Return to Transcripts main page


WHO Declares Monkeypox A Global Health Emergency; Interview With Head Of IAEA, Rafael Grossi; Interview With Former U.S. Secretary Of State, Condoleezza Rice. Did Not Air Live.

Aired July 25, 2022 - 13:00:00   ET



SARA SIDNER, CNN INTERNATIONAL HOST: Hello and welcome to AMANPOUR. Here's what's coming up.


DR. TEDRAS ADHANOM GHEBREYESUS, WHO DIRECTOR GENERAL: The outbreak has continued to grow, and there are now more than 16,000 reported cases.


SIDNER: The World Health Organization declares monkeypox a global health emergency. We get the facts with epidemiologist Anne Rimoin. Then as Iran

turns off U.N. cameras monitoring nuclear sites, I'm joined by the Head of the International Atomic Energy Agency. And.


CONDOLEEZZA RICE, FORMER U.S. SECRETARY OF STATE: Vladimir Putin used to tell me all the time things like, "Condo, you know us. Russia's only great

when it's ruled by great men."


SIDNER: Insight with former U.S. Secretary of State, Condoleezza Rice. She talks to Walter Isaacson about the Ukraine war, Iran negotiations, and

January 6. Also ahead.


UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Kneel down the way you made us kneel down as little kids and ask for that forgiveness.


SIDNER: The Pope arrives in Canada on a pilgrimage of penitence as the Catholic Church apologizes for the abuse of indigenous children. I speak to

a survivor.

Welcome to the program. I'm Sara Sidner in New York sitting in for Christiane Amanpour. The World Health Organization says monkeypox is now a

global health emergency. The new declaration comes as infections surge in 75 countries. So far five deaths and more than 16,000 cases have been

reported. It's one of three health emergencies the world is facing right now. The others are one you know well, the coronavirus pandemic, and polio.

In a shocking development the United States has reported its first new case of polio in almost a decade. So what is the state of global public health,

how concerned should we be, and who is the most vulnerable right now.

Joining me now with some answers is Anne Rimoin, a Professor of Epidemiology at UCLA's Fielding School of Public Health. Welcome to the



SIDNER: OK, the first thing's first that I want to ask you.

We're hearing about viruses I feel like now more than ever, or is it just that we have more information and we are reporting on them because of the

pandemic and the interest in what's happening with viruses and poxes and all sorts of other diseases?

RIMOIN: Well it's a little bit of both. You know, we have the internet, social media, which really makes information and news circulate much

faster, but we're also living in a time of increased travel, increased trade, increased population mobility, increased population, and also

climate change, which is really changing both the epidemiologic and the ecologic landscape.

You know, this is what is - you know, all of these things together make it a perfect storm for viruses to spread but also for us to understand what's

happening in a much faster timeline.

SIDNER: Let me ask you about monkeypox itself because this is something that a lot of us weren't familiar with. We had heard about it before. What

is it?

RIMOIN: So monkeypox is a viral zoonosis, so this is a disease or a virus that normally lives in animals but can be passed to humans. At once -

monkeypox, however, once it enters into a human population has the potential to spread from human-to-human, and that's what were seeing occur

globally right now is increased human-to-human spread, and this is something that we didn't used to see in the early days when we - and I've

been working on monkeypox for two decades in DRC.

And what we really saw was an introduction from an animal to a human, but then only a few cases occurring after that introduction.

SIDNER: You've done a lot, a lot of research for a very long time. I like to call you the virus hunter in the DRC. Can you give us some sense of what

this disease does to the body, what are the symptoms, and how potentially dangerous or deadly it is?

RIMOIN: Sure. So what happens with monkeypox, there's a variety of - there are two different clades of it. What we're seeing here right now is the

West African clade, which is a much less severe strain or clade. What it is is you normally have a prodrome, so a period of time where you feel achy,

fluey. You could have fever.

