← Christiane Amanpour Presents: The Ex Files
Christiane Amanpour Presents: The Ex Files
Q&A: Do Donald Trump and Reform UK benefit from disproportionate media coverage?
00:31:59
Loading summary
Transcript44 lines
- [00:03]
Cristiana Amanpour
This is a Global Player original podcast.
- [00:09]
Jamie Rubin
Hello, everyone, and welcome to the special bonus episode of the X Files with me, Cristian Amanpour and Jamie Rubin. This is where we answer your questions. We want to thank everybody for their questions and, you know, do keep sending them in. Ask us whatever you'd like to ask us and you can find us, of course. On social media, the handle is Manpurpod. Or email us. We're amanpourpod global dot com. So let's get started. Jamie, why don't you take Bob on email?
- [00:39]
Cristiana Amanpour
So Bob on email asks, why is there no one on the Republican side in both the House and the Senate who challenges Trump on his policies? And his Cabinet picks everything he wants, which is following the Project 252025 playbook he gets. Is it the power they crave, or are those members just afraid of him and the MAGA base? All of that. Look, fear is the terrible, terrible consequence of a government run by someone who weaponizes his powers against individuals, against political groups, against law firms, against universities, against anyone who disagrees with him that he chooses to target. Fear is driving our politics right now. I think it was Senator Murkowski who admitted it, that they're all afraid. Now, what are they afraid of?
- [01:30]
Jamie Rubin
Unfortunately, retribution. She said. It's real.
- [01:33]
Cristiana Amanpour
Well, yes, but they're afraid of their. Their office. People who go into power, get elected, and only care about keeping their seat and staying in power are subject to pressure. People who get elected, try to achieve something, and are prepared to lose their seat in favor of what they're trying to achieve cannot be intimidated. And that's the problem that people see get elected and then they. That them staying in power is the most important thing. And if Trump can make that more difficult, they bend. They bend the knee. And the MAGA movement, and this is why the Epstein case was important, was his power base. Because their uniform willingness to do everything he said against Republicans who might disagree with him is where his political power came from. Threatening to primary people by putting another Republican up against them. There are a few Republican senators from time to time. The great one in the first term was Mitt Romney, who stood up and then wrote a whole book about how hard it was to be the only senator who stood up and did what was right as a Republican. So that's the problem.
- [02:42]
Jamie Rubin
It is a problem. I was just gonna add that I interviewed one of these Republican female senators, or you could ask male too. And their perspective is, hey, you know, if I can do what I think is right and keep my constituency Properly served by being at the table still. So try to, you know, Jamie, pass their fear, if you like, into what it means to be a responsible MP or whatever, congressperson or senator for their constituents. But in the end, you're right, it's just about not wanting to lose their job, not wanting to get MAGA stormed. That was a thing at the beginning, if you dared, remember, during the confirmation process. And that guy, you know, Pete Hegseth, who's now the Secretary of Defense, who's really made just, just a widespread joke.
- [03:30]
Cristiana Amanpour
Remember, this guy's a jo. He's. The White House is ready for this. He tried to use lie detector tests to impose, you know, sort of discipline and loyalty on all the people around him. The White House had to stop him because they were going crazy and lie detector testing everybody. Nobody could get any work done because everyone was accusing each other of leaking. This is not a way to run the most important military in the world by someone who had no skills to begin with and is running it like a, you know, a bozo.
- [04:02]
Jamie Rubin
A personal fiefdom indeed. Remember, of course, signal gate, which hasn't fully been finished. But, and it's important to say, I guess on this question, this is what authoritarians do. This is what would happen in an illiberal democracy. So it's a little discouraging to see it happening in the world's most important democracy. Let's get to question two. I think it's, it's for me or both, but I've got some experience inside Gaza. So can Gaza geographically exist as an independent state rather than being included as a part of Palestine? Being such a small area of land, does it have enough agricultural land to sustain itself?
- [04:39]
Cristiana Amanpour
Okay, so these are Daria on email, right?
- [04:41]
Jamie Rubin
Yes, DARIA on email. What did I say?
- [04:43]
Cristiana Amanpour
You didn't. So I wanted to give Daria her moment.
