Return to Transcripts main page


Trump on Trial; Protests in Myanmar; Interview With Phoebe Bridgers. Aired 11-11:40a ET

Aired February 10, 2021 - 11:00   ET




Here's what's coming up.


AMANPOUR (voice-over): In Myanmar, a young democracy under threat, while, in Washington, the oldest democracy tries to clean up its own house. I

speak with Derek Mitchell, former U.S. ambassador to Yangon.

And constitutional scholar Noah Feldman breaks down the issues in Trump's Senate trial.

Then: She's called a voice for a generation with little hope. I speak with breakout singer/songwriter Phoebe Bridgers.


AMANPOUR: Welcome to the program, everyone. I'm Christiane Amanpour in London.

Democracy is under the spotlight, and not just in Washington, where former President Trump's second impeachment trial is under way. Thousands of miles

away, in Myanmar, protesters are on the streets for the fifth straight day following a military coup against their young democracy. They are

demonstrating peacefully and in a carnival-like atmosphere, demanding an end to military rule and the release of their civilian leader, Aung San Suu


One woman has already been critically injured when police allegedly opened up with live fire.

Now, under President Obama, the United States pursued democracy in Myanmar, rallying around Suu Kyi, who was the country's democracy icon and also a

Nobel Prize laureate. The military then finally released her from house arrest, and she became the de facto leader after the country's first

democratic elections in 2015.

She won the latest elections in a landslide as well. Hugely popular at home, she's fallen from grace around the world for defending the military's

brutal campaign against the Rohingya, a Muslim minority.

The United States ambassador to Myanmar is calling on the military junta to now restore the democratically elected government.

Joining me now is one of his predecessors, Derek Mitchell, who served as ambassador there from 2012 to 2016 and also knows Aung San Suu Kyi.

Ambassador Mitchell, welcome to the program.

I wonder what you make of the demonstrators out on the streets. They're really causing people to sit back and take notice, because they have gone

out to face down one of the -- basically, the world's scariest military juntas.


And it just shows you the resilience of the Myanmar people that they have shown generation after generation. I mean, you're seeing just what's on the

screen from the videos of major cities, but you're now seeing demonstrations in cities throughout the country, in small towns throughout

the country and every village throughout the country.

I mean, the military always says that they want unity in the country. In this fractious, very fractious country, this is the one thing that's

unifying them. They want the military out of politics. They want elections. They want democracy. And they want Aung San Suu Kyi back as leader.

AMANPOUR: Ambassador, you know these people very well. And you were there at the beginning of the democratic process there.

Do you think the military will crack down hard? We understand, allegedly, there's already been live fire. We know that there's one critically

wounded, at least. And, also -- and I find this extraordinary and indicative -- quite significant numbers of police appear to have defected

and appear to be supporting the civilian protesters and the civilian leadership.

MITCHELL: It's remarkable how -- again, how brave people are and that there's a growing sort of pressure for social protest and civil

disobedience against what's going on to not legitimize what the military did.

The history is very sad in this regard. The military has shown no compunction against shooting its own people. It certainly has been engaged

in atrocities against the ethnic minorities, ethnic nationalities in all corners of the country. We hear most about the Rohingya, but they have been

fighting the longest-running civil war in the world in Kachin State and Shan State, in Karen, all throughout the country.

So, they are trained to do as ordered. And if they -- and it'd be interesting to see who they bring in. If the local police are not going to

be involved, if they will join the protesters, will, for instance, the military bring in folks on the outskirts and tell some of the hardened

forces that these people are traitors and you must take action?


They really -- you have a military that is not going to give very easily. And you have people that are not going to give in very easily.

So, we will just have to watch to see what results from this. But I'm obviously very, very worried from history.

AMANPOUR: So, of course, as we're speaking, we're seeing these pictures that are coming out of Yangon and other parts of Myanmar of these rows and

rows of military police behind their riot shields, as we have seen quite often, but not in the recent past.

