Read Full Transcript EXPAND
> HELLO EVERYONE AND WELCOME TO AMANPOUR & COMPANY.
HERE'S WHAT'S COMING UP.
THE ISRAELI PRIME MINISTER INDICTED.
BECAUSE OF THIS INVESTIGATION --
COULD THESE BE THE FINAL PUBLIC IMPEACHMENT HEARINGS IN THE CASE AGAINST PRESIDENT TRUMP AS DEMOCRATS VYING TO REPLACE HIM IN THE 2020 ELECTION PUT THEIR CASE TO AN ALL-FEMALE DEBATE PANEL.
RUSS FINE GOELD JOINS US.
BRITAINS PRINCE ANDREW WITHDRAWS FROM DUTY.
WE DISCUSS.
PLUS --
WATERGATE TOOK YEARS.
WHAT WAS IT LIKE IN THE NIXON IMPEACHMENT?
I'M CHRISTIANE AMANPOUR.
BIG NEWS IN ISRAEL TODAY, BENJAMIN NETANYAHU IS PLACING CHARGES OF BRIBERY AND BREECH OF TRUST.
NETANYAHU IS BEING ACCUSED OF THREE DIFFERENT CORRUPTION CASES.
HE DENIES ANY WRONG DOING.
THIS AS ISRAEL IS IN THE MIDST OF POLITICAL TURMOIL.
TWO ROUNDS OF ELECTIONS IN SIX MONTHS AND STILL NO GOVERNMENT IN PLACE.
WITH ME FROM TEL AVIV IS ISRAEL'S PREMIER INVEST GA TIF REPORTER.
ROLAND, WELCOME TO THE PROGRAM.
CAN YOU TELL US WHAT'S HAPPENED?
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL HAS GONE ON TELEVISION TO PUBLICLY ANNOUNCE WHAT WILL HAPPEN.
DOES THAT MEAN THE INDICTMENTS HAVEN'T FORMALLY BEEN HANDED DOWN YET?
THEY WILL BE HANDED OVER TOMORROW, DAY AFTER TOMORROW, BUT IT'S IMMINENT.
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL HAS ALREADY INFORMED THE PUBLIC BACK IN FEBRUARY THAT HE'S GOING TO DO THAT.
BUT HE HAS WAITED UNTIL THE ATTORNEYS FOR THE PRIME MINISTER LAID IN FRONT OF THEM THEIR CLAIMS WHY HE WAS WRONG.
AND NOW WE KNOW HE DID NOT ACCEPT ANY OF THEIR CLAIMS.
AND WHAT HE'S GOING TO SUBMIT TO THE DISTRICT COURT PROBABLY IN JERUSALEM TOMORROW IS IDENTICAL TO WHAT WE SAW IN THE BEGINNING.
HE BELIEVES THAT THEY WERE WRONG.
HE'S RIGHT.
AND NETANYAHU IS GOING TO BE CHARGED IN THREE VERY SEVERE CASES IN A MULTI-BRIBERY AND BREACH OF TRUST AND FRAUD IN THESE THREE CASES.
AND THIS IS GOING TO BE HAPPENING TOMORROW AND OF COURSE ACCELERATING THE CONSTITUTIONAL AND POLITICAL CRISIS IN WHICH ISRAEL STANDS TODAY.
EVERYONE WANTS TO KNOW FIRST AND FOREMOST WHAT DOES ISRAEL'S SYSTEM SAY ABOUT WHETHER A PRIME MINISTER -- OF COURSE THIS UNPRECEDENTED SITUATION -- WHO FACES SUCH CRIMINAL CHARGES CAN CONTINUE AS PRIME MINISTER OR EVEN LEADER OF THE PARTY GIVEN, AS YOU MENTIONED A CONSTITUTIONAL CRISIS WITH NO GOVERNMENT IN PLACE AND HE WANTS TO CONTEST ANOTHER ELECTION.
WHAT IS GOING TO HAPPEN?
THE FIRST, THIS IS A VERY SAD DAY FOR ISRAEL, FIRST ACTING PRIME MINISTER CHARGED IN ANYTHING, AND ESPECIALLY THESE SEVERE ACTS.
AND ALSO A VERY PERSONAL TRAGEDY FOR NETANYAHU BECAUSE THE PEOPLE WHO TURNED STATE WITNESS AGAINST HIM ARE ALL PEOPLE HE APPOINTED AND THE POLICE COMMISSIONER WHO RAN THE INVESTIGATION AND THE ATTORNEY GENERAL, ALL HIS OWN PEOPLE WHICH HE APPOINTED AND FOUGHT TO BE TAKING THIS JOB.
TO YOUR QUESTION, THE LEGAL SITUATION IS NOT CLEAR BECAUSE IT NEVER HAPPENED IN THE PAST.
AND IT'S GOING TO BE UP TO THE ATTORNEY GENERAL, MAYBE THE PRESIDENT, TO DECIDE IF THEY ARE ABLE OR THEY WILL ENABLE MR. NETANYAHU TO RUN AGAIN.
WE WILL PROBABLY HAVE THIRD ELECTION COMING SOON.
AND THE POLITICAL SYSTEM MAY BE SOMEONE FROM THE PARTY OF MR. NETANYAHU WILL SAY THAT'S ENOUGH.
I'LL CHALLENGE MR. NETANYAHU.
I'LL CALL YOU TO GO HOME AND FIGHT YOUR LEGAL WARS.
YOU CANNOT RUN THIS GOVERNMENT, YOU CANNOT RUN THIS STATE ANYMORE.
AND I WILL TAKE IT FROM NOW.
IF THAT HAPPENS IN WHERE WE ARE NOW WHERE ELECTIONS ARE NOT YET CALLED, THEN WHEN IT'S NOT NETANYAHU COULD SERIOUSLY NEGOTIATE THE UNITY GOVERNMENT WITH THE MAIN POSITION BLUE AND WHITE.
SO, LET'S DRILL DOWN ON THAT ONE.
ONE OF THE MAIN LEADERS IN THE BLUE AND WHITE PARTY HAS SAID THESE IMPENDING INDICTMENTS, THESE CHARGES, MEANS THAT NETANYAHU CANNOT, MUST NOT, SHOULD NOT REMAIN IN POWER AND CERTAINLY SHOULD NOT LEAD HIS PARTY TO ANOTHER ELECTION.
WE JUST TALKED ABOUT THE POSSIBILITIES OF HOW HE MIGHT BE SHUNNED TO THE SIDE OR NOT.
BUT DO YOU THINK -- I THINK YOU SAID YOU DOUBTED WHETHER LIKUD WOULD PUSH ASIDE THE LEADER UNDER CHARGE AND THEN FORM A COALITION OR UNITY GOVERNMENT WITH BLUE AND WHITE.
DO YOU THINK THAT'S A POSSIBILITY?
THE LEGAL SITUATION IS NOT CLEAR.
MY ASSESSMENT IS THAT NETANYAHU FINISHED HIS TIME AS THE LEADER OF ISRAEL AND IT WILL TAKE NOT WEEKS BUT MAYBE FEW MONTHS, NOT MORE, WHEN HE WILL BE FORCED TO STEP DOWN.
IT'S JUST TOO MUCH NOW FOR HIM TO TAKE AND SOMEONE WILL TAKE HIM OUT SOON AND TAKE HIS PLACE VERY SOON.
SO, LET ME ASK YOU THEN BECAUSE THAT GOES TO THE HEART OF ISRAEL-U.S. RELATIONS.
AS YOU'VE SEEN AND AS WE'VE ALL BEEN REPORTING, THE TRUMP ADMINISTRATION HAS PROGRESSIVE ROLLED BACK DECADES OF U.S.
POLICY ON THE TWO STATE SOLUTION, ON THE INTERNATIONAL LAW REGARDING THE ILLEGALITY OF SETTLEMENTS, ON THE OCCUPIED WEST BANK.
YOU JUST HEARD SECRETARY POMPEO SAYING WE DON'T THINK ISRAELI SETTLEMENTS ON THE WEST BANK NECESSARILY VIOLATE NATIONAL LAW.
SO, THEY'RE DISRUPTING, AS I SAID, DECADES OF INTERNATIONAL POLICY ON HOW TO HAVE PIECE IN YOUR REGION.
IF BENJAMIN NETANYAHU IS NO LONGER ON THE STAGE, HOW WOULD THAT AFFECT THE PEACE PROCESS AND U.S.-ISRAEL RELATIONS?
WELL, IT'S CLEAR THAT APPARENTLY WHAT THE AMERICAN ADMINISTRATION IS TRYING TO DO IS SUPPORT MR. NETANYAHU.
AND IN PREVIOUS ELECTIONS HE ACCEPTED ISRAELI RIGHTS IN THE GO LAN HEIGHTS.
I THINK THAT IT DEPENDS ON WHO WOULD BE THE NEXT PRIME MINISTER.
IF IT IS SOMEONE FROM THE THE LIKUD, STILL HIS BASE, WOULD BE THE RIGHT WING AND ULTRA RIGHT WING SO HE WOULD CONTINUE WITH THE SAME POLICY.