And then typically you will start to see these lesions appear, and these lesions when we think about this in the African context, we think about a

very disseminated - widely-disseminated rash that is very intense, but this West African clade, what we've been seeing is a much more focused



So a person can have just a few pox marks that will - a few vesicles that will evolve overtime. They're very painful and can appear anywhere. Can

appear on the face, on the hands, somewhere on the body, in the genital region.

So you know, there's a wide variety of clinical presentations here from this extreme, disseminated rash to a few focused lesions and probably also

some asymptomatic without rash as well that we don't really have a lot of data on that.

SIDNER: Yes. It's really disturbing to look at when you see those, I don't know what you call it. What did you call them? Vesicles (sic)?

RIMOIN: Vesicles, right.

SIDNER: Vesicles. Pretty disturbing to see what it does to you just the look of it. Researchers - we were looking into this. Researchers believe

that there were raves in Europe that may have been why it ended up spreading globally, because you talked about the fact that it has been on

the African continent for some time.

Can you talk to us a little bit about whether or not the World Health Organization, the panel that sort of looks at whether to declare this an

emergency, why they didn't so do sooner or should they have done so sooner?

RIMOIN: Well Sara, I can tell you as somebody who is on that committee, you know, it was a very, very intensive deliberation and discussion looking at

data everywhere. So what happened what is, you know, there was a meeting back in June and we just didn't have enough data at that time. We - this

was very early on. And while we still do have gaps in the data, it became very, very clear that there were many more cases out there.

The recommendation was submitted to the Director General, who made a very important decision to declare this a public health emergency of

international concern, which was the right thing to do, to raise awareness of this virus, to be able to ensure that any resources that could be moved

towards it were moved towards it, and also to really facilitate global collaboration and coordination, which is what is going to be needed and is

always needed when we see viruses spreading globally.

SIDNER: So here in New York, monkeypox is spreading and certainly there is a real concern here.


People lining up to get a vaccine and there is concern that the United States, similar to what happened with coronavirus and COVID-19, didn't

respond as quickly and are making some of the same mistakes they made as the coronavirus swept the world. What does it say about the United States'

ability to deal with what could come -- turn into a pandemic or an epidemic at the very least?

RIMOIN: Well, I think that this is an issue of funding and attention to a problem when we have so many problems that are occurring on so many

different levels and so many different sectors.

You know, it's the squeaky wheel is getting the grease and here worrying about pandemics we just haven't been putting the grease on that wheel. And

this comes down to we have to really make the decision that it's going to be easier to stay out of trouble than it is to get out of trouble.

And now we've been experiencing what it's like to get out of trouble, which really does create the need for more resources, more attention. We're going

to be constantly chasing behind outbreaks, epidemics and pandemics if we don't invest in the infrastructure.

If we -- we have beleaguered health systems here. We have underfunded public health infrastructure that is -- that is already buckling under the

weight of COVID and other health issues. We don't have excellent testing available. We don't have the logistics to be able to get out vaccines. We

don't have all of these things that really are needed to get in front of viruses. So, until we really invest -- we invest in the foundation, you

know, anything put on top of it will really sink it. And so, that's where we are.

SIDNER: I think we all saw that. I certainly did as a reporter going into hospitals during the, you know, sort of worse parts of the pandemic here in

the states, that we were very close to a breaking point with our healthcare workers in particular, stressed to the max and burnt out to be perfectly

honest. And they're continuing their work now.

I want to ask you about this instance of polio. Should we be shocked to hear that there has been a case now in the United States where someone has

polio? Something that has been eradicated for decades.

RIMOIN: Well, you know, polio as been something that still is simmering in parts of the world and we are using a variety of -- we have both a live

vaccine and a killed vaccine. We used the killed vaccine here in the United States, but this was a result of somebody coming in from elsewhere with it.

But, you know, this goes again that there's an infection any -- if a -- what I always say, an infection anywhere is potentially an infection

anywhere. And in the world of increased global travel, trade, increased population mobility we can never just say, oh well these things are

happening elsewhere and they're not going to happen here.