And, I mean, it seems that what we have here is a very young, short-lived experiment with democracy in that part of the world. And it has -- right

now, it's on a hiatus. Whether it's temporary or permanent, we will see.

What should the United States do, given that President Obama in the U.S. were very crucial in encouraging the military to open up back in the mid-


MITCHELL: Yes, well, the U.S. has invested a good deal in Myanmar's opening.

But it isn't about us. It's really about the people there. But it also is a challenge, a first test of the Biden doctrine, as it were, where he's

stated that democracy should be a pillar of U.S. foreign policy in a Biden administration, and that there is this contest between autocracy and

democracy worldwide. And the United States must firmly put it place on the democratic side and must support those struggling for democracy.

But the other pillar of the Biden doctrine is allies and partners. We can't do this alone. We can and we must target the military and those who collude

with this illegitimate new government that's being put in place against the will of the people.

But we have to get our partners or allies like Japan, like Korea, Australia, India is important, Singapore and ASEAN, try to get these

countries to recognize that this is very bad for the future of Myanmar, that it's already set back business interests, stability inside the

country, that we all have a common interest.

And even if we don't have exactly the same approach, the United States will likely put -- impose sanctions, targeted sanctions on businesses. Even if

other countries don't do exactly the same, they have to impose some kind of cost on the regime, have to communicate very hard messages to the military

that this can't go unresponded to, and really try and figure a way out for the commander in chief.

The most important thing now is to give the commander in chief a way out and the military way out. There's no indication they are giving at all.

They're just digging in by the day. But we have to figure out some way, possible way for the military to step down at this point.

AMANPOUR: Well, let me play this little bit of the address by the military commander in chief responding to this and promising, promising that he will

hold elections in a year.

Let's just play this little bit.


SENIOR GEN. MIN AUNG HLAING, MYANMAR MILITARY JUNTA LEADER (through translator): When we have completed the emergency law, we will continue to

proceed under the 2008 constitution. We will have a multiparty election. And we will hand over power to the one who wins that election, according to

the rules of democracy.


AMANPOUR: So, first of all, do you believe him? And what do you make of why he did this? Is it a personal thing, worried about losing his own

privilege and power, money and all the rest of it?

I mean, let's face it. Aung San Suu Kyi is in detention apparently for wrongly being in possession of some walkie-talkies. That is the charge

against her.


AMANPOUR: And that, allegedly, there was election fraud, when we know that there was a massive landslide victory. It wasn't close at all.

What do you think made them do this? And do you think they will have free elections, as he just stated, in a year?

MITCHELL: Well, I think there's a lot of skepticism about that issue of whether he will allow free elections in a year, because the result will be

likely the same, if not worse, for the military in a year.

I think that the military -- there are a number of theories as to why he did what he did, certainly what you listed, which is the personal, that he

had -- was slated to retire in July at age 65, that there hadn't been a place for him to go. He had hoped that he would find a soft landing perhaps

somewhere in the government.

But his relationship with Aung San Suu Kyi was very bad, and they hadn't spoken for many months. And, recently, the interactions between the

military and Aung San Suu Kyi's party were very bad, very tense.

So, he may have felt that the military was being insulted, not respected, and that, in fact, this constitution he talks about, 2008, the military

thought this was pretty well controlled. They called this not just democracy, but disciplined democracy.

And they thought they can have an election, and even if Aung San Suu Kyi won, her party won, which they didn't think necessarily she would win these

landslide victories, at least the military would have some control over the process. But the NLD has outmaneuvered them.


So, I wonder if they just came to the conclusion, one, that they couldn't control her. And, number two, he himself and others couldn't trust that

they were going to be taken care of and protected.

AMANPOUR: So, finally, you obviously got to know Aung San Suu Kyi. For the whole world, she was this icon. And then she did have her halo tarnished

because of a refusal to speak out against the military and an appearance of supporting or at least acquiescing to this terrible assault, crackdown,

it's been called genocide, against the Rohingya Muslims.

Do you think they calculated that her lack of popularity in the West now, in the democratic world, would maybe deflect some blame from them?