IF IT'S THEN IT'S DIFFERENT.
NETANYAHU ALIGNED HIMSELF WITH PRESIDENT TRUMP.
THE NEXT PRESIDENT, MAYBE NOT SO.
THEN WE'RE TALKING ABOUT A TOTALLY DIFFERENT GAME.
WHAT THE U.S. ADMINISTRATION HAS DONE IS NOT JUST DETROY U.S.
POLICY, U.S. FOREIGN POLICY OF DECADES, BUT THEY ALSO NOW ARE NOT CONSIDERED TO BE AN HONEST BROKER IN THE MIDDLE EAST.
THE PALESTINIANS WOULD NOT TAKE THEM TO MEDIATE WITH ISRAEL.
NO ONE SEES THEM AS HONEST OR A SUPER POWER IN THE MIDDLE EAST.
SO, I THINK THE PRIME MINISTER WILL NEED TO HAVE SOME SORT OF THINKING OUT OF THE BOX, WHO COULD BE THE ONE REPLACING THE UNITED STATES AT LEAST UNDER THE CURRENT ADMINISTRATION, REPLACING THE UNITED STATES IN MEDIATING THE NEXT PEACE PROCESS WITH THE PALESTINIAN PEOPLE AND BRINGING PEACE TO THIS REGION.
SO MUCH TO KEEP AN EYE ON.
ISRAEL'S TOP INVESTIGATIVE REPORTER.
> TODAY, TWO KEY WITNESSES TESTIFIED IN THE ONGOING IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY AND THE HOUSE SPEAKER NOTARY PANCY PELO SAYING THE EVIDENCE IS CLEAR PRESIDENT TRUMP USED HIS OFFICE FOR POLITICAL GAIN.
THIS MORNING WE HEARD FROM DR.
FIONA HILL AND CAREER FOREIGN SERVICE OFFICER DAVID HOLMES WHO SAID HE OVER HEARD A CRITICAL PHONE CALL BETWEEN AMBASSADOR SONDLAND AND PRESIDENT TRUMP.
I HEARD AMBASSADOR SONDLAND GREET THE PRESIDENT.
AMBASSADOR SONDLAND REPLIED YES HE WAS IN UKRAINE AND WENT ON TO STATE PRESIDENT ZELENSKI LOVES YOUR ASS.
HE ADDED PRESIDENT ZELENSKI WILL DO ANYTHING YOU ASK HIM TO DO.
THERE'S SOME QUESTIONS I'VE HEARD.
SOME OF YOU APPEAR TO BE THAT RUSSIA DID NOT CONDUCT CAMPAIGN INTERFERENCE AGAINST OUR COUNTRY AND SOMEHOW UKRAINE DID.
THIS IS BEING PROPAGATED BY THE RUSSIAN SECURITY SERVICES THEMSELVES.
THE IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY THREATENED TO OVERSHADOW THE OTHER POLITICAL NEWS, THE 2020 ELECTION AND THE LATEST DEBATES.
CANDIDATES FACED THE FIRST ALL-WOMEN PANEL OF MODERATORS.
LET'S TALK ABOUT THIS WITH RUSS FINEGOLD FROM WISCONSIN.
WELCOME TO THE PROGRAM.
THANK YOU.
THERE'S A HUGE AMOUNT OF NEWS TO BE TALKED ABOUT TODAY.
LET'S FIRST -- OH MY GOSH -- WITH THE NEWS OUT OF ISRAEL.
A KEY ALLY OF PRESIDENT TRUMP AND ALARMINGLY CLOSE SORT OF COMMONALITIES BETWEEN WHAT THEY'RE FACING IN ONE WAY OR THE OTHER.
WHAT IS YOUR TAKE JUST AS AN OVER ALL FROM TODAY'S IMPEACHMENT HEARINGS AND THE TESTIMONY THAT'S MOUNTING UP?
IT'S STRIKING TO HEAR THE NEWS OUT OF ISRAEL AND TO HEAR YOUR COVERAGE OF IT WHEN WE SEE THAT COUNTRY STANDING UP FOR THE RULE OF LAW.
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL AND OTHER PEOPLE WHO WERE PUT IN POWER BY PRIME MINISTER NETANYAHU STANDING UP FOR THE ISRAELI LEGAL SYSTEM, LIVING UP TO THEIR TRUST THAT THEY'VE BEEN GIVEN BY THE ISRAELI PEOPLE, AND MOVING THE PROCESS FORWARD.
SO THERE'S SOME ACCOUNTABILITY.
LOOK AT THE CONTRAST.
I DON'T KNOW IF OUR SYSTEM WORKS ANYMORE IN THIS WAY.
OUR PRESIDENT, APPARENTLY, CAN'T BE INDICTED WHILE IN OFFICE.
SO, WHAT'S THE REMEDY.
A SERIOUS IMPEACHMENT PROCESS WHICH IS UNDER WAY.
BUT INSTEAD AS DR. HILL SAID, THE REPUBLICANS ARE COMPLETELY DENYING WHAT IS OBVIOUS WHICH IS THAT PEOPLE THAT ARE ACTUALLY PUT IN PLACE BY THE PRESIDENT ARE TESTIFYING THAT IN FACT HE HAS DONE SOMETHING THAT I THINK IS AN IMPEACHABLE OFFENSE AND SHOULD AT A MINIMUM GO TO TRIAL BEFORE THE UNITED STATES SENATE.
OUR SYSTEM IS LOOKING RATHER POOR COMPARED TO THE ISRAELI SYSTEM AT THIS MOMENT.
LET'S JUST BUILD ON WHAT WE JUST MENTIONED AND WHAT WE JUST PLAYED FROM DR. HILL WHERE HE TALKED ABOUT AN ALTERNATIVE REALITY.
SHE WAS QUITE SHOCKED.
SHE TOOK ON REPUBLICAN MEMBERS OF THE HOUSE THERE, OF THE COMMITTEE, WHO INSIST THAT'S IT'S UKRAINE AS PRESIDENT TRUMP SUGGESTED INTERFERED IN THE ELECTION AND NOT RUSSIAN.
AS I TOLD THE COMMITTEE LAST MONTH, I REFUSE TO BE PART OF AN EFFORT TO LEGITIMIZE THAT THE UKRAINIAN GOVERNMENT IS THE ADVERSARY AND UKRAINE, NOT RUSSIA, ATTACKED IN 2016.
THESE ARE HARMFUL EVEN IF THEY'RE PURELY DOMESTIC POLITICAL PURPOSES.
ALTERNATIVES REALITIES, FICTIONS, SHE COULDN'T BE CLEARER.
WHAT DO YOU THINK IT'S GOING TO TAKE FOR THE MESSAGE TO BREAK THROUGH OR NOT?
OR DO YOU THINK THAT REPUBLICANS, THOSE WHO ARE ON THE PRESIDENT'S SIDE WILL CONTINUE TO PEDDLE THAT PARTICULAR NARRATIVE ABOUT THE 2016 ELECTION?
I THINK IT'S OBVIOUSLY JUST CHANGING THE SUBJECT.
AND I THINK THERE IS A CHANCE THIS WILL BREAK THROUGH.
WHAT THE FOUNDING FATHERS WERE INTERESTED IN IN TERMS OF IMPEACHMENT WAS THIS KIND OF INVOLVEMENT WITH FOREIGN POWERS.
THEY SAID THE THINGS YOU CAN BE IMPEACHED WITH IS BRIBERY, TREASON WHICH IS OBVIOUSLY ABOUT FOREIGN POWERS, AND HIGH CRIMES AND MISDEMEANORS.
THAT WAS THEIR GREATEST CONCERN.
WHAT NETANYAHU IS ACCUSED OF ARE DOMESTIC PROBLEMS INVOLVING THE MEDIA.
HERE WE HAVE A PRESIDENT WHO HAS A VERY UNHEALTHY RELATIONSHIP WITH THE PRESIDENT OF RUSSIA.
HE AND HIS ALLIES FOR SOME REASON CARE DEEPLY ABOUT THAT RELATIONSHIP AND THEY WERE WILLING TO MESS AROUND WITH UKRAINE AND ITS ABILITY TO DEFEND ITSELF IN ORDER TO PROMOTE MR. TRUMP'S POLITICAL FUTURE.
THIS IS THE CORE OF WHAT THE FOUNDERS OF THIS COUNTRY MEANT WHEN THEY TALKED ABOUT AN IMPEACHABLE OFFENSE.
IT'S A BREECH OF TRUST.
NETANYAHU IS GOING TO BE INDICTED FOR BREECH OF TRUST.
MR. TRUMP SHOULD BE REMOVED FROM OFFICE BECAUSE OF THE BREACH OF TRUST THAT THE AMERICAN PEOPLE GAVE HIM.
IJ IT WILL ULTIMATELY BREAK THROUGH.
THE DEFENSE OF THE REPUBLICANS AND THEIR WILLINGNESS TO MAKE UP CONSPIRACY THEORIES IS INDEFENSIBLE.
