Read Full Transcript EXPAND
> HELLO EVERYONE AND WELCOME TO 'AMANPOUR AND COMPANY.'
HERE'S WHAT'S COMING UP.
> CHARACTER ATTACKS ON THESE DISTINGUISHED AND HONORABLE -PU REPREHENSIBLE.
WHITE HOUSE UKRAINE EXPERT LIEUTENANT COLONEL VINDMAN AND PENCE AIDE JENNIFER WILLIAMS QUIZZED BY CONGRESS.
I SPEAK WITH PRESIDENT TRUMP'S CONFIDANT CHRIS RUDDY AND 'NEW YORKER' COLUMNIST SUSAN GLASSER ABOUT THE STRATEGY.
> UKRAINE'S LEADING ANTI-CORRUPTION ACTIVIST DARIA KELANYU HOW THIS ISSUE IS BEING POLITICIZED.
> THE KINGMAKER.
A NEW FILM EXPLORES THE LIFE OF FORMER FILIPINO FIRST LADY IMELDA MARCOS.
THE GLAMOROUS FACE OF A BRUTAL DICTATORSHIP.
> WELCOME TO THE PROGRAM, I'M CHRISTIANE AMANPOUR IN LONDON.
FOR THE FIRST TIME IN THIS IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY ON ALLEGED QUID PRO QUO BY PRESIDENT TRUMP TO PRESIDENT ZELL LIEN SKI, THE UKRAINIAN LEADER HAS SPOKEN OUT.
I THINK EVERYBODY IN UKRAINE IS SO TIRED ABOUT BURISMA.
WE HAVE OUR COUNTRY, WE HAVE OUR INDEPENDENCE, WE HAVE OUR PROBLEMS AND QUESTIONS.
BURISMA IS THE ENERGY COMPANY THAT HIRED HUNTER BIDEN.
IN WASHINGTON THE PUBLIC HEARINGS ENTER A CRITICAL STAGE.
NINE KEY WITNESSES FROM THE ADMINISTRATION ARE DEFYING WHITE HOUSE ORDERS TO TAKE THE STAND THIS WEEK.
WHITE HOUSE UKRAINE EXPERT LIEUTENANT COLONEL VINDMAN AND VICE PRESIDENT MIKE PENCE'S NATIONAL SECURITY AIDE JENNIFER WILLIAMS KICKED OFF THE LINEUP TODAY.
BOTH WERE ON THE NOW INFAMOUS JULY 25 CALL BETWEEN PRESIDENTS TRUMP AND ZELENSKY.
I FOUND THE JULY 25th PHONE CALL UNUSUAL BECAUSE IN CONTRAST TO OTHER PRESIDENTIAL CALLS I HAD OBSERVED, IT INVOLVED DISCUSSION OF WHAT APPEARED TO BE A DOMESTIC POLITICAL MATTER.
I WAS CONCERNED BY THE CALL.
WHAT I HEARD WAS INAPPROPRIATE AND I REPORTED MY CONCERNS TO MR. EISENBERG.
IT IS IMPROPER FOR THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES TO DEMAND A FOREIGN GOVERNMENT INVESTIGATE A U.S. CITIZEN AND A POLITICAL OPPONENT.
NOTABLE FOR IGNORING SUBPOENAS TO COOPERATE ON THIS MATTER, SECRETARY OF STATE MIKE POMPEO, PRESIDENT TRUMP'S CHIEF OF STAFF MICK MULVANEY, AND HIS PERSONAL LAWYER, RUDY GIULIANI.
CHRIS RUDDY IS CEO OF NEWSMAX, AN INFLUENTIAL PRO-TRUMP NEWS WEBSITE, ALSO A CLOSE FRIEND OF THE PRESIDENT'S, AND CAN UNPACK WHAT THE WHITE HOUSE STRATEGY IS.
HE'S JOINING ME WITH SUSAN GLASSER, COLUMNIST FROM 'THE NEW YORKER' WHO IS CLOSELY FOLLOWING THIS STORY AS IT DEVELOPS.
WELCOME TO THE PROGRAM, BOTH OF YOU.
CHRIS RUDDY, YOU WERE NOT SO LONG AGO HERE IN THE STUDIO WITH ME BEFORE THIS MATTER WENT PUBLIC.
THEN YOU SAID TO ME, THIS IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY IS A MORTAL THREAT TO THE PRESIDENCY, TO PRESIDENT TRUMP'S TIME.
DO YOU STILL BELIEVE THAT NOW THAT THIS HAS GONE PUBLIC AND YOU'VE BEEN ABLE TO HEAR AND ASSESS AND JUDGE FOR YOURSELF?
I STILL BELIEVE IT'S A MORTAL THREAT TO HIS PRESIDENCY.
I DON'T BELIEVE, CHRISTIANE THAT ANYTHING THAT HAS SURFACED YET IS AN IMPEACHABLE CRIME OR THAT IT'S THE BASIS FOR THE REMOVAL OF THE PRESIDENT UNDER THE CONSTITUTIONAL RULES OF THE UNITED STATES.
SO I DO THINK THAT THINGS MAY COME UP.
WE'RE ALREADY LEARNING THINGS THAT WE DIDN'T KNOW A WEEK AGO.
AND SO THIS IS -- IT'S THE UNKNOWN UNKNOWNS, TO QUOTE DONALD RUMSFELD, THAT ARE THE MOST WORRISOME FACTOR HERE.
I THINK THAT THE PRESIDENT CLEARLY DIDN'T DO EVERYTHING HE SHOULD HAVE DONE IN THIS.
BUT I DON'T THINK ANYTHING HE DID WAS A CRIME.
IF YOU LISTEN TO COLONEL VINDMAN TODAY, HE'LL NEVER USE THE WORD CRIMINAL.
BECAUSE HE KNOWS IT'S NOT CRIMINAL.
INAPPROPRIATE'S FINE.
NOT PROPER IS FINE.
AND I AGREE WITH SOME OF THAT SENTIMENT.
SO -- BUT I THINK THE PRESIDENT, THERE ARE AREAS HERE THAT WERE QUESTIONABLE, AND I'M GLAD ACTUALLY THAT SOME OF THESE OFFICIALS ARE RAISING CONCERNS.
BEFORE I TURN TO SUSAN AND ASK HER, WHAT PARTICULAR ISSUES DO YOU THINK ARE QUESTIONABLE, IN YOUR WORDS, THAT THE PRESIDENT IS -- WHAT HAVE YOU LEARNED NEW?
WELL, ONE OF THE THINGS THAT WE HAVE NOT LEARNED, LET'S JUST START THERE, IS THAT HAS NEVER BEEN ANY EVIDENCE FROM ANY OF THESE FOLKS SO FAR IN ANY OF THE TESTIMONY THAT THE PRESIDENT DEMANDED A QUID PRO QUO.
IN FACT, WE KNOW FROM AMBASSADOR SONDLAND'S TESTIMONY, THE PRIVATE TESTIMONY HE GAVE, THAT SOME OF IT WAS LEAKED, INDICATED THAT HE ASKED THE PRESIDENT POINT BLANK, SHOULD THIS BE A QUID PRO QUO?
THE PRESIDENT DIDN'T RESPOND AND SAY YES.
SO TO ME THIS IS EXCULPATORY HERE, THAT THERE WAS NO DEMAND FOR THAT.
WE ALSO KNOW THAT THE DEMOCRATS HAVE INVENTED NOW THIS BRIBERY ISSUE.
THEY KNEW THE QUID PRO QUO WAS NOT REALLY AN ISSUE THEY COULD HANG THEIR HAT ON, SUDDENLY SIX WEEKS, EIGHT WEEKS INTO THIS THEY'VE SUDDENLY ANNOUNCED IT'S A BRIBERY ISSUE, WHICH IS PRETTY STUNNING AND SHOCKING.
LET ME TURN TO SUSAN GLASSER BECAUSE THEY OBVIOUSLY TRANSLATE QUID PRO QUO TO EQUAL BRIBERY.
WHAT DO YOU THINK, SUSAN GLASSER?
YOU'VE BEEN FOLLOWING THIS CLOSELY.
CHRIS RUDDY HAS GIVEN HIS FEW PLUS THE REPUBLICAN VIEW THAT THERE WAS NEITHER THAT NOR HIGH CRIME AND MISDEMEANOR.
WHERE DO YOU SEE THE KEY TESTIMONY THAT MIGHT INDICATE OTHERWISE AND BE THOUGHT OF FOR AN ARTICLE OF IMPEACHMENT?
CHRISTIANE, THANK YOU SO MUCH.
I THINK WHAT CHRIS IS SAYING I THINK IS REALLY THE ESSENCE OF WHERE REPUBLICANS, CERTAINLY IN A SENATE TRIAL, ARE LIKELY TO END UP, WHICH IS DEBATING OVER THE MEANING OF AN IMPEACHABLE OFFENSE.
IS THIS A HIGH CRIME AND MISDEMEANOR IN I THINK IT'S VERY LIKELY THERE ARE A SIGNIFICANT NUMBER OF REPUBLICAN SENATORS WHO WOULD COME AROUND TO THE IDEA PERHAPS THERE WAS SOMETHING INAPPROPRIATE HERE BUT IT MIGHT NOT RISE TO THE LEVEL OF IMPEACHMENT.
THAT'S THE GENERAL TURF ON WHEN YOU CAN IMAGINE THIS PLAYING OUT.