MITCHELL: They could have.

I think, much more, it was -- there are a number of things that were probably in their calculations, but this was also pretty well planned. This

was a power grab, pure and simple. They simply want to take -- they think - - the military believes and the commander in chief believes that they have this prerogative to step in when things are not going their way.

It's been the tradition in Myanmar, and it's now this commander in chief's turn, I think, in his mind. They may have felt that, and they misunderstood

that our commitment to Aung San Suu Kyi, though people have idolized her over the years, was not merely about her.

Whether you believe in her or don't like her or are indifferent to her, this is about the democracy and about the will of the people of the

country, the young people that are coming out who, over the last 10 years, have gotten a taste of freedom and do not want to give up what they have


And what we all must do, whatever country, must figure out a way to impose a cost on the military to give them -- to tell them that this is not

working for them or Myanmar, and figure out a way to get past this moment and get Myanmar back on track.

The country has had enough tragedy, and we need to help them achieve their desires and their desire for freedom.

AMANPOUR: Yes, and watching these pictures of these people, young people and others, just braving this military junta is pretty intense.

Ambassador Mitchell, thank you for being with us.

So, what about a more mature democracy, like the United States, for instance? It's in the second day now of Donald Trump's second impeachment

trial. And we're learning that, in Georgia, prosecutors have launched a criminal investigation into the former president's attempts to overturn the

state's election results.

Conventional wisdom, though, says the impeachment trial results are preordained. But there are glimmers that Republicans might be swayed, as

the minority leader, Mitch McConnell, signals, his caucus could vote their conscience on conviction.

The trial is political, but there are critical legal arguments at its core.

Here to explain, constitutional scholar Noah Feldman, who testified during Donald Trump's first impeachment trial.

Welcome back to the program, Noah Feldman.

Now you're into the second day. We're talking as the trial is getting under way. You saw what happened on the first day. Where do you think this idea

of constitutionality -- how far is that going to carry the president's defense, do you think?

NOAH FELDMAN, HARVARD UNIVERSITY: It has to carry it very far, indeed, because, as the video made clear, Trump himself played a central role in

fueling the movement that led to the attack on the Capitol.

So, the defense on the facts is just not very attractive to Trump's lawyers. And, as for their free speech argument, it's a little bit

inapposite, because the reality is that the First Amendment governs what the government can do to you in a court of law. It doesn't govern what

happens to you in an impeachment hearing, which is a separate matter altogether.

So, they're left with a constitutional defense, namely, the defense that the trial can't take place because Trump is already out of office. And

that's also a kind of a fig leaf available to Republicans who will want to vote to acquit Trump, but won't want to go on the record as saying they

think that what he said was fine or in defending his denial of the election results, at least publicly.

So, the constitutional argument ends up, in practice, bearing a huge amount of the weight here. And it doesn't matter so much if it's true or not -- my

own view is that it's a bad argument -- as that Republicans will cling to it.

AMANPOUR: Well, Republicans don't seem to be massively impressed by the president's defense team. We hear that the president himself was not

massively impressed and, anecdotally, that he was yelling at the television yesterday.

Let's put on a little bit -- in fact, let me just say that one GOP senator was swayed by the House Democrats yesterday, and that is Senator Bill

Cassidy from Louisiana. So, I just want to play this from him.


SEN. BILL CASSIDY (R-LA): President Trump's team were disorganized. They did everything they could but to talk about the question at hand. And when

they talked about it, they kind of glided over it, almost as if they were embarrassed of their arguments.


Now, if I'm an impartial juror, and one side is doing a great job, and the other side is doing a terrible job on the issue at hand, as an impartial

juror, I'm going to vote for the side that did the good job.


AMANPOUR: Noah, that doesn't sound like a massive vote of confidence, after day one, for the president side, does it?

FELDMAN: The president's lawyers were very unprepared, woefully so, and especially the first lawyer who presented, Bruce Castor, who essentially

acknowledged in his comments that he was unprepared, that he didn't expect the arguments to go the way that they went, and that he wasn't sure when

was the appropriate time to raise various defenses, but he would give it his best try.