AT SOME POINT THEY NEED TO STAND UP FOR TRUTH AND THE RULE OF LAW, THE FOUNDATION OF OUR SYSTEM OF GOVERNMENT, OR THIS PRESIDENT AND FUTURE PRESIDENTS WILL BELIEVE THEY CAN GET AWAY WITH ANYTHING.
CAN WE FOCUS ON WHAT WE'RE GOING TO TALK ABOUT WHICH IS THE PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION IN 2020.
FIONA HILL WENT ON TO SAY SHE WAS PRETTY WORRIED THAT THIS WAS GOING TO SIMPLY AVOID SERIOUS ACTION AND SERIOUS CONCENTRATION AND FOCUS ON THE FACT THAT RUSSIA, SHE SAYS, IS STILL BENT ON INTERFERING, STILL BENT ON WEAKENING THE AMERICAN DEMOCRATIC SYSTEM AND INSTITUTION.
HOW WORRIED ARE YOU ABOUT THE UPCOMING ELECTION NOT JUST POLITICALLY BUT IN TERMS OF NATIONAL SECURITY FOR THE UNITED STATES?
I'M EXTREMELY WORRIED ABOUT IT, AND I HEAR NICKY HAILEY SAY THE OTHER DAY WHY DON'T WE WAIT UNTIL THE ELECTION.
THAT'S HOW THIS GUY GOT INTO OFFICE.
THE ELECTION WAS BASICALLY STOLEN AND THAT'S WHAT THEY'RE GOING TO DO AGAIN.
THE RUSSIANS ARE OBVIOUSLY VERY ACTIVE IN THIS AND DONALD TRUMP IS VERY HAPPY ABOUT THAT.
THAT'S NOT AN EXCUSE, WAIT UNTIL THE NEXT ELECTION.
THIS IS EXACTLY WHAT THE ACCOUNTABILITY OF IMPEACHMENT IS ABOUT, TO PROTECT THE SYSTEM OF GOVERNMENT, OUR RULE OF LAW, AND OUR POLITICAL PROCESS.
SO, I THINK THAT WE CAN'T USE THAT AS AN EXCUSE.
I JUST WANT TO PUT UP SOMETHING FROM THE 'WALL STREET JOURNAL' ALLY BOARD.
THE HOUSE IMPEACHMENT HEARINGS ROLL ON.
THE WITNESSES ARE FILLING IN DETAILS MANY OF WHICH ARE UNFLATTERING BUT NONE CHANGE THE FUNDAMENTAL NARRATIVE OR SUGGEST CRIMES OR OTHER IMPEACHABLE OFFENSES.
GIVEN WHAT WE'VE HEARD AND LEARNED SO FAR FROM KOREA OFFICIALS, DO YOU THINK THAT NOTHING NEW IS BEING SAID?
I THINK THEY'RE FILLING IN THE BLANKS OF WHAT IS OVERWHELMINGLY A BASIS FOR IMPEACHMENT.
HERE IS THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES GETTING ON THE PHONE WITH THE PRESIDENT OF UKRAINE AND DEMANDING SOMETHING FOR HIS OWN PERSONAL POLITICAL FUTURE INSTEAD OF LOOKING OUT FOR THE INTEREST OF THE PEOPLE OF THE UNITED STATES AND OUR NATIONAL SECURITY IN THE FORM OF UKRAINE BEING ABLE TO DEFEND ITSELF AGAINST RUSSIA AND FRANKLY OUR CREDIBILITY AS A COUNTRY.
WE WILL HAVE NO CREDIBILITY IF PRESIDENTS WERE ABLE TO ACT FOR THEIR OWN FINANCIAL AND POLITICAL ABILITY WHEN THEY'RE TALKING WITH FOREIGN LEADERS.
HE HAS DONE IT WITH THE MOST SHAMEFUL WAY THAT HAS TO BE ONE OF THE WORST OFFENSES WE HAVE LEARNED ABOUT THAT A PRESIDENT HAS COMMITTED IN THE HISTORY OF THIS COUNTRY.
JUST FOR THE RECORD WANT TO SAY AS A SENATOR DURING THE IMPEACHMENT PROCESS AGAINST A DEMOCRATIC PRESIDENT, PRESIDENT CLINTON, YOU WERE THE ONLY DEMOCRAT ESSENTIALLY TO VOTE FOR THE PROCESS TO CONTINUE, THAT THE ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT SHOULD BE LEVELLED.
WHY DID YOU DO THAT AGAINST THE DEMOCRATIC PRESIDENT?
AND DO YOU THINK THAT ANY REPUBLICAN WILL CHANGE TACT AND, I DON'T KNOW, DO THE SAME AS YOU DID AGAINST PRESIDENT CLINTON?
THE DECISION OF THE FOUNDERS OF THIS COUNTRY TO CREATE THIS IMPEACHMENT PROCESS MEANT THAT A TRIAL WOULD BE HELD, IT WOULD BE TAKEN SERIOUSLY.
IN FACT THE SENATORS HAVE TO TAKE AN OATH TO DO IMPARTIAL JUSTICE.
AND IT WAS MY FEELING THAT IF I TOOK AN OATH LIKE THAT I HAD TO AT LEAST BE WILLING TO LISTEN TO THE EVIDENCE.
SO, THAT'S WHAT I DID.
I VOTED TO NOT DISMISS THE CHARGES.
I HEARD THE EVIDENCE AND I CONCLUDED THAT THE EVIDENCE WAS NOT SUFFICIENT TO SAY THAT PRESIDENT CLINTON SHOULD BE REMOVED FROM OFFICE.
THAT WAS AFTER THE PROCESS WAS DONE.
I AM HOPING ALL SENATORS INCLUDING THE REPUBLICAN SENATORS WILL AT LEAST SAY LET'S HAVE THE TRIAL.
AND THAT'S WHERE I THINK THIS THING COULD BREAK THROUGH.
WHEN PEOPLE HEAR EXACTLY WHAT'S BEEN HAPPENING AND THEY REALIZE THE PRESIDENT WAS GIVING AWAY FROM THE PUBLIC TRUST FOR HIS OWN POLITICAL FUTURE, I THINK MOST PEOPLE WOULD THINK TWICE ABOUT VOTING TO ACQUIT HIM.
WE WANTED TO DIVE IN TO THE CURRENT STATE OF THE RACE.
LITTLE TIME LEFT UNFORTUNATELY, BUT WHAT WAS YOUR TAKE AND PARTICULARLY THAT IT WAS AN ALL-WOMAN PANEL FOR THE FIRST TIME DOING THE MODERATING.
SENATOR KLOBUCHAR HAD THIS TO SAY ABOUT THE IDEA OF WHETHER A WOMAN HAD THE HEART AND MIND TO GOVERN.
LET'S LISTEN.
WOMEN ARE HELD TO A HIGHER STANDARD.
OTHERWISE WE COULD PLAY A GAME CALLED NAME YOUR FAVORITE WOMAN PRESIDENT WHICH WE CAN'T DO BECAUSE IT HAS ALL BEEN MEN.
I GOVERN BOTH WITH MY HEAD AND MY HEART AND IF YOU THINK A WOMAN CAN'T BEAT DONALD TRUMP, NANCY PELOSI DOES IT EVERY SINGLE DAY.
SO, LET ME ASK YOU WHAT WERE THE MOST IMPORTANT TAKE AWAYS FROM THE DEBATE, AND PARTICULARLY SINCE YOU ARE THE FORMER SENATOR FROM WISCONSIN WHICH IS A KEY, KEY, KEY STATE, HOW DO YOU THINK IT'S GOING TO GO IN WISCONSIN?
WHAT ARE THE NUMBERS AND THE ISSUES TELLING YOU THERE RIGHT NOW?
WELL, I FEEL GOOD ABOUT THESE DEBATES.
I'VE BEEN WATCHING THEM.
I THINK THEY'RE GETTING BETTER AND BETTER.
THIS IS NOT JUST A GOOD VETTING PROCESS WHERE THE AMERICAN PEOPLE CAN SEE HOW CAPABLE AND DIRECT THE CANDIDATES ARE, BUT THE GROUP OF CANDIDATES LOOK LIKE AMERICA OVER THE COURSE OF TIME.
THIS IS EXACTLY WHAT AMERICAN WISCONSIN LOOKS LIKE NOW, THE DIVERSITY, INCLUDING THE PRESENCE OF WOMEN.
I WOULD SAY ALTHOUGH I CERTAINLY HAVEN'T ENDORSED ANYBODY IN THE RACE, THE WAY KAMALA HARRIS WAS ABLE TO PRESENT HERSELF LAST NIGHT MADE ME WANT TO SEE HER ON THE STAGE TAKING ON A BULLY, THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES.
THAT'S WHAT WE WANT OUT OF THIS.
WE WANT SOMEBODY WHO IS CONFIDENT AND IS ABLE TO SAY, LOOK, I WON'T PUT UP THIS KIND OF ON FUS CATION THAT THE PRESIDENT HAS.
I THINK THIS IS SOMETHING THE AMERICAN PEOPLE CAN SAY WAIT A MINUTE, WE CAN HAVE A PRESIDENT WHO IS MATURE, WHO IS NOT JUST CONSTANTLY DOING THINGS FOR HIMSELF AND SINCERELY TRYING TO SOLVE THE PROBLEMS OF THE COUNTRY.
