Former US Ambassador to NATO Kurt Volker

Summary

Amanpour – December 16, 2025

Episode Theme:
This episode of Amanpour, guest-hosted by Bianna Golodryga, dives into three major topics: a potential breakthrough in Ukraine war negotiations with insights from former U.S. Ambassador to NATO Kurt Volker and Ukraine’s former Minister Timofey Milovanov; an exploration of identity and belonging through Yousef Swade’s one-man play, “Between the River and the Sea”; and an in-depth conversation with Professor Sai Prakash on the evolving, increasingly political use of the presidential pardon in the U.S.

---

I. Ukraine Peace Talks – Real Progress or Wishful Thinking?

Guests: Kurt Volker (Former US Ambassador to NATO), Timofey Milovanov (Former Ukrainian Minister of Economic Development)

Main Points & Insights

The State of Negotiations

• Host (Bianna Golodryga) sets the stage:
  • Recent high-level negotiations between US, Ukraine, and Europe have reportedly resolved 90% of disagreements with Russia.
  • Strong "NATO-like" security guarantees offered to Ukraine as an alternative to immediate NATO membership.
  • Major unresolved issues: notably, Russia’s demands for the Donbas region.
    ([01:30]–[03:12])

Kurt Volker’s Analysis

• Volker expresses skepticism on claims of progress:

  “We have never heard from Russia that they are prepared to end the war… everything we hear from Russia is the opposite…”
  ([03:12])

• Russia’s ongoing demands:

  • Entire Donbas, Zaporizhzhia, Kherson
  • Rollback of NATO to pre-1997 borders
  • Sole control over Zaporizhzhia nuclear plant

• Positive outcome:

  • The talks have aligned US, Ukraine, and European positions on what a just peace looks like.

European Fears and Security Concerns

• If the deal rewards aggression:

  “It will whet the appetite for Putin to do it again…other countries in Europe…feel very, very vulnerable…”
  ([04:44])

• On US/NATO's credibility (Article 5):

  • Volker highlights necessity of demonstrating US commitment to NATO allies to deter Russian expansionism.
  • Security guarantees for Ukraine must carry weight equivalent to NATO’s own commitments.
    ([05:38])

Security Guarantees – Substance or Symbol?

• Volker questions U.S. strategy:

  “If Putin is the one rejecting peace, why would we be pulling those security guarantees off the table?”
  ([06:41])

• The possibility of Trump submitting guarantees to Senate for ratification is seen as “a very good step.”

  “They are very serious, and indeed President Trump would submit them to the Senate for ratification to make them really bind as a US Security commitment…”
  ([06:41])

• US arms sales to Ukraine:

  • Ongoing sales to continue, seen as beneficial for US defense industry and as ongoing support for Ukraine’s defense after any ceasefire ([07:46])

Frozen Russian Assets and European Agency

• Debate over $250B in frozen Russian assets:
  • Europe has moved “very, very slowly.”
  • Plan: Use assets as collateral for a loan to Ukraine, repaid with future reparations.

    “The European Union is not in full agreement… they are still trying to do the diplomatic work…”
    ([09:22])

---

Ukrainian Perspective – Timofey Milovanov

Security Guarantees and Zelenskyy's Room to Maneuver

• On Ukraine foregoing NATO now:

  “Okay, no NATO… but give us something equivalent to NATO… as long as it has security guarantees, that’s what it really needs.”
  ([11:50])

• On US pressure being focused on Ukraine:

  “United States… uses mostly leverage against Ukraine while it’s trying to use both stick and carrot with respect to Russia. And it’s deeply unfair and disturbing. But… the situation is changing somewhat.”
  ([12:51])

• Russia may be happy with either ongoing attritional conflict or a pause in fighting (“meat grinder in Donbass or stop for a while, for several years…”)

On Territorial Compromise

• Zelensky cannot cede territory Ukraine holds:

  “He cannot. The constitution prohibits him from that. It’s not up to the president nor even to the parliament.”
  ([14:14])

  • Even if agreed at negotiation, such concessions would not survive constitutional or political processes in Ukraine.

• Pragmatic outcome:

  • Most likely, only a ceasefire with demilitarized zones and observers is a possible compromise.

Troop Reduction and Sovereignty

• On Russian demand for Ukrainian troop reductions:

  “No agreement can supersede the constitution and put limits on military forces… So we have a similar legal problem…”
  ([15:30])

  • Ukrainians want to maintain military parity to ensure self-defense.

Frozen Assets – Frustration and Leadership

• Diverging US and EU approaches:

  “Americans…want to control how this money is spent, but they don’t have a choice… Russians actually move this funding…fearing that the US will be stricter… but Europe is putting their foot down.”
  ([16:53])

  “This is an example of weak leadership, indecisiveness and problems with coordination which, frankly, Russia exploits with respect to Europe…”
  ([16:53])

• Doesn’t expect decisive European action unless there’s a crisis:

  “Something has to happen to Europe for Europe to truly wake up… the general public… are simply in denial about the real threat Russia presents.”
  ([17:47])

On Security Guarantees and the Future

• Skeptical about guarantees’ enforcement:

  “I am not confident at all. It will all depend on the operational structure…”
  ([19:02])

  • Warns that only strong, operational support will make guarantees credible, and believes a future Russian invasion would prompt a much stronger Western response.

Key Timestamps

• [03:12] — Volker doubts Russian willingness for peace.
• [04:44] — European fears about rewarding aggression.
• [06:41] — Details (and doubts) on US security guarantees.
• [09:22] — Frozen Russian assets debate.
• [11:50] — Milovanov on Ukraine’s priorities.
• [14:14] — Inviability of territorial concessions.

---

II. Between the River and the Sea – Identity, Belonging and the Power of Personal Narrative

Guests: Youssef Swade (Actor, Playwright), Isabella Sedlak (Co-writer, Director)

Main Points & Insights

The Play and Its Intent

• Host Bianna Golodryga describes the play as a deeply personal, non-linear narrative of identity straddling Israeli, Palestinian, Arab, and European cultures.

  “It was as if I was some companion alongside with you…having coffee with you and learning about your life.”
  ([21:00])

• Opening the show intentionally ‘not political’

  “In the beginning, we tell the audience… you don’t even need to [protest] because I’m just gonna talk about my life. And of course, in my life there is this complexity…”
  — Youssef Swade ([22:11])

Navigating Multiple Identities

• Swade’s background: Arab Christian by birth, Israeli citizenship, raising Jewish children in Berlin.

