t seen this idea

of contact tracing, which is, once somebody is infected, how to find all the other people who might have been impacted.

How do we get that collectively rolled out? And we need much more of that happening at the state level. At the federal level, that we just haven’t

seen a cohesive movement. And we have seen this argument just to make it the states’ problems, and the states aren’t prepared, and so they make it

the county problems.

And then the counties are trying to just figure out how to do this with very threadbare budgets. So, we need a more collective strategy and a

recognition that we have to have a strategy as a nation that is going to have to work on this, rather than the county to my north and me having a

different strategy from the county to the south.

Everyone has to be in it together.

SREENIVASAN: We have also got a culture of denialism here. I mean, we have got not only people who are actively saying that this is fading away, this

is — that we have won this fight already. But that’s having consequences, when people are going to restaurants.

And, as a nation, we’re collectively seeing that flattening of the curve kind of come back up.

PATIL: We’re already seeing the rise of the cases. The cases are already starting to go up.

What we still don’t — and this shows, like, how early our understanding of COVID is, is, why does it go up so fast in certain places and not as much

in others? One of the challenges — and we have seen this really in an unfortunate way — we have seen states like Arizona, where they said no to

the team of modelers that have been supporting them, thanks, but no thanks. We don’t need you anymore, because we got this under control.

The latest data shows they clearly have not. They clearly do not. And, luckily, thanks to public pressure, that they have brought those modelers

back in to support them.

But we have also seen data scientists in Florida who have been — work for the Florida government who’ve been under attack for reporting flaws of the

data or inaccuracy. Or, in Georgia, even the way they presented the data makes it misleading.

The data is about having a conversation. It’s an honest thing. And odes it feel good when those cases go up and you look at it? No, it’s not supposed

to feel good. What it’s supposed to do is help us figure out, what are we going to do next?

And just turning a blind eye to the data, and, as you said, you can’t fix what you can’t measure. We have to have this as a truly data- and-science-

driven approach.

And it’s about acceleration of our understanding.

SREENIVASAN: You recently wrote about kind of the intersection of the protests and COVID. Tell us about that.

PATIL: Well, this actually — as we think about the protests and COVID, one of things that I think we need to really be asking about is, what does

it look like for us to really understand the roots of the protests?

And that is fundamentally how we police. How do we actually structurally measure these pieces of the problem? There are so many times when a very

basic question is asked by a police chief, a mayor, a governor, something simple, like, what’s the — what percentage of the population who is

stopped are black vs. another population?

And the number of times the answer is, we don’t know, because we can’t get that information. I hear that all the time on COVID. I don’t know. We can’t

get that information.

And it’s unbelievable that, in this day and age, we’re not willing to go to the effort or the lengths to go get that information to do this. I’m also

very concerned about the use of data and creating a surveillance state and making sure that data is used responsibly.

There’s an incredible amount of technology that’s being used for facial recognition. We know that there’s issues of bias in there. Police

departments have access to this technology. And they’re using it in other ways, sometimes identifying people who are not peaceful protesters, but

there’s a question of, where does that data go?

Who has oversight to it? And what if somebody is wrongly accused of something or that’s not them? And how do they clear their name? And we have

seen this happen time and time again, and we should take the lessons that we learned from how we have built these systems and where we have done it

well and where we haven’t after 9/11, and really figure out, what does it look like to start putting these new systems together, and doing it in a

responsible way?

SREENIVASAN: D.J. Patil, thanks so much for joining us.

PATIL: Thank you.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

AMANPOUR: Now, of course, it’s a lot about the economy right now. And like the U.S., Europe is eager to revive its economy, especially for the tourist

season.

But because of continued COVID spikes in America, the E.U. is considering closing its borders to travelers from the United States. Of course, the

United States has had its borders close to most foreigners since mid-March.

All of this might mean there will be no Americans visiting one of the world’s most iconic sites, including the Eiffel Tower, which is reopening

today after a three-month shut down.

Correspondent Cyril Vanier reveals how the landmark in Paris is virus- proofing now.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

CYRIL VANIER, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): During the worst days of the coronavirus crisis, Paris’ Iron Lady still played her part with a simple

message to health care workers from a grateful nation: Thank you.

The Eiffel Tower, visited by almost seven million tourists a year shut down three months, one week and four days ago, the longest closure since the

Second World War.

The first level, a reminder that the Eiffel Tower experience is now COVID- compatible, distancing, signage, face masks, and hand gel. The new normal.

The tower keen to show it’s even going a step further, regularly checking that surfaces are well and truly disinfected.

(on camera): For now, the lifts are closed, because of distancing rules, so if you want the view, well, you have to earn it. It’s also more fun this

way.

(voice-over): Seventy hundred and forty-five steps to the second level, that’s a 15-minute climb for an estimated 4,000 to 5,000 visitors expected

on day one.

PATRICK BRANCO RUIVO, CEO, EIFFEL TOWER: This is familiar. The best view that we could have from Paris. That’s why they give us big emotions when

you come just here.

VANIER: Notre Dame, the Louvre, the Sacre-Coeur, the Arc de Triomphe, all there if you know where to look.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

AMANPOUR: And all there safe and sound, if you know how to take sensible precautions.

And, finally, Mary W. Jackson, NASA’s first African-American female engineer, is a hidden figure no more. The space agency has announced that

it will rename its D.C. headquarters after her.

Back in the 1950s, Jackson was among the group of women they called human computers, whose work was integral to getting American astronauts into

space. Her story went largely unknown, until the 2016 film “Hidden Figures” starring Janelle Monae as Jackson. A trailblazer, she overcame racial and

gender barriers within NASA, paving the way for future generations.

But she didn’t live to see this honor. She died in 2005, age 83.

That’s it for now. Remember, you can follow me and the show on Twitter. Thanks for watching “Amanpour and Company” on PBS and join us again tomorrow night.

END