I THINK THE PROCESS IS WORKING WELL AND WILL HELP US GET A DEMOCRATIC PRESIDENT IN 2020.
MAYOR PETE BUTTIGIEG SURGED IN POLL IF NOT TO THE TOP, TO THE TOP IN IOWA.
HE'S ON THE MODERATE SIDE.
HOW DO YOU SEE THIS COMING DOWN, AND HOW HEALTHY IS IT FOR THE DEMOCRATS NOT TO GO TO 2020 WITH A UNIFIED VOICE?
I DON'T THINK IT HAS TO BE ALL UNIFIED GOING INTO 2020.
IN FACT, I THINK IT'S GREAT THAT THE RANGE OF THESE VIEWS ARE BEING PRESENTED.
I'M MORE OF A PROGRESSIVE THAN SOME OF THE OTHER CANDIDATES.
BUT I THINK THE DIFFERENCES ARE NOT SO GREAT TO BE A PROBLEM.
IF JOE BIDEN IS THE NOMINEE, MANY PEOPLE WILL REALIZE HE HAS MANY OF THE PROGRESSIVE VALUES.
I AGREE WITH ELIZABETH WARREN AND BERNIE SANDERS ON SOME ISSUES.
BUT I DON'T THINK THE DIFFERENCES ARE SO GREAT IT'S GOING TO BE A PROBLEM.
THIS IS A TIME TO SHOW WE HAVE A BIG TENT AND OPEN TO DIFFERENT VIEWS UNLIKE THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES AND UNLIKE THE REPUBLICAN PARTY.
SO, I THINK IT'S GOOD THAT THIS IS GOING ON AT THIS POINT.
SENATOR, THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR JOINING US FROM MADISON, WISCONSIN TONIGHT.
> NOW, AS THE UNITED STATES WATCHES AN INVESTIGATION INTO WRONG DOING BY THE PRESIDENT, THE UNITED KINGDOM IS QUESTIONING DECISIONS MADE BY ITS OWN PRINCE ANDREW.
THE QUEEN'S SECOND SON AND THE SECOND MEMBER OF THE ROYAL PARTY.
HE HAS STEPPED BACK FROM HIS DUTIES AFTER GIVING AN INTERVIEW TO THE BBC DENYING HE HAD SEX WITH AN UNDERAGE WOMAN WHO WAS BEING TRAFFICKED BY JEFFREY EPSTEIN.
ONE OF EPSTEIN'S ACCUSERS, VIRGINIA ROBERTS, HAS MADE ALLEGATIONS AGAINST YOU.
SHE SAYS SHE MET YOU IN 2001.
SHE SAYS SHE DINED WITH YOU, DANCED WITH YOU AT NIGHT CLUB IN LONDON, WENT ON TO HAVE SEX WITH YOU AT A HOUSE BELONGING TO MAXWELL, YOU'RE FRIEND.
YOUR RESPONSE?
I HAVE NO RECOLLECTION OF EVER MEETING THIS LADY, NONE WHATSOEVER.
YOU DON'T REMEMBER MEETING HER?
NO.
AND THE INTERVIEW HAS BACKFIRED SPECTACULARLY AGAINST THE PRINCE WHO WAS CONSIDERED TO BE LESS THAN CANDID OR REMORSEFUL.
NOW PRINCE ANDREW SAYS HE UNEQUIVOCALLY REGRETS HIS RELATIONSHIP WITH THE DISGRACED AMERICAN FINANCIER AND IS WILLING TO HELP WITH ONGOING LEGAL INVESTIGATIONS.
HERE TO DISCUSS, DICKY ARBITER, HE'S A SOCIAL COMMENTATOR.
WELCOME TO THE PROGRAM.
I MEAN, I GUESS SRI TO ASK YOU, HAVING BEEN IN BUCKINGHAM PALACE FOR 12 YEARS CLOSELY WORKING FOR THE ROYAL FAMILY, WHEN YOU HEAR A MEMBER OF THE ROYAL FAMILY TALKING ABOUT HAVING SEX OR NOT HAVING SEX, A JOURNALIST ASKING HIM THESE BOLD FACED QUESTIONS, THIS IS UNPRECEDENTED, ISN'T IT?
TOTALLY UNPRECEDENTED.
ANYBODY WHO WATCHED THAT INTERVIEW ON SATURDAY WILL FEEL -- IT WAS CRINGE MAKING.
IT WAS AWFUL.
I MEAN CERTAIN JOURNALISTS PUT A PAPER OVER THEIR FACE.
THEY COULDN'T BEAR WATCHING IT.
NOBODY FORCED HIM INTO IT.
HE DIDN'T SEEK ADVICE.
WE ARE LEARNING THAT HIS PRIVATE SECRETARY URGED HIM TO DO IT.
HE PROBABLY FELT IT WAS AN OPPORTUNITY TO EXPLAIN AWAY HIS ASSOCIATION WITH JEFFREY EPSTEIN, TO EXPLAIN AWAY THESE ALLEGATIONS.
BUT WHAT'S ACTUALLY HAPPENED, IT'S COME BACK AND SLAPPED HIM IN THE FACE.
YOU KNOW, I DON'T KNOW WHETHER YOU WANT TO WEIGH IN ON THIS ONE BUT IN THE INTERVIEW OR WHETHER IN HER ARTICLE ABOUT THE INTERVIEW, EMILY SAY THAT IS THE PRINCE SAID HE HAD TO GET -- SHE'S THE INTERVIEWER -- PERMISSION FROM HIGHER UPS.
EVERYBODY TOOK THAT TO MEAN THE QUEEN.
DO YOU THINK THE QUEEN WOULD HAVE BEEN ASKED AND GIVEN HER PERMISSION FOR THIS?
MY GUESS IS THAT HE TOLD THE QUEEN THAT HE WAS DOING AN INTERVIEW.
HE DIDN'T TELL HER WHAT THE CONTENT WAS, WHAT THE SUBJECT MATTER WAS.
IT WAS JUST GIVING A HEADS UP SAYING I'M DOING AN INTERVIEW AND DOING IT IN SUCH AND SUCH A ROOM.
HE WOULDN'T HAVE DISCUSSED THE ELEMENT OR CONTENT WAS.
YOU HAVE TO WONDER EVEN WITHOUT KNOWING WHAT THE CONTENT WAS WHY ANYONE WOULD HAVE THOUGHT IT WAS A GOOD IDEA FOR PRINCE ANDREW WHO'S NOT KNOWN FOR GIVING HUGELY SOPHISTICATED INTERVIEWS TO JOURNALISTS, AT GREAT LENGTHS ABOUT THE INTIMATE DETAILS OF HIS SEX LIFE.
EVEN THE CONCEPT SEEMS TERRIBLE.
I HAVE TO AGREE IT WAS DIFFICULT TO WATCH.
BUT I ALSO -- I THINK IT'S USEFUL TO TALK ABOUT WHAT DEVICE HE TOOK.
BUT IN A WAY THE BIGGER QUESTION IS WHY HE HASN'T BEEN FORTHCOMING EARLIER ON IN THIS PROCESS.
I'M LESS CONCERNED ABOUT THE PR IMPLICATIONS FOR HIM.
SO, TO THAT POINT SHS LET'S JUST READ OUT THE STATEMENT THAT HE'S NOW HAD TO ISSUE SAYING THAT HE'S GOING TO STEP BACK FROM ALL OR MOST OF HIS PUBLIC DUTIES, PROBABLY ALL.
HE'S HAD TO STEP DOWN AS CHANCELLOR OF THESE UNIVERSITIES WHERE YOUNG PEOPLE HAVE SAID NO, WE DON'T WANT THIS.
ORGANIZATIONS THAT HAVE BEEN SUPPORTING HIS PITCH AT THE PALACE WHICH IS HIS BUSINESS INITIATIVE HAVE PULLED OUT.
HE SAYS I CONTINUE TO UNEQUIVOCALLY REGRESS BY ILL-JUDGED ASSOCIATION WITH JEFFREY EPSTEIN.
HIS SUICIDE LEFT MANY UNANSWERED QUESTIONS PARTICULARLY WITH HIS VICTIMS.
I CAN ONLY HOPE THAT IN TIME THEY WILL BE ABLE TO REBUILD THEIR LIVES.
I HAVE ASKED HER MAJESTY IF I MAY STEP BACK FROM PUBLIC DUTIES FOR THE FORESEEABLE FUTURE AND HE'S GIVEN HER PERMISSION.
IS THIS ENOUGH FOR HIM TO STEP BACK?
IT'S A START, STEPPING BACK, BUT IT IS GOING TO BOOMERANG AND HAVE A LIFE OF ITS OWN.
WHAT'S GOING TO COME NOW ARE FURTHER CALLS FOR HIS EASY IG NATION FROM VARIOUS CHARITIES.
HE'S RESIGNED FROM THE ASSOCIATION OF VISITOR ATTRACTIONS.
THERE ARE GOING TO BE MORE RESIGNATIONS.
