← Christiane Amanpour Presents: The Ex Files
Christiane Amanpour Presents: The Ex Files
Q&A: Epstein Files ‘cover-up’ & Trump’s treatment of immigrants
00:30:03
Loading summary
Transcript39 lines
- [00:03]
A
This is a Global Player original podcast.
- [00:06]
B
Hello, everyone, and welcome to the Q and A bonus section of our X Files with me, Christiane Amanpour and Jamie
- [00:14]
A
Rubin here in New York City.
- [00:15]
B
Yeah, and I'm in London and this is where we answer your questions. So let's get started. Jamie, I am going to ask you the first question because it does in fact, involve decisions on your side of the Atlantic. So here we go. Sonia on Instagram asks, do you agree with Hillary Clinton that there is a cover up by the Trump administration over the Epstein files? Is he or his administration, quote, slow walking the release, as Hillary Clinton claims?
- [00:41]
A
Right. I haven't seen exactly what Hillary Clinton said, but generally I do agree with Hillary Clinton on this subject. I don't know if I'd use the word cover up, but I definitely understand the point she's making. Look, we know from the early days of the release of the Epstein files and, and from many discussions people have had that Donald Trump back in the day was considered the best of friends with Mr. Epstein, this criminal. And that came out very early on. We know that there are enormous number of blackouts of information and names and pictures and things of that sort. And it is remarkable that in this latest release, despite the fact that he's the best of friends, there's almost very little about Donald Trump in there and a lot about everyone else in the world. And you could argue reasonably that the Trump administration has successfully diverted attention from this fundamental question of the intense close relationship between our president and this horrible man to the enormous number of people who've gotten caught up in the Epstein scandal. Some very guilty, knowing very well what he did, people saying things like, bring your harem on your next trip and horrible things like that. And then many people who just knew him as a fundraiser and are getting caught up in it, a lot of resignations, a lot of people's lives have been deeply damaged by this release. And yet there's almost no focus on this big, big question of what did Donald Trump know about this criminal's behavior, when did he know it, and why is that relationship so absent from this recent release?
- [02:33]
B
Yeah, and just, just to amplify that a. Of course he says Donald Trump, that he broke off his cordial, friendly relations when he realized, quote, unquote, what a creep he was and threw him out of Mar A Lago. But as you say, there is so much that's redacted that you just don't know what else there may be under all those big black markers. And this thing has touched so many people right to, to Saudi Arabia, to other, you know, countries around the world. It's really incredible the tentacles that this Epstein has. And I mean it beggars belief, really does here in the uk, Jamie. As you know, the man formerly known as Prince Andrew, now Andrew Mountbatten Windsor, the second son of Queen Elizabeth, the brother of the current King Charles, is further and further, you know, shunted into disgrace by the more and more revelations regarding Epstein. There was a picture of the, I mean, for most people it'd be a lovely cottage, but for Prince Andrew it's a real step down of a cottage almost enshrouded in trees on the sand state, which is in Norfolk, which is way away from, you know, all the access and culture and social life he had at Windsor. In the meantime, it's really, really, really been very bad for the British government, which continues, Keir Starmer, the Prime Minister, to, to have fallout over this and he had to go to the Munich Security Conference to get away from the massive amount of criticism he's facing over, you know, appointing Mandelson as ambassador over what to do about, you know, Prince Andrew and this and that. And there are increasing calls for Andrew to potentially testify to Congress and for the police to be allowed to investigate further. So this is very bad.
- [04:27]
A
And Jamie, can I just add one point? You know, at the fundamental level, this Epstein release has brought so much criticism and anger and frustration and attention because it appears to be this issue of how do the elites behave, right? These elite people who have lots of money, who can go to parties, fly on private planes, go to private islands. And what's remarkable inside this question, the ultimate group of elites right now are the tech robber barons, Donald Trump and his family and his administration's leaders, many of whom, many of whom are billionaires, who are behaving like billionaires. And when they talk about their relationship with Epstein, they tell stories of, well, you know, I barely knew him. I just parked my boat nearby and my family and my kids and each of the nannies for my kids were brought onto the island just for an hour. These are the most elite people in the world. We've never had a government led by more billionaires and more elites than this administration. And yet the elites in the rest of the world, the so called elites, are suffering from the Epstein files. And somehow this administration, which is the ultimate elitist administration, you got to be a billionaire, you got to be a tech robber baron of the highest level. You go to dinner parties in a kind of a Louis XIV kind of situation. Or Louis V, 16th, where there's, you know, Marie Antoinette behavior about building, you know, new palaces and building new rooms with gold gilted walls and windows and door frames. I mean, nothing could more symbolize the French Revolution's evil than the way the elites are running our government right now. And somehow that's not part of the discussion.