• His children’s mixed heritage seen as a “gift,” embodying multiple cultures and languages:

  “My son says, ‘I’m everything and nothing at the same time.’ And for me, it’s like it touches my heart.” ([26:25])

• The play features scenes in Hebrew, Arabic, English, and German, reflecting the reality of his family life.

Memorable Quote/Exchange: Navigating What Others See

• From the play:

  “What do you mean you’re an Arab but you’re Israeli? … And you’re also Palestinian. What? …Are you Hamas?”
  ([28:40])

  • Captures the confusion and labeling Swade’s family faces regularly.

Conversations with His Children

• Swade on his son’s reaction to potential IDF service:

  “If I’ll serve in the Israeli army, who should I fight against? Against myself?” ([29:30])

• Swade’s realization:

  “Instead of just talking to your son, talk to everyone...” (re: making the play) ([31:05])

Resistance to Telling His Story

• Isabella Sedlak on Swade’s initial hesitation:

  “I’m going to be hated by everyone… either one side or the other… Because I cannot choose a side. And this not choosing a side created a third narrative…”
  ([31:24])

• The play’s ‘third position’ invites others with mixed, in-between identities to relate.

October 7th As a Turning Point

• Swade recounts friends pushing him to “choose a side” after Hamas’s attack:

  “…they couldn’t stand it. It’s like, how could you look at the other side and see them as human beings, you know? And…for me… it’s tragic.”
  ([35:18])

Recognition for Authenticity

• Golodryga praises the play’s emotional honesty:

  “Your authenticity, the fact that you can tell both of them [Jewish and Palestinian friends], I feel your pain and really mean it…”
  ([36:47])

Key Timestamps

• [22:11] — Swade on opening the play, avoiding explicit politics
• [26:25] — Swade reflects on his children’s experience of mixed identity
• [28:40] — Excerpt from play: “Are you Hamas?”
• [29:30] — Swade’s son: “Who should I fight against? Against myself?”
• [31:24] — Sedlak describes initial resistance and emergence of a “third narrative”
• [35:18] — Swade: October 7th’s effect on his relationships

---

III. The Presidential Pardon: History and New Dangers

Guest: Professor Sai (Sy) Prakash (Legal scholar, author: The Presidential Pardon: The Short Clause with a Long, Troubled History)
Interviewer: Walter Isaacson

Historical Context & Constitutional Debates

• Origin: U.S. pardon power modeled after British royal tradition, designed to mitigate harsh criminal laws. ([38:09])
• Federalist Paper debates: Alexander Hamilton defends broad pardon powers but acknowledged risks.

  "...his discussion in the Federalist is somewhat nuanced because he doesn't say that there aren't any potential issues with the breadth of the pardon power. He admits that there are..." ([39:02])

Presidential Pardons – Past and Present

• Historical Example:

  • Washington’s mass pardon of Whiskey Rebellion participants aimed at pacifying dissent ([40:22])

• Contemporary Concerns:

  • Pardons used for overtly political purposes, not envisioned by the Founders:

  “The pardon power is being used for political purposes in ways that would have been unfathomable at the founding…” ([41:51])

  • Both Trump and Biden administrations have granted pardons preemptively and to associates/contributors.

• Trump-era pardons:

  • Pardoning January 6 defendants and campaign donors.

    “President Trump is pardoning many, many contributors… I wonder whether that taboo has been utterly broken by this president…”
    ([43:32])

• Pardons now used as campaign promises:

  “Presidents are going to run for office, promising to pardon their political allies… and you know, it turns out that sometimes partisans are guilty of crimes…”
  ([48:35])

Notable Quotes & Analysis

• “If you are someone who's a billionaire… you would donate to a campaign or pay a lobbyist…thinking you might avoid $100m... fine.”
  ([45:06])

• Pardoning preemptively: Not new, but growing more strategic and controversial

  “Go back to the rebellion example. When you pardon rebels, you're not saying we're going to prosecute you... you're saying if you lay down your arms now, you won't be prosecuted...”
  ([46:48])

• Power unchecked:

  “The president does not need to go to Congress to pardon people, and there's no judicial review or very little judicial review of these pardons.”
  ([50:20])

Solutions and Outlook

• Only constitutional amendment could restrict the power.
• Voters should demand more responsible practices (“vote for candidates who promise to be more circumspect…”):

  “…act upon only those applications that experts have vetted, then I think people would have greater confidence in the pardon process.”
  ([50:53])

Key Timestamps

• [41:51] — Pardons for political purposes, not as originally intended
• [43:32] — Pardoning contributors and campaign donors
• [46:48] — Preemptive pardons and their history
• [48:35] — Pardoning political allies as campaign strategy
• [50:20] — Pardon power: unchecked and unilateral

---

IV. Brief Cultural Segment: Jane Austen's 250th Birthday

• Celebration in Bath, iconic moments from Pride and Prejudice adaptations, and a nod to Austen’s enduring literary legacy. ([52:17])

---

Notable Quotes Recap

• "We have never heard from Russia that they are prepared to end the war…everything we hear from Russia is the opposite…" – Kurt Volker ([03:12])
• "Okay, no NATO… but give us something equivalent to NATO…as long as it has security guarantees, that’s what it really needs." – Timofey Milovanov ([11:50])
• "If I’ll serve in the Israeli army, who should I fight against? Against myself?" – Youssef Swade, relaying his son’s question ([29:30])
• "The pardon power is being used for political purposes in ways that would have been unfathomable at the founding." – Professor Sai Prakash ([41:51])

---

Episode Summary Conclusion

This Amanpour episode offers a candid, multi-faceted view into the Ukraine-Russia conflict’s diplomatic deadlocks, the lived realities behind complex identities amid the Israel-Palestine conflict, and the growing controversy over politicized presidential pardons in America. Engaged, informed guests provide sobering analysis and personal testimony, challenging assumptions and highlighting the sometimes ambiguous lines between politics and personal life, defense and deterrence, justice and power.

Transcript

[Bianna Golodryga]

Hello, everyone, and welcome to Almanpour. Here's what's coming up.

[Audie Cornish]

I think we're closer now than we have been ever.

[Christiane Amanpour]

Trump offers Ukraine strong security guarantees, but it comes with a warning. Accept now or risk losing them. With territory still unresolved, are we really days away from an end to the war? I ask Kurt Volker, former U.S. ambassador.

[Bianna Golodryga]

To NATO and a former member of.

[Christiane Amanpour]

Zelenskyy's government, Timofey Milovanov, then what do.