PICTURE PALACE SAY PRIVATE INITIATIVE SO THAT WILL PROBABLY CONTINUE BUT NOT WITHIN BUCKINGHAM PALACE.
BUT WHAT IS GOING TO COME NEXT IS REQUESTS FROM THE FBI TO QUESTION HIM FROM THE LAWYERS, FROM THE LITIGATORS, GOT TO QUESTION HIM.
HE'S GOING TO BE QUESTIONED UNDER OATH AND HE'S GOING TO GIVE HONEST ANSWERS.
I DON'T BELIEVE FOR A MOMENT HE GAVE HONEST ANSWERS IN THAT INTERVIEW ON SATURDAY.
HAS THE FBI OR ANY CRIMINAL INVESTIGATOR EVER TALKED TO A MEMBER OF THE CLOSE ROYAL FAMILY?
NO, IT HASN'T HAPPENED BEFORE.
THERE HASN'T BEEN AN OCCASION.
NO MEMBER OF THE ROYAL FAMILY IS ASSOCIATED WITH A REGISTERED SEX OFFENDER.
I CAN SEE YOU'RE PRETTY ANGRY.
I'M VERY ANGRY.
WHILE IT'S NOT A DIRECT IMPACT ON THE MONARCHY AND THE INSTITUTION, IT HAS ANGERED THE REST OF THE FAMILY IN THAT ONE OF THEIR OWN -- HE SAID LET THE SIDE DOWN.
IT'S NOT SO MUCH LETTING THE SIDE DOWN.
IT'S LETTING HIS FAMILY DOWN, HIS DAUGHTERS, HIMSELF, AND THE COUNTRY DOWN.
YOU ARE A DIFFERENT GENERATION.
YOU HAVE YOUR FINGER ON THE PULSE OF WHAT A LOT OF PEOPLE, YOUNG PEOPLE, WHO HAVE VERY DIFFERENT VIEWS OF TRADITION AND MONARCHY AND WHAT IT MEANS TO BE BRITISH.
YOUR BOOK IS 'BRITISH.'
HE'S ALSO ACCUSED OF HAVING MADE SOME UNPLEASANT EPITAPHS USING A WORD WE DON'T USE, THE N-WORD IN SAYING FORGIVE ME BUT THIS IS THE COMMENT.
REFLECT ON THAT.
I FEEL THAT THERE'S A CONTRACT BETWEEN THE MONARCHY AND BRITISH SOCIETY AND LIKE MY SOCIAL CONTRACTS IT EVOLVES OVER TIME.
I FEEL AS IF THE -- ESPECIALLY A YOUNGER GENERATION, THAT CONTRACT RESTS ON THE IDEA THAT THIS IS A FAMILY THAT DOES MORE HARM THAN GOOD, THAT REFLECTS OUR IDENTITY IN WAYS THAT WE CAN RELATE TO.
OBVIOUSLY THE ROYAL FAMILY REPRESENTS PRIVILEGE AND INHERITED WEALTH AND STATUS WHICH IS OUT OF STEP WITH MANY OF OUR IDEAS ABOUT MERITOCRACY AND EQUALITY OF OPPORTUNITY.
I THINK WE TOLERATE OR EVEN EMBRACE THAT BECAUSE OF THE SYMBOLISM THEY REPRESENT TO BRITISH TRADITION WHICH MEANS A LOT TO BRITISH PEOPLE.
I THINK WHEN INCIDENCES LIKE THIS HAPPENS, IT UPSETS THE BALANCE.
AND IT'S NOT JUST WHAT PRINCE ANDREW WAS ALLEGED TO HAVE DONE, BUT THE WAY HE RESPONDED.
AND BEING ON THE BBC EXPRESSING A COMPLETE LACK OF INTEREST FOR THE OUTCOME FOR THE VICTIM, A COMPLETE LACK OF EMPATHY -- HE WAS GIVEN AN HOUR IN AN INTERVIEW TO TALK ABOUT HOW HE FELT AND HE FAILED TO EXPRESS ANY OF THOSE BASIC HUMAN RESPONSES THAT WE WOULD EXPECT FROM SOMEONE IN A POSITION OF MORAL LEADERSHIP BECAUSE THAT IS WHAT THE MONARCHY IS.
AND I THINK THESE INSTANCES DO RAISE QUESTIONS ABOUT HOW SUSTAINABLE THIS INSTITUTION IS IN A MODERN SOCIETY.
AND I THINK THAT'S WHY HOW THE MONARCHY RESPONDS NOW IS IMPORTANT.
WELL, HOW DO YOU THINK THE MONARCHY WILL RESPOND?
I WANT TO ASK YOU IN A MOMENT ABOUT MEGHAN MARKLE AND PRINCE HARRY.
BUT FIRST AND FOREMOST, YOU WERE THERE DURING THE THE FAMOUS ANIS ARELIS.
ANYTHING THAT COULD HAPPEN THAT YEAR DID HAPPEN.
WE HAD CHARLES AND DIANA AND THE FAMOUS PICTURE IN FRONT OF THE T TAJ MAHAL.
WE HAD THE PRINCE DIVORCING.
WE HAD THE FIRE AT WINDSOR CASTLE.
DI DIAN DIANA INCORPORATING OVER A BOOK.
TO END IT ALL, TWO POINTS, ONE THAT CHARLES AND DIANA WERE SEPARATED ON THAT YEAR BUT IT ENDED ON A HAPPY NOTE, THE PRINCESS GOT MARRIED AGAIN.
AND THE FAMILY SURVIVED.
CAN THEY PULL OUT OF THIS ONE?
I DON'T THINK THIS IS A TOTAL FAMILY ISSUE.
THIS IS AN INDIVIDUAL ISSUE.
YOU KNOW, THE QUEEN SURVIVED 1997 AND THE VICIOUS PRESS FOR REMAINING WITH HER GRANDSON, SEEING HIM THROUGH THE DISASTER OF THE DEATH OF DIANA IN PARIS WHILE TENS OF THOUSANDS OF MOURNERS SAYING THE QUEEN SHOULD BE IN LONDON WITH HER PEOPLE.
SHE WAS THERE WITH HER GRANDCHILDREN.
THEY NEEDED HER MORE THAN THE PEOPLE MOURNING AROUND THE PALACE AND SHE SURVIVED THAT.
SO SHE CAN SURVIVE THIS.
I THINK THERE'S A DIFFERENCE WITH THIS.
I THINK A LOT OF WHAT THE MONARCHY GOES THROUGH -- AND THIS IS INEVITABLE WHEN A FAMILY WHO HAVE PRIVATE LIVES ARE IN THE PUBLIC EYE TO THAT EXTENT.
A LOT OF WHAT THEY GO THROUGH PEOPLE CAN RELATE TO IT EVEN WHEN IT'S UNFORTUNATE.
MARRIAGES BREAKING DOWN, DEATHS IN THE FAMILY, THINGS PEOPLE WILL SYMPATHIZE WITH EVEN IF THEY'RE HANDLED BADLY.
THIS IS BEHAVIOR THAT NOBODY WOULD SPEAK TO DEFEND OR RELATE TO.
IT'S DIFFICULT TO UNDERSTAND WHY PRINCE ANDREW HAD THIS KIND OF RELATIONSHIP WITH SOMEBODY WHO WAS ACTING AS A SEX TRAFFICKER AND WHY EVEN KNOWING THESE ALLEGATIONS EXISTED HE CONTINUED TO ASSOCIATE WITH HIM.
IT DOES REFLECT BADLY ON THE FAMILY.
NOBODY SUGGESTING ANYBODY ELSE WAS COMPLICIT IN THIS BEHAVIOR.
HE IS A SENIOR ROYAL AND IS SOMEONE WHO REPRESENTS THE QUEEN AND THE COUNTRY AND I THINK THAT'S A PROBLEM.
BIGGEST PROBLEM WAS THAT EPSTEIN WAS A BILLIONAIRE.
MONEY.
WOW.
THAT'S A SHOT ACROSS THE BOW.
LET ME ASK YOU THOUGH ABOUT THE YOUNGER GENERATION.
MEGHAN MARKLE.
SHE IS BIRACIAL.
SHE IS A WOMAN OF COLOR.
SHE'S PROUD.
AND SHE HAS BEEN TARGETED RELENTLESSLY BY THE PRESS HERE.
SHE ALSO CHOSE TO DO AN INTERVIEW WHILE THEY WERE ON AN OFFICIAL TRIP TO AFRICA.
HERE'S WHAT SHE SAID ABOUT STIFF UPPER LIP AND TRYING TO WORK WITHIN THE BRITISH ROYAL FAMILY.
I'VE SAID FOR A LONG TIME TO H, IT'S NOT ENOUGH TO JUST SURVIVE SOMETHING, RIGHT?
THAT'S NOT THE POINT OF LIFE.
YOU'VE GOT TO THRIVE.
YOU'VE GOT TO FEEL HAPPY.
AND I THINK I REALLY TRIED TO ADOPT THIS BRITISH SENSIBILITY OF A STIFF UPPER LIP.
I TRIED.
BUT I THINK THAT WHAT THAT DOES INTERNALLY IS PROBABLY REALLY DAMAGING.