This is why, once again, we have to invest in public health infrastructure, in situational awareness is going to be key. We're not going to stop

viruses from emerging. We're not going to stop seeing a case here or a case there of viruses that may have been stamped out here in the United States,

but if we have situational awareness we can act quickly and do what we need to do to prevent onward spread.

SIDNER: Can I ask you about another virus? I know this -- it seems like a lot to take in, because I think we were all sort of shell shock and trying

to shake off what happened to all of us on so many levels, emotionally as well as, you know, sort of physically when it came to the coronavirus. But

there is another virus out there that I certainly thought was concerning, very much like Ebola virus, Marburg virus. Can you tell us what that is and

where it is?

RIMOIN: Well Marburg is another viral hemorrhagic fever, similar and related to the Ebola virus but, in fact, has a much higher mortality rate.

It is something that has been linked to bats, fruit bats in particular, and is normally even though it is a very rare and sporadic virus, we don't see

a lot of it, but there have been outbreaks in the Democratic Republic of Congo where I work, in Angola. There have been just, you know sporadic

cases here and there.

But, seeing it in West Africa where we saw two cases in Ghana is very unusual. And what this suggests to me, you know, we've seen this pattern

happen before with monkeypox for example, we saw cases happening in Central Africa, a few cases here and there in West Africa and then all of a sudden

larger outbreaks. Same thing with Ebola, see cases in Central Africa, a few cases here and there in West Africa. So, you know, we should be -- take --

paying attention to these patterns and paying attention to the iconology of what's happening.


Again, you know, I've spoken about this before with monkeypox, we're seeing epidemiologic and ecologic shifts here related to population increases,

population mobility, trade, travel and, of course, climate change is likely playing a role here, changing some of the patterns of disease in animal

populations as well, we're all interconnected.

This is part of this one health concept, which is something we really do have to focus on what's happening in animal populations is certainly,

eventually going to affect what's happening in human populations too. And again, an infection anywhere is potentially an infection everywhere. And

we're all interconnected. So, we're going to have to really have great situational awareness and be able to get in front of viruses. We're in an

age of all --


SIDNER: But we're in an age of information, right?

RIMOIN: -- of this happening together.

SIDNER: We're on an age of lots of information, but we're also in the age of misinformation and disinformation, which has certainly played a role in

people getting or not getting vaccinated.

I want to ask you one yes or no question. When it comes to monkeypox, which is what we started with, which the WHO has now said is an emergency, a

health emergency, do you think that this is stigmatized because it is spreading primarily among men who have sex with men? Do you think there's a

stigma there that has stopped governments or stopped people from really paying attention to it?

RIMOIN: Well, I think that there has been a perception that this is just something that's happening in men who have sex with men. It doesn't happen

to people outside of that community and that is just not true. I mean, we've been battling monkeypox outbreaks that have been increasing in size

and scale in the Democratic Republic of Congo and also in West Africa, in particular in Nigeria, for a very long time.

And so, this is something that's just been gaining momentum. It was only a matter of time before it moved into another population. And this just

happens to be a population that has intense social and sexual networks and a lot of mobility, so that's where we're seeing it now.

But, again, as I've said before, an infection anywhere is potentially an infection everywhere. And this not going to stay in one population, it will

-- it will seed out elsewhere. And so, we really do need to be paying a lot of attention. And it is just not correct to think this is only happening

one group. We should remember that testing has really only been focused in groups of men who have sex with men right now. But if we --


SIDNER: And that, I think --

RIMOIN: -- had wider scale testing --


RIMOIN: -- I bet we'd have a lot more out there.

SIDNER: I think that's where -- that's where we'll leave it. The testing is important, but people should be paying attention. And I really do

appreciate your time coming on the show. Anne Rimoin, Epidemiologist Extraordinary, appreciate you.

RIMOIN: My pleasure.