It was a kind of folksy, stuck, deer-in-the-headlights kind of presentation. And I could easily imagine that Donald Trump didn't like it

very much. You wouldn't like it either if it was your lawyer doing such a poor job.

That said, I don't think it's probable that the performances in court are - - or, in this instance, in front of the Senate, are going to fundamentally affect the outcome of the trial with respect to the votes that the sides

are going to take.

Yes, you heard the senator there saying that he was swayed by the presentations, but the truth is that he should be swayed by the reality

that they represent, not by the horse race of who did better on a given day.

And other Republican senators for those same presentations and still concluded that, in their view, the president can't lawfully be tried. Now,

do they really believe that? I, myself, am skeptical of it. But it's the view that they have taken on board in order to find a way to avoid

convicting Trump.

AMANPOUR: And what do you make of the latest news out of Georgia that, I think it's Fulton County, which encompasses Atlanta, I think has taken out,

as we said, criminal charges in this case of trying to overturn the election results?

FELDMAN: Well, we're not quite at the level of criminal charges yet.

What they have done is, they have commenced an investigation. And they have asked those Georgia officials who were in communication with then President

Trump in the course of his now famous call to the Georgia election officials, where he told them to find him 11,000 votes.

And so what the state is doing is, it's investigating that. Now, an investigation is entirely appropriate. You can listen to the transcript of

the call. You can read the transcript of the call. And it seems pretty clearly to fit Georgia statutes, as well as federal statutes, that make it

a crime to try to use intimidation to force a different outcome in an election than actually occurred.

I mean, in that call, you can hear Donald Trump saying that it would be a crime for the Georgia secretary of state not to help him find the votes.

And when the chief law enforcement officer of the United States, which is the president, tells someone in a state, your conduct is criminal unless

you help me, that could be interpreted and presumably should be interpreted as an implicit threat and may be in violation of the law.

So, an investigation is totally appropriate. Whether charges will be abroad remains to be seen, and I wouldn't hazard a prediction about that yet. But

I would say that what's very significant about this moment is that it shows you that, in his-post presidency era, Trump is going to be very vulnerable

to state prosecutors.

And it won't just be in Georgia. It may also be in New York, where most of Trump's financial dealings are, and where it's entirely possible that we

will see criminal investigations as well.

AMANPOUR: So, that's post all of this.

But in this particular process, we also have -- everybody is sort of concentrating on the election and thereafter until January 6, but there are

many who've said that President Trump, when he was in office, seeded this big lie that led to this insurrection, from during the debate when he

refused to say that he would accept the results of a fair election, and on and on and on, constantly denigrating the fact that this election would be

free, fair, and independent, and sort of setting up this thing that led to the insurrection.

That's going to be brought in, right, by the so-called prosecution by the Democrats?

FELDMAN: It will be.

And, actually, to my mind, that's the most important part of the impeachment trial that's still coming. The first day featured very

upsetting video footage of the attack on the Capitol. But we have sort of seen versions of that before.

What is central, in my view, to a successful prosecution, by which I don't mean one that convicts Trump, but one that achieves the goals of

impeachment, is to show the world that Trump tried to break the democratic system, that this was a course of conduct that began with denying the

results of the election, and then it led from there to the violent events of January 6.

So, that's all part of the same process. And it's why Trump needed to be impeached. No democratic system, no matter how robust it's supposed to be,

can survive leaders of the major political parties denying the legitimacy of the election, and inciting people to use force to break up the process.

That's just outside the red lines.


AMANPOUR: And very quickly, just to build on that, you obviously worked on the democratic process in Iraq back after the 2003 war.

You have seen what's happening in a nascent democracy that's been -- had its legs cut under it in Myanmar, as we just discussed. Again, this is a

really important moment for democracy around the world, and particularly because the U.S. seeks to export it and seeks to lead, as Biden says, by

the power of our example.

FELDMAN: It's two-sided.