[Youssef Swade]

You mean you're an Arab but you're Israeli? Yeah, I am Israeli. And you're also Palestinian. What?

[Christiane Amanpour]

Caught between two worlds, a new play explores the identity crisis of actor Yousef Swade. I speak to him alongside his collaborator Isabel Sedlock.

[Professor Sai Prakash]

Also ahead, the pardon power is being used for political purposes in ways that would have been unfathomable at the founding.

[Christiane Amanpour]

The presidential pardon, is it entering a dangerous new phase? Professor Sy Prakash tells Walter Isaacson about his deep dive into the troubled history of the constitutional clause.

[Bianna Golodryga]

Welcome to the program, everyone. I'm Bianna golodriga in Washington, D.C. sitting in for Christiane Amanpour. So are we one step closer to peace in Ukraine? After two days of negotiations between the U.S. ukraine and Europe, there certainly seems to be optimism in the air. U.S. officials say they've made significant progress on 90% of the disagreements between Kyiv and the Kremlin. Most importantly, a strong NATO like security guarantee against future Russian aggression, but but with a caution that the offer won't be on the table forever. And still some of the most significant sticking points remain, like the dispute over the Donbas. Russia continues to demand the entire territory, which for Ukraine has been a red line. Now the new proposal goes back to the Kremlin. But is a steadfast President Putin really ready to accept the terms? And just how prepared is the US to convince him? Kurt Volker is the former US Ambassador to NATO who served as special envoy to Ukraine during President Trump's first term. And he joins me now also from Washington, D.C. kurt, it's good to see you. So significant gains have been made thus far. It seems as if momentum is moving in the right direction. That is what we're hearing from Ukrainian officials and Americans following this meeting over the weekend. President Zelensky even saying that Ukraine is willing to forgo NATO membership for now if it gets strong security guarantees from the United States. Not willing to cede territory at this point that Ukraine still can controls. From your perspective, is the United States right to say that they are 90% there in terms of reaching a Deal?

[Kurt Volker]

Well, I don't see any basis for saying that, to be honest, because we have never heard from Russia that they are prepared to end the war. And in fact, everything we hear from Russia is the opposite, that they want all of the Donbas. They also want all of Zaporizhzhia and Kherson. They want to roll back NATO to pre1997 enlarge. They want to control the Zaporizhzhia nuclear power plant by themselves. So there's been no give whatsoever from Putin or from Russia that we have heard. Now, maybe there are things happening in private channels between the White House and the Kremlin that we don't know. But everything we've heard publicly stated by Russia indicates that they have not moved at all. What's good about these talks is it is getting the U.S. ukraine and Europe much more closely aligned so that we have a common idea about what a peace should look like. But there's no reason that I can see to believe that Russia is going to move.

[Bianna Golodryga]

And at the same time, you have European officials, including the NATO Secretary General, warning just last week that Russia, that Vladimir Putin won't stop at Ukraine, especially if Ukraine is forced to accept a deal that is not fair to the country. So it does seem on the one hand, you've got a couple of voices being the United States and Ukraine perhaps saying that they're moving closer to a potential deal, whereas European officials seem increasingly alarmed.

[Kurt Volker]

Well, it depends on the contours of the deal, because if it is a deal that rewards aggression, that actually recognizes Russian conquests of Ukrainian territory, that's something that is going to be a concern for European leaders because it will whet the appetite for Putin to do it again. And there are plenty of other countries in Europe other than Ukraine, that also were part of the Russian empire at one point that feel very, very vulnerable in a situation where Russia is being rewarded for aggression.

[Bianna Golodryga]

Yeah, we have the Finland warning that even if a deal is struck now that Russia will simply shift forces towards NATO's border. How big of a risk do you think that is? Is Vladimir Putin really sensing weakness here in the United States stepping up and honoring Article 5 of NATO, saying that an attack on one's an attack on all?

[Kurt Volker]

Yeah, well, you know, he has never tested that before. Let's hope that he still believes that the United States is committed to defense together with NATO allies of all NATO territory. But that includes, as you say, Finland, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland. These are all countries with territories that Russia would love to take or to reclaim for Russia, and we have to demonstrate resolve. Now, one of the things in these talks this week is the idea of US Security guarantees for Ukraine. This is a very good thing. I think it's realistic of Zelensky to say not NATO now, perhaps later, someday, but not now. But there have to be security guarantees that are equivalent to NATO in terms of how serious they are, the commitments that they represent, so that Putin takes them seriously.

[Bianna Golodryga]

Do you have a sense that we have any more details on what those security guarantees would entail and how long they would be on the table for Ukraine?

[Kurt Volker]

Well, it's puzzling when you hear the US Position that they're on the table now and there are serious security guarantees, but they're not there forever. Well, if the US And Ukraine and our European allies are all on the same page here, and Putin is the one rejecting peace, why would we be pulling those security guarantees off the table? Again, they're there because we need to reestablish deterrence in Europe. That's the whole point. So I don't see the logic in that. But that being said, what I've seen from news reports, there's no one speaking directly about the contents, but the news reports indicate that they are very serious and indeed that President Trump would submit them to the Senate for ratification to make them really bind as a US Security commitment, which is a very good step if we get to that point.

[Bianna Golodryga]

And are you getting the sense that this would happen simultaneously with the United States, at least under President Trump, continuing to sell weapons to Europe for Ukraine?

[Kurt Volker]

Yes, that's my impression, yeah. I've not heard anyone suggest that the US Would not sell weapons and ammunition for use by Ukraine. President Trump has obviously taken this away from a foreign military assistance framework. It's no longer charitable giving, it is selling. And I think in that framework, this is good for US Defense industry. It's something that President Trump has supported until now, and I would think that that would continue. And indeed, if we get a ceasefire in Ukraine, which is, I think the best that we can hope for is just a ceasefire, we would need to continue to support Ukraine so that we do establish deterrence of future Russian attacks.

[Bianna Golodryga]

Again, there is a sense among many European leaders, and I think that was confirmed from what many viewed as an alarming national security strategy, one that we haven't seen in decades from the United States that seems to chastise and criticize Europe more than view Russia as a strategic threat. In fact, the language was that the goal was to reestablish strategic stability with Russia once the war in Ukraine ends. From the perspective of Europeans and their agency here having a seat at the table, talk about the significance of the decision that is expected to be made this week, finally, about what to do with the $250 billion of frozen Russian assets and whether they will ultimately agree to use that as a loan for Ukraine over the next couple of years.