SIDNER: Next to Iran, where the U.N. is in the dark about the country's nuclear activity right now. In June, Iranian officials turned off cameras

used to monitor Iran's nuclear program. Tehran says it will only switch the cameras back on when the Iran Nuclear Deal, known as the JCPOA, is


Rafael Grossi, the Head of U.N. Nuclear Watchdog, the IAEA, is warning that Iran's nuclear program is, quote, "galloping ahead." And Mr. Grossi joins

me right now.

Thank you for coming on the program.

RAFAEL GROSSI, HEAD OF IAEA: Hello. Good to talk to you.

SIDNER: You talked about Iran's nuclear program galloping ahead. Can you give us a sense of just how close Iran is from creating potentially a

nuclear weapon? Because for decades we've been hearing that they're close, they're close, they're close, they're on the cusp. But, how close are they


GROSSI: Well, I would say that the IAEA has never been doing this kind of assessment. This is for analysts, for journalists to do. What we report is

about the activities, the nuclear activities in the country and how they are progressing. And what you just quoted is our assessment of the current


As we speak, Iran continues to enrich more and more uranium at very high degree, high level of isotopic enrichment. Iran is putting together and

manufacturing last-generation centrifuges, which are necessary to enrich this material.

So, what we are seeing is just an objective description of the facts. And we do not have, I should stress this, we do not have information that they

are making nuclear weapons. There's a lot of confusion about this.

At the same time, what they are doing is very relevant, it's not banal. This is a very high degree of enrichment, which is very close to weapon-

grade, which is 90 percent. They are enriching at 60 percent and other degrees at the same time.


So, what is compounded with the fact that they are curtailing the access of our inspectors, the visibility so to speak, that the agency has on these

activities? As you rightly mentioned, they were -- they have been removing a number of cameras that we had installed in different facilities in Iran.

And all of this, of course, comes together to conform a situation, which of course, is not the best.

SIDNER: Can you give us though a realistic timeframe based on your agencies last assessment as to where they are in this program? Because as you said,

you can't say definitively that they are creating weapons grade uranium but that they could potentially make a weapon if they get to that point,


And how close are they do you think?

GROSSI: Well, again, I think what's important here is to speculate and is to look at the facts as they are. In terms of nuclear material, material

for which you could not exclude that could be used in a nuclear device, there is a lot in the world. The thing -- the important thing is whether

the inspections are taking place or not, whether we are having the necessary ability to inspect these activities which are proliferation


They are relevant to potential proliferation. But from this to jump to the conclusion that nuclear weapons are being manufactured, I don't think this

is a sensible thing to say because for this we have to have the information.

What we are saying is that this relevant, that they have to restore all our inspection capabilities that if they want to be trusted, confidence must be

there. And in the nuclear field, the only way to have confidence is to be inspected. Good work will not due.

SIDNER: Mr. Grossi, let me ask you about the Iran deal, the Iran Nuclear deal. Iran's foreign minister last week said that there is a text of this

new deal that is ready that his country and the United States agree on more than 95 to 96 percent of that. So what are the road blocks that is stopping

this from being reinstated, if you will?

GROSSI: Well, there have been many mentioned and actually this is a good question for those negotiating. The IEA is not the negotiator. The IAEA is

the guarantor, is the inspector of whatever is agreed at that negotiation.


And there have been different things that had been mentioned at times. That at times it has been about financial things or sanctions or individuals or

certain activities. So what is clear is that the negotiation is not yielding the results it should. And if that -- if that doesn't happen, of

course we will be entering into a very uncertain phase where Iran will be with the program, as I was saying, that is moving forward very, very fast

and without a number of inspection capabilities, which would give us, and when I say us I mean the international community, the credible assurances

that nothing incorrect is ongoing in Iran.

So we know that the negotiations are at a delicate face. We hope for the best but for now and I believe the space for that is narrowing. Let's see

what happens in the next few days.

SIDNER: You talk about you believing that the space is narrowing and we -- we have some proof of that because we spoke with the U.S. Special Envoy for

Iran, Rob Malley, last week and he talked about the chances of getting back on track and getting this deal signed by the countries.