- [06:24]
B
And of course, elites in Saudi Arabia and elsewhere as well are targeted and touched by this. And let's just say, because I do need to say, and we all need to say, that in this wealth of dumped files and pages, basically, again, the women at the center of this, the victims, are consistently ignored because of all these top names that are being revealed. And that's something very, very bad, you know, especially when it comes to, you know, getting justice and accountability for them. So let's just remember that. Jamie, you want to ask the next question?
- [06:57]
A
Yes. We have a question from Jane on Instagram about one of our favorite subjects, Ray and truth. How significant is it that the US and Iran have agreed, I guess, in the last 24 hours on, quote, guiding principles, unquote, for further negotiation and what are the realistic next steps towards a concrete nuclear deal? Is this genuine progress or mostly symbolic? You want to take a crack at that?
- [07:24]
B
I'll take a crack at this because there's so many conflicting facts going on. On the one hand, these negotiations also with certainly the Iranians, I haven't heard a deep dive. And Jamie, you can tell us about how the administration, the Trump administration is portraying these latest. But the Iranians are saying that this is, you know, positive and they've agreed, as this Jane says, on guiding principles for further negotiations. You can imagine that the Iranians are pretty desperate to do a deal as they see literally a massive military buildup right on their doorstep, on their watery doorstep. The Arabian Sea and the Persian Gulf and a huge number of aircraft, we're told, are flying over to join this, as Trump calls it, armada. So this is big. It's not just a token. It's a huge, huge buildup. So the question is, what actually is the aim of the talks, of the buildup of whatever? And let's just not, you know, beat around this bush while the Iranian regime wants to survive and may very well agree to suspending or ending, you know, nuclear enrichment, at least during Trump's term, et cetera. The opposition in exile, the monarchists, the royalists around Reza Pahlavi made it clear at the Munich Security Conference this weekend and keep making it clear that they have absolutely no desire to see such negotiations be Fruitful. They know, as they say, as Reza Pahlavi said to me, that Trump has to be seen or actually give diplomacy a chance. But they are hoping that diplomacy fails and that this regime is further knocked back by a US Military, military intervention. And I have to say, because I'm right at the center of this ridiculous storm, the royalists, whether they're actually inside Reza Pahlavi's circle or not, but many of them are going crazy online, you know, criticizing me, criticizing anybody who doesn't hold this view, this absolutist, monarchist view. I'm an objective journalist who covers all sides of all these stories. But it's become very visceral, very vituperative, and you can just feel the temperature of this current moment on fire. So what do you think about the US Side of this?
- [09:45]
A
Well, you've heard me use this phrase diplomacy backed by force or force backed by diplomacy. They're very different things. We've talked in the past about how you can reach an agreement with a recalcitrant or a rogue regime because of the threat of force. And if the threat of force is married properly and, and linked properly and synchronized properly with diplomacy, you can really often achieve far more than you would otherwise. And I think President Trump believes that after successfully taking out Maduro, literally taking him out of the country and putting him in a jail in New York, the threat of force has much more credibility, and it does right now. And I think the shah son you mentioned and the monarchists, you know, they want this to be force backed by diplomacy. They want the diplomacy just to be showing a willingness to go the extra mile, but not really wanting to go the extra mile. I think there are people in the Trump administration, including Witkoff and Kushner, the two, Jared Kushner and Steven Witkoff as two negotiators. And today there was a story about how those two are doing everything with no help from the State Department, no help from the National Security Council, no help from the Department of Defense. Wow. These are extraordinarily complex issues involving the details of nuclear enrichment and the dangers from it. The existence of ballistic missile factories and ballistic missile capabilities, possibly with one day nuclear weapons on them, the support for Hamas and Hezbollah, and, and the idea that these two amateurs, really, they are amateurs in the nuclear field, are doing these negotiations. Makes you wonder how serious they are. Now, I have, as you no. Suggested that there is a deal to be made because the Iranians can't enrich right now and thus could commit not to enrich for some period. Of time. But to answer your question specifically, my understanding now is that both Vice President Vance and the Secretary of State have dismissed that possibility as way too short of their red lines. Their objectives of zero enrichment forever and ending the nuclear enrichment program, if that's the attitude they take, I actually don't think it's possible to reach a deal. So these guiding principles, remember, are just the headlines of a section of a piece of paper. They don't actually mean much. Now, it's true that the Iranians and the Americans have been fussing over the type of negotiations, whether they'd be direct, whether the United States would meet directly with them originally, whether there'd be handshakes and all that sort of thing. But in the end, it is about the nuclear issue. I think if the Trump administration could resolve that satisfactorily, I think they would avoid the use of force. But my current feeling, unfortunately, right now, is that the armada, which really is an immense and enormous percentage of our assets, are now very close to Iran and in the region, has built up. And there's a certain inevitability that happens with the use of force, either by accident, inadvertence, or intention that it will happen. And I just don't see any evidence that the. The discussions from the American side are yielding the kind of, let's face it, capitulation that the Trump administration really wants.