- [04:46]
Jamie Rubin
Oh, okay. DARIA on email. Thank you. So look, I've been there when the Israelis were in full control and then after they pulled out in 2005 and then after Hamas 1 etc in 2006 and after the civil war with the, with the Palestinian Authority in 2007. So yes, Gaza is a very small place. It was a very fertile place. The settlers did, you know, they had their greenhouses, you know, the Israeli occupiers, when they were there, they did grow a lot of stuff and they exported a lot of stuff, well back into Israel and they were able to subsist to an extent on it. But Gaza for the, essentially the entire 2000s, I mean, that's 25 years, has essentially been under a blockade for most of that time. So it's barred from one side with a barrier at Rafah going into Egypt, and it's barred on the other side with barriers and walls and fences and security going into Israel. And it's essentially, as some people have called it over the past 25 years, become a massive outdoor prison whereby only what Israel deems acceptable is allowed in and out, and only that kind of trade. So I think the short answer to that is that at this time, it could not. And now, of course, since the 2024 war, 23, 24 war, now into 25, it's unable to do anything, unable to produce anything because everything has been shattered. So I think Gaza was always envisioned as part of a Palestinian state. That in itself is difficult because it would have to somehow be connected with the west bank and also with some trade to Israel and outside because it has, you know, there is oil and gas or gas anyway, off the coast Gaza right now, Israel claims it. And there is fishing off the coast of Gaza right now. Israel have banned fishing, so they can't even feed themselves at the moment. So there is, you know, there is, there is stuff, but it's been completely ruined and disrupted and denied and spoiled. So it's really hard to imagine how it could sustain itself. Certainly not now, but even in the short and medium term future.
- [07:04]
Cristiana Amanpour
Yes. Well, look, Gaza in theory is on the coast of the Mediterranean. In theory, as Donald Trump pointed out, could be rebuilt and reconstructed with incredible opportunities for tourism and trade and fishing and all of those things once the political matter is settled. Now, remember, the Israelis under Netanyahu liked the idea of separating Gaza from the west bank because they liked the idea of saying to the world, we can't negotiate with the Palestinians because Hamas is in Gaza and the Palestinian Authority in the west bank and how can we negotiate with two people? Blah, blah, blah, blah, blah. All that is baloney, just baloney. I remember going to Gaza with Bill Clinton when it was part of the peace process and a Palestinian state was on the horizon and we were building an airport, we were building a seaport. We were visiting Gaza for Bill Clinton to oversee the meeting of all the original members of the pl. And I was taken around Gaza City by Muhammad Dahlan. And it wasn't thriving, but it was living. And it was, you know, a place that could have grown with the growth and the peace process going on. And we were taken around and Americans were welcomed under Bill Clinton. You know, I was waved at and smiled at and Cheered by average Palestinians. I couldn't go as an American official to Gaza now without a three car filled with security. That's what's changed. So all of these places can come out of their misery once the political solutions are found.
- [08:37]
Jamie Rubin
Exactly. Let's both take this. I'm going to read it. So, Susan on email, I got her name. If Netanyahu and Putin are both wanted by the International Criminal Court for crimes against humanity, how do they seem to keep managing to travel out of their respective countries? Especially Netanyahu, who's been to the US twice in the past few months without being captured. It reminds me of Slobodan Milosevic decades ago, who's the last world leader I'm aware of who actually ever stood trial for his crimes. Is Bashar Al Assad on the wanted list too? If not, why not? Okay, let me take three of those. Number one, the United States is not a signatory to the icc, so they can both go to the usa. And there are some other countries who are also not signatories to the icc and therefore they won't be arrested there, but they can't go to anywhere which is a signatory of the icc. Milosevic took a long time. He didn't travel because he was indicted on very serious charges. And eventually, when democracy came to Serbia after the, you know, the US and allied victory in Kosovo on behalf of the Kosovan majority, Serbs rose up against Slobodan Milosevic. A democracy came in. They had an amazing president who very, very sadly was later assassinated. But they gave up Slobodan Milosevic to, at the time, it was the International Criminal Court at the Hague. So that's one thing. And now, Jamie, there has been a war, a wartime leader, a warlord who's been convicted. I think it's Charles Taylor by the Israel.
- [10:13]
Cristiana Amanpour
From Liberia.
- [10:14]
Jamie Rubin
From Liberia is Bashar Assad. I can't remember, has he been indicted?