Here's what he said to me.


ROB MALLEY, U.S. SPECIAL ENVOY FOR IRAN: The chance is there but it's a chance that by definition diminishes by the day and President Biden said it

very clearly during his trip, our -- still our objective is to get back into the deal and to hope that Iran will -- will do the same, will come

back into compliance with the deal. That is our strong preference but that's not an option that's going to be available forever.


SIDNER: Now he said the -- the chance diminishes by the day. How dangerous would it be if no deal is made and Iran keeps those cameras off?

GROSSI: The issue is, as I tried to explain and I know Mr. Malley very well and the efforts that they are deploying to try to bring the -- the

agreement back -- back together is that you -- you have all these activities that are continuing and we do not have the visibility. We don't

know what's happening.

So there are -- here -- here you have two difficulties in fact. First difficulty is that even if there is an agreement, we will have to find ways

to reconstruct to put the jigsaw puzzle together again because there will have been by then, whenever this is, relatively long period of time because

as we speak, those cameras were watching and -- and recording things that are still taking place, only without this visibility.

So more material, more centrifuges. So when you come to an agreement you have as a basis for the agreement, a discrete number of centrifuges or

material. So if you want to do that you have to trust on the IEA to tell you, well, this is the baseline. These are the amounts. Own (ph) it out, I

can no longer do this. I can no longer do this. So --

SIDNER: Mr. Grossi, let -- let me -- let me -- let me just quickly ask you a yes or no question, because I am curious. Do you think it was disastrous

that the United States pulled out of this deal that had already been made with Iran?

GROSSI: I think what happened, happened. And you know to -- to --

SIDNER: That is a very diplomatic answer.

GROSSI: Yes, I know diplomats (ph), so it's clear --


SIDNER: Do you think it was a problem --


GROSSI: -- 14 years of experience --


SIDNER: But to be fair, do you think it was a problem? Did it -- did it create a real issue. Here we are again, the United -- yes.

GROSSI: A problem, yes. A problem, yes. A problem, yes. I would not qualify it. It's a problem that we need to solve and we still have time, not much.

SIDNER: All right, we'll leave it there. Thank you so much for coming on the show. I really appreciate your diplomacy and your expertise.

Iran hosted Russian President Vladimir Putin last week as the two countries look to bolster relations. Putin met with Iran Supreme Leader. Both

countries are under strict sanctions from the west. The war in Ukraine is influencing foreign policy, as it should, around the world.

Walter Isaacson spoke to former U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice to get her take.

WALTER ISAACSON, CNN HOST: Thank you, Sara. And Secretary Condoleezza Rice, welcome to the show.

CONDOLEEZZA RICE, FMR. U.S. SECRETARY OF STATE: Thank you. It's great to be with you, Walter.

ISAACSON: You're coming to us from Aspen where you're a co-chair of the Aspen's Security Forum and Strategy Group. Bill Burns was just there

talking to you. And let me read something he said. He says Putin really does believe his rhetoric that Ukraine is not a real county.


He believes it's his entitlement to dominate Ukraine. Nobody knows Russia better than you do. You've been studying it your entire career. Is he right

and what does that mean?

RICE: I think that Bill Burns is absolutely right. And of course, a few people know Russia better than Bill Burns either, having been ambassador

there and speaking fluent Russian. Vladimir Putin used to tell me all the time, things like Condi (ph), you know us, Russia's only great when it's

ruled by great men like Peter the Great and Alexander II. He now compares himself to Peter the Great. That very strange speech that he gave just

before the invasion talked about how Lyndon had created Ukraine.

He told us that Ukraine was not -- that Ukraine was a made up country. And so I think he really does have this delusional view of history where

Russian empire requires that there not be an independent Ukraine. And that -- that's very hard for us to get our heads around because we thought

people stopped thinking that way a century or so ago but that's what we're confronted with, Walter.

ISAACSON: Does that mean there's no solution other than a victory for either side in Ukraine?