[Kurt Volker]

Sure. Well, Europe has been inching toward this very, very slowly. They have frozen these assets for a long time, but they've not seized them, and they have not been able to find a mechanism for providing them for Ukraine. What they are now positing is that there will be reparations for Ukraine at some point based on Russia's aggression, and they would give Ukraine a loan with these assets as collateral to advance that payment to Ukraine so that it can be used now. And then when reparations are paid, basically they would be those assets that have already been used. So it's a device that they are trying to get to. The European Union is not in full agreement on this. There are a couple of countries in the EU that are not in favor. So they are still trying to do the diplomatic work in the corridors to see if they can get a critical mass of countries that have the votes to do this through something called qualified majority voting. If they can get enough votes there to push this through, then I think that can happen this week.

[Bianna Golodryga]

Yeah. And another wrinkle here is the United States potentially wanting to utilize this money in a different venue than how the Europeans had been hoping to, and that is offering a loan to Ukraine. We will continue to see an important week here in Europe for sure. Kurt Volker, thank you so much.

[Kurt Volker]

Pleasure, Vienna. Thank you.

[Bianna Golodryga]

Well, for the Ukrainian people, a deal couldn't feel further away. Russian drone and missile attacks have plunged large parts of the country into frequent cold and darkness. Addressing the Dutch parliament earlier today, President Zelenskyy warned his allies not to forget that winter can become one of Russia's most dangerous weapons. Let's bring in Timofey Milovanov, Ukraine's former Minister of Economic Development and the President of Kyiv School of Economics. It is good to see you again, Timofey. The last time we spoke, you were cautiously optimist. You did not view Russia as being in a position, at least as of the last few weeks, of sabotaging a potential deal after this weekend's talks and President Zelensky saying that at least for now, we can remove Ukraine joining NATO as provision here. Are you more optimistic or less?

[Timofey Milovanov]

Yes, I'm More optimistic. I'm still cautious, but I think that's what's happening is packaging really. Ukraine is saying, listen, okay, no NATO, good comma, but give us something equivalent to NATO in some sense. It doesn't really matter to Ukraine if it's NATO or not, as long as it has security guarantees. That's what it really needs. And so, you know, it's all about whether the United States and Europe can provide Ukraine and themselves with destruction, not just statements, but with the funding allocated operational infrastructure to guarantee and implement and execute those guarantees in case something happens.

[Bianna Golodryga]

And yet we've heard nothing from the Russians. You remain optimistic, but you know, there are those that say Russia and the Kremlin sense that the pressure is coming from President Trump, mostly directed at one party and that is President Zelensky. So why should Russia give in on anything at this point? What is your response to that argument?

[Timofey Milovanov]

Well, I absolutely agree. So what we have seen that in the beginning, in fact I argued quite strongly that the United States, unfortunately for Ukraine, uses mostly leverage against Ukraine while it's trying to use both stick and carrot with respect to Russia. And it's very deeply unfair and disturbing. But I think the situation is changing somewhat. The United States is now talking about security guarantees for Ukraine, but also funding for reconstruction. And it's taking some much more specific on the part of Russia. I think essentially their offer is take it or leave it offer. They might be willing to move a little bit in terms of packaging of the deal, of perceptions of public appearance, but I think they are happy to be either way, unfortunately, to continue to have this meat grinder in Donbass or stop for a while, for several years, maybe five, six years, and then see what happens next.

[Bianna Golodryga]

So President Zelensky has said while he may be willing to concede NATO membership for now, what he can't concede is territory, territory at least territory that Ukraine continues to hold. He says it's not a moral decision that he can make and it's also not a legal one that he can make as well. What is your view and what are most Ukrainians view on this? What would happen if President Zelensky agreed to give land that Ukraine continues to control?

[Timofey Milovanov]

He cannot. The constitution prohibits him from that. It's not up to the president nor even to the parliament. For the parliament to change the constitution, it will have to be two sessions. Most likely there will be election in between. That means it's going to take year. So we have seen that in the past in 2014, 2016, through means agreements, there have been agreements to change something in constitution, and that will has never worked. So that essentially is the problem. Even if Ukraine agrees to something, to change something in the constitution, to give up territory legally, I think it won't be able to deliver that. So I think the only option is actual ceasefire, some kind of demilitarized territory, observers kill zones, what not. It still is possible to find a compromise, but it's really, really difficult.

[Bianna Golodryga]

You've also warned against what had been a demand from Russia as well, and that was significant troop reduction from Ukraine. Zelenskyy had pushed back against that as well. Ultimately, what is the number that you think most Ukrainians would feel comfortable with if they agreed to some reduction, but not obviously to the extent that the Kremlin had been demanding?

[Timofey Milovanov]

Well, there are two points here. One is basically sovereignty in the constitution. No agreement can supersede the constitution and put limits on military forces, on the ability to defend itself. So we have a similar legal problem and in substance the similar problem that this is really an independence war and it's all about sovereignty of Ukraine. But if we put that aside and speak pragmatically, what is the amount or number of troops? I think what I have heard from people, it's closer to the million of active duty people who are combat ready. Something on par with what Russia is now having at the borders of Ukraine at the front line, so that Ukraine can continue to defend itself.

[Bianna Golodryga]

Given your focus and expertise on economic policy, I'm just wondering if there's any frustration or what your views are on the fact that now for nearly four years, you still have debate and indecisiveness among European leaders about what to do with the $250 billion worth of frozen Russian assets? Is it your view that that money should have gone or should go to Ukraine as a loan over the next couple of years and only be repaid if Russia pays reparations or not. Because there are some conflicting views from how the Americans view that money should be spent.

[Timofey Milovanov]

Well, so Americans of course, want to control how this money is spent, but they don't have a choice. They don't have jurisdiction over that. And there's some irony which is not lost on anyone following the situation. Russians actually move this funding, this money out of the United States, fearing that the US Will be a little bit stricter and tougher on them than Europe. And it turned out that Europe is actually the one who are putting their foot down. So that's interesting. And then I am supporting the view that the money should go to Ukraine. They should have gone a long time ago. And in fact, this is an example of weak leadership, indecisiveness and problems with coordination which, frankly, Russia exploits with respect to Europe. And, you know, until we get Europe to be more coordinated and more decisive, we cannot talk about any strategic stability with respect to Russia and Europe.

[Bianna Golodryga]

And are you optimistic that Europe will in fact become more coordinated and decisive?

[Timofey Milovanov]

Unfortunately not. I think something has to happen to Europe for Europe to truly wake up. You know, I think politicians are awake, military, they are awake, intelligence services are awake. But the general public, you know, they, they, at least in, in some countries, substantive part of Europe are simply in denial about the real threat Russia presents. And something much more significant, unfortunately, in my view, will happen to Europe before Europe becomes serious about deterring Russia.