- [10:17]
Cristiana Amanpour
Very good question. I don't think he's been formally indicted. But if anybody should be indicted for war crimes, it's Bashar Assad. Remember, with the help of Russia and the Revolutionary Guards of Iran, Syria killed Syrian government officials, were responsible for the death of 500,000 people and the destruction of that country. With half the country moving out of the country, causing refugee crises all over the world because of Bashar Assad. He's now parked in Moscow under the protection of Vladimir Putin. And you know those two, both of them ought to be indicted for war crimes. I think Putin has been.
- [11:01]
Jamie Rubin
Yes, he has been. For the children, for the Abduction of children.
- [11:04]
Cristiana Amanpour
Yeah, and, and look, this is an example of where international law is confusing. And I think it's where cases, where sometimes international law tries to involve itself in what I call high politics, where leaders like Netanyahu, Putin, Trump. Remember, one of the reasons the U.S. never joined the ICC is because we thought, the U.S. thought that every time someone disagreed with American policy, they would be indicting American officials. So the whole system is flawed. And we need to remember there isn't a world government. And if there's not a world government, there can't be international prosecutors who have the full support of all the countries of the world. We are still a world of nation states, not a world government. Now, international law has a role. And when agreement is reached on things like the war crimes tribunal for Bosnia and Kosovo and Rwanda, you know it works. And Milosevic was indicted and he did go to prison and died in prison. And many leaders have been indicted and convicted and served sentences, and that's fine. But when there isn't agreement or when it's used politically, as it is now being used in the case of Kosovo, and I won't go on about that because I do it every time, but when I testify in that trial this fall, maybe we'll talk about that. You know, the, the, the system is abused. Prosecutors use their opportunity. I've talked to very prominent war crimes prosecutors who say it's become a resume building operation for many lawyers. And often the, the effort of the law goes well beyond what politics will tolerate, and that's how you get these anomalies.
- [12:49]
Jamie Rubin
But there are some people who rise above and actually need to be held accountable. So the wonderful prosecutor, war crimes prosecutor, Sir Jeffrey Nice, who actually prosecuted Milosevic, you know, he said that accountability is actually happening, but, you know, the full deterrence is not. Yeah, exactly, that it keeps going on. And just a note too, I remember very vividly it was in 1999, I believe, that Milosevic was indicted under a sealed indictment. And the very brave prosecutor, the Canadian jurist at the time, the chief prosecutor, she did it. Despite what some countries, I think the US as well, Jamie said, no, no, don't do it while we're trying to negotiate, you know, around Kosovo and this and that, but she still went ahead and did it. And in my opinion, it was the right thing. And, you know, he did fall at the end, you know, and his own.
- [13:44]
Cristiana Amanpour
People did give him up. Sometimes the fears of the diplomats are wrong like that. If you indict Milosevic, that can't have a peace agreement, that Wasn't true. Actually added to the pressure on him.
- [13:56]
Jamie Rubin
Exactly.
- [13:57]
Cristiana Amanpour
Every case is a little bit different, is the point. And there's not one uniform way of going about. It depends on who the prosecutor is. It depends on the situation. It depends on whether the major governments of the world are in agreement. And that was what was different in the late 90s. Russia was cooperating, Chinese were abstaining. Now Russia and China are dominating their regions and using their power, and they're not going to allow anything to happen that they don't want to see happen.
- [14:23]
Jamie Rubin
And as you know, the other important thing to point out is that the war crimes tribunals can hand down indictments. But the first order of business, they say, is for the nation itself to try these alleged criminals, pursue their own domestic. Yes, they're just giving advice and they're putting down the case and they're putting down the evidence, and they're saying, you. Let's say. Let's say Israel in the case of.
- [14:50]
Cristiana Amanpour
Netanyahu, or the United States in cases where the use of force has happened in Iraq or Afghanistan.
- [14:55]
Jamie Rubin
Exactly.
- [14:56]
Cristiana Amanpour
Which soldiers committed war crimes?
- [14:58]
Jamie Rubin
Yes, but in many of these cases, they don't do it. So that's why the actual structure of the ICC and those kinds of things are a place of last resort. Anyway, moving on. Jamie, you take the next one.
- [15:12]
Cristiana Amanpour
Beth on Instagram asks, do you believe the US Government has been sufficiently transparent regarding the Epstein case? Why or why not?