HOWEVER, INTERESTINGLY, IT'S NOT REALLY WHERE REPUBLICANS ON THE HOUSE INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE HAVE CHOSEN TO GO IN THESE HEARINGS WHICH HAVE BEEN A MUCH MORE CONTENTIOUS -- IT REFLECTS IN PART THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE HOUSE AND SENATE.
THE HOUSE RIGHT NOW IS A VERY, VERY PARTISAN ATMOSPHERE.
SO YOU'VE SEEN A LOT OF ATTACKS ON THE WITNESSES, ON THEIR CREDIBILITY, EVEN THE IMPLICATION BY THE REPUBLICAN COUNSEL THIS MORNING QUESTIONING WHAT APPEAR TO BE QUESTIONING WHETHER LIEUTENANT COLONEL VINDMAN IS A REAL AMERICAN, HE SPEAKS UKRAINIAN, HE'S A SOVIET IMMIGRANT.
QUITE A CONTRAST TO HIM SHOWING UP IN HIS UNIFORM.
AGAIN, NOT REALLY A DEFENSE OF THE PRESIDENT'S ACTIONS.
THAT'S WHAT'S BEEN INTERESTING TO ME LISTENING VERY CAREFULLY TO ALL THIS TESTIMONY FROM THE BEGINNING, READING NOT EVERY PAGE BUT MANY OF THE THOUSANDS OF PAGES THAT HAVE BEEN RELEASED.
YOU KNOW, NO ONE'S REALLY QUESTIONING THE BASIC FACTS OF THE STORY HERE.
IT WILL ULTIMATELY COME DOWN TO THE ANALYSIS.
SO LET ME QUICKLY ASK YOU, BECAUSE IT'S INTERESTING.
CHRIS, HOLD ON.
CHRIS, YOU SAID AND YOU MAINTAIN THAT THIS IS A MORTAL THREAT TO THE PRESIDENCY.
YOU, THOUGH, SUSAN, IN YOUR EARLIER ARTICLES, SAID YOU FELT THE PRESIDENT HAD ALREADY WON THIS ROUND.
IT'S GOING TO BE A -- IT'S A PUBLIC SITUATION, HE'S VERY GOOD AT THE PRESS, HE'S VERY GOOD AT CONTROLLING A SITUATION, SORT OF CORRALLING IT TO HIS ADVANTAGE.
DO YOU BELIEVE HE'S DONE THAT THIS TIME?
WHAT I WROTE SPECIFICALLY WAS THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP HAS DEFINED WINNING AT THIS POINT AS KEEPING IMPEACHMENT PARTISAN.
I THINK WE'VE CERTAINLY VERY CLEARLY SEEN THAT THIS IS A VERY PARTISAN SITUATION RIGHT NOW IN WASHINGTON WHERE YOU HAVE NO COMMON NARRATIVE EVEN ABOUT THE FACTS, BUT SIMPLY A REPUBLICAN LENS AND A DEMOCRATIC LENS.
THERE WAS A UNIFIED REPUBLICAN VOTE, NOT A SINGLE.
VOTING TO OPEN THE INQUIRY IN A FORMAL SENSE IN THE RULES.
AND SO THAT'S WHAT I THINK PRESIDENT TRUMP HAS RELIED UPON AS A VERSION OF WINNING.
NOW WE DON'T KNOW ULTIMATELY HOW HISTORY IS GOING TO LOOK AT THIS, WHAT THE FINAL VOTE WILL BE, IT'SER IN THE HOUSE OR THE SENATE, AND WHAT THE POLITICAL CONSEQUENCES IN 2020 -- THIS IS THE FIRST TIME THAT AN AMERICAN PRESIDENT IS APPARENTLY GOING TO BE IMPEACHED WHILE ALSO SEEKING RE-ELECTION.
BOTH NIXON AND CLINTON HAD ALREADY BEEN RE-ELECTED TO SECOND TERMS WHEN THEIR IMPEACHMENT PROCEEDINGS TOOK PLACE.
LET ME ASK YOU ABOUT THE OTHER THING THAT'S BEEN NOW A MOTIF LITERALLY FOR THE LAST SEVERAL DAYS.
THAT IS PRESIDENT TRUMP'S REALTIME, WHAT DO YOU WANT TO CALL THEM, ATTACKS ON SOME OF THE WITNESSES.
NOTABLY AT FIRST AMBASSADOR MARIE YOVANOVITCH.
TO THAT END THERE WAS A VERY POINTED LAST SUM-UP FROM LIEUTENANT COLONEL VINDMAN IN HIS OPENING STATEMENT TODAY AND HE'S REFERRING TO HIS FAMILY WHO EMIGRATED 40 YEARS AGO.
AND HE'S GIVING THIS VERY POINTED MESSAGE TO HIS FATHER IN PUBLIC.
LISTEN TO THIS AND WE'LL ASK YOU ABOUT IT.
I ALSO RECOGNIZE THAT MY SIMPLE ACT OF APPEARING HERE TODAY, JUST LIKE THE COURAGE OF MY COLLEAGUES WHO HAVE ALSO TRUTHFULLY TESTIFIED BEFORE THIS COMMITTEE, WOULD NOT BE TOLERATED IN MANY PLACES AROUND THE WORLD.
IN RUSSIA, MY ACT OF EXPRESSING CONCERN TO THE CHAIN OF COMMAND IN AN OFFICIAL AND PRIVATE CHANNEL WOULD HAVE SEVERE PERSONAL AND PROFESSIONAL REPERCUSSIONS, AND OFFERING PUBLIC TESTIMONY INVOLVING THE PRESIDENT WOULD SURELY COST ME MY LIFE.
I AM GRATEFUL TO MY FATHER -- FOR MY FATHER'S BRAVE ACT OF HOPE 40 YEARS AGO AND FOR THE PRIVILEGE OF BEING AN AMERICAN CITIZEN AND PUBLIC SERVANT WHERE I CAN LIVE FREE, FREE OF FEAR FOR MY AND MY FAMILY'S SAFETY.
DAD.
I'M SITTING HERE TODAY IN THE U.S. CAPITOL, TALKING TO OUR ELECTED PROFESSIONALS, TALKING TO OUR ELECTED PROFESSIONALS, IS PROOF THAT YOU MADE THE RIGHT DECISION 40 YEARS AGO TO LEAVE THE SOVIET UNION, COME HERE TO THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, IN SEARCH OF A BETTER LIFE FOR OUR FAMILY.
DO NOT WORRY, I WILL BE FINE FOR TELLING THE TRUTH.
GOLLY, EVERYBODY AT SAT UP AND TOOK NOTICE ON THAT, AND THAT'S GONE VERY VIRAL ALL OVER THE PLACE.
HE'S BASICALLY SAYING, DAD, WE MAY BE GETTING ATTACKED BUT WE ARE SAFE, THIS IS THE UNITED STATES, IT WOULDN'T BE THE SAME IN THE SOVIET UNION.
THE FACT THAT HE HAD TO SAY THAT ABOUT BEING AN AMERICAN, HOW DO YOU READ, CHRIS RUDDY?
DO YOU BELIEVE THE PRESIDENT WAS SMART IN REALTIME TWEETING AGAINST MARIE YOVANOVITCH WHEN SHE TESTIFIED ON FRIDAY?
IT DOESN'T SEEM TO BE A THING THAT ANY LAWYER WOULD ADVISE HIM TO DO.
AND I THINK, YOU KNOW, WE ALREADY KNOW WHO THIS PRESIDENT IS.
HE LIKES TO SPEAK HIS MIND.
HE'S VERY TRANSPARENT.
HE'S JUST LETTING LOOSE AND LETTING OFF STEAM AS TO WHAT HE'S SEEING.
OBVIOUSLY THERE'S LEGAL IMPLICATIONS FOR SOME OF THE THINGS HE'S SAYING.
BUT IT'S A STRATEGY THAT HE HAS HAD AND HE'S EMPLOYED AND USED SUCCESSFULLY.
I DON'T NECESSARILY AGREE WITH EVERYTHING HE DOES.
I DO THINK WHEN YOU LOOK AT THE WHOLE ISSUE HERE, ALL THESE DIPLOMATS, NSC STAFFMEMBERS LIKE VINDMAN AND OTHERS THAT WERE ON THE PHONE CALL AND VERY KNOWLEDGEABLE ABOUT THE ACTIVITIES INVOLVING UKRAINE, NOT ONE OF THEM FILED AN OFFICIAL COMPLAINT OR WHISTLE-BLOWER COMPLAINT.
THE WHISTLE-BLOWER COMPLAINT WAS FILED BY SOMEONE WHO WAS NOT A PARTY TO ANY OF THIS.
SO NO ONE ELSE THOUGHT THAT THIS WAS SERIOUS ENOUGH TO MAKE AN OFFICIAL COMPLAINT.
COLONEL VINDMAN DID SAY TO THE WHITE HOUSE COUNSEL HE THOUGHT THE ACTION WAS NOT PROPER AND IT NEEDED TO BE REVIEWED.
NEVER CLAIMED THE PRESIDENT ENGAGED IN ANYTHING ILLEGAL.
AND EVEN IN HIS TESTIMONY TODAY HE NEVER SAID IT WAS ILLEGAL OR THAT IT WAS AN IMPEACHABLE OFFENSE.
SO I THINK VINDMAN DID, AS THE NSC --
SO SORRY, CHRIS --
BRINGING TO THE ATTENTION OF THE COUNSEL'S OFFICE.
