Return to Transcripts main page
Amanpour
Interview with Ukrainian Foreign Minister Dmytro Kuleba; Interview with "On Call" Author and Former Director, U.S. National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases Dr. Anthony Fauci; Interview with Republican Pollster and Echelon Insights Founding Partner Kristen Soltis Anderson. Aired 1-2p ET
Aired July 11, 2024 - 13:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
[13:00:00]
CHRISTIANE AMANPOUR, CNN CHIEF INTERNATIONAL ANCHOR: Hello, everyone, and welcome to "Amanpour." Here's what's coming up.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
JEN STOLTENBERG, NATO SECRETARY GENERAL: As Ukraine continues its vital reforms, we'll continue to support them on their irreversible path to NATO
membership."
(END VIDEO CLIP)
AMANPOUR: Ukraine's future in NATO is now locked in. But is Kyiv getting the support it needs right now in its hour of need? I asked Ukraine's
foreign minister, Dmytro Kuleba.
Then --
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
DR. ANTHONY FAUCI, AUTHOR, "ON CALL" AND FORMER DIRECTOR, U.S. NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF ALLERGY AND INFECTIOUS DISEASES: Every day for all of those
years, I've given it everything that I have.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
AMANPOUR: -- A life on call. Dr. Anthony Fauci joins us on his new memoir detailing a journey in public service from fighting AIDS and Ebola to
leading U.S. efforts against COVID amid a tense relationship with then- President Trump.
Also, ahead --
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
KRISTEN SOLIS ANDERSON, REPUBLICAN POLLSTER AND FOUNDING PARTNER, ECHELON INSIGHTS: You have an awful lot of voters who say, I don't think Joe Biden
can make it another four years, but I'm voting for him anyways because he's not Donald Trump.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
AMANPOUR: -- amid the noise around the president's age, what are voters actually thinking? Republican pollster Kristen Soltis Anderson talks to
Walter Isaacson about her new essay, "No Poll Can Tell Biden What He Needs to Hear."
Welcome to the program, everyone. I'm Christiane Amanpour in London.
Ukraine's future is in NATO, that is the message from the alliance this week, as it marks its 75th anniversary at a summit in Washington, D.C.
Words, though, come with no timeline. And in the meantime, President Zelenskyy in Washington is trying to drum up a sustainable pipeline for his
country, where U.S. weapons have proved crucial in recently stabilizing the front lines.
In a striking development, NATO also called out China for the first time, calling Beijing "a decisive enabler of Russia's war against Ukraine." But
Hungary's authoritarian leader, Viktor Orban, visited Kyiv, Moscow, and Beijing before this summit, and he meets the NATO skeptic Donald Trump
afterwards.
The Ukrainian foreign minister, Dmytro Kuleba, join me to discuss what his country is aiming to achieve and to get out of this summit.
Foreign Minister Dmytro Kuleba, welcome back to our program.
DMYTRO KULEBA, UKRAINIAN FOREIGN MINISTER: It's good to be back.
AMANPOUR: So, this is a year since everybody remembers President Zelenskyy was pretty upset about the last NATO Summit. How does this one compare?
KULEBA: Well, this summit is a clear manifestation of the U.S. Leadership in global security and of unparalleled success of the alliance built in
1949, and being successful since then in defending its members from any in the external attack. This is why Ukraine is aspiring to become a member of
it.
And the last summit delivered some political decisions related to Ukraine's membership. This one has those decisions bringing Ukraine closer to
membership, but also very specific decisions, announcing strengthening Ukraine's air defense capabilities and also providing Ukraine with
additional defense capabilities, with additional weapons and commitments to stay by -- to stand by Ukraine as long as it takes Ukraine to win, which in
put together is a robust result.
AMANPOUR: Well, that's good. Because again, it was noticeable that Ukraine felt quite disappointed last time around. And of course, just to say the
NATO leaders have jointly affirmed "Ukraine's future is in NATO, and that path towards NATO is irreversible."
But as you said, if that takes several years, what you need is the means to defend yourself now. So, how much do you need and how confident are you
with the promises?
[13:05:00]
KULEBA: Well, we will be entirely happy only when Ukraine becomes a member of NATO and the promise of this will be fulfilled. We heard very reassuring
messages over the last two days at all levels that the path to membership is irreversible, that Ukraine will be in NATO, but, you know, we cannot
wait another 75 years to celebrate Ukraine's accession. It has to happen sooner rather than later, because this is the only way to ensure strategic
security and stability in the Euro Atlantic area.