- [13:16]
B
I mean, I think I'll read this question to you because it comes with another one. Elias or Elias on Facebook. Does Iran pose any genuine threat to America right now? So I would also add, if this inevitability of this massive buildup leads to the use of force, military intervention, where does it go? Does it go to capabilities that threaten the United States and neighbors, or does it go to capabilities that threaten the people of Iran?
- [13:45]
A
Right. That is a fundamental question. And I think we need to remember that Iran right now doesn't have missiles that can reach the United States. They don't have aircraft that can reach the United States. They don't have operatives really on the ground that can damage the United States. Now, they do have the ability to hire terrorists. And you may remember that one of Saudi Arabia's more prominent diplomats was ambassador to Washington, in Washington, and they actually hired, you know, some thugs to blow up a restaurant in Washington with the Iranian ambassador. Sorry, Saudi. Yeah, Saudi ambassador inside the restaurant. I think that's the kind of threat that Iran could pose to the American homeland. That's really all. But there are American military bases, there are American interests, and American people spread out across the Middle east in many, many countries. And Iran does have the ability to retaliate against those bases and those Americans in the region. And finally there is the question of the Strait of Hormuz. Now, back in the day, you may remember when the regime fell, closing the Strait of Hormuz would have practically.
- [15:05]
B
What do you mean when the regime fell?
- [15:08]
A
The Shah's regime fell. Back in the late 70s, the issue of closing the Strait of Hormuz was equivalent to stopping the world economy in much the same way. Think about it. When we talk about rare earths, if the Chinese just quickly.
- [15:25]
B
The Straits of Hormuz are the little piece of waterway that links Iran to the greater Persian Gulf and then out to the Arabian Sea and elsewhere for the ex export and import of goods.
- [15:36]
A
But most certainly in those days, without oil being constantly replenished through the Strait of Hormuz and other shipping lanes, the world economy would have frozen. And there were real. I remember the gas lines that used to happen when there were oil prices in the United States. You know, comparatively today it's rare earths and it's the Chinese who could stop the world economy and freeze it through, blocking the transfer of these special rare earth chemicals that can power the modern information economy. So those threats are still there. The Iranians themselves, you may have noticed the Supreme Leader himself talked about the fact that a ship is very dangerous, but destroying a ship with a drone could also be very dangerous for the United States. So they're trying to threaten American shipping, trying to threaten the Strait of Hormuz closing. They're trying to use whatever threats they have to try to deter the United States from launching these attacks. But I don't think they have the kind of ability and importance and influence and oil doesn't have what it once had, this dramatic immediate effect on economic affairs. So that's why I think this thing's probably going to happen.
- [16:54]
B
And, and the question, obviously for the, for many desperate people inside Iran and for the diaspora outside of Iran is does this necessarily lead to regime change? Does it help people shake off the current regime or what? This is the big question for the diaspora, for sure.
- [17:15]
A
Yeah. I mean, I don't really. We've talked about this.
- [17:19]
B
I know it's very hard to predict this.
- [17:21]
A
Yeah, all of us want to that regime to end, you know, this theocracy, this Islamic regime that is Islamic security system that blocks the people of Iran from having a normal life. We, we all hate to watch the people of Iran go through what they're going through. But I I just look at the country and having, you know, seen it up close once and having studied it most of my professional life, I feel the security system is built on the tens of thousands of Iranian officials, governments, Basij guerrillas, you know, not guerrillas, but, you know, henchmen who, who are willing to shoot and kill their own people who protest. And when you have tens of thousands of people like that and you have a vertical structure going straight to the supreme leader who issues these orders to crack down, I just don't see how outside military power can change that equation.