SO HE DID GO TO HIS LEGAL COUNSEL, AND IN FACT HE WAS HAULED UP FOR PRECISELY DOING THAT, SO HE CLEARLY MUST HAVE THOUGHT SOMETHING WAS WRONG BECAUSE HE WENT TO THE LEGAL COUNSEL.
SUSAN, GIVE US A REALITY CHECK ON THAT.
I WAS UNDER THE IMPRESSION ALL OF THESE PEOPLE WHO HAVE TESTIFIED WENT UP THROUGH THEIR OWN CHAINS OF COMMAND.
THAT'S RIGHT, I THINK THAT IT'S A DRAMATIC THING FOR A DIRECTOR ON THE NATIONAL SECURITY COUNCIL TO REPORT THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, AFTER A PHONE CALL WITH A FOREIGN LEADER, EVERY SINGLE PERSON WHO HAS TESTIFIED SO FAR, AND THAT IS TILL BARREL WITH DECADES OF EXPERIENCE, MARIE YOVANOVITCH WITH DECADES OF EXPERIENCE, GEORGE KENT, ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF STATE, JENNIFER WILLIAMS, ALEX VINDMAN -- EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THEM HAS TESTIFIED THEY HAD QUESTIONS OR CONCERNS ABOUT THE PRESIDENT AND HIS PHONE CALL.
AND THEY REPORTED IT THROUGH CHANNELS.
IT'S VERY INTERESTING TO ME.
I'VE NEVER HEARD OF SOMEONE AT THE NATIONAL SECURITY COUNCIL IN MY DECADES OF REPORTING IN WASHINGTON, GOING TO THE NATIONAL SECURITY COUNCIL LAWYER TO REPORT CONCERNS ABOUT THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES IN A PHONE CALL.
THIS IS REALLY UNPRECEDENTED, UNUSUAL STUFF.
SO I THINK THAT CHARACTERIZATION IS WHY WE'RE HAVING THIS INQUIRY IN THE FIRST PLACE.
I WANT TO ASK YOU, JUST STICKING WITH THIS SORT OF QUOTE-UNQUOTE INTIMIDATION OR TWEETING AGAINST THE WITNESSES BY THE PRESIDENT.
WE HAVE ESTABLISHED THAT HE DID IT IN REALTIME AGAINST MARIE YOVANOVITCH.
HE DID IT JUST BEFORE JENNIFER -- SORRY, JENNIFER WILLIAMS TESTIFIED.
HE DID IT ON SUNDAY.
TELL JENNIFER WILLIAMS, WHOEVER THAT IS, TO READ BOTH TRANSCRIPTS OF THE PRESIDENTIAL CALLS AND SEE THE JUST RELEASED STATEMENT FROM UKRAINE, THEN SHE SHOULD MEET WITH THE OTHER NEVER TRUMPERS WHO I DON'T KNOW AND MOSTLY NEVER HEARD OF AND WORK OUT A BETTER PRESIDENTIAL ATTACK.
HE'S CALLED NANCY PELOSI JUST INCOMPETENT, CONDUCTING A WITCH HUNT.
I NOTICED ALL OF A SUDDEN AS I'VE BEEN READING ALL OF THIS THAT HE'S DONE THIS AGAINST THREE WOMEN.
HE WAS VERY, VERY RESTRAINED WHEN IT CAME TO DESCRIBING VINDMAN.
HE SAID, I DON'T KNOW THE GUY.
THEN HE WAS ALMOST PLEASANT ABOUT AMBASSADOR BILL TAYLOR AND DEPUTY SECRETARY GEORGE KENT, EVEN COMPLIMENTING KENT ON HIS BOWTIE.
BUT ON THE WOMEN HE'S GONE AFTER THEM.
SO I WANT YOU TO THINK ABOUT THAT.
OKAY, SAY WHAT YOU WANT, BECAUSE I WANT TO PLAY SOMETHING THAT A REPUBLICAN STRATEGIST TOLD ME ABOUT THIS LAST WEEK IN A DIFFERENT CONTEST.
I DON'T THINK THERE WAS ANY EXIT POLLING IN KENTUCKY, BUT MY SUSPICION IS THERE WAS A HUGE GENDER GAP HERE WHERE MEN WENT MORE WITH BEVIN, WOMEN WENT AGAINST HIM.
I BET YOU THAT WAS TRUE IN KENTUCKY AND THAT'S GOING TO BE TRUE IN THE PRESIDENTIAL NEXT YEAR.
MEN STICKING WITH TRUMP, WOMEN BREAKING AWAY FROM HIM.
CHRIS RUDDY, YOUR VIEWS ON THAT?
WELL, YOU KNOW, I SORT OF SMIRKED WHEN YOU TALKED ABOUT THIS BECAUSE I THINK IF ANYTHING'S TRUE ABOUT DONALD TRUMP, HE'S AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY OFFENDER.
I MEAN, HE CRITICIZES EVERYONE.
I DON'T THINK ANYBODY THINKS THAT HE'S PARTICULARLY PICKING ON ONE PERSON BECAUSE OF THEIR GENDER.
THE ISSUE OF WOMEN VOTERS, THERE IS A POLLING ISSUE THAT SUGGESTS THE REPUBLICANS HAVE A BIG PROBLEM WITH WOMEN VOTERS OUT IN THE SUBURBS, ACROSS THE COUNTRY.
I THINK THAT'S TRUE.
THEY NEED TO DO MORE TO REACH OUT.
BUT I DON'T THINK THE PRESIDENT IS PICKING ON PEOPLE HERE, I THINK THERE'S ENOUGH TO BE SAID TO ADD THAT TO THE MIX.
SUSAN, WAS I REACHING FOR STRAWS THERE?
CHRISTIANE, I HAD THAT OBSERVATION AS WELL.
IT DID STRIKE ME THAT THE PRESIDENT DID SEEM TO MAKE A POINT OF CALLING OUT THESE TWO FEMALE WITNESSES BY NAME.
ALTHOUGH TO CHRIS' POINT, THE PRESIDENT, IT'S NOT JUST THAT HE'S AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY INSULTER, HE HAS BEEN SO EXTRAVAGANTLY OVER THE TOP IN THE STATEMENTS HE'S MADE ABOUT THOSE WHO HAVE TESTIFIED ABOUT HIM IN THE IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY.
HE HAS EARLIER IN THE IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY CALLED THOSE WHO WERE TESTIFYING AGAINST HIM NOT ONLY NEVER TRUMPERS, BUT HUMAN SCUM, WHICH IS THE LANGUAGE OF STALIN, IT IS THE LANGUAGE OF HITLER.
THIS IS SOMETHING WE HAVE NEVER HEARD A PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES USE.
NEVER MIND ABOUT AMERICANS WHO ARE SERVING IN HIS OWN ADMINISTRATION, WHO ARE SERVING IN UNIFORM, WHO HAVE SPENT DECADES SERVING THE PUBLIC INTEREST.
THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES CALLED THESE FOLKS HUMAN SCUM.
HE DIDN'T SINGLE THEM OUT BY GENDER WHEN HE DID SO.
THAT SEEMS TO BE A MORE RECENT TACTIC AS THE PUBLIC HEARINGS HAVE BEGUN.
AGAIN, IT'S NOT SOMETHING YOU WOULD PROBABLY WANT TO DEFEND IF YOU'RE CHRIS OR ANYONE WHO IS A FRIEND OR CONFIDANT OF THE PRESIDENT.
SO CAN I ASK YOU, CHRIS DID SOMETHING I RAISED IN THE INTRODUCTION.
AND THAT IS THAT ALL OF THESE WITNESSES ARE DEFYING THE WHITE HOUSE TO COME AND TESTIFY UNDER SUBPOENA.
BUT THERE ARE OTHERS WHO ARE DEFYING THE SUBPOENAS TO COOPERATE.
I LISTED SECRETARY OF STATE POMPEO, THE CHIEF OF STAFF MICK MULVANEY, AND ALSO RUDY GIULIANI'S REFUSING TO TESTIFY.
I WOULD LIKE TO ASK YOU WHETHER YOU THINK THAT THAT'S SOMETHING THAT THE PRESIDENT CAN CONTINUE DOING, AND THESE WITNESSES CAN CONTINUE, THE PEOPLE WHO CONGRESS WANTS TO HEAR FROM CAN CONTINUE STAYING AWAY.
AND JUST REMINDING THAT BACK IN -- EVEN IN 1973, PRESIDENT NIXON SAID, EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE WILL NOT BE INVOKED AS TO ANY TESTIMONY CONCERNING POSSIBLE CRIMINAL CONDUCT OR DISCUSSIONS OF POSSIBLE CRIMINAL CONDUCT IN THE MATTERS PRESENTLY UNDER INVESTIGATION, INCLUDING THE WATERGATE AFFAIR AND THE ALLEGED COVER-UP.
WHAT DO YOU MAKE OF THE PRESIDENT TRYING TO HOLD THESE PEOPLE BACK AND SOME OF THEM STAYING BACK?
I THINK THIS PREDATES THE IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY.
THE WHITE HOUSE, THE ADMINISTRATION, SINCE THE DEMOCRATS TOOK CONGRESS, CONTROL OF THE HOUSE, HAVE NOT BEEN COMPLYING WITH SUBPOENAS.
I PERSONALLY THINK THAT'S A MISTAKE.
I THINK THEY SHOULD COMPLY WITH MOST SUBPOENAS UNLESS THERE'S TRULY AN EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE ISSUE.