[Bianna Golodryga]

Well, you have two conflicting assessments here last week. The National Security Strategy released by the United States says that one of their goals is to reestablish strategic stability with Russia while also focusing more on the Western Hemisphere. The UK Threat assessment is that Russia will continue to try to destabilize Europe. So my final question to you is if it is security guarantees and at least a freeze in the conflict, how convinced and how confident are you that those guarantees will be followed through if Russia does, in fact reinvade Ukraine? We know what happened in 1994 with the Budapest memorandum between Russia, Ukraine, the United States and the UK.

[Timofey Milovanov]

I am not confident at all. It will all depend on the operational structure. You know, will there be command, will there be coordination, there will be stockpiles, there will be funded funding pre allocated, you know, military trained, all kinds of things, because otherwise it's all theory. But I also think that the US Also will change their view over time back to more classic Reaganist policy, unfortunately, and Russia will convince them to do so. And finally, I think that even if the security guarantees are not going to be in place in the sense that they would be promised, the reality of the next invasion of Russia, the response from Europe and from the United States will be so much stronger than this time. Then it will be in many ways sufficient to help Ukraine to survive and exist as a sovereign nation.

[Bianna Golodryga]

Timofey Milovanov, we'll have to leave it there. Thank you for the time and do stay with cnn. We'll be right back after the break.

[Rebecca Alter]

This week on the assignment with me, Audie Cornish. The Oscars will be out like the Golden Globes will be out. There's a Super bowl coming up with Bad Bunny. Yeah, the start of the year, every year is really a time where some of these water cooler moments kick off.

[Bianna Golodryga]

I think people really need anything that's galvanizing or hopeful.

[Rebecca Alter]

You seem like you're embodying cringe right now. Yeah, it's weird to see the cringe process running course through me in real time. That's Rebecca Alter, a culture writer for New York Magazine. Listen to the assignment with me, Audie Corn streaming now on your favorite podcast app.

[Bianna Golodryga]

Now, our next guest is a Palestinian with an Israeli passport. At least that's how his father describes him. Raised by Arab Christian parents and now raising his own Jewish children in Berlin. It was straddling these multiple identities that inspired actor Youssef swayed to bring his life story to the stage. And his provocatively titled one man play, between the river and the Sea was born. It's already impressed audiences in Edinburgh and Berlin. And this week we'll take on New York under a different title, river and Sea. Youssef joins me now alongside his longtime collaborator, the play's co writer and director, Isabella Sedlak. Welcome, both of you. I have to say, Youssef, I really enjoyed this play and I hope you don't take it wrong. Watching it, I didn't think I was actually in a play. It was as if I was some companion alongside with you or perhaps a voyeur as you were with someone else, having coffee with you and learning about your life. You open the show by promising that you're not going to talk about politics or the war, you're just going to talk about your divorce. And the audience laughs and it's almost as if there was a collective sigh of relief about what was going to be in store for them. Just talk about opening the idea for opening the play that way.

[Youssef Swade]

Well, first of all, because we didn't want it to be so politic, like talk about politics, mostly to invite the guests to see a private show. And especially because of the name, between the river and the Sea, describing my life between two narratives, two nations, two stories, two cultures. So we kind of, in the beginning, we tell the audience, listen, you can say whatever you want, you can demonstrate we are open to anything. But just so you know, you don't even need to do that because I'm just gonna talk about my life. And of course, in my life there is this complexity. There is the combination of all those stories all together. And the proof to that is just in the premiere came so many people from different countries. We had Syrian people, Iranian, Israelis, Jews, Arabs, Russians, Ukrainians from everywhere. And they all sat down, cried and laughed. And we felt that we are doing something special, Right?

[Bianna Golodryga]

Because of course, where you come from, your background, your story, you can't tell it without politics seeping in, but you do it in a natural way that's not forced upon the audience, and that does present a level of comfort for them. Isabella, the question of why now, what drew you to this play? What made you want to. To partner with Yousef and tell it the way you did?

[I]

Well, Yousef asked me if I would be up for developing a play about his life story. And I know that he's veryhe chooses very well when and how and under which circumstances he wants to say anything about his life story. Because knowing that everything becomes a political issue, marrying a Jewish wife as a Palestinian Israeli is not just a private choice, but suddenly it's a political issue. And so he asked me, and I immediately said yes, because we've been collaborators for years and we love to work with each other. And only later on I thought, like, oof, what did I get myself into? This is a huge topic, and it could. Anything could happen. And also the theater was very nervous about also, like the reactions of audiences or also in Berlin, the political situation. But we were very happy to understand that we actually managed to create something that made people be able to sit together and to actually spend those 60 minutes together in a space and. Yeah, and listen. And listen to the complexities and listen also to the nuances and to the chaos that human identities and biographies bring, because nothing is so linear. And Yousef's biography, I mean, you call it your beautiful chaos. Also sometimes it shows that many things don't go along the lines that some people might want to present us as normal, not at all.

[Bianna Golodryga]

Marrying a Jewish woman, we should say, not once, but twice. And as the play opens. As the play opens, Yosef, you are talking about an upcoming meeting with a therapist, because your second, soon to be ex wife would like to take your daughter. You have two children, a boy and a girl, and your second wife would like to take your daughter back to Israel. And thus you are objecting. You would like to keep them in Germany with you. It is interesting how names recur throughout the performance. You become Yossi. To fit in, you went to a kindergarten, both a Jewish kindergarten and an Arab kindergarten. Your father, Sliman, becomes Shlomo. You ease back and forth between Hebrew and Arabic. So let me ask you, what is your dominant language like, what language do you think in? I was born in the Soviet Union. I came to the US as a small child. Russian was officially the first language I learned. But I for sure think in English. It seems like you go back and forth so quickly, I can't figure out what it is you think in.

[Youssef Swade]

Well, that's. Sometimes people ask me which language I dream, and it's hard for me to answer. I don't remember, actually. I really don't remember because I was in kindergarten, Jewish schools, and then I moved to Arab schools and my parents spoke Arabic, my best friend spoke Hebrew. And so I really don't know. I'm very confused. I'm not confused. Back then I used to consider myself confused on losing my identity. But today I understand that I didn't lost it. I actually gained many identities and by speaking also Hebrew fluently and also Arabic fluently in today, English and German a little bit. So I feel I got a gift. And also my children, you know, sometimes people look at them like, oh, this mixed identity, it's probably hard, no? For them it's a gift. Like my son says, I'm everything and nothing at the same time. And for me, it's like it touches my heart. I feel I did something right in a way.