- [18:22]
B
Seth had to say, well, again, everybody's on tenterhooks at this very, very dramatic and potentially transformative time. Why don't you ask question number four?
- [18:44]
A
All right, this is a good one.
- [18:46]
B
You can ask. You can ask it and answer it.
- [18:48]
A
I'll try to. Could the US Potentially face sanctions from other nations because of the regime's treatment? This is now the American regime. They're asking treatment of immigrants. I will take a first.
- [19:01]
B
Everything's a regime, by the way, now.
- [19:03]
A
Yeah, apparently, I guess it's good regimes and bad regimes or just regimes. Sanctions formally imposed by the United Nations. No, the United States would veto that. Sanctions formally imposed by something like the eu. No, that wouldn't happen. But I think what we will face and are already facing are sanctions in the broadest sense of the word, meaning that people are not visiting the United States as much as they used to. Planes are often empty. The. The scary behavior of ICE and the US Immigration authorities and the stories about Minnesota and the whole attitude of the Trump administration has dramatically reduced tourism to the United States. And there are now companies, American companies, American people traveling abroad have the sanction of the hatred that has been generated by this administration towards America. You know, anti Americanism is not new. America's been hated by lots of people for a long, long time. But in my entire adult life, I've never seen the sort of widespread, broad anger at the United States from people who were normally pro American. Take Denmark, for example. It's dramatic.
- [20:19]
B
Is it worse than the time when, you know, George W. Bush was going after Iraq? I mean, really created millions of people in the streets in Europe, Italy, the
- [20:28]
A
U.K. yeah, I think that's true that there have been times like that. And I think the second George Bush administration was a time when the American electorate's decision to re elect Bush after the Iraq war really did affect attitudes towards the United States. And there was some visceral anger. You know, Americans calling French fries freedom fries and dumping out French wine and all that sort of thing. Thing. But what I'm talking about here, even during those days there was a recognition that there were two Americas. And this is the true story of the United States. There have always been two Americas. There have been the America that had slavery until the 1860s, but also the America that led the abolition movement from Massachusetts and New Hampshire. There was the America that was anti immigrant, that was isolationism, that was the know nothing movement during the period after World War I. And, and that America was not beloved by the rest of the world. But, and then, and this is what was different from the World War II. Until recently, America was seen consistently as a leader of the world and trying their very, very best to make the world a safer place for everybody. Helping Europe recover, helping Asia recover. And for those 1945 till recently, America's role was Democrat or Republican was seen as generally a good thing for the world. I agree Iraq was a problem and Vietnam was. And now people think, and Europeans have said this and the Canadian prime minister said this beautifully, that idea that America is a leader of the world has been shattered or as you pointed out, the German chancellor saying squandered. And that's what's different.
- [22:20]
B
I tell you, I was shocked to read today reports. I mean I had the Republican senator and pro Trump MAGA type Lindsey Graham from South Carolina on one of my panels at the Munich security conference. And he was very, you know, as he often is, says quite a lot of out there things. But there's been a video leak. I don't know. You've heard of it, right? Where he's dropping the F bombs and everything in a conversation with the Danish prime minister and the Greenland prime minister at Munich where he's basically throwing abusive language at them and saying Greenland must be America's. So this is what's still going on. Apparently a Democratic senator who was in what may have been a co dell, you know, co delegation walked out because it was so embarrassing.
- [23:06]
A
But this Lindsey Graham is a pretty good barometer of the Trump administration. Remember he was very close to McCain. He's been a very rational, helpful role as a senator many, many years. But when he thinks he needs to make nice with the Trump administration, remember the idea of going to a Danish official, a fellow NATO member, a country whose soldiers have fought and died with the United States in Iraq and Afghanistan and threatening them with invasion over an issue that's not an issue, the Greenland bases. And the Danish government is willing to do whatever we want to jointly defend Greenland from potential hostility from China or Russia. In the future, they'll do whatever we want. That's reasonable. They just won't give away their land and their sovereignty. Sovereignty. They won't capitulate. And these are our allies.