THERE MIGHT BE SOME CLASSIFIED EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE ISSUES HERE AND THEY COULD MAYBE SIT OUT SOME OF THOSE ISSUES.
I THINK THE PRESIDENT WHERE THEY GAVE CONGRESS AND THE ROBERT MUELLER FREE REIN, WAIVED PRIVILEGE, AND GOT A SCATHING REPORT FROM THE SPECIAL PROSECUTOR.
I THINK SOME OF THE LAWYERS IN THE NEW ADMINISTRATION OR THIS -- WITH THE ADMINISTRATION THIS YEAR SAID, MAYBE WE SHOULDN'T COMPLY.
THE PRESIDENT'S OBVIOUSLY BOUGHT INTO THAT ADVICE.
I THINK THAT IT IT'S NOT HELPFUL FOR THE PROCESS, AND EVENTUALLY I'M ASSUMING THE COURTS ARE GOING TO RULE THAT THEY HAVE A RIGHT TO -- CONGRESS DOES.
I WANT A STRONG CONGRESS, WHETHER THE REPUBLICANS OR DEMOCRATS CONTROL THAT CONGRESS.
I DO BELIEVE IN CONGRESSIONAL OVERSIGHT AUTHORITY.
I DO BELIEVE THIS SHOULD NEVER HAVE BEEN AN IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY, SHOULD HAVE BEEN HANDLED AS THE NORMAL OVERSIGHT AND INVESTIGATION OF CONGRESS, AND THEN THE END OF IT, COME TO CONCLUSION WHETHER IT WAS WORTHY OF IMPEACHMENT.
SO I WANT TO ASK BOTH OF YOU.
FIRST TO YOU, CHRIS.
YOU WERE VERY ACTIVE DURING THE CLINTON IMPEACHMENT.
AND IN YOUR POSITION IN THE MEDIA WAS VERY ACTIVE IN CALLING FOR THIS AND MAKING SURE THAT HE TESTIFIED, AND SURE ENOUGH, HE DID, BEHIND CLOSED DOORS WHICH WAS TAPED, THEN RELEASED PUBLICLY.
WE HAVE VIDEO OF THAT.
DO YOU THINK PRESIDENT TRUMP SHOULD TESTIFY?
HE HAS SAID IN MANY DIFFERENT SITUATIONS THAT HE WOULD.
BUT DO YOU THINK HE SHOULD?
JUST TO CORRECT THE RECORD, I DID COVER THE CLINTON WHITE HOUSE DURING THOSE YEARS.
I DON'T EVER RECALL THAT I SUPPORTED THE IMPEACHMENT OF THE PRESIDENT OR THAT I CALLED FOR HIM TO TESTIFY.
I DO THINK THAT THE PRESIDENT HANDLED THIS -- BILL CLINTON HANDLED THAT IMPEACHMENT VERY WELL.
I DID THINK THAT THE REPUBLICANS LOOKING BACK OVERREACHED DURING THAT PRESIDENT.
HE KEPT THE BUSINESS OF THE COUNTRY GOING AND HE DID TESTIFY.
I THINK THE PRESIDENT PROBABLY SHOULD TESTIFY IN THIS CASE, MAYBE IN WRITTEN ANSWERS, AND I SEE THAT HE'S INTERESTED IN DOING THAT.
I BELIEVE IN A TRANSPARENT GOVERNMENT, FULL DISCLOSURE GOVERNMENT, SO MAYBE SOME OF MY POSITIONS PART WITH THE ADMINISTRATION.
AND SUSAN GLASSER, INTERESTING TO HEAR WHAT CHRIS JUST SAID ABOUT THE DIFFERENT ERAS OF THESE IMPEACHMENTS.
DO YOU THINK FOR YOUR PART THAT THE DEMOCRATS ARE OVERREACHING NOW?
AND DO YOU THINK THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP SHOULD AND WILL TESTIFY?
HE'S MANY TIMES IN THE PAST SAID HE WOULD IN DIFFERENT INVESTIGATIONS, BUT HE HASN'T.
YEAH, I WOULD NOT HOLD MY BREATH AS FOR ANY PRESIDENTIAL TESTIMONY IN THIS PARTICULAR IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY.
IN FACT, DEMOCRATS ALREADY THREW COLD WATER ON THAT PRETTY QUICKLY IN SAYING, UNTIL THEY COOPERATE WITH OUR LAWFUL SUBPOENAS AND PRODUCE THE DOCUMENTS, THE INFORMATION, AND THE WITNESSES THAT WE'VE REQUESTED FROM THE ADMINISTRATION, THEY'RE PROBABLY NOT GOING TO BE INTERESTED IN ANY KIND OF STUNTS.
SO JUST AS A PRACTICAL MATTER, I DON'T THINK WE ARE GOING TO HEAR FROM PRESIDENT TRUMP.
I AGREE WITH CHRIS THAT ONE OF THE THINGS WE'RE SEEING IS HOW FAR WE'VE COME IN THE 21 YEARS SINCE THE CLINTON IMPEACHMENT IN THE SENSE THAT THE RIFT IN OUR CAPITAL HAS GROWN SO MUCH WIDER.
THE EXPECTATION WAS THAT THE CLINTON WHITE HOUSE AT LEAST NEEDED TO PARTICIPATE IN THE PROCESS.
ONE OF THE REASONS POLITICALLY THAT BILL CLINTON WAS SO INTENT UPON FOCUSING ON THE NATION'S BUSINESS AND NOT SEEN TO BE CONSUMED BY IMPEACHMENT WAS THAT THERE WAS A PERCEIVED POLITICAL INCENTIVE FOR HIM TO DO SO.
PRESIDENT TRUMP, WHETHER HE'S MAKING A CORRECT ASSESSMENT OR NOT, DOESN'T SEEM TO PERCEIVE ANY POLITICAL BENEFIT IN EVEN TRYING TO ADDRESS THE PART OF THE COUNTRY THAT'S CONCERNED.
THE POLLS ARE A BIT ALL OVER THE MAP BUT THERE'S A LOT OF PEOPLE, A MAJORITY OF THE COUNTRY BY MOST READINGS, THAT ARE VERY CONCERNED ABOUT THESE ACTIONS, THAT HAVE SAID THEY FAVOR PRESIDENT TRUMP'S REMOVAL FROM OFFICE.
AND SO PRESIDENT TRUMP DOESN'T SEEM TO BE ADDRESSING THAT LARGE PART OF THE COUNTRY WITH HIS RESPONSE TO THIS INQUIRY.
APPARENTLY NOT IN THE SWING STATES, THOUGH.
I THINK IT'S BEEN A POLITICAL ATTACK ON THE PRESIDENT.
IF YOU LOOK AT HIS APPROVAL NUMBERS, THEY ARE AS STRONG OR STRONGER THAN WHEN NANCY PELOSI ANNOUNCED THIS IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY.
SO I DON'T THINK THE PUBLIC'S BUYING IN.
I THINK IT COULD BACKFIRE, MUCH LIKE IT BACKFIRED ON THE REPUBLICANS DURING THE '90s WHERE THEY REALLY WENT INTO THIS WITH A FOREGONE CONCLUSION OF IMPEACHING THE PRESIDENT.
I THINK HE'S REACTING TO THAT SAYING, THIS IS A JOKE, I'M NOT GIVEN A FAIR TRIAL BY CONGRESS.
I THINK IF THEY CAME IN WITH AN APPROACH THAT THEY REALLY WANTED TO GET TO THE FACTS OF THE MATTER, AND I THINK HE'S SAID SEVERAL TIMES HE DID NOT CALL FOR A QUID PRO QUO, AND I THINK THIS IS AN IMPORTANT AREA THAT CONGRESS NEEDS TO LOOK AT.
THANK YOU BOTH VERY MUCH.
CHRIS RUDDY AND SUSAN GLASSER, THANK YOU SO MUCH.
> POSITIONED BETWEEN WESTERN EUROPE AND RUSSIA, UKRAINE HAS OFTEN FOUND ITSELF CAUGHT BETWEEN COMPETING INTERESTS AND EMPIRES.
AS WE KNOW, REPUBLICANS SAY PRESIDENT TRUMP'S DECISION TO ASK UKRAINIAN PRESIDENT ZELENSKY TO INVESTIGATE HIS POLITICAL RIVAL JOE BIDEN WAS DONE IN A BID TO ROOT OUT CORRUPTION.
YET FOREIGN POLICY OFFICIALS LIKE AS WE'VE BEEN TALKING, MARIE YOVANOVITCH AND BILL TAYLOR, HAVE TESTIFIED THAT THE ADMINISTRATION IN FACT WORKED AGAINST THEIR ANTI-CORRUPTION DRIVE THIS.
UNDERMINING AMERICA'S FOREIGN POLICY GOALS IN THE PROCESS.
DARIA KALENYK IS ONE OF UKRAINE'S INDEPENDENT CORRUPTION FIGHTERS AND SPENT YEARS TAKING ON OFFICIALS WHO SEEK TO ABUSE THEIR AUTHORITY.
SHE SAYS SHE WAS DEEPLY UPSET WHEN SHE SAW THE INTERRUPT OF THE TRUMP/ZELL YEN SKI CALL AND SHE JOINS ME NOW FROM KIEV.
WELCOME TO THE PROGRAM.