On the one hand, the U.S. reveals that, even in a democracy that's been functioning for more than 200 years, there are real vulnerabilities. If

enough participants in the political process try to break the system, it can be broken. And that's a very important takeaway for systems all over

the world. Even strong democracies need to be protected, because they're vulnerable.

The other thing, though, that the U.S. can show is that it has a process for addressing that. And that's what impeachment is supposed to be. It's

supposed to be drawing attention within the system to efforts to break constitutional democracy.

And so, right now, the U.S. has a chance to demonstrate that its mechanism for dealing with those kinds of problems is robust enough to protect the

democracy. So, that is the very slight silver lining associated with this challenge.

AMANPOUR: Well, it's a huge silver lining. And I think, for our global audience, it's really important to hear you say that.

Noah Feldman, thank you very much, indeed.

Now, our next guest is a major new star on the music scene. With four Grammy nominations, Phoebe Bridgers is loved by critics and fans alike for

her soulful and thoughtful folk-tinged songs. But don't be fooled.

In a gig that broke the Internet on "Saturday Night Live" this weekend, she performed her song "I Know the End" beginning in her restrained style. Have

a listen.




AMANPOUR: And then there was this, a classic rock star spin.




AMANPOUR: So, I have been speaking with Phoebe Bridgers about living the rock star live, bashing up that guitar, and also what she's been doing

stuck at home in coronavirus lockdown.


AMANPOUR: Phoebe Bridgers, welcome to the program.

PHOEBE BRIDGERS, MUSICIAN: Thank you so much for having me.

AMANPOUR: So, you're in New York. You have just been on "SNL," and you gave an amazing performance.

But I really want to ask you about bashing your guitar to death in "I Know the End," one of your signature new songs on "Punisher." What was that all


BRIDGERS: I have always wanted to do it. And then, when I mentioned it to the show, they were really excited. And they built me this whole monitor

that would, like, look like it was exploding, even if I wasn't hitting it that hard, so, yes, just a bucket list thing.

AMANPOUR: So, were you trying to kill the guitar or the monitor?

BRIDGERS: I think both. It ended up kind of being like an axe to the monitor.


BRIDGERS: I feel like I did way more damage to their monitor than my guitar.



And the company, of course, Danelectro, that made your guitar, said: "Hope you all had a smashing weekend."

So, obviously, it went quite far and wide.


AMANPOUR: But, look, I have watched mostly dudes smash equipment, whether it's Keith Moon, or Pete Townshend, or The Clash. It's very rare to see

women doing that, isn't it?

BRIDGERS: People have done it, but I think that's kind of the point.

It's like -- it's just so -- people were saying it's derived or corny. And I'm like, well, yes, it was derived and corny after the first time somebody

did it. That's the whole -- that's the whole point.


AMANPOUR: But it made you feel good, right?

BRIDGERS: Oh, yes. It was very fun.

AMANPOUR: So, also, I mean, I don't know whether it's the first time, but you were actually performing in front of real life human beings.

Is that the first time in lockdown? And, if so, what was it like?

BRIDGERS: Definitely the first time in lockdown, very fun, very exhilarating.

But there's this weird mental thing for me where I can't really metabolize or internalize the idea of so many people watching. I can perform for the

people in the room. But it's hard for me to imagine that many people on TV.

There's just something that clicks in your brain when you know that it's only for the people in that one room. And I miss that feeling. I feel like

I have been performing to -- yes, there's just no -- I can't imagine a group of people watching me at home.


So, it was nice to have some sort of real-life interaction, especially with the cast members jumping up and down. That was fun.

AMANPOUR: Yes, I mean, it -- it looked really fun. And I guess you got a lot of energy out of that, you giving it to the audience, and them giving

it back to you.

And I just wondered, because I think you delayed the release of one of your albums, it's "Punisher," right, because it was going to drop on Juneteenth,

what's known as Juneteenth.

What's it been like trying to get your music out during the pandemic and not being able to tour?

BRIDGERS: I mean, it's been wild, but I know so many people who've done it that there's some sort of camaraderie within that. So many people put out

beautiful records this year.