[I]

And I don't know if you remember, there is a scene in the play also where he's talking to his sister in Arabic, his son in Hebrew, and his smaller daughter in English. And this is actually like the home situation that I also know when I hang out with the family that it switches all the time. And there is not one language, there's multiple.

[Bianna Golodryga]

Well, we have a clip from the play where your son is on the phone with a girl who has a crush on him back in Israel and asks him the question that you just described for our viewers. You get asked all the time. Your kids get asked all the time. It seems to be very easy for you and your son to know who you are, but maybe not so much for the other people in your life. Let's play a clip from the play.

[Audie Cornish]

Hey, my name.

[Youssef Swade]

You know that they cancel school tomorrow because there's bombs alert? Do you have schools in Berlin?

[Kurt Volker]

I don't know.

[Youssef Swade]

I think so.

[Professor Sai Prakash]

Yeah.

[Audie Cornish]

Yeah.

[Youssef Swade]

Wow, that's so scary. I hope you don't have Arabs at your school.

[Bianna Golodryga]

I don't know.

[Youssef Swade]

I don't know if we have Arabs. Oh, Shelley, you're an Arab.

[Professor Sai Prakash]

I am.

[Youssef Swade]

I forgot. What do you mean you're an Arab but you're Israeli? Yeah, yeah, I am Israeli. And you're also Palestinian. What? What do you mean Palestinian? Are you Hamas?

[Rebecca Alter]

Abba?

[Youssef Swade]

Are we Hamas? Are you crazy?

[Bianna Golodryga]

Okay, first of all, I want to know what your son thinks of that, I mean, I think that's sort of the universal. I have almost a teenager, I guess, a teenager. And it's the same. The voice drops like, I'm too cool to even speak more than one sentence at a time. So you depict that perfectly. But obviously there's so much more nuance there. Just talk about the conversations that you've had with your son and your younger daughter, about their background, about who they are and some of the questions that they're asked, the uncomfortable ones especially.

[Youssef Swade]

Well, with my daughter, I don't speak yet. She's six. So I'm not into the identity complexity yet because I had to face it when I was 4, and for me, it was too early to be an Arab boy in a Jewish school. But for my son, actually after October 7th, and when the war started, he started asking questions for the first time. He wanted to know not about his identity, but more about what's going on. Because in school they talk about Ukraine and Russia, but they don't talk about Palestine, Israel, because it's so sensitive. And I was angry at the beginning, but then I thought, who will talk to them? Like, I don't trust anyone. And then we started having conversation. And of course, being half Jewish, as half Israeli, he has also Austrian passport. So he asked me. So I told him, you know, as a Jewish Israeli, you have to serve in the army at one point. And he said, like, wait, if I'll serve in the Israeli army, who should I fight against? Against myself? And I was, like, looking at him like, oh, my God. Okay, let's talk about it. And it was amazing. This answer was, like, blowed my mind how he understands the situation so well, better than anyone. And of course, we felt we have something very powerful that we want to dig in. And Isabella was the first one to see it and told me, listen, instead of just talking to your son, talk to everyone. I felt humble and like, what? Nobody will be interested in my story. But apparently there is. There is interest because I feel like people.

[Bianna Golodryga]

I should say, Isabella, speak to that. Speak to what you saw. And maybe some of the hesitation or resistance that Yusuf initially may have had about going there, that you said, you know what? No, you need to. And this is what the audience should be seeing.

[I]

Well, I think, like, the resistance was clearly, I'm going to be hated by everyone. Like, that was like, nobody will like what I say, either one side or the other side, or everybody will be unhappy with whatever I say was you. Yusuf's position. Because I'm basically alone with my position. Because it's so specific and I cannot choose a side. And this not choosing a side somehow started to create a third narrative beyond the two narratives that I heard. But also then we started to research and we found more people like Palestinian Israelis, who started to voice their perspectives or their narratives. And I. And Youssef also said, like, oh, that's the first time that I feel I'm not the only one kind of in this situation. And now the experience with the show is that a lot of people are approaching us after the show, sometimes who also come from completely different backgrounds. I mean, basically you can be in between at your Christmas family dinner because your family has such hardcore different political positions. But there are also people, for example, from Jewish Russian backgrounds who work in Egypt, who approached me once and like, really different stories. And it's beautiful to feel that there is this kind of. There is no position becomes somehow a new position where more people can participate in a way. Yeah. So this is something that I'm very happy about whenever people come.

[Bianna Golodryga]

But what you're able to do is you're able to actually have an honest conversation where perhaps, and I would imagine this is some of the feedback that you're getting from audience members that it feels more trustworthy that you don't have a dog in this fight because you're invested in all sides. So there does seem to be more of an independent, you know, apolitical view here from everybody in your life, whether it's your parents, your ex wives, and obviously yourself and your children. And Yusuf, you said you've never really cared much about identity until you were forced to choose a side. And you go through your life in this play where there were instances where you were choose to force or you were put in a position that you were very uncomfortable with, even with your own friends. But all of that culminated on October 7, where you had friends, both a Jewish friend that you grew up with and a Palestinian friend who were essentially telling you, choose a side. And here's a clip from those powerful emotional exchanges for our viewers to see.

[Youssef Swade]

Yusuf, why don't you say what you think? Are you afraid? No, I'm not afraid. Well, maybe I am. I know you're going through shit now, and I just want to be there for you. Well, you saw what those monsters did. How can anyone stand by their side? Listen, I don't think it's a matter of science. I just wish I could see you and hug you. Yeah, that's very sweet. You're always trying to be sweet. Youssef.

[Bianna Golodryga]

Youssef draw a through line from that exchange that we just saw to the provocative title of the play itself, between the river and the Sea.

[Youssef Swade]

The thing is, I'll tell you what, I think that that was the pick of my experience. Feeling really depressed in this moment, these moments where my friends started to leave me because I felt that it's happening to everyone around me, not just Palestinians and Israelis, but everyone that this political situation or this tragedy or this conflict concerned them around the world. And sometimes just a change in your mind or a different perspective that you have could lead that your friend would leave you and people really left each, like friends, really separated just because of this conflict. I mean, just. I mean, it's a big conflict, but still like from, from little things. And for me, it was really my best friend. The people that I love are starting just because I said, you know, I still believe in peace. I still believe we should talk to each other. I still believe that there is a chance. And they couldn't stand it. It's like, how could you look at the other side and see them as human beings, you know? And, and for me, it was. It was shocking. It was in the beginning, very sad because I felt, you know, there went through tragedies that I never went before and I can understand them at the. At the same time, why are you pushing me away? I mean, it felt really, really weird until today, I don't have an explanation for that. I accept it. But at the same time, it's. For me, it's tragic. I mean, I don't know. That's one of the reasons we did this play.