CAN YOU TELL ME FIRST, YOU HEARD WHAT THE PRESIDENT OF UKRAINE HAS SAID THAT WE'RE TIRED OF THIS, WE HAVE OUR INDEPENDENT COUNTRY, WE ABSOLUTELY NEED TO GET ON WITH THE IMPORTANT MATTERS.
HOW IS UKRAINE IN GENERAL VIEWING THIS NOW AFTER A WEEK OF PUBLIC TESTIMONY?
UKRAINE AS A WHOLE IS VERY MUCH OBSESSED WITH OUR OWN NATIONAL CHALLENGES.
AND THE FIRST ONE WE HAVE IS RUSSIA.
WE ARE THINKING HOW TO RESOLVE THAT DETRIMENTAL WAR.
AND OF COURSE THE FACT THAT UKRAINE WAS DRAGGED INTO THE NATIONAL FOOTBALL, POLITICAL FOOTBALL OF THE UNITED STATES, IS NOT HELPING US.
IT'S ACTUALLY POSITIONED UKRAINE AS ABSOLUTELY TOXIC, CORRUPT COUNTRY, THE MOST CORRUPT IN THE WORLD, WHICH IS NOT ACTUALLY THE FACT.
WHAT WE ARE DOING AFTER THE REVOLUTION WHICH HAPPENED IN UKRAINE IN 2013, WE MANAGED TO ACHIEVE A SIGNIFICANT PROGRESS.
WE MANAGED TO SET UP ANTI-CORRUPTION INSTITUTIONS WHICH STARTED TO PUNISH UNTOUCHABLE PEOPLES, SENIOR POLITICIANS, CORRUPT PROSECUTORS.
WHEN THESE CORRUPT PROSECUTORS UNDERSTOOD THAT THEY ACTUALLY ARE LOSING IMPUNITY, THEY FOUND A WAY TO REACH OUT TO LOBBYISTS, PR FIRMS, LAWYERS IN THE UNITED STATES, RUDY GIULIANI.
THEY COLLUDED WITH THIS CRAZY CONSPIRACY THEORIES WHICH THEY ARE SPREADING THAT UKRAINIANS INTERFERED WITH U.S. ELECTIONS, OR UKRAINIAN PROSECUTORS WERE WILLING TO INVESTIGATE THE COMPANY BURISMA, WHICH I HAVE EVIDENCE WAS NOT INVESTIGATED UNDER THAT CORRUPT PROSECUTOR, ACTUALLY QUITE TO THE CONTRARY, THAT THAT CORRUPT PROSECUTOR WAS PREVENTING THAT INVESTIGATION.
SO ALL THAT POLITICAL BATTLE IN THE UNITED STATES WHERE UKRAINE IS A BALL IS NOT HELPING US TO REFORM OUR JUDICIARY, TO BUILD OUR RULE OF LAW.
AND WHAT IS MOST IMPORTANT, TO FIGHT RUSSIAN AGGRESSION.
SO LOOK, YOU HAVE DESCRIBED UKRAINE AS BEING A POLITICAL FOOTBALL IN THE MIDDLE OF ALL OF THIS.
AND YOU TALK ALSO ABOUT THE RUSSIAN AGGRESSION, HOW IMPORTANT IT IS FOR YOU TO GET THE ASSISTANCE AND AID IN ALL FORMS AND FASHIONS FROM THE UNITED STATES.
LET ME JUST, BEFORE WE GO INTO THE NITTY-GRITTY OF YOUR ANTI-CORRUPTION DRIVE, I WANT TO PLAY WHAT LIEUTENANT COLONEL ALEXANDER VINDMAN SAID ABOUT UKRAINE'S NEEDS IN RELATION TO WHAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT.
UKRAINE IS IN A WAR WITH RUSSIA.
AND THE SECURITY ASSISTANCE THAT WE PROVIDE UKRAINE IS SIGNIFICANT.
ABSENT THAT SECURITY ASSISTANCE, AND MAYBE EVEN MORE IMPORTANTLY THE SIGNAL OF SUPPORT FOR UKRAINIAN SOVEREIGNTY AND TERRITORIAL INTEGRITY THAT WOULD LIKELY ENCOURAGE RUSSIA TO PURSUE, POTENTIALLY ESCALATE, PURSUE FURTHER AGGRESSION, FURTHER UNDERMINING UKRAINIAN SOVEREIGNTY, EUROPEAN SECURITY, AND U.S. SECURITY.
IN OTHER WORDS, UKRAINE IS HEAVILY DEPENDANT ON UNITED STATES SUPPORT, BOTH DIPLOMATICALLY, FINANCIALLY, AND ALSO MILITARILY?
CORRECT.
SO DAUGHTER YEAH EIGHT SOUP YOU'D AGREE WITH THAT, THAT UKRAINE IS DEPENDANT ON ALL OF THIS AID.
BUT HOW WOULD YOU SAY RUSSIA, YOUR NEIGHBOR, IS LOOKING AT ALL OF THIS AND BENEFITING FROM THIS?
I THINK YOU THINK THAT RUSSIA IS BENEFITING.
RUSSIA IS USING THIS MOMENT WHEN THE RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN UKRAINE AND THE U.S. ARE UNDER QUESTION AND IS TRYING TO USE THAT IN ORDER TO SELL TO UKRAINE A DETRIMENTAL SO-CALLED NEW DEAL.
WE HAVE A BRAND-NEW PARLIAMENT, WE HAVE A BRAND-NEW GOVERNMENT.
THEY ARE PRO-REFORM BUT THEY LACK POLITICAL EXPERIENCE, THEY LACK GEOPOLITICAL EXPERIENCE.
IT SEEMS RUSSIA IS TRYING TO RELY ON THE COOPERATION OF UKRAINE AND THE UNITED STATES IN ORDER TO CONVINCE OUR NEW PRESIDENT AND OUR NEW GOVERNMENT TO STOP SHOOTING, TO STAPP WAR, SIMPLY ACCEPTING RUSSIAN CONDITIONS.
AND THESE RUSSIAN CONDITIONS COULD BE VERY DETRIMENTAL.
LIKE PRETENDING RUSSIA IS NOT INVADING UKRAINE, PRETENDING THAT IT'S UKRAINIAN INTERNAL CONFLICT.
OR FORGETTING ABOUT THE OCCUPATION OF CRIMEA.
A HUGE PART OF UKRAINE IS FULLY OCCUPIED BY RUSSIA, AND RUSSIA IS SAYING IT'S NO MORE UKRAINE, IT'S JUST RUSSIA.
IT VIOLATES THE INTERNATIONAL ORDER.
SO I THINK THAT ALL THESE SCAN -- THIS SCANDAL IS NOW BEING USED BY RUSSIANS, THE KREMLIN, BY PUTIN, AS WINDOWS OF OPPORTUNITY FOR THEM TO PREVENT UKRAINE FROM DEVELOPING AND TO MAKE SURE THAT THIS WAR ENDS UP WHEN RUSSIA HAS THE VICTORY.
AND ONE MORE POINT I WOULD WANT TO ADD TO MR. VINDMAN IS THAT IT'S NOT LIKE WE SIMPLY ARE A SMALL COUNTRY WHO DESPERATELY ASKS FOR SUPPORT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR NOTHING.
I WOULD WANT TO REMIND THAT IN 1994, UKRAINE HAD PROBABLY THE LARGEST GLOBAL ARSENAL OF NUCLEAR WEAPONS AND WE VOLUNTARILY GAVE UP THIS NUCLEAR WEAPON IN THE RESPONSE, IN THE GUARA GUARANTEES AND GUARANTORS WERE UNITED STATES, UKRAINE, AND RUSSIA.
ONE GUARANTOR IS DRAGGING UKRAINE INTO ITS POLITICAL FOOTBALL AND PRESENTING UKRAINE ALONG THE MOST CORRUPT COUNTRY ON EARTH.
SO IT'S NOT FAIR.
SO LET ME ASK YOU.
I REALIZE THAT YOU HAVE YOUR CERTAIN FEELINGS, BUT YOU DO ADMIT THAT UKRAINE HAS A MAJOR CORRUPTION PROBLEM, BECAUSE THAT'S WHERE YOU COME IN.
SO JUST GIVE US AN IDEA OF WHAT YOU'VE BEEN DOING SINCE YOU STARTED YOUR NGO CALLED ANTAC, AN TIE CORRUPTION ACTION CENTER?
WE ARE PUSHING, ADVOCATING FOR THE REFORMS IN UKRAINE WHICH WILL ALLOW TO BUILD STRONG INDEPENDENT INSTITUTIONS WHICH ARE ABLE TO INVESTIGATE, PROSECUTE, AND PUNISH CORRUPTION, DISREGARDING WHO THE CORRUPT PERSON IS, DISREGARDING WHETHER THIS IS A MEMBER OF PARLIAMENT OR ASSISTANT OF THE PRESIDENT OR THE GOVERNMENT.
SO WE HAVE INHERITED, AFTER THE COLLAPSE OF THE SOVIET UNION, THE LEGACY OF THE LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES WHICH WERE A PART OF THE POLITICAL BATTLE, WHICH WERE ABUSED BY POLITICIANS.
AND THEN THEY BECAME ABUSED BY UKRAINIAN OLIGARCHS.
TO PUT IT IN SIMPLE ALLEGORY, PROSECUTORS OFFICE OF UKRAINE WAS FUNCTIONING AS A SUPERMARKET WHERE YOU CAN COME, BRING SOME MONEY, AND BUY OPENING THE CASE OR BUY CLOSING THE CASE AGAINST YOURSELF.