AND THE BIGGEST THING THAT I KNOW IS THAT I NEVER THOUGHT THAT THIS WOULD BE EASY, BUT I THOUGHT IT WOULD BE FAIR.
AND THAT'S THE PART THAT'S REALLY HARD TO RECONCILE.
HOW DO YOU FEEL ABOUT THAT?
I -- AND I THINK WE DISAGREE ABOUT THIS.
I -- RELATED TO THAT INTERVIEW, I'M BRITISH.
I THINK IT'S EASIER FOR ME TO CONFORM TO THE BRITISH STIFF UPPER LIP THAN AN AMERICAN LIKE MEGHAN MARKLE.
BUT SHE'S TAKEN A CONTEXT WHERE HE'S BEEN DEMONIZED, BUT BY GOING ROGUE, SHE BROUGHT HER HUMANITY BACK INTO THE SITUATION.
I THINK IT'S EASY TO SEE THAT AND EMPATHIZE WITH A YOUNG WOMAN FROM A DIFFERENT BACKGROUND ENTERING A SITUATION THAT'S DIFFICULT TO PREPARE FOR AND STRUGGLE WITH IT EMOTIONALLY.
EVEN IF YOU THINK IT'S INAPPROPRIATE TO SPEAK OPENLY, IT'S HARD NOT TO BE MOVED OPENLY.
I THINK THE MONARCHY WOULD DO WELL TO RECOGNIZE THAT STRATEGICALLY IF THEY WANT TO DO WELL, THAT IS THE KIND OF OPENNESS AND VULNERABILITY THAT MANY YOUNG WOMEN NOT ONLY RELATE TO BUT ADMIRE BECAUSE IT'S NOT EASY TO BE IN A POSITION TO GIVE SO HONESTLY.
I THINK THE FACT SHE'S EXPERIENCED ELECTRONEGATIVE MORE VITT YOL FOR DOING THAT JUST REINFORCES THE FACT THAT IT IS A VERY UNFAIR POSITION SHE'S BEEN PUT IN.
THERE WAS A POINT SHE WAS GETTING MORE FLAX FROM THE JET FOR FLYING IN A PRIVATE JET THAN PRINCE ANDREW WAS FOR BEING ASSOCIATED WITH A KNOWN SEX OFFENDER.
EVERYBODY'S WATCHING THE CROWN ON NETFLIX.
IS THAT GOSPEL TRUTH?
NO, IT'S NOT.
OF COURSE IT'S NOT.
AS TEIGEN MORGAN SAID IN THE BOX AT THE END CREDITS, THIS IS WORK BASED ON THE EVENTS OF THE DAY, BUT IT IS A WORK OF THE DAY.
THE SCRIPT IS FICTION.
IT'S BASED ON EVENTS OF THE DAY, BUT IT IS FICTION AND IT IS ENTERTAINMENT.
AND IT KEEPS THE ROYAL FAMILY IN THE PUBLIC EYE.
IT DOES.
IT'S ENTERTAINMENT.
THANK YOU SO MUCH.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH INDEED.
> NOW, OUR NEXT GUEST IS A VETERAN JOURNALIST WITH A CAREER OF SCOOPS AND AWARDING WINNING REPORTING.
LESLEY STALL HAS BEEN A PART OF '60 MINUTES' IN NEARLY THREE DECADES.
SHE GOT THE FIRST INTERVIEW WITH TRUMP AFTER HIS WIN IN 2016.
SHE TELLS WHAT HE SAID THEN.
EARLY ON, THE BEGINNING OF YOUR CAREER, YOU'RE REALLY YOUNG AND GET PUT ON THIS THIRD RATE BURGLARY IN WASHINGTON, YOU'RE COVERING THE WATERGATE BURGLARY.
FIRST TELL ME ABOUT THAT.
I WAS BRAND-NEW, THE YOUNGEST -- I DON'T MEAN THE YOUNGEST BY AGE, BUT THE NEWEST.
I WAS REALLY NEW IN THE CBS WASHINGTON BUREAU.
THIS IS BREAKING.
THE BREAKING TOOK PLACE IN THE MIDDLE OF THE 1972 PRESIDENTIAL CAMPAIGN.
IT WAS SIMILAR.
THERE WERE A LOT OF DEMOCRATS RUNNING IN THE PRIMARIES JUST LIKE NOW.
SO, OUR BUREAU WAS EMPTY.
ALL THESE CORRESPONDENTS WERE ASSIGNED TO ONE DEMOCRAT OR ANOTHER, SO THEY SENT ME TO THE BREAK IN BECAUSE IT WAS NOTHING.
SO, LET'S SEND THE NEW GIRL.
SHE DOESN'T KNOW ANYTHING BUT THAT'S OKAY BECAUSE THIS IS NOTHING, A NOTHING BURGER, A LOCAL BNE.
BUT IT WAS AT DEMOCRATIC HEAD QUARTERS, SO I WENT.
AND BOB WOODWARD TELLS YOU AT THE HEARING STAY WITH THIS STORY, KID.
FIRST THE ARRAIGNMENT.
THE ARRAIGNMENT OF THE BURGLARS.
WHAT THEY HAD WITH THEM WERE THESE $100 BILLS IN CONSECUTIVE NUMBERS AND WEIRD PASSPORTS, PHONY PASSPORTS.
AND WOODWARD LOOKED AT ME.
WE WERE THE ONLY TWO REPORTERS IN THE COURTROOM.
THAT'S HOW INSIGNIFICANT.
YOU AND BOB WOODWARD, TWO JUNIOR PEOPLE.
HE SAYS DON'T LET THEM TAKE THE STORY AWAY FROM YOU.
COMPARE IT TO WHAT WE'RE GOING THROUGH NOW.
THERE'S A LOT OF SIMILARITIES TO ME.
AND THE MAIN ONE IS THAT THE REPUBLICANS REALLY DID STICK WITH NIXON UP UNTIL THE END.
IT'S SO SIMILAR, AND I'M WATCHING THE REPUBLICANS DEFEND HIM AND ATTACK THE WITNESSES, AND I'M SEEING WATERGATE, SEEING THE WATERGATE COMMITTEE, THE SENATE COMMITTEE.
THE REPUBLICANS STUCK WITH HIM INCLUDING HOWARD BAKER.
HE SAID WHEN DID HE KNOW?
WHAT DID HE KNOW?
WHAT DID THE PRESIDENT KNOW?
WHEN DID HE KNOW IT?
MAINLY WE FOUND OUT LATER, HIS COUNSEL WAS GETTING QUESTIONS FROM THE WHITE HOUSE.
SO, PEOPLE HAVE A MISSED MEMORY OF WHAT HAPPENED BACK THEN.
THE IDEA THAT WE ARE DIFFERENT IN OUR TRIBE, WE'RE NOT DIFFERENT.
IF YOU'RE A REPUBLICAN AND YOU VOTED FOR THAT PRESIDENT, YOU'RE FOR THAT PRESIDENT.
IT HAPPENED WITH CLINTON.
THE DEMOCRATS STUCK WITH HIM UNTIL THE END.
TELL ME WHAT CAUSED THE REPUBLICANS BACK THEN TO FINALLY BREAK FROM NIXON.
WASN'T UNTIL THE TAPE.
THE SUPREME COURT RULED THAT NIXON HAD TO TURN OVER THE TRANSCRIPTS OF THE TAPES AND THE TAPES THEMSELVES.
AND THERE IT WAS.
HE WAS IN ON THE COVER UP FROM DAY ONE USING THE CIA TO SUPPRESS THE FBI FROM INVESTIGATING.
IT WAS ALL SPELLED OUT IN THE TRANSCRIPTS.
THERE WAS NO ESCAPE.
AND SENIOR REPUBLICANS FROM THE SENATE BROKE AND WENT TO NIXON AND SAID THE REPUBLICANS WILL NOT BE WITH YOU IF THERE'S A TRIAL.
AND THAT WAS THE END -- AND THE END WASN'T EVEN A VOTE.
THE END WAS NIXON SAYING OKAY, THE GAME'S UP.
WE HAVE A TRANSCRIPT NOW ON THE PHONE CALLS.
DO YOU THINK TIMES HAVE CHANGED, OR DO YOU THINK THAT THAT MIGHT CAUSE SOME REPUBLICANS TO BREAK EVENTUALLY?
YOU KNOW, I CAN'T SAY THE REPUBLICANS WILL NEVER BREAK.
YOU KNOW, THESE THINGS ARE CUMULATIVE.
WATERGATE TOOK YEARS TO UNFOLD, YEARS.
THOSE HEARINGS WERE WEEKS AND WEEKS AND WEEKS -- YOU KNOW, THOSE WATERGATE HEARINGS WERE SOMETHING LIKE 15 WEEKS.
WE'VE HAD ONE WEEK SO FAR.
SO, YOU JUST DON'T KNOW WHAT THE CUMULATION IS GOING TO DO.
OF COURSE IT DOESN'T LOOK LIKE THE REPUBLICANS ARE GOING TO BREAK.