RICE: Well, there certainly is no solution if Ukraine is left to the tender mercy of the Russians. But I continue to believe that if the Ukrainians

fight as bravely as they are fighting now, if we support them as fully and as completely and as quickly as we can, if we are less constraining on them

in what they need to do to win this -- win this war, that at the very least they can fight the Russians to let's say a stalemate that yes, Russia may

be able to hold on to some territory even though I -- I really hope that the Ukrainians can mount (ph) a counter offensive.

But we can absolutely make sure that Putin does not succeed in liquidating Ukraine. In fact, I think he's already failed at that. Our goal with the

Ukrainians has to be to make sure that he fails here going forward.

ISAACSON: You say that perhaps the Ukrainians can hold it to a stalemate. Do you think then there should be like a seize fire in place and we just

put aside for awhile the question of disputed territory?

RICE: I would never presume to tell the Ukrainians when the conditions are met that they would be prepared to take a ceasefire or an agreement. These

people have fought. They have suffered. The Russians have committed horrendous war crimes. We have to support the Ukrainians until they decide

that they have achieved the conditions in which they want to look for a ceasefire. That's my view. This is a decision in Kyiv. Not in Washington,

not in Berlin, not in London.

And oh, by the way, when I say a stalemate, I don't mean that necessarily the fighting stops. I mean, that from there perhaps they can really

undermine the Russians with a combination of resistance and continued military fighting, but we just can't let the Russians - they can't let the

Russians go any further.

They can't create a land lock to Ukraine, for instance, by winning in the south, and the Ukrainians are doing very well in the south. So it is not

for us to say when Ukraine wants to stop fighting. That is for the Ukrainians.

ISAACSON: President Putin just went to Tehran where he met with Iran's Supreme Leader. What do you make of a possible alliance or better relations

between the two countries? Or is that possible?

RICE: Well there is no doubt that Putin is seeking allies where he can get them these days, and frankly Belarus is not a particularly strong read

(ph), so you wouldn't be surprised that he's looking for allies elsewhere. It might be an effort to say the Iranians if you help us evade sanctions we

will help you evade sanctions. I can imagine that that's part of the conversation.

But two pariah states, I suppose they deserve each other. We have to just keep pressing hard. And I will say this. This is not the time for nuclear

negotiations with the Iranians, with the Russians at the table. This is a time to isolate Iran and isolate Russia across the board.

ISAACSON: So you would cut off the talks on the Iranian nuclear deal and perhaps even think the Europeans should do that, right?

RICE: Well as far as I can tell, the Iranians have not answered the questions that they were asked by the administration on the way to a deal,

so yes. I think it's high time to say to the Iranians this is over. I didn't favor - to be fair, I didn't favor going back into nuclear

negotiations with the Iranians in any case. I think we need to concentrate on isolation at this point, not on engagement.


ISAACSON: If we're going to isolate Iran and we're going to isolate Russia and do all these sanctions, don't we have to have better relationships with


RICE: Well ,the Chinese also seem to have made their choice. Their, what is it, relationship without limits? Although they must be wondering about a

relationship without limits that's bringing down sanctions across the -


ISAACSON: You're talking about what he said about a relationship with Russia?

RICE: What Xi Jinping said about Putin, exactly, in that little meting that they had just before the Olympics. But we just need to send, and I think

the administration's done a good job, send a very clear message to the Chinese that we don't like their rhetoric but that an material assistance

to the Russians would be looked upon very much in stance (ph), and I think the Chinese know that you then would be looking at secondary sanctions.

So yes, they're going to continue to buy discounted Russian oil. A lot of people are doing that, but any material help to the Russians beyond that

has really - we have to warn the Chinese off precisely that.

But I think, Walter, as long as we can keep unity in the Western alliance, in NATO, in the European Union and other countries like Japan and others

that are a part of this, I think we can bring the kind of pressure that we need.