THIS IS SOMETHING THAT PREVENTS UKRAINE FROM REAL TRUE REFORMS.
THIS IS SOMETHING THAT PREVENTS RULE OF LAW.
WE WERE FOCUSING VERY MUCH WITH SUPPORT OF THE UNITED STATES, IMF, EU, IN BUILDING STRONG, NEW ANTI-CORRUPTION INSTITUTIONS, FREE FROM POLITICAL INTERFERENCE.
NATIONAL ANTI-CORRUPTION BUREAU OF UKRAINE, HIGH ANTI-CORRUPTION COURT, WHERE JUDGES WERE BANNED AND INTERVIEWED BY THE FOREIGN EXPERTS.
SO THIS IS THE UNIQUE INTERNATIONAL PRECEDENT.
NOW SINCE SEPTEMBER THIS YEAR, THE COURTS STARTED WORKING AND IT STARTED TO HEAR CASES AGAINST VERY CORRUPT OFFICIALS LINKED TO ORGANIZED CRIME.
BUT WHAT I AM SAYING IS THAT WHEN WE BROKE THAT CLAUSE, BREAKING THE VICIOUS CIRCLE, CORRUPT OFFICIALS AND POLITICIANS, THEY SIMPLY FIND A WAY, PARTNER WITH SOME PEOPLE IN THE UNITED STATES WHO FIND IT COMFORTABLE TO ASK THE NEW PRESIDENT OF UKRAINE TO DO THE INVESTIGATION, WHICH IS STILL A POLITICAL FAVOR, WHICH IS STILL POLITICAL INTERFERENCE.
WHEN THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES IS ASKING THE PRESIDENT OF UKRAINE TO DO THE CERTAIN INVESTIGATION AGAINST THE POLITICAL RIVAL, IT'S ACTUALLY POLITICAL PRESSURE AND INTERFERENCE INTO THE WORK OF THIS UKRAINIAN INSTITUTION WHICH WE WANT TO MAKE FREE FROM POLITICAL INTERFERENCE.
SO THE ALLEGATIONS OBVIOUSLY AND THE INVESTIGATION BY U.S.
AMBASSADOR, THE FORMER AMBASSADOR YOVANOVITCH, IS THAT TWO OF RUDY GIULIANI'S CRONIES WERE VERY MUCH INVOLVED IN TRYING TO MAKE A BUCK FOR THEMSELVES AND ALONG WITH GIULIANI ORCHESTRATING THE SMEAR CAMPAIGN AGAINST HER AND FOR THEIR OWN ENDS.
THIS IS WHAT YOU'LL JEANNY HAS SAID ABOUT YOU AND ANTAC AND ASSONG ASPERSIONS ON YOUR ORGANIZATION DISCUSSING YOUR ROLE IN EXPOSING CORRUPT PAYMENTS TO PAUL MANAFORT, WHO AS WE KNOW WAS DONALD TRUMP'S CAMPAIGN MANAGER IN 2016.
GEORGE SOROS HAD A NOT FOR PROFIT CALLED ANTAC, THE ONE THAT DEVELOPED ALL OF THE DIRTY INFORMATION THAT ENDED UP BEING A FALSE DOCUMENT THAT WAS CREATED IN ORDER TO INCRIMINATE MANAFORT.
SO DARIA, WHAT IS YOUR RESPONSE TO THAT?
LET ME GET YOU ON THE RECORD.
DO YOU AND YOUR ORGANIZATION PRODUCE A FALSE RECORD OF PAYMENTS FOR PAUL MANAFORT?
NO, IT'S ABSOLUTELY FAKE.
ALL RIGHT, NEXT QUESTION.
ABSOLUTE FAKE.
I HAVE CERTAIN INFORMATION ABOUT PAYMENTS TO MANAFORT.
YOU HAVE OBVIOUSLY BEEN LOOKING INTO MANY, MANY AREAS.
YOU MENTIONED THE FORMER PROSECUTOR GENERAL.
WE HEARD SO MUCH ABOUT BURISMA, THE FACT THAT HUNTER BIDEN, JOE BIDEN'S SON, WAS ON THE BOARD THERE.
HAVE YOU FOUND ANY CORRUPT LEADS OR ANYTHING ILLEGAL IN YOUR WORK OR HEARD ANYTHING ABOUT HUNTER BIDEN?
I THINK THE FACT THAT HUNTER BIDEN JOINED BURISMA IS A VERY BAD DECISION OF HUNTER BIDEN.
IT'S ETHICALLY VERY BAD.
I DON'T THINK THERE IS SOMETHING ILLEGAL HERE.
I THINK HUNTER BIDEN AS WELL AS ALEXANDER, FORMER PRESIDENT OF POLAND, WHO JOINED THE BOARD OF BURISMA, SIMPLY WERE USED TO WHITEWASH THE REPUTATION OF BURISMA.
AND THESE KIND OF THINGS ARE HAPPENING VERY FREQUENTLY WITH BUSINESSES OF PLUTOCRATS AND CORRUPT OLIGARCHS ACROSS THE WORLD, WHERE THEY ARE INVITING PEOPLE WITH CERTAIN REPUTATIONS, WITH NAMES, TO BOARDS FOR THE SOLE PURPOSE TO WHITEWASH THEIR REPUTATION AND PRETEND THE BUSINESS IS LEGITIMATE.
HOWEVER, WHEN WE WERE FOLLOWING THE INVESTIGATION OF BURISMA, SINCE APRIL 2014, WE DIDN'T SEE ANY RECORD OF UKRAINIAN PROSECUTORS INVESTIGATING THE ROLE OF HUNTER BIDEN.
HUNTER BIDEN JOINED THE BOARD OF BURISMA IN MAY 2014.
THE INVESTIGATION OF ILLEGAL ACTIVITIES OF BURISMA WERE FOCUSING ON THE PERIOD EARLIER, BEFORE HUNTER BIDEN JOINED BURISMA.
SO I WAS QUITE SURPRISED WHEN THE UKRAINIAN PROSECUTOR GENERAL WENT ON INTERVIEW AND TOLD HE'S INVESTIGATING OR HE'S INTERESTED TO INVESTIGATE HUNTER BIDEN.
SO THIS WAS NOT ON THE RADAR OF UKRAINIAN PROSECUTORS.
MOR MOREOVER, THE PROSECUTOR SO KEEN IN REOPENING THE CASE AGAINST BURISMA, WAS EXACTLY THE PROSECUTOR WHO CLOSED THIS CASE BACK AT THE END OF 2016.
WE WERE CRITICIZING HIM HEAVILY FOR THAT.
THAT CASE ALREADY HAD SOME PRELIMINARY RESULTS BECAUSE HE WAS ALREADY SUSPECT FOR MONEY LAUNDERING.
HOWEVER, HE CLOSED THE CASE, PRESENTED IT AS A BIG SUCCESS STORY TO THE UKRANIAN AUDIENCE.
THE CASE TRANSFORMED AGAINST THE TAX EVASION CASE OF AN ACCOUNTANT OF ONE OF THE SUBSIDIARIES OF BURISMA.
ORIGINALLY THEY PAID THE TAXPAYERS BACK, SO THINGS ARE DONE.
DAUGHTER YEAH THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR JOINING US.
> OUR NEXT STORY ABOUT THE PHILIPPINES OFFERS A CAUTIONARY TALE ABOUT THE CORROSIVE EFFECTS OF CORRUPTION.
IMELDA MARCOS, FIRST LADY OF THE PHILIPPINES, IS KNOWN FOR HER COLLECTION OF SHOES AND LAVISH LIFESTYLE, AND THE RUTHLESS DICTATORSHIP THAT SHE AND HER HUSBAND RULED FOR DECADES, GETTING MASSIVELY RICH IN THE PROCESS THEMSELVES.
'THE KINGMAKER,' A STUNNING DOCUMENTARY ABOUT THE LARGER THAN LIFE IMELDA MARCOS.
THEY SAT DOWN WITH ALISON STEWART TO DISCUSS THE POWER OF PERCEPTION OVER TRUTH.
WELCOME.
THANK YOU.
LAUREN, WHY DID YOU CALL THE FILM 'THE KINGMAKER'?
I CALLED IT 'THE KINGMAKER' BECAUSE I SAW IMELDA AS A KINGMAKER.
A KINGMAKER IS SOMEBODY WHO HAS A CRITICAL IMPACT ON POLITICAL SUCCESSION WITHOUT BEING A VIABLE CANDIDATE THEMSELVES.
AND THAT TO ME WAS IMELDA.
SHE WAS CRUCIAL IN COMING TO THE PRESIDENCY OF HER HUSBAND, PRESIDENT FERDINAND MARCOS, AND THEN SHE WAS THE PERSON HELPING HER SON, THE PRINCE, HOPEFULLY GET BACK TO THE PALACE.
AND THEN SHE PLAYED A KEY ROLE IN THIS ALLIANCE WITH DUTERTE, BRINGING IN A NEW STRONG MAN.
SHARE WITH OUR AUDIENCE WHAT LIFE WAS LIKE UNDER THE MARCOS REGIME.
IN 1986 I WAS ONE OF THOSE THAT MARCHED IN THE REVOLUTION WHEN THEY WERE DEPOSED AND WENT TO HAWAII.
SINCE THEN OF COURSE THERE HAS BEEN DEBATE WHAT THEIR LEGACY WAS GOING TO BE.