DID THE PUBLIC START BREAKING AGAINST NIXON AND THEN THE REPUBLICANS AND THE SENATE FOLLOW THE PUBLIC?
IS THAT WHAT HAS HAPPENED FIRST?
YOU MEAN IN WATERGATE?
YEAH.
NO.
WHAT HAPPENED WAS THE TAPE.
YOU KNOW, THE BIG, BIG, BIG DIFFERENCE IS MEDIA.
THAT'S THE BIG, BIG DIFFERENCE.
IN THOSE DAYS, THERE WERE ONLY THREE NETWORKS.
EVERY DAY THE PUBLIC WAS HEARING THE SAME ANALYSIS.
HEARING THE HEARINGS BUT HEARING THE SAME ANALYSIS.
WE WERE STILL OPERATING UNDER THE FAIRNESS DOCTRINE.
THERE WAS NO OPINION WAY OFF TO THE RIGHT OR WAY OFF TO THE LEFT.
IT WAS REALLY AS MUCH AS THESE PEOPLE COULD HANDLE, THE ANCHOR PEOPLE, DOWN THE MIDDLE.
TODAY, YOU KNOW, YOU GO TO YOUR LITTLE TRIBE AREA AND LISTEN TO WHO YOU WANT TO LISTEN TO.
THE DIVISIONS ARE MUCH, MUCH STARKER.
THERE ISN'T A MIDDLE ANYMORE ANYWAY TO SWAY.
SO, IF YOU LOOK AT WHAT'S GOING ON RIGHT NOW, PEOPLE ARE SEEING REALLY WHAT THEY WANT TO SEE.
DURING YEAR CAREER, YOU TRIED TO ALWAYS PLAY IT AS A STORY TELLER.
WALTER, I AM JUST BEING TOLD BY A HIGH LIEUTENANT, THEY'RE ALL YELLING AROUND ME.
WHITE HOUSE OFFICIALS SEE A PATTERN OF TERRORISM WHICH THEY BELIEVE MAY BE AN ATTEMPT TO TEST THE WILL OF PRESIDENT REAGAN AND THE AMERICAN PEOPLE.
IEM 'M JUST GOING TO TELL YO THE STORY.
YOU FIGURE IT OUT.
DO YOU AVOID GOING ON THE TALKING HEAD SHOWS LIKE THE CABLE NIGHTLY SHOWS.
I DO VERY LITTLE, BUT HERE I AM.
PBS.
I DO NOT GO ON PANELS.
I WAS RAISED THAT WAY.
SO WERE YOU.
WE CAME INTO THIS BUSINESS, PARTICULARLY IF YOU'RE IN TELEVISION.
AS I MENTIONED THERE WAS A FAMOUS DOCTRINE.
WE WERE UNDER REGULATION TO SHOW BOTH SIDES AND THAT WAS HOW I GREW UP.
THAT'S IN MY BLOOD, MY DNA.
AND I WANT TO STAY THAT BECAUSE BECAUSE ON '60 MINUTES' WE DO HAVE AN AUDIENCE THAT BELIEVES US AND WE TRY VERY HARD TO BE OLD FASHIONED IN THAT WAY.
YOU'VE ACTUALLY INTERVIEWED TRUMP TWICE -- THREE TIMES.
IS IT TRUE GENERAL MATTIS SAID TO YOU THE REASON FOR NATO AND ALL THESE ALLIANCES IS TO PREVENT WORLD WAR III?
NO, IT'S NOT THREE.
TELL ME WHAT THAT WAS LIKE AND WHY HE KEEPS COMING BACK TO BE INTERVIEWED BY YOU.
I THINK HE SEES '60 MINUTES' AS FAIR AND HE HAS SAID SO TO US.
WE'RE NOT GOING TO DISCREDIT HIM.
WE'RE NOT GOING TO EMBARRASS HIM.
WE PLAY IT STRAIGHT.
AND HE BELIEVES WE HAVE CREDIBILITY.
SO, HE DOES -- AT LEAST HE HAS IN THE PAST.
WE'LL SEE ABOUT THE FUTURE.
BUT HE HAS IN THE PAST FELT THIS WAS THE PLACE TO GO FOR BIG MOMENTS.
SO, HE CAME ON RIGHT BEFORE OR DURING THE REPUBLICAN CONVENTION, AND HE CAME ON RIGHT AFTER THE ELECTION AND THEN WE GOT THE FIRST INTERVIEW WHEN HE WAS IN THE WHITE HOUSE.
PRESIDENT TRUMP IS CONTINUALLY ATTACKING THE PRESS.
TELL ME HOW MUCH IT'S UNDERMINING THE AUTHORITY OF THE PRESS AND HOW WORRIED YOU ARE ABOUT THAT.
WELL, NIXON, LET'S GO BACK THERE A MINUTE.
IT WAS WITH HUMOR.
AND IT HAD AN AFFECT.
WATERGATE HAD A BOOMERANG AFFECT.
AH, THE PRESS WAS THE HERO.
WOODWARD AND BERNSTEIN WERE THE HEROES, AND WE WENT INTO A GOLDEN AGE WHERE THE PUBLIC THOUGHT WE WERE REDEEMED.
TRUMP, IT'S A MORE INSIDIOUS GNAWING AWAY BY THE REPETITION OVER AND OVER AND OVER WE'RE FAKE AND WE'RE OUT TO GET HIM.
AND I JUST -- HE JUST DID A RALLY THE OTHER DAY IN WHICH HE SAID THOSE PEOPLE BEHIND THE LINE.
ENEMIES OF THE PEOPLE.
ENEMIES OF THE PEOPLE.
AND IT HAS BEEN STARTINGLY AND STRESSINGLY EFFECTIVE.
EFFECTIVE.
THE PUBLIC DOESN'T BELIEVE US.
YOU ASKED HIM WHY HE DID THAT AND HE TOLD YOU HIS MOTIVATION.
WHEN I DID THE FIRST INTERVIEW, BEFORE I DID THE INTERVIEW, WE WENT UP TO HIS OFFICE TO HAVE A CONVERSATION BEFOREHAND.
I GUESS I WAS BEING AUDITIONED.
IN THAT CONVERSATION, I SAID, YOU KNOW, HE HAD JUST WON THE NOMINATION -- HE WAS ABOUT TO WIN THE NOMINATION.
AND I SAID YOU HAVE TO STOP BEATING UP ON THE PRESS.
IT'S GETTING TIRING AND BORING.
YOU DO IT ALL THE TIME.
AND, YOU KNOW, IT'S KIND OF UNAPPEALING, I SAID.
AND HE SAID I'LL TELL YOU WHY I DO IT.
I DO IT SO THAT WHEN YOU SAY NEGATIVE THINGS ABOUT ME, THE PUBLIC WON'T BELIEVE YOU.
I THOUGHT WOW.
IT'S A STRATEGY.
IT'S THOUGHT OUT.
HE IS GOING TO DIMINISH HIS CRITICS.
DO YOU THINK THAT THE PRESS, OR SHOULD I SAY WE IN THE PRESS, PLAY INTO IT, THAT WE CAUSED THIS PROBLEM BY ACTUALLY BEING OPI OPINIONATED MORE THAN WE USED TO BE?
YES.
I DO.
IT'S TURNED OUT TO HAVE BEEN A MISTAKE TO APPEAR ON ALL THESE CABLE SHOWS.
I WATCH MY COLLEAGUES, 'THE NEW YORK TIMES,' 'THE WASHINGTON POST,' TRYING SO HARD TO PLAY IT DOWN THE MIDDLE, BUT YOU'RE IN THE SOUP.
YOU'RE ON 'MORNING JOE' OR YOU'RE ON ONE OF THE FOX SHOWS.
YOU DON'T EVEN HAVE TO SAY ANYTHING.
YOU'RE JUST IN THE ENVIRONMENT.
AND SO YEAH, IT'S HURT -- IT'S HURT US.
BUT HE'S HURT US MUCH MORE.
AND IT'S THE REPETITION.
IT'S THE CONSTANT.
AND AIT'S THOUGHT OUT.
TELL ME ABOUT YOUR THOUGHTS ON THIS CAMPAIGN WE'RE ENTERING.
YOU KNOW, I HAVE THIS THE -- I DON'T KNOW IF IT'S AN EPIPHANY.
MAYBE EVERYBODY'S HAD IT.
BUT I LOOK AT THE LAST MANY CYCLES, AND I SEE THAT THE ELITE CANDIDATE NEVER WINS.
IF YOU GO THROUGH THE LIST.
AND I HAVE A LIST SOMEWHERE HERE.
YOU KNOW, CLINTON BEAT GEORGE HERBERT WALKER BUSH.
CLINTON WAS THE COUNTRY BOY, THE COUNTRY MOUSE.
GEORGE W. WHO WAS BORN IN CONNECTICUT BUT PLAYED THE TEXAN, BEAT GORE AND KERRY.
THEY WERE THE ELITES.
HILLARY WAS THE ELITE.
SO, I'M LOOKING IN THIS CAST OF DEMOCRATS.
WHO CAN OUT-COUNTRY TRUMP.
IS IT COUNTRY OR IS IT RESISTING THE ELITES THAT HELPS?