So, this is why we will keep working on the -- on exceed -- on ensuring speedy accession of Ukraine to NATO. And the commitments which were made
and the pledges which were made at NATo deliver specific types of equipment, we are confident that they will be implemented. The issue, of
course, is the timeline. And we ask all our partners to rush with delivery of what they have promised, because we need it here and now to protect our
cities when it comes to air defense, our energy infrastructure, but also to arm our soldiers with sufficient capabilities to hold the lines and to
destroy Russian invaders.
AMANPOUR: Well, we were all shocked, the whole world was shocked by the Russian missile barrage earlier this week that struck a hospital as well as
many other things and caused so much death and destruction. And people said, well, that's Putin's message to the NATO Summit. And it was really
hard to see that.
But you have been promised now, finally, the F-16s. So, let's go through. The F-16s, according to Secretary of State Antony Blinken, will be, you
know, in the skies over Ukraine this summer. What precisely will they change for you?
KULEBA: Well, no single weapon can be a game changer that will change anything, everything. We can change situation for the good only if we have
all necessary weapons and sufficient amount of equipment and ammunition. This is why F-16s are as important as different types of air defense
systems. This is why they are as important as main battle tanks, armored vehicles and artillery ammunition. All of them taken together can and will
be a game changer.
But when it comes specifically to F-16s, the message is clear, Ukraine will be significantly strengthening its air force capability. Russia is
deploying hundreds of fighting jets to combat Ukraine. Our air force is scarce. Our pilots heroically fought and continue to fight. We have losses
and F-16s is the only sustainable way of resourcing our air force. This is why they are important. And so, they will allow us to be far more efficient
in protecting our skies and throwing the Russians out of our skies.
AMANPOUR: And of course, you need more air defense systems. And this is what President Biden said about that. We're just going to play part of what
he said.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
BIDEN: Today, I'm announcing the historic donation of air defense equipment for Ukraine. The United States, Germany, the Netherlands,
Romania, and Italy will provide Ukraine with the equipment for five additional strategic air defense systems. And in the coming months, the
United States and our partners intend to provide Ukraine with dozens of additional tactical air defense systems.
The United States will make sure that when we export critical air defense interceptors, Ukraine goes to the front of the line.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
AMANPOUR: Foreign Minister, how does it feel to be sort of the recipient of kind of what seems like a patchwork of air defense systems? I mean, we
read that at least one of the Patriot batteries has had to be cobbled together from systems in many other different countries. What does that say
to you about the ability of the pipeline to sustain itself?
KULEBA: Well, you mentioned the atrocious attack of Russia on Okhmatdyt, which is the main children's hospital in Ukraine and the whole world saw
how Russian missile hits directly the building of the compound, one of the main buildings on the compound of all of the hospital.
And, you know, there is a clear lesson that everyone in the world has to learn from that, that there is never enough of air defense. The more you
have, the better. And this is why the announcement made by President Biden is so timely and so important, and we appreciate the United States and
other countries efforts to deliver Patriots and other systems to us. We have to protect our hospitals and our children.
But I have to be candid, three months ago, we raised the issue of the need -- about the need to deliver to Ukraine seven Patriot systems as soon as
possible. You heard what President Biden said, it counts to five systems.
[13:10:00]
So, we have five systems announced, two more are in the pipeline, and this will cover our immediate needs. But then we will need more. And we continue
consultations and negotiations with other countries on delivery of the systems. And the United States play a very active role in this process
along with Germany and other countries.
But, you know, you hear it from my own words that it takes months. And every day in a month is an opportunity for Russia to destroy and kill more
with their missiles in Ukraine. So, in a nutshell, the production of systems must be ramped up and all systems available anywhere in the world
for the transfer must be transferred to Ukraine as soon as possible. And I once again take this opportunity to urge everyone to do that for the sake
of children's lives, for the sake of peace in Ukraine and the world.
AMANPOUR: I mean, it's a tall order, obviously. And I wonder -- you know, I want to ask you actually about what either President Zelenskyy or any of
your delegation who met with President Biden, what they make of his, you know, state right now. Because as you know, you're in this summit as all
these questions swirl around his continued leadership and then all these questions swirl around what if Trump comes into office.