INITIALLY IT WAS CLEAR THERE WAS A LOT OF MONEY THAT WAS TAKEN OUT OF THE PUBLIC TREASURY AND USED TO PURCHASE ALL SORTS OF ASSETS ALL OVER THE WORLD.
WHAT ARE ASSETS?
AGAIN, WHEN I WAS THE CHAIRMAN OF THE PRESIDENTIAL COMMISSION ON GOOD GOVERNMENT IN 2010, AND THIS IS ALREADY 25 YEARS AFTER THE FACT, WE WERE ABLE TO ASSEMBLE A LIST OF THESE ASSETS.
THERE HAS BEEN A FOCUS ON THE SHOES.
BUT WHEN YOU THINK ABOUT IT, YOU KNOW, THOSE SHOES ARE REALLY A DISTRACTION.
BECAUSE THEY SORT OF GIVE YOU THE IMPRESSION THAT IT WAS JUST FRIVOLOUS SHOPPING.
NO, THIS WAS SHOPPING AT ITS BEST, IN FOUR OF THE BEST BUILDINGS IN MANHATTAN ONCE OWNED BY THE MARCOSS.
THE BEST PAINTINGS IN THE WORLD.
JEWELRY THAT COULD RIVAL MONARCHY.
A LOT OF CASH AND SECURITIES.
I THINK THIS IS WHAT PEOPLE SHOULD FOCUS ON.
IN 1986, THE ESTIMATE WAS ABOUT $10 BILLION.
AND THAT WAS CONSERVATIVE.
AND REMEMBER, 1986, THAT WAS 40 YEARS AGO.
THE PCGG WAS ONLY ABLE TO RECOVER $4 BILLION IN TOTAL.
LET'S TAKE A LOOK AT A CLIP WHERE IMELDA MARCOS IS LAMENTING A LOSS OF SOME OF HER WEALTH.
OH, THEY SEQUESTERED EVERYTHING.
ALL THE JEWELRY THAT THEY WOULD FIND.
ALL THE VALUABLES THAT THEY WOULD ENCOUNTER.
ALL THE BEAUTIFUL THINGS.
THE PCGG WOULD CONFISCATE ANYTHING THEY WANTED TO KEEP, THAT THEY FELT WAS STOLEN.
EVEN THIS HOUSE ONLY A FEW MONTHS AGO WAS BEING AUCTIONED OFF.
WE CANNOT STAY REALLY HERE BECAUSE WE DO NOT KNOW WHEN WE WILL BE KICKED OUT.
WHAT DO YOU THINK WHEN YOU SEE THAT CLIP?
THE PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT, THE UNANIMOUS DECISION IN 1994 SAID THAT THE LEGITIMATE INCOME OF THE MARCUS COUPLE 1965 IS SOMEWHERE IN THE VICINITY OF $320,000.
THAT'S IT.
AND YET IF YOU LOOK AT THE ASSETS THAT THE PCGG WAS ABLE TO UNCOVER, THEY WERE IN THE BILLIONS OF DOLLARS.
SO -- ALL I CAN DO IS SIGH WHEN I SEE THOSE KINDS OF CLIPS.
RIGHT AFTER THAT MOMENT IMELDA IS COMPLAINING, I HAD MY MONEY IN 170 BANKS AND I CAN'T GET TO IT.
SO SHE'S SO UPSET AT THE PCGG.
WHEN ANDY --
WHEN I FIRST SAW THE FILM IN TELLURIDE AND I HEARD HER SAY THAT, I SAID I WISH I HAD KNOWN THAT WHEN I WAS IN OFFICE, THIS IS A REVELATION.
170 BANK ACCOUNTS ALL OVER THE WORLD.
HE SAID HE COULD HAVE USED THAT AS EVIDENCE.
MONEY IS CLEARLY SO IMPORTANT TO HER.
IN THE FILM SHE DOLES OUT DOLLAR BILLS TO CHILDREN LIKE CANDY.
SHE GIVES THEM TO CHILDREN WHO ARE HOSPITALIZED.
SHE HAS WADS OF CASH.
WHAT DOES MONEY AND WEALTH MEAN TO HER?
SHE SAYS SOMETHING INTERESTING, SHE WOULD SPEND AN HOUR GETTING READY WHEN SHE WENT TO POORER SLUMS BECAUSE THE POOR ARE A STAR IN THE DARK OF THE NIGHT.
I THINK THAT'S WHAT SHE WANTS IS TO BE THAT STAR.
WHETHER IT'S HANDING OUT MONEY OR WEARING BEAUTIFUL DRESSES AND HAVING SHOES AND PALACES, IT'S ABOUT BEING THAT QUEENLY FIGURE THAT GIVES HER THE KIND OF LOVE AND ADRACE OF THE PEOPLE.
I THINK THAT'S WHY SHE WANTS TO GET BACK.
DOES SHE BELIEVE THE THINGS SHE SAYS OR IS SHE A LIAR?
I THINK THAT SHE HASKINSED HERSELF OF THESE -- THIS VERSION OF HISTORY THAT SHE SAYS.
SHE SPEAKS WITH GREAT CONVICTION.
AND IS A LITTLE BIT DISCONNECTED, LIKE SHE'S IN HER OWN WORLD.
WHAT'S AN EXAMPLE?
I GUESS ONE OF THE EGREGIOUS EXAMPLES WAS WHAT SHE SAID, MARTIAL LAW WAS A GREAT TIME IN THE PHILIPPINES, IT WAS A GREAT TIME FOR FILIPINO SOVEREIGNTY AND HUMAN RIGHTS.
AND IT WAS A TIME THAT WAS TERRIBLE FOR HUMAN RIGHTS.
70,000 IMPRISONED, 30,000 TORTURED, MORE THAN 3,000 KILLED.
THE FACT THAT SHE COULD SAY IT WAS ONE OF THE GREATEST TIMES OF THE MARCOS REGIME, A GOOD TIME FOR HUMAN RIGHTS, IS -- HAS NO RELATION IN REALITY.
I THINK THAT THERE YOU HAVE TO SEE THAT SHE DOES HAVE AGENCY AND STRATEGY ABOUT WHAT SHE'S SAYING.
BECAUSE BY SAYING IT'S THE BEST TIME, SHE'S REWRITING HISTORY, ERASING THE SINS OF THE PAST IN A WAY THAT POSITIONS HER AND HER FAMILY TO RETURN TO POWER.
HERE IS RUSSIA.
WE WERE BORN THERE.
HERE IS MRS. MAO.
THIS IS PRESIDENT NIXON PLAYING THE PIANO, AND I'M SINGING THERE.
HE WOULD COME AND CALL ON ME.
HE WAS SHE NICE AND VERY HUMAN.
BUT HE WAS MISUNDERSTOOD.
AND I WANT TO GET YOUR REACTION.
YOU'VE SEEN THE FILM.
SHE WAS TELLING THE TRUTH IN THE SENSE THAT SHE REALLY HAD ACCESS TO ALL OF THESE WORLD LEADERS.
AND I THINK THAT FAIRNESS TO HER, SHE WAS ABLE TO CHARM THEM.
AT THE SAME TIME, THIS WAS DESCRIBED IN THE FILM, HOW PRESIDENT MARCOS WOULD USE HER AS LIKE A DIPLOMATIC BUTTERFLY TO TRY AND BUTTER UP TO THESE LEADERS.
AND YES, SHE PROBABLY WAS SUCCESSFUL IN A CERTAIN WAY.
AT THE SAME TIME, SHE WAS ALSO CLAIMING THAT SHE WAS THE ONE THAT STARTED THE END OF THE COLD WAR AND THINGS LIKE THIS, WHICH TO MY MIND IS A BIT DELUSIONAL.
IT'S A VERY PERSONAL BRAND OF POLITICS WHERE IF SOMEBODY IS NICE TO HER, SHE LIKES THEM.
SO WE SEE HER BEFRIENDING DICTATORS AS KIND OF ROGUE'S GALLERIES.
SADDAM HUSSEIN, MOAMMAR GADHAFI.
PEOPLE THOUGHT THESE PEOPLE WERE MONSTERS BUT THEY'RE ACTUALLY GENEROUS AND KIND.
THAT'S ALSO THE PARADOX OF IMELDA'S CHARACTER.
IN PERSON SHE IS GENEROUS AND KIND, YET SHE'S BEEN RESPONSIBLE FOR TERRIBLE CONSEQUENCES OF THE MARCOS REGIME AND ALSO THE DUTERTE PRESIDENCY.
CAN YOU CONNECT IMELDA MARCOS TO THE 2016 ELECTION IN THE PHILIPPINES?
YOU MEAN THE ELECTION OF DUTERTE AS PRESIDENT?
YES.
THAT WAS A REVELATION THAT WAS WAS KIND OF A BREAKING NEWS PIECE AT THE END OF OUR STORY.
AT FIRST I KNEW THAT DUTERTE ADMIRED MARCOS, BUT IT WASN'T UNTIL HE REVEALED IN A PRESS CONFERENCE THAT THE DAUGHTER OF IMELDA HAD GIVEN HIM FINANCING FOR THE CAMPAIGN THAT WE REALLY REALIZED THE EXTENT OF THE ALLIANCE.
SHORTLY AFTER THAT, DUTERTE AFTER HE BECAME PRESIDENT ALLOWED A HERO'S BURIAL FOR PRESIDENT MARCOS, WHICH PEOPLE WHO HAD BEEN IN PEOPLE POWER AND OPPOSED THE MARCOSES AND KNEW OF THEIR CRIMES WERE HORRIFIED THAT HE COULD BE BURIED IN THE HEROES CEMETERY.