But it's very surreal. It's nice to have something to focus on. I don't know what I'd be doing if I wasn't on an album cycle, certainly not feeling

very creative. So, it's been nice to have a -- to feel like I have a job in some capacity.

AMANPOUR: Yes, you know what? I really get it. I feel lucky as well to have a job and everyday to be able to do this broadcasting.

Phoebe, you have been described by some music reviewers as kind of singing worriedly about the future. One even said that you're potentially the voice

of a generation that's growing up without hope.

And I wondered what you make of that. And do you agree with that description?


I think that it's just -- what a wild time to be alive. I feel so much for teenagers who are supposed to be in school right now. And, obviously, the

political whirlwind of the past four years has just been -- there's just been so much shared trauma within a certain generation of people growing


So, I definitely resonate with that.

AMANPOUR: You have had amazing success this year. I think you're nominated for four Grammys, including best album, best artist, and I think best song

for "Kyoto," which is what you also played on "Saturday Night Live."

And tell me about the words, the lyrics of "Kyoto." And, also, what is it with that skeleton suit you and everybody on stage wear?

BRIDGERS: Well, the skeleton suit is funny, because I just -- I was just a skeleton for Halloween in 2019 and thought it was funny. That was the end

of my thought process. I thought I'd wear it for my album art. And then they were just so easy and cheap, those costumes, that I started making

everybody wear them.

But the lyrics of "Kyoto" are about -- I just had such a beautiful time in Japan, but I was also pretty depressed and missing home. And so I was

writing about that. And then, when I got home, I was wondering why I didn't have a better time on tour, so wrote about that, just kind of like a grass

is always greener type of song.

AMANPOUR: What is in a name? What is punisher?

BRIDGERS: A punisher -- everybody has punishers. You don't have to be in the public eye in any form to have a punisher.

It could just be somebody who is friends with your parents and corners you at Thanksgiving to talk about some horrible political opinion, or somebody

who doesn't realize they're insulting you when they're talking to you.

But I think, more specifically, for musicians, it's fans who have no boundaries, so who wait outside of your hotel, and are really angry when

they can't get a picture with you, because I have beautiful interactions with fans all day who bought my record, want me to sign it, and made me

some cute bracelet or something.

But there's another type of fans that's just super entitled, where you're having lunch with a friend, and they come and accost you, and you don't --

they don't realize that you're a real person.

So, the album sort of examines me from that perspective, when I was a young fan of people and had no idea why it wasn't OK to wait outside of the

dressing room and talk to somebody for two hours while they were waiting to go hang out with their friends.



AMANPOUR: And did you ever -- I mean, was it a bad experience? Did somebody tell you to buzz off?

BRIDGERS: No, I think just subtleties became more clear to me as I grew up.

And then, when I started doing it as my job, I realized, wow, that would be really annoying. I remember, I stayed -- I know I'd played the Troubadour

before, when I was a teenager, and I saw James Blake. And I was like, I know there's only one exit to that dressing room, because I have been



BRIDGERS: So, I just waited. And no matter what I could have said to him, it's just weird. It's just weird to trap somebody.

AMANPOUR: I want to go back to the beginning a little bit, at least at the beginning of your music, because you talk about how really in school, in

grade school, you gravitated towards the music and I think the creative and drama outlets, rather than the academic ones, or, in any event, that's

where you found most fulfillment.

Were you encouraged by your parents? Were you encouraged by your teachers? How did you get motivated to do what you do now and to take this direction.

BRIDGERS: Lots of encouragement the whole way, especially my mom. She kind of -- she -- we didn't have any money growing up, and she kind of did weird

side jobs and helped people out, so that I could take guitar lessons.

She bent over backwards for me in that way. She would stay outside of venues for hours, so that I didn't have to be picked up by my mom so

obviously. And she -- yes, she -- just so supportive the whole time, has great music tastes.