First of all, what are your feelings about your meetings with President Biden and what will -- what could a Trump presidency do for the kind of
defenses that you need?
KULEBA: Well, I had an opportunity to observe President Biden at the inaugurational ceremony of the summit two days ago. He delivered a
prominent speech on Euro Atlantic security. It was a very clear message that the United States are in the driving seat when it comes to security
and will continue to lead the free world. We saw a leader of the free world.
We will -- we are looking forward to a bilateral meeting between President Zelenskyy and President Biden, where we will discuss very specific issues.
But we see that decisions are being made and our requests are being accommodated. The only request and only wish that we have is to make things
happen faster, because the faster decisions are made and implemented the more lives and square kilometers of land can be spared in Ukraine from
murder and destruction.
And we will have a very candid dialogue. As always, we have a number of issues on the plate. But I'm sure that we will be moving towards the
decisions.
AMANPOUR: You didn't answer the question about Trump, and we know that NATO officials have been trying to figure out how to work with whoever's
going to be the next U.S. president, and to an extent doing a bit of Trump proofing when it comes to continuing the pipeline to Ukraine.
You remember Trump's influence delayed the supplemental aid benefit to you for about six months. And President Zelenskyy had a -- you know, an
interview, a panel, and Fox News anchor Bret Baier asked him how closely he was watching the U.S. election. We're going to play this snippet.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
BRET BAIER, ANCHOR, FOX NEWS: You say everyone is looking towards November.
VOLODYMYR ZELENSKYY, UKRAINIAN PRESIDENT: Yes.
BAIER: How closely are you following the day to day politics here in Washington and in the U.S.?
ZELENSKYY: I think sometimes we are closer than you, Bret.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
AMANPOUR: So, Foreign Minister, that got a big laugh. But clearly, you must be anxious, or do you believe that you can convince the Trump people
that should he be leader, that Ukraine is a cause that needs to be defended?
KULEBA: Persuasion is the art of diplomacy. If I did not believe in it, I wouldn't be doing that job. I wouldn't be a part of President Zelenskyy's
team who has proven on numerous occasions that we can turn any no to yes and break the walls and open the doors.
So, we know we will work with any reality that the people of America will choose. And we will be guided by one simple desire, by making sure that our
nation has sufficient capacities to defend itself from a genocidal Russian aggression and also to help Europe defend itself from the expansion of
Russian aggression.
So, let's not -- you know, we shouldn't panic before things happen. We should work and see how the elections end. We follow -- the president was
absolutely right, we follow very closely developments in the United States, but we are not playing a role. We don't have a role in this election. We
will work with any reality, as I said, that the people of America will choose.
[13:15:00]
AMANPOUR: You must be also looking, though, at shifting political landscape in Europe. The rise of the far-right in several important
European countries. The Hungarian prime minister, Orban, who came to Kyiv and then went to Moscow, and then China is now going to be meeting
President Donald Trump -- Former President Donald Trump in Florida today.
And, you know, I mean, they're both -- certainly Orban is not a fan of defending Ukraine and has spoken up against -- you know, has cozied up a
little bit more than Europe would like to Putin. Are you worried about that meeting?
KULEBA: Well, I have no luxury of being worried of any particular meeting. We have our own track with Hungary, our neighbor. Member of both E.U. and
NATO where Ukraine aspires to succeed to. Orban was in Kyiv. We had -- the president had a very candid conversation with him. I met with Hungarian
foreign minister here in Washington on the margins of the NATO Summit.
And our message is clear, we say, guys, you know, we respect your choices of whom to talk and when to talk. This is your right. But you have to
remember two things. First, no deals on Ukraine without Ukraine. And second, no peace proposals or initiatives can be based on Russian
narratives. This is just unacceptable. It will be taking all of us in the wrong direction. And these are the principles that we will stick to.
AMANPOUR: But are you concerned about a consensus fraying and when you see the Indian prime minister going to Putin and hugging him and your own
president saying this is a devastating blow to the opportunity for peace, when you see NATO now saying that China is actually providing military
materiel to Moscow, these are big powers that you hoped, you know, wouldn't go into the Putin camp. What do you think?
KULEBA: Well, we are concerned that Putin believes that he still has enough of friends in the world to continue with this devastating,
unprovoked, and illegal war. And every leader that is considering seeing him, talking to him should be aware of it, that this is how Russia
perceives.