- [24:00]
B
Yeah, I know. It was really terrible. You know, I tell you, I asked the president of the EU Commission and the British Prime Minister, because if Minneapolis and the shooting of Alex Pretty and Renee. Good, good. Were the turning points against ICE and, you know, big backlash against the US Administration domestically, the. The threat to seize either by military or by economic sanctions. Greenland was the red line that caused Europe to basically stiffen its spine and say, enough already. I asked them, is this done now? This is before I heard about the Graham F. Bombs about it. They said, well, we're very glad that it's entered the talking phase as opposed to the military threat phase. So it's not done. I mean, there's still problems there, and it's just unbelievable to think about it. Last question, and this is poignant. Freya on Instagram. In light of the death of Jesse Jackson, what can today's leaders learn from his ability to both challenge and collaborate across the political spectrum? I just want to say, because I've met him frequently, I've interviewed him a few times. I was at the famous 1984 Democratic convention in San Francisco, where he talked about that brilliant speech. I mean, essentially from the Ouse to the White House, you know, talking about how, you know, African Americans Absolutely. Continue the struggle. And that, of course, came true when President Obama was elected and then reelected into the White house in the mid 2000s. But I think Jesse Jackson, as ornery as he could be, was always consistent about, A, the progress and the march of civil rights, but, B, the rainbow coalition. And when you think of today, when nobody can form coalitions, everybody's sort of split all over the place. Democrats are split, Republicans are split. You know, the nation is split, families are split. It's actually interesting to remember when. What Jesse Jackson did, and extraordinarily from President Clinton to President Trump, they did both mourn in. I mean, President Trump in, In. In significant and constructive ways. Jesse Jackson's passing and his legacy.
- [26:11]
A
Look, Jesse Jackson. I remember that speech, too. I wasn't there like you were, but I remember it vividly. I remember there was a line he made about, we're fighting for the people who cleaned your room today or served your lunch today. And he had beautiful phrases. And it was really about two concepts. One, the little guy, the person who doesn't have a future of success, who doesn't know how to put his kids into school and then how the little guy can be broken up into all these different groupings, whether it's black, white or brown or red or yellow, as he said, or. He wasn't talking about it then, but obviously sexual orientation. And I have to say that that, that part of the Democratic Party was very, very powerful for, for many, many years. But it did lead, and we should be honest about this, to this identity politics, where people's identity, whether they were black, white or yellow or red or pink, their, their behavior, their, you know, their sexual orientation, whatever that was, identity became associated with the Democratic Party. And I think we lost a little bit of the power of Jesse Jackson's resolution rhetoric, which was really about, this is the party that cares about the little guy. And now we have a situation where the little guy actually thinks that these tech robber barons are going to help him. And that's how Donald Trump got elected. Let's face it, the little guys in America somehow were persuaded that President Trump and his administration, run by billionaires, in bed with the tech robber barons are actually going to help them.
- [27:53]
B
Them.
- [27:53]
A
And that's what the political challenge is today.
- [27:56]
B
And you can see that they're being disappointed. You can see it reflected in Trump's poll ratings. And also Lindsey Graham admitted, member MAGA Republican that they believe that they're going to be hurt pretty badly in the midterm elections. And I spoke to a leading Democrat because everybody asked the Democrats or oslot, who is there to challenge Trump coming up. And this senator told me and Jamie, you're going to love this, that if before the Democratic Party was divided between moderates and progressives, today is divided between those who believe that they should challenge Trump now and really stand up and really go all guns blazing to create a proper alternative, and those who believe that they're just going to wait it out and wait out the administration and slow walk the whole thing, hoping that they can, you know, restore the guardrail, so to speak, after the next presidential. So I found that actually interesting and
- [28:51]
A
that that's all we have time for. And that Senator, or whoever it was, the Democrats seemed to capture pretty well the divide in the Democrats.
- [28:58]
B
Yeah, it's very interesting. Okay, well, Jamie in the United States, me here in the uk thank you. Thank you for this episode. Thank you all for listening to the Q and A bonus episode of the X Files. And of course, if you have questions for us that you would like us to answer, don't forget, you can find us on all the major social media platforms you can get in touch with us. Our handle is Manpurpod. Or you can email us@amanpourpodlobal.com Our next main episode will come out on Tuesday. Remember, not only can you always listen to us for free on Global Player, you can always see us by subscribing to our YouTube channel, where you can watch all of our episodes, the main ones and the bonus ones. You just search. Christiana Manpur presents the X Files. That's it. Over and out from London, over and
- [29:46]
A
out from New York City. This has been a Global Player original production.