THE HEAD OF THE HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION SAYS IN THE BEGINNING OF THE FILM SAYS, WHAT?
YOU QUESTION A LOT OF WHAT YOU'VE DESCRIBED.
IT REMINDS MANY PEOPLE, IF YOU WATCH THIS FILM, OF WHAT'S GOING ON IN THIS COUNTRY RIGHT NOW.
DO YOU SEE PARALLELS?
THERE WERE A LOT OF STUNNING PARALLELS AND THAT DEFINITELY INFLUENCED ME IN THE MAKING AND EDITING OF THE FILM AND THINKING ABOUT THAT.
I MEAN, DUTERTE, LIKE TRUMP, WAS A SURPRISE.
HE WAS SOMEBODY THAT MADE PEOPLE FEEL LIKE HE'S ONE OF THE PEOPLE.
HE SWEARS A LOT, VULGAR IN HIS LANGUAGE, YET COMES FROM AN ELITE BACKGROUND.
IT WAS AN ELECTION THAT WAS INFLUENCED BY DISINFORMATION AND FAKE NEWS PROPAGATED BY SOCIAL MEDIA.
I THINK BECAUSE THERE WAS SO MUCH POVERTY THEY WERE ABLE TO BE INFLUENCED BOTH BY SOCIAL MEDIA AND BY MONEY THAT WAS OFFERED IN EXCHANGE FOR VOTING, AS CAN HAPPEN IN THE PHILIPPINES.
AND SO PEOPLE WANTED THE KIND OF CHANGE, PROMISES OF CHANGE, THAT A STRONG MAN IN THE FORM OF DUTERTE OFFERED.
I THINK IN -- I HOPE IT CAN BE A CAUTIONARY TALE FOR US.
IT'S MORE EXTREME, OF COURSE, THAN WE ARE LIVING HERE.
MORE THAN 30,000 PEOPLE HAVE BEEN KILLED IN EXTRAJUDICIAL KILLINGS.
BUT SOME OF THE ATTACKS ON THE PRESS, ON THE INDEPENDENCE OF THE JUDICIARY, DO MAKE US THINK OF THE THREATS TO OUR DEMOCRACY HERE.
WHAT DOES IMELDA UNDERSTAND ABOUT POLITICS AND THE MEDIA?
SHE ATTACKS THE MEDIA VERY MUCH LIKE PRESIDENT TRUMP, AND AT ONE POINT SHE SAID, THE MEDIA -- NO, SHE SAID, THE GUN CAN ONLY KILL YOU UNTIL THE GRAVE, BUT THE MEDIA CAN KILL YOU BEYOND THE GRAVE TO INFINITY.
AND IT'S ONE OF THESE KIND OF BRILLIANT STATEMENTS THAT SHE WILL COME OUT WITH WHERE YOU REALIZE SHE HAS SUCH A PROFOUND UNDERSTANDING OF THE DYNAMICS OF MODERN MEDIA WHEN SHE SAID, PERCEPTION IS REAL AND THE TRUTH IS NOT.
SHE'S ALSO SPEAKING TO THAT.
WE HAVE A CLIP OF BONG BONG MARCOS BEING ASKED A QUESTION IN A PRESS CONFERENCE.
THIS IS RIGHT AFTER THE BIG VICE PRESIDENTIAL DEBATE.
AND IN THE DEBATE, HIS OPPONENT PUSHED HIM ON THE ILL-GOTTEN WEALTH THAT HIS FAMILY HAD TAKEN FROM THE PHILIPPINES.
SO HE GOES OUT TO A PRESS CONFERENCE AND THEY ASK HIM ABOUT THE ILL GOTTEN WEALTH.
SENATOR MARCOS SPENT A LOT OF MONEY IN THIS CAMPAIGN.
PAYING OFF MAYORS, CONGRESSMEN, OTHERS.
HE'S BEEN GIVING OUT MONEY LEFT AND RIGHT.
YOU ASK YOURSELF, WHERE'S ALL THAT MONEY COMING FROM?
THIS GOES BACK TO A SCENE WHERE WE GO BACK TO IMELDA'S APARTMENT, WE SEE THE PICASSOS AND THE PRICELESS ARTWORK IN HER APARTMENT.
THEN ANDY TELLS A STORY ABOUT RAIDING THE APARTMENT, TRYING TO GET THESE PAINTINGS OF ILL-GOTTEN WEALTH.
THIS ONE IS OF COURSE A PICASSO.
MARCOS WOULD SAY, IMELDA, I KNOW HOW TO EARN MONEY PROPERLY.
BUT YOU KNOW HOW TO SPEND MONEY PROPERLY BECAUSE YOU BUY BEAUTY.
THIS IS MICHELANGELO.
WE FILED A MOTION WITH THE PHILIPPINE COURT AND ASKED FOR A WRIT OF ATTACHMENT ON THESE PAINTINGS BECAUSE THEY ARE THE SUBJECT OF LITIGATION.
THERE WAS A TEAM THAT WENT TO HER HOUSE.
AND THEY TOOK PHOTOGRAPHS OF THE WALLS.
YOU CAN SEE THAT THE PAINTINGS HAVE BEEN REPLACED.
ANOTHER INTERESTING PHOTO.
HERE YOU CAN SEE THE BUST OF PRESIDENT MARCOS.
AND THERE ARE TWO IMPORTANT PAINTINGS ON THE LEFT AND RIGHT SIDE.
BUT SUBSEQUENTLY WHEN THE RAIDING TEAM CAME IN, THERE IS THE BUST.
THE MEDALS ARE STILL THIS.
BUT INSTEAD OF PAINTINGS YOU HAVE THE PHOTOS OF MRS. MARCOS AND PRESIDENT MARCOS.
SO THEY WERE REMOVED.
THERE'S THE MICHELANGELO.
THE PHOTO OF PRESIDENT MARCOS INSTEAD.
WE GOT CONTACTED BY THE NEW YORK DISTRICT ATTORNEY'S OFFICE UNDER CYRUS VANCE JR. TO INVESTIGATE A SUSPICIOUS SALE OF A MONET WATER LILY PAINTING THAT WAS BEING SOLD BY THE SECRETARY OF MRS. MARCOS.
IN TRYING TO BUILD THE CASE, I WAS TASKED TO MEET WITH MRS.
MARCOS PERSONALLY TO ASK HER WHETHER OR NOT THAT PAINTING BELONGED TO HER.
SO TOGETHER WITH A COLLEAGUE WE WENT TO HER APARTMENT.
AND I ASKED HER, MRS. MARCOS, IS THIS MONET PAINTING YOURS?
WITHOUT BATTING AN EYELASH SHE TELLS ME, YOU KNOW WHAT, THERE WERE SO MANY OF THEM, I DON'T ANYMORE REMEMBER.
AFTER THAT SHE USHERS ME INTO THE ELEVATOR.
AS WE WERE GOING DOWN SHE SAID, IN CASE I SAY THIS PAINTING IS MINE, WILL THEY GIVE IT BACK TO ME?
THIS WAS THE SAME TIME THAT I SAW THE PICASSO AND THE MICHELANGELO.
IMMEDIATELY AFTER THAT WE WEREN'T TO THE COURT TO OBTAIN A SEARCH WARRANT IN ORDER TO GET THESE PAINTINGS.
BUT TAKING TIME IN THE PHILIPPINES TO ISSUE A WARRANT.
BY THE TIME THE AUTHORITIES WERE ABLE TO SHOW THE WARRANT THE PAINTINGS WERE GONE.
TYOU ARE IN LONGER LIVING IN THE FILE BEANS WHY?
I LEFT THE COUNTRY IN 2018.
SORRY, NO, 2017.
THIS HAPPENED BECAUSE THERE WAS A LOT OF PRESSURE.
IF I CAN JUST RELATE, I WAS HERE DURING THE NOVEMBER 2016 ELECTIONS.
I WAS AN OBSERVER IN WASHINGTON, D.C.
WHEN I CAME HOME TO MANILA, ALL OF A SUDDEN MY HOUSE WAS BEING GUARDED BY ARMED GUARDS.
AND I WAS BEING PREVENTED FROM RETURNING TO MY OWN HOUSE.
WHEN I GOT INSIDE THE HOUSE, I SAW THAT MY PERSONAL FILES HAD BEEN RANSACKED.
MY COMPUTERS HAD BEEN HACKED.
AND THAT THERE WAS THIS HUGE EXTORTION PLAY AGAINST ME AND MY FAMILY.
AND THAT WENT ON FOR SEVERAL MONTHS TO THE POINT THAT I FELT THAT FOR THE GOOD OF MY FAMILY, ESPECIALLY FOR MY CHILDREN, PERHAPS I SHOULD FIRST LEAVE THE COUNTRY IN ORDER TO GIVE THEM BREATHING SPACE.
THE NAME OF THE FILM IS 'THE KINGMAKER.'
LAUREN GREENFIELD, ANDY BAUTISTA, THANK YOU FOR BEING WITH US.
THAT IS IT FOR OUR PROGRAM TONIGHT.
FIND OUT WHAT'S COMING UP ON THE SHOW BY SIGNING UP FOR OUR DAILY PREVIEW.
VISIT PBS.ORG/AMANPOUR.
THANKS FOR WATCHING 'AMMANPOUR AND COMPANY' ON PBS AND JOIN US AGAIN TOMORROW NIGHT.