- [15:20]
Jamie Rubin
I say that especially for you because I know it absolutely drives you into a state.
- [15:25]
Cristiana Amanpour
Right. I think the answer is no, they have not been transparent. Why not? Well, I don't know for sure, but there's some strong evidence that Jeffrey Epstein has given interviews on tape to a journalist, Michael Wolff, who I know is controversial, but this is on tape. Explain. Explaining his relationship with Donald Trump, explaining the extent of that relationship, explaining what evidence he had of Trump's embarrassing behavior that he put in his safe, photographs that were then taken and that have been in the hands of the FBI and the Justice Department ever since. Apparently, there's embarrassing evidence in those files. And that's what I think they're hiding. Embarrassment. Not crimes, but embarrassment. And clearly there's some monkey business going on. You saw the visit of the number two attorney general, Deputy Attorney General Trump's lawyer, to Ghislaine Maxwell in prison, and she's saying she won't tell all unless she gets removed. And then a week or two later, she was moved to a minimum security prison. So. So, look, there's a lot of monkey business that can go on in these areas. The Jeffrey Epstein case is driving the MAGA movement to distraction and it hasn't stopped, it hasn't gone away. Trump is able to change the subject to some extent, but not really. And once the MAGA base gets worked up about these things, it's not going to stop. And I'm hoping at least it will eliminate the, the power that Trump has over the MAGA movement that has caused so many Republican senators to be afraid. As we talked about in an earlier question.
- [17:25]
Jamie Rubin
Okay, Nina on Instagram asks Christiana, as a journalist, what challenges do you face when reporting on news topics like Trump and Epstein? So I'm going to keep this very top. Jamie's talked a lot about Epstein. I would just say that for me, as a reporter and a journalist, I believe the most news you can get out of that is not all the talk and stuff around it, but the investigative reporters, the ones who, frankly, the Miami Herald and his unbelievable investigative team did the first investigations around Epstein to figure out why he was being accused of these terrible things and getting such lenient treatment by the government. And that blew the whole case open again. So investigative journalists are the ones really, I think, to take this on, on a factual basis and topics like Trump. Well, again, because Trump is so politicized in terms of. And weaponized, and he weaponizes the press. And then the press is in a defensive crouch. And it's really very. And he's incredibly aggressive against the press in 2.0 compared to 1.0, and has exacted, I mean, millions of dollars from various US Networks to try to bend the knee, so to speak. For me, the big difficulty is not not jumping to everything he says or does or posts, but to try to keep my focus on the big issues, which are, in my case, reporting on, you know, the effect of US Policy on foreign affairs, which is what I do. And I am very reactive to what happens when there's a frontal assault on the press. I consider myself, to an extent, a bit of a press freedom activist. And I'm a part of a lot of these groups that defend the press, not only, you know, safety and all the rest of it, but their right to speak. So, so keep it focused on the news and on the policies. That's my challenge in a world which just wants to jump at everything he says and does and posts.
- [19:16]
Cristiana Amanpour
Yeah, and that's the challenge of, you know, 24 hour news and constant topic changes that Trump is very effective at. It's one of his great skills is to constantly do news. But I have to point out here that it has not been an impressive performance by the leaders of American news organizations. It's very, very sad and it's very tragic. And it reminds me in eerie linkages to the McCarthy era, when fear drove institutions to behave in ways they ended up being humiliated and embarrassed by dozens of years later. I think fear is driving essentially companies. News organizations are owned by corporations who care about the bottom line, not the, the business of news, which is to report without fear or favor. They have fear and that causes favor. And they have favored the President by agreeing to settlements for things that they didn't do wrong in order to get Trump off their back and possibly affect their coverage. Whether it. And so those organizations like the New York Times that are owned by individual families have, or the New Yorker owned by individuals and the Wall Street Journal owned by Rupert Murdoch, they have more to be proud of because they have not bent the knee so dramatically as some of these other organizations. And that it's been a sad day for journalism, frankly, in some cases.