ISAACSON: So you think it was a good idea for President Biden to go to Saudi Arabia and sort of engage in fist bump diplomacy? And what good or

bad do you think came out of that trip?

RICE: Well the fact is that Saudi Arabia is an important country. It is an important economic power given its oil reserves and the fact that the world

is in need of oil and gas reserves. And it's an important country to, frankly, keeping the peace in the Middle East.

Now the Saudis have gone quite a long way in I won't call it (inaudible) but I will call it moving towards Israel along with the other Gulf states

that have been more upfront about it like the UAE or Morocco or others, but that's a positive thing for the Middle East. And the Abraham Accords ought

to be encourage and they ought to be encouraged to expand.

None of us wants to ignore what happened with Khashoggi. None of us wants to ignore the human rights problems and abuses in Saudi Arabia, but I had

to go to Saudi Arabia. President Bush went to Saudi Arabia. President Obama's been in Saudi Arabia. Who are we kidding? Presidents are going to

go to Saudi Arabia.

It probably is not a good thing to say that you're never going to go to Saudi Arabia, which is a pariah state, and then have to go. That's the

problem. It's also probably not wise to not shake hands. I mean, it felt a little bit staged somehow, and I don't know. Is a fist bump more intimate

or less intimate? I really can't tell you.

But that he went to Saudi Arabia, I don't have - I don't have a problem with that. By the way, one of the ways that you limit the dependence on

Saudi oil is that you fully exploit America's tremendous reserves. The North American platform for energy production stretching from Canada down

through Mexico is a powerhouse. The United States was going to achieve independence and in supply, and that makes us then possible to export.

And when you look at the places that the oil reserves are - Saudi Arabia, Russia, we've been talking about Iran - would I rather that the

hydrocarbons that we're going to continue to need while we make the transition to a less carbon intensive economy to favor climate change,

while we're doing that, those hydrocarbons ought to be coming from North America, and then you're less dependent on Saudi Arabia.

ISAACSON: You've been watching or maybe reading about the January 6 hearings. How important do you think it is that the Republican Party, of

which you're a member, move on from Donald Trump?

RICE: Well I am - look, I'm going to leave it to the American voter who they want to be president, but I am ready for, you know, a new generation

of leadership. I'm ready for all of those who've had their chance to step aside and let somebody else lead.

I've made very clear my views about January 6. It was a stain on American democracy. Walter, I cried that night because I thought to myself - or that

afternoon. I thought to myself I study countries that do this.


I don't live in a country that does this. And yet, when they walked to the senators (ph) and congressmen walked back into the Capitol after it had

been secured and in that kind of almost boring way certified the election, I thanked God for Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and Michael Pence

because the American system held.

So there is nothing more important than the peaceful transfer of power after an election, and it should have happened. It should have happened

without questions about voter fraud and voter suppression. By the way, both of which are terms that are meant to stop the conversation. Not start it.

And yes, we need a new generation of leadership for the Republican Party and, dare I say, maybe for the Democratic Party, too.

ISAACSON: But election deniers are running for office in states across this country right now, especially in the Republican Party. What do you say to

people when they're faced with somebody who's an election denier, will you sort of tell people that's not the way they should go?

RICE: Well, I'm not going to tell people who to vote, right, because I - voters have a wide variety of concerns when they're voting, but I am going

to say that election deniers are not in my - to my mind acting in the American democratic way.

The American democratic way is to accept the outcomes of elections, congratulate the winner, and move on. If you have a belief that something's

gone wrong in an election, we have courts that can hear those cases. And many, many courts heard these cases and said that, including the Attorney

General, Bill Barr, who said there was no substantial fraud. So I would say could we just accept that and move on?

I do want to say this, Walter. You know that I'm at - Director of the Hoover Institution, and, you know, we've been looking at some polling that

says Americans are losing faith in their elections. There is nothing more serious than a democracy starting to lose faith in its elections, and when

Americans are told on one hand that their elections are fraudulent, on the other hand is that people are trying to suppress the vote, no wonder

they're losing faith in their elections.