IT'S BOTH.
IT'S THE IDEA OF STANDING UP TO THE SMARTIES, THE HOITY-TOITIES, THE HARVARDS, THE FIRST IN HIS CLASS AT WEST POINT.
IT'S THE DEFIANCE AGAINST THAT, BEING ABLE TO SAY WE'RE JUST AS GOOD AS YOU ARE.
THE CANDIDATE THAT CARRIES THAT BANNER.
WHO CARRIES THAT BANNER DO YOU THINK AMONGST THE DEMOCRATS?
BERNIE.
BUT I'M NOT SURE --
WHAT ABOUT BIDEN?
HE'S -- HE IS PENNSYLVANIA.
HE COULD PULL THAT OFF, I SUPPOSE.
WHAT ABOUT MAYOR PETE BUTTIGIEG?
I DON'T KNOW.
HE HAS -- HE CAN SPEAK ABOUT 25 LANGUAGES AND SO WELL-EDUCATED.
RIGHT, RIGHT.
SO, I DON'T KNOW.
BUT ANYWAY, I'M THINKING THAT YOU HAVE TO KIND OF GET ON TRUMP'S PLAYING FIELD IN THAT SENSE TO PEEL OFF PEOPLE WHO VOTED FOR HIM AND ARE WAIVERING.
I DON'T KNOW HOW MANY THERE ARE TODAY.
HOW DID DONALD TRUMP FROM A GUILDED TOWER IN MIDTOWN MANHATTAN WHO CALLS HIMSELF A BILLIONAIRE BECOME THE TRIBUNE OF PEOPLE YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT?
YOU KNOW, HE'S -- HE HAS A TALENT FOR KNOWING WHAT THE PUBLIC WANTS.
HE WAS A SHOWMAN, DON'T FORGET, WHEN HE WAS ON TELEVISION.
HE TOLD ME THAT HIS BASE IS NOT A BASE, IT'S A MOVEMENT.
AND THEY HAVE COME TO SUPPORT HIM IN AN EMOTIONAL WAY, AND YOU CAN SEE IT.
BUT HE KNEW THAT IN THE CAMPAIGN.
HE KNEW HE WAS BUILDING A MOVEMENT.
AND HE UNDERSTANDS HOW TO KEEP THEM WITH HIM.
AND PART OF THAT MOVEMENT TO BUILD IT INVOLVES ATTACKING NOT ONLY THE ELITES BUT THE PRESS.
WELL, ANYBODY WHO WILL CRITICIZE HIM.
ANYBODY WHO'S GOING TO TRY TO TEAR DOWN HIS REPUTATION.
AND DO YOU THINK IT'S JUST SHOWMANSHIP OR DO YOU THINK IT'S TRULY DANGEROUS?
YEAH.
YOU KNOW SOMETHING, WALTER?
THAT'S JUST THE KIND OF QUESTION AND ANSWER THAT I DON'T WANT TO GET INTO.
MAKES SENSE.
I SHOULDN'T BE IN THAT -- BE TRYING TO TAKE SIDES.
IT'S HARD FOR A REPORTER TO WALK THAT LINE AND TO REALLY, REALLY, REALLY WANT TO BE OBJECTIVE AND NOT BE POLITICAL AND NOT BE OPINIONATED.
IT'S HARD.
AND THAT'S WHY A LOT OF US SHOULDN'T PUT OURSELVES IN THIS POSITION THAT I'M IN RIGHT NOW.
WHEN YOU WENT TO '60 MINUTES,' IT WAS A BOY'S CLUB AND YOU BREAK IN AND YOU DO WELL.
BUT PARTLY YOU DO IT BY JUST BECOMING A MEMBER OF THE CLUB TOO, RIGHT?
BUT THEY ACCEPTED ME AS A MEMBER OF THE CLUB.
THERE HAD BEEN CRITICISM RIGHT BEFORE I GOT THERE THAT THEY HAD BEEN UNFAIR TO MEREDITH VIARA, THERE WAS ONE WOMAN.
SHE HAD BEEN THE WOMAN.
SHE WAS A WORKING MOTHER.
AND THAT THEY HAD NOT BEEN ACCEPTING OF THAT PART OF HER LIFE.
SO, THERE WERE ARTICLES WRITTEN THAT THEY HAD NOT BEEN FAIR TO HER.
AND I WAS A WORKING MOTHER, AND THEY WERE ALL DETERMINED THAT I WAS GOING TO HAVE AN EASY TIME.
AND THEY ACCEPTED ME.
I NEVER HAD ONE ISSUE WITH THAT.
BUT THEN CBS DOES HAVE ISSUES AFTER A WHILE LIKE MOST PLACES WITH THE WHOLE ME TOO THING.
YOU ENDED UP DEFENDING JEFF WHO HAD BEEN THE PRODUCER OF '60 MINUTES' SAYING IT HAD GONE A BIT TOO FAR.
DO YOU THINK IT WENT TOO FAR FOR SOME PEOPLE?
I DEFENDED JEFF BECAUSE I KNOW HIM AND I THOUGHT THAT THE CHARGES OF HIM BEING -- THAT HIM POSING IMPOSING HIMSELF IN A PHYSICAL SEXUAL WAY ON WOMEN WAS NOT THAT PERSON.
THERE ARE OTHER ISSUES, BUT HE WAS NOT A HARVEY WIEINSTEIN.
YOU'VE HAD A LOT OF FAMOUS WALKING OFF THE SET WITH YOU.
HOW DO YOU HANDLE IT WHEN SOMETHING TENSE HAPPENIS ON THE SET?
BORIS DID WALK OFF AND THERE WAS NO LURING HIM BACK IN.
BUT THE HOPE IS YOU CAN GET THEM BACK IN THE CHAIR.
AND ROSS PEROT WHO RAN FOR PRESIDENT IN '92 STORMED OFF, AND WE JUST SAT THERE AND GOT HIS PEOPLE AROUND AND SAID HE HAS TO COME BACK, HE HAS TO COME BACK, AND WE GOT HIM BACK.
BUT I'VE HAD A COUPLE OF HEADS OF STATE STORM OUT.
YOU CAN'T GET THEM BACK.
YOU WANT TO KNOW A SECRET ABOUT THAT?
WHEN THEY STORM OUT, YOU SAY TO YOURSELF 'I HAVE A STORY.'
WHICH STORY THAT YOU'VE DONE IN RETROSPECT DISAPPOINTS YOU AND YOU WISH YOU HAD DONE DIFFERENTLY?
I HAVE ONE.
IT WAS AROUND THE TIME OF THE IRAQ WAR AND IT HAD TO DO WITH WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION.
AND I LISTENED TO A DEFECTOR.
I HAD BEEN WARNED NOT TO.
WE HAD HIM VETTED BY A FORMER CIA FELLOW, AND HE SAID NO, NO, HE'S THE REAL THING.
AND WE PUT HIM ON '60 MINUTES.'
AND HE TOLD US ABOUT WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION IN TRUCKS THAT HE HAD BOUGHT, TRUCKS HE HAD PERSONALLY BOUGHT THAT SADDAM HAD ROAMING AROUND THE COUNTRYSIDE MAKING BIOLOGICAL WEAPONS.
AND WE PUT THAT ON '60 MINUTES' AND NOT A WORD OF IT WAS TRUE.
THAT IS MY BIGGEST REGRET.
WHAT'S THE STORY YOU'RE MOST PROUD OF?
THAT'S A TOUGHY.
I DON'T KNOW.
I ALWAYS LOVED THE ONE I DID, YOU KNOW, THE LAST ONE -- THE MOST RECENT.
I JUST DID ONE ABOUT 'SESAME STREET' AND THE INTERNATIONAL RESCUE COMMUNITY JOINING TOGETHER TO HELP YOUNG, YOUNG, YOUNG CHILDREN WHO ARE BORN AND BEING RAISED IN REFUGEE CAMPS.
YOU'VE DONE A LOT OF THINGS LIKE THAT WITH TECHNOLOGY AND KIDS TOO.
I REMEMBER YOU'VE DONE EVEN WITH iPADS AND OTHER THINGS.
OH, YEAH, WELL, THE iPAD ONE WAS FOR CHILDREN WITH AUTISM.
YOU KNOW WHAT I'M INTERESTED IN.
I HAVEN'T DONE THIS YET BUT I'D LIKE TO.
WHAT HAPPENS TO THOSE KIDS WHEN THEY'RE 30?
THERE'S A WHOLE LOT OF SERVICES WHEN THEY'RE 5 AND 10 AND EVEN 13.
AND THEY AGE OUT.
I WANT TO DO THAT STORY.
THANK YOU FOR BEING WITH US, LESLEY.
THE FORMER EXECUTIVE PRODUCER OF '60 MINUTES' HAS DENIED THE ALLEGATIONS OF SEXUAL MISCONDUCT.
THAT IS IT FOR OUR SHOW TONIGHT.
YOU CAN FOLLOW US ON TWITTER.
THANK YOU FOR WATCHING 'AMANPOUR & COMPANY' ON PBS AND JOIN US AGAIN TOMORROW NIGHT.