[Bianna Golodryga]

And that comes across your authenticity, the fact that you can tell both of them, I feel your pain and really mean it. You made me think. You made me laugh. You made me get emotional. This is a play I think a lot of people would view as something that everyone should see. It's very provocative, it's very thoughtful and it's very original. Yusuf Swade. Isabella Sedleck, thank you for joining us. Really appreciate the time.

[Youssef Swade]

Thank you very much.

[I]

Thank you so much.

[Bianna Golodryga]

We'll be right back after the short break. Well, next to the use of executive power, the presidential pardon has long been a clause in the constitution. But with 11 elected American officials receiving clemency from Trump this year, is it being misused? Professor Sai Prakish speaks to Walter Isaacson about this, detailed in his new book.

[Audie Cornish]

Thank you, Bianna. And Professor Sai Prakash. Welcome. Welcome to the show.

[Professor Sai Prakash]

It's a pleasure to be with you here today.

[Audie Cornish]

You've got your New book. It's called the Presidential Pardon, the Short Clause with a Long, Troubled History. Let's begin with the history. How did it begin?

[Professor Sai Prakash]

Well, as you know, Walter, this pardon power exists in many different civilizations, but our pardon power mostly comes from the Brits. As colonies, we benefited from the pardon power. And then when they created a new, you know, when they declared independence, the states exercised some bit of pardon power, as did the Continental Congress. When they got to the Philadelphia Convention, they decided that there needed to be a pardon power at the federal level, in part because many criminal laws were too harsh. And they saw a need to reduce that harshness through the pardon power. And so that's why we have a pardon power in the federal Constitution.

[Audie Cornish]

I think Alexander Hamilton defends it in the Federalist Papers and even gets into a bit of an argument with George Mason down in Virginia, where they have it different on impeachment. Explain those arguments.

[Professor Sai Prakash]

So Alexander Hamilton in the Federalist is defending the Constitution. It actually turns out that at the convention, he did not want to have the president have the power to pardon treason. But when he's talking about the Constitution, you know, as Publius, his job is to defend the Constitution as it is. And his discussion in the Federalist is somewhat nuanced because he doesn't say that there aren't any potential issues with the breadth of the pardon power. He admits that there are, but he says on balance, it's better to give the President an unfettered power because if you fetter it, you're making it more difficult to give pardons, especially in cases of rebellion. He talks about that at great length. So he's, you know, he sees the wisdom of giving the President a broad pardon power. But we don't really know what he thinks because what we're seeing is, you know, a bit of advocacy on his part. The game is to try to get the Constitution ratified. And of course, he and others are successful.

[Audie Cornish]

So you talk about rebellion and that they needed it in cases of rebellion to try to bring the country together. And so George Washington does that with the Whiskey Rebellion, a pretty wild treasonous thing. Two people convicted for death. And then Alexander Hamilton is kind of shocked that he does that. Right.

[Professor Sai Prakash]

Well, as you're right, that there's people in Western Pennsylvania that don't want to pay a tax on whiskey, and they tar and feather collectors, and they obstruct the US Marshal from enforcing the law by ordinary means. And Washington sends state militias, and one of the tools he uses is lay down your arms, become peaceable again. And you'll get a pardon. And so that's the first sort of mass pardon under the Constitution. And you're right that some Federalists are dismayed because they want a crackdown to prevent rebellions going forward. And it turns out that there is another rebellion in Pennsylvania several years later under the Adams administration. You know, was it a result of the mercy shown by Washington? It's hard to say. You know, we've had a number of rebellions. We had the Civil War, and there was no rebellion after that. But certainly Hamilton and I guess Washington proved that a well timed offer of pardon could lead to a pacification of the populace. Because sometimes people start a rebellion and then they come to their senses or they decide it's not such a good idea. And a pardon pardon makes themyou know, gives them confidence that if they lay down their arms, they're not going to be executed for having taken them up in the first instance.

[Audie Cornish]

Well, of course, that has echoes today with the January 6th insurrection and Trump giving a pardon all the way through. How is that different?

[Professor Sai Prakash]

Well, you know, I think what's going on today, Walter, is that the pardon power is being used for political purposes in ways that would have been unfathomable at the Founding. The book talks about how many different pardons by many different presidents were perceived as partisan or political, meaning they were perceived as advancing the interests of the incumbent. And that's happened repeatedly. But the kinds of pardons we're seeing now both to prevent prosecutions, but also to undo prosecutions, I think is fairly unprecedented. Right. On January 19th, you know, you have President Biden pardoning a bunch of folks who he thought might be prosecuted by President Trump. And then President Trump comes into office and undoes, you know, prosecutions related to January 6th. And then on top of that, we have the prospect of candidates for the president promising pardons as a means of getting elected, which we haven't seen before. I think the first time we saw it was Joe Biden and marijuana. And of course, Trump explicitly campaigned on a promise of pardons to folks related to January 6th. And I think we're going to see this going forward where presidents or candidates run for office saying, I will pardon some group and thereby hope to gather votes from people who are sympathetic to that group.

[Audie Cornish]

One of the controversial pardons was when President Clinton pardoned the billionaire convicted financier Mark Rich. Is this part of sort of a downward spiral or just ratcheting badly of the abuses of the pardon power?

[Professor Sai Prakash]

I very much think so, Walter. Mark Rich was pardoned by Clinton on the last day of his presidential term. And there was a firestorm that resulted in congressional investigations and a U.S. attorney investigation. And there was a bipartisan sense that this was wrong, that people should not get pardons if they contribute to the president's library or if their spouses or ex spouses contribute to the president's library or campaign. This was such a powerful sense that when George W. Bush tried to pardon Isaac Toucey, they kind of revoked the pardon after the fact. But now I think we've kind of, you know, gone off the deep end. President Trump is pardoning many, many contributors. And there are some voices criticizing that, but I think they're rather muted, and I think they haven't really affected the president's incentives. I seen the president showing no hesitation to pardon those who have contributed to his campaign or his super pac. And I wonder whether that taboo has been utterly broken by this president, meaning to say the next president might be willing to pardon contributors on the sense that, well, why shouldn't contributors also be able to get a pardon? Why should they be disabled from getting the pardon? They should be able to get a pardon like anybody else. And then you might suspect that people who contribute are more likely to get a pardon because they're more likely to get the president's attention.