- [20:45]
Jamie Rubin
Well, as a journalist, I can tell you that I continue to hold up the flag and I get no pushback from within my own company. And sometimes it's important for individuals also to use their platform and their experience to stand up and do the hard news that we have to do without fear nor favor. I would just add for those in America, the Trump administration's pulling of funding for public media is really, really a sad day. Because this public media, whether it's PBS or npr, you know, people might think, oh, they're a bit liberal, they're a bit that. But what they really stand out is in all the towns and villages across the United States, which have no other access to independent media, and they are community hubs, their local public media television station, their local public media radio station, they are also community hubs and community forums as well as being the only, you know, news operations for many, many small towns and a lot in so called red states, you know, majority Republican states and villages and towns. And I think that's so sad. And I'll tell you another thing which I think the constant denuding of local news and the, even before Trump, the cutting back, the no money for local news is what makes the national news on shaky ground. Why do we think we're constantly getting presidential elections wrong? Because you don't have enough local news to cover everything and to tell us what's going on in their corners of the world. So all these national journalists are busy opining, often from inside the Beltway and And frankly, getting it wrong. They've got almost every presidential election wrong in the last several cycles. Anyway, that's my rant. Jamie, next.
- [22:35]
Cristiana Amanpour
Yeah, with the war in Ukraine now in its 11th year, do you think people are growing less interested in helping or hearing about your updates? Cynically, I fear people don't care anymore. That's a real problem. You know, war fatigue. I think it's a very, very, very difficult problem. I think the Ukrainian government is making a mistake here. I think they would be better off journalists, more access to the front lines on a regular basis to cover the. The horrors of this war in a very, very live and, and compelling way. And I think people would be riveted by it, and it would renew interest in the war. The Ukrainians are too worried about coverage. They're too worried about, you know, getting some information that shows their soldiers don't have enough of this or enough of that or that they were killed. I think they'd be better off having embedded journalists at the front lines able to report the. This massive ground war that's going on. And I think it would increase people's interest because people like to, let's face it, World War I movies are, you know, the most popular movies in the world. They would be seeing the horror of war every day in a more compelling way. And I think it would help the Ukrainians. It may have some downsides, but the upsides would increase, be bigger than the downsides. So I hope that changes. And then, you know, in the end, this war will go on until the Russian government decides that it's had enough. You know, we talked in the second section about when peace works well. It works when both sides are exhausted, when there's this exhaustion point that is reached. I think the Ukrainians would stop now if they could. But the Russian system has to be exhausted, and the government there, unfortunately, as an authoritarian government, is able to force the country to continue the war indefinitely. But until the pain and exhaustion levels reach a certain moment, I think the war is going to go on with or without coverage, with or without cynicism, with or without people paying attention through journalism.
- [24:46]
Jamie Rubin
I would say, yes, Ukraine would stop now. It never asked for this war. It has nothing to gain from this war. But it's refusing to end it on Russia's terms, which essentially means no more Ukraine because Russia wants a vassal state. I think we can all agree on that. I would say Jamie's right about the fact that the lack of real visceral reporting from the front line and from other places. I've done some from adjacent, like wounded being carried by special trains. I've done the victims of the war in hospitals and things like that. The most visceral we can get. I think that does. That does have an impact and a negative impact because it doesn't show everybody what's going on. And I genuinely believe that what we did in Bosnia, the images that are coming out from local journalists in Gaza, these pictures, what journalists do, the reporting from the ground, has at least one impact, and that is to affect what policymakers and most importantly, ordinary people think. And those ordinary people are generally outraged at the sight of horrendous things being committed to other ordinary people. Whether it's, you know, blowing them up with drones or missiles, whether it's starving them to death and to skeletal conditions. People do not want to believe that that's being allowed to happen unopposed. So I think that's where we come in. That's our value added to show those stories and to. To show those pictures. I say just one last thing on this. There's a wonderful documentary by a colleague of mine. You know, he's a. He's a Ukrainian, Mr. Slav Chernoff. It's called 2000 meters to Andrivka. And he follows a Ukrainian platoon as they try to liberate this tiny little village near Bakmut on the Eastern front. And that was in 2023.
- [26:35]
Cristiana Amanpour
It.
- [26:36]
Jamie Rubin
It is incredible, this film. Honestly, it's incredible. And a lot of it, in fact, almost all of it, uses Ukrainian military helmet and body cams, and it is the most visceral thing I've seen. And he's going to do it, but he did it by getting the permission of friends on the front line. And that's what it took. And it's. It's remarkable. Okay, should we do one more?
- [27:00]
Cristiana Amanpour
Yeah. Michael, on Instagram, do you think that parties such as Reform in the uk, intentionally or not, benefit from receiving more airtime in the media? In addition, do you think that Trump's win benefited from this?