And I did have a film teacher in high school, because I just stopped going to film class. Don't recommend it. Definitely go to film class. It's one of

the most fun classes. But I just -- I was failing the class. And then he pulled me aside and was like: "I found your SoundCloud. You're clearly

working on something. So I'm going to pass you this once, because I think you should go and do music. I think you're onto something."

And that was really special and nice.

AMANPOUR: That's a really important story for young people, because it's so often that they could just fall off the rails or get ignored, and yet

when one -- just one teacher can intervene and set you on your path for life.

BRIDGERS: Totally.

AMANPOUR: Amazing.

What is it like being a woman in this business?

And I ask because a lot of you women, obviously, have been nominated for Grammys. The top 10 Billboard, I think, has most of the -- of those in the

top 10 are women, more than half, like Taylor Swift, Lady Gaga, The Chicks.

Are women -- do you think your generation is benefiting from women being taken much more seriously and being rewarded?

BRIDGERS: Definitely.

I think there's still a big issue just on an administrative level. Like, they put a lot of women and people of color in the performance role, and

then you go and meet with a label, and it's all white men who work there.

So, I'd love to see more producers and directors and A&Rs who are women. I think it's really important. I think -- I mean, it's just advantageous for

companies too. It's right in the palm of capitalism. If you don't know who you're talking to, then you won't be able to run a company appropriately.

So, I'd love to see more boring jobs go to women, you know?



You have also come across your own MeToo moments. You have just tweeted about Marilyn Manson, who's had allegations. Your song "Motion Sickness'

from your previous album got something like nearly 70 million Spotify hits or how -- whatever you call...


AMANPOUR: Download, hits, I'm not sure what it is. But, nonetheless, it got that many.

And the lyrics are pretty -- they tell your story. And we're going to play a few now. We're going to play a little bit of it.




AMANPOUR: Obviously, it's about a personal experience.

But I wonder whether you think that the music industry now is doing enough to hold those kinds of people accountable, because your industry is rife

with stories of what's happened to women, with very little accountability.

BRIDGERS: Yes, I think it's never enough.

I think it's very funny that Marilyn Manson's label decided to drop him right when the story went public. And people have just known about it for

so long. I find that very annoying. I think it's a lot of performative -- performative activism, basically.


I think people should take more responsibility internally. It doesn't matter how many people know about it. You should look into things like

you're the FBI.

But when people make people money, it's really hard, I know. It's really hard to walk away from that. But I think more people should.

AMANPOUR: So, let's end with a little bit more about your music.

You clearly look like you're having a great time out there. Your -- in the music videos. Your songs, also, they're very soulful. They really tell

stories. And they clearly reach -- have a massive impact.

Tell me what you're trying to say, do, what kind of reaction you want your -- particularly I guess your young, your young fans to have and to take


BRIDGERS: I guess I don't really think very much about big picture stuff.

I mostly just make stuff that I like, and then, hopefully, people who like it find it. But I can only hope for what I get out of the music that I

love, which is, even if it's super sad, it feels nice to hear somebody else talk about that. I have always loved that, when you feel like someone's

being more articulate than you about the way that you feel.

And I can't wait to play shows. I can't wait to see everybody for real. It's been such a long time since I played a show. I don't even know what my

fans look like anymore.


BRIDGERS: So, that will be great.

AMANPOUR: And how much longer do you think you can be dry, so to speak?


BRIDGERS: Well, I think the fact that the world is waiting, there's someone with a lot more money to lose worried about it right now than I am.

So, I'm going to let the giant pop stars figure it out first. I'm sure people are.


BRIDGERS: And then I will trickle in.


AMANPOUR: Listen, Phoebe, some would say that you're a giant pop star.


BRIDGERS: That's amazing. I need dance lessons first, I think.



Phoebe Bridgers, thank you so much.

BRIDGERS: Thank you so much.


AMANPOUR: The new phenom, and four Grammy nominations.

That is it for now. You can always catch us online, on our podcast, and across social media.

And coming up next, special coverage of the historic second impeachment trial of Donald Trump.

Thank you for watching, and goodbye from London.