[Audie Cornish]

Tell me about the Trump pardons to contributors and others. Which ones bother you the most?

[Professor Sai Prakash]

Well, I mean, I think they're all kind of troubling. What I would say is that there are lots of, of, you know, what's going on now, Walter, is people are facing millions and hundreds of millions of dollars of fines, and they're getting a pardon which not only absolves them of guilt, but also erases those fines, which has a rather huge effect on the Treasury. And if you are someone who's a billionaire or a multi, multi millionaire, you can see why you would pay, you know, why you would donate to a campaign or pay a lobbyist several million dollars, thinking that you might avoid 100 million or a 200 million or even a $500 million fine. It makes economic sense, right, from a purely cost benefit analysis to spend that money to donate to the president's super PAC or to hire an expensive lobbyist because you're avoiding such a huge fine. And so I think we're going to see more people donating to the president's super PAC or doing business with the president or, you know, donating to a presidential campaign in the hopes of getting a pardon, because, again, that taboo is broken. And from their point of view, if they can avoid two or three years of jail time and or hundreds of million dollars of fine fines with 20 or 30 million dollars, that's a very good investment.

[Audie Cornish]

One of the things that President Biden did, former President Biden, besides giving a pardon to his son who had been charged with a crime, he pardoned people preemptively, such as General Mil or Dr. Anthony Fauci, who had not been charged with anything, members of the House committee hadn't been charged. Was that a new move on the pardon?

[Professor Sai Prakash]

No, that's always been a possibility. Go back to the rebellion example. When you pardon rebels, you're not saying we're going to prosecute you, convict you and then give you a pardon. You're saying if you lay down your arms now, you won't be prosecuted. Here is a pardon. Pardon, right. So you're often going to make a pardon before any prosecution in order to avoid that prosecution. And I think President Biden thought these people were innocent, that they were likely to be targeted by President Trump. And so he pardoned them preemptively. And whether one thinks that's a good idea or not turns on whether one thinks these folks committed crimes that ought to be prosecuted. Obviously, President Trump and his allies did think that. But when President Trump leaves office, I suspect he's going to do something similar to his allies. He's going to pardon them to prevent a Democratic administration from prosecuting them. And then a different set of people will feel rather aggrieved by that because they will feel like the president is pardoning his allies, some of whom committed crimes, and it's wrong to give them this blanket immunity upon leaving office because it sort of incentivizes them to do wrongful things while they're in office. I mean, in other words, if President Trump's appointees know they're going to be pardoned at the end of his term, they might do all manner of things that they ought not to do and that they wouldn't do. But for this idea of a preemptive pardon at the end of his term.

[Audie Cornish]

You talk about President Trump's pardon of the January 6th insurrectionists and you say it's going to reverberate an extraordinary, unprecedented and unforeseen ways. Tell me about that.

[Professor Sai Prakash]

Well, again, I think part of what's going. So the first thing we need to remember is that President Trump ran on giving them a pardon. Now, he, when he ran for president, you know, the third time, he said he wasn't going to pardon everybody because he said some of those people were violent offenders. And so he suggested he was only going to give a pardon to some. And then when he got into office, I think he decided he didn't want to distinguish the violence violent offenders from the folks who just wandered into the Capitol. And I think he just wanted to fulfill this promise as soon as possible. And he kind of realized that he would face continuing pressure to pardon them even if he didn't pardon them at the outset. So he just sort of decided to cut the Gordian knot, so to speak, and pardon them all. But I think what you might suspect is that going forward, presidents are going to run for office, promising to pardon their allies, their political allies, their partisan allies, and hoping to secure their votes, hoping to secure their enthusiasm for their candidacy. And, you know, it turns out that sometimes partisans are guilty of crimes. Right. It's not as if every partisan is, you know, is spotless and, you know, innocent of crimes. And so I don't think we should be using the pardon power to reward our political allies and to secure votes. Right. Which is kind of what's going on in the past two administrations. But I do think this is what is going to come going. This is what's going to happen going forward.

[Timofey Milovanov]

Right.

[Professor Sai Prakash]

Because unlike many of the promises the president makes, a candidate makes running for president. This is a promise that the president can actually fulfill.

[Timofey Milovanov]

Right.

[Professor Sai Prakash]

The president does not need to go to Congress to pardon people, and there's no judicial review or very little judicial review of these pardons. Right. Meaning that the president has unfettered discretion to satisfy or to, you know, meet his campaign promises, which makes it a very attractive promise to make, and it makes it a very attractive promise to fulfill.

[Audie Cornish]

Short of a constitutional amendment rewriting this famous clause, is there anything that can be done, any guardrails that can be put in?

[Professor Sai Prakash]

I think the American people can vote for candidates who promise to be more circumspect in granting pardons, who promise to follow a practice of listening to people who have reviewed these applications in great detail right now, and at the end of every administration, for the last several administrations, presidents are acting at the behest of lobbyists to a greater degree than they're acting at the request of experts who have reviewed these applications. And so if presidents would sort of revert to some sort of more normal process of having experts review these applications and then pledging to act upon only those applications that experts have vetted, then I think people would have greater confidence in the pardon process if they perceive that pardons are being promised to get votes. And if they perceive that pardons are being given to contributors, then I could see very little reason why you should feel very confident about this process, because it seems to favor the rich and the wealthy and the connected more than the average person who might have committed a crime in the past, but has led an exemplary life, life in prison or out of prison, and therefore might merit a pardon.

[Audie Cornish]

Professor Sai Prakash, thank you so much for joining us.

[Professor Sai Prakash]

It's been my honor and pleasure. Thank you.

[Bianna Golodryga]

And finally, one cannot have too large a party. That's a quote from Jane Austen's Emma. And two, she was right there. Especially when celebrating the 18th century writer whose 250th birthday would have been today. Thousands flocked to Bath, where Austen had lived, to mark the occasion earlier this year. Dressing up for a Reason, themed promenade, the author's novels have provided comfort and inspiration to many across the globe and have been adapted into numerous films and TV shows, including the 1995 BBC adaptation of Pride and Prejudice, where Colin Firth as Mr. Darcy takes a plunge in the lake. It's a scene that was so iconic that his shirt was on display in Jane Austen's house in Chatham, England. Wow. Well, that is it for now. Thank you so much for watching and goodbye from Washington, DC.