- [27:12]
Jamie Rubin
The answer is a categoric yes, yes, yes, yes, and yes. And I remember in 2015, 2016, Trump was, you know, this novelty, but he was huge on social media and on Twitter and actually most of the press, in my opinion. Now, in retrospect, stupidly, the mainstream press kind of gave him a wide berth. People treated him as a bit of a joke back then, but he was very powerful, as we've said on social media. And. And then we all started re reporting what he posted at the time on Twitter. It was called Twitter. And because only certain numbers of Americans at that time had Twitter, but so many more were watching, you know, broadcast news, cable news, and so they got all their information about Trump from us and it served him very, very well. And we were just reporting what he had said on Twitter. So, yes, and the same with Reform uk. It's by no means a maga movement yet, but if it plays its cards right and if the mainstream press gets suckered into, you know, a non objective and a non factual reporting of Reform uk, it could also benefit very, very, very much. Because right now anyway, a lot of the prevailing winds are with the populist nationalist parties and groups and they know how to use all the modern communications methods and platforms.
- [28:38]
Cristiana Amanpour
Well, let me just take a crack at that. Interestingly, some senior Democrats are starting to figure this out and starting to work very, very hard on building the social media presence of the Democratic Party in a way they haven't done. And I can't believe it's taken this long, but they're starting to do it and that's encouraging. Look, the larger problem is this skill that I have to admit that President Trump has of constantly, quote, making news, unquote, by commenting using the power of the presidency, whether it's a phone call, whether it's a tweet on, on X, whether it's a tweet on social or a message on truth, social, whatever tool he uses in saying provocative things, doing provocative things, using the power of the presidency, it's a capability to distract the world from what he's really doing because each subject is be treated as new and people declare something a success. And just because Trump announces it's a success, take all these announcements on tariff investments that countries are committing to invest in the United States. Most of this is just all baloney. It's things they would have done anyway. And it's adding up planned investment and then saying they did it because Trump told them to. And Trump gets to brag and too many journalists write it as a victory for Donald Trump, when in fact it's nothing. It's just a promise to do what you're gonna do anyway and he gets to try take credit for it. And when the chickens come home to roost on his economic and tariff policies, all of these so called victories that are reported dramatically by journalists will prove to have been ephemeral because the real damage will be done to our economy anyway. That's my expectation. It's not a hope, it's an expectation. And then I think the chickens will come home. To roost for him politically. So yes, you can take attention away. You can get more attention than you deserve. But I'd like to think that in a democracy with a free press, in the end policy and actions and real damage and real successes are borne out by time.
- [30:48]
Jamie Rubin
And I'm just gonna end that because people will say, well, because you just said the Democrats are trying to get their media strategy in order and all they have to look do is look at Zoran Mamdani, the mayoral candidate in New York. No matter what you think about him, his media strategy was incredible and it resonated and it was very sophisticated and accessible and it's what the Democrats need to get their head around. Thank you for listening to the bonus episode of the X Files with me, Christiana Manpour and Jamie Rubin. Remember, if you have a question for us that you'd like us to answer about anything in the news or anything else, you can find us on all the major social media platforms. Our handle is Manpurpod or email us. We are amanpourpodlobal.com so our next episode is out on Tuesday wherever you get your podcasts. And remember, you can listen for free on Global Player. You can download it from the App Store or you can go to globalplayer.com that's it. Over and out from us.
- [31:55]
C
Let's be real. Life happens. Kids spill, pets, shed and accidents are inevitable. Find a sofa that can keep up@washablesofas.com Starting at just $699, our sofas are fully machine washable inside and out so you can say goodbye to stains and hello to worry free living. Made with liquid and stain resistant fabrics, they're kid proof, pet friendly and built for everyday life. Plus, changeable fabric covers let you refresh your sofa whenever you want. Need flexibility? Our modular design lets you rearrange your sofa anytime to fit your space whether it's a growing family room or a cozy apartment. Plus, they're earth friendly and trusted by over 200,000 happy customers. It's time to upgrade to a stress free, mess proof sofa. Visit washablesofas.com today and save that's washablesofas.com offers are subject to change and certain restrictions may apply. Fly.
- [32:55]
Cristiana Amanpour
This is a Global Player original podcast.