Those who believe that talking to Putin like this will talk him out of -- will help to talk him out of continuing the war, they're just wrong because
the outcome is quite the opposite. He -- it makes him believe more that he can continue because he still has friends in the world.
So, this is the optics that need to be changed. And we will be having very candid conversations with partners about that.
AMANPOUR: All right, Foreign Minister Kuleba, thank you for being with us.
KULEBA: Thank you.
AMANPOUR: Now, it is especially meaningful that as Ukraine calls for support, in Bosnia, they're remembering one of the most awful horrors that
occurred during Europe's last war. It was 29 years ago today that the Srebrenica massacre took place and led to the genocide of more than 7,000
men and boys who were slaughtered simply for being Muslim.
Today, 14 victims of that slaughter were commemorated and reburied. And the search still goes on for more than a thousand victims who remain
unidentified.
Next, to the battle against devastating diseases. For decades, Dr. Anthony Fauci has been at the forefront of that fight, the former longtime director
of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, responding to crises like Ebola and AIDS. But perhaps recently, he's best known as the
face of U.S. efforts to tackle the coronavirus pandemic. When his relationship with then-President Trump pulled him into the spotlight.
And now, Fauci is writing about it all in his new memoir, "On Call: A Doctor's Journey in Public Service." And he's joining me from Washington.
Dr. Fauci, welcome back to our program.
DR. ANTHONY FAUCI, AUTHOR, "ON CALL" AND FORMER DIRECTOR, U.S. NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF ALLERGY AND INFECTIOUS DISEASES: Thank you very much. It's
good to be with you.
AMANPOUR: So, I do have to start by asking you, because you have worked with every president, going back to Reagan, I think. Reagan was quite
elderly, but President Biden is 81, President Trump is 78 or so. What do you make of the hullabaloo around Biden, his age, the debate performance
right now? Did you have any concerns when you were working for him?
[13:20:00]
DR. FAUCI: Not at all, Christiane. I worked with him for two years that ended in December of 2022 when I had an extensive meeting with him, I
believe in January or February of 2023. And at that point, which was the last time I spoke to him, he was fine. I mean, obviously -- I mean, he's
someone who physically is not as vigorous as he used to be when he was younger, but from a mental standpoint, the last time I saw him, which I
meant -- which I mentioned is in the early part of 2023, he seemed fine to me. So, I can't really comment about any personal interaction since that
time.
AMANPOUR: You must have been surprised as a doctor to see the debate performance?
DR. FAUCI: Yes. I mean, that was very unfortunate. I mean, I think everyone who watched that was very concerned about what was going on there,
was that just he was not feeling very well. He was fatigued from travel. Did he have a cold? Did he take a medication that made him, you know,
knocked out a bit like you do when you take a call? I don't know the answer to any of those questions and I'm not in a position to find the answer to
those questions. I think others will, his staff and others who are with him right now.
AMANPOUR: So, let me just broaden it a little bit because, Dr. Fauci, you're 83 and you're really vigorous. You're two years older than Biden.
Senator Bernie Sanders is 82, really vigorous. Lula, the president of Brazil, 78, just re-elected, and really vigorous. And as I said, you worked
under seven presidents, including Reagan, who, as we know, started, apparently, to have the beginnings of Alzheimer's towards the end of his
second term.
But how do you think -- how should we think about age and leadership and when is the right time to call it a day, when you're in positions of
maximum power and responsibility?
DR. FAUCI: You know, Christiane, it really is an individual thing. As you mentioned, I'm 83. Right now, I feel certainly physically not like I used
to be able to run marathons, which I did years ago. I mean, I exercise very regularly and vigorously every single day, but from a mental standpoint, I
feel as sharp as I was, at least, the last time that I was in a situation running a big institute.
So, I feel fine. I have people around me, my wife, my friends, who I believe that if I was slipping a bit, I think I would notice it myself and
would say, I don't really want to be in a position of responsibility that required me to be sharp 100 percent of the time. If and when that time
comes, I hope I realize that. And I certainly know my family, certainly my wife, who was very honest with me, would tell me the same thing.
So, as far as I'm concerned, it's an individual thing, and you can't generalize, because people age very differently. There are some 65-year-old
people I know who really look like they just can't function in any manner or form that's important. And as you mentioned, I'm 83, and I feel fine. I
feel I can do what I need to do in the position that I'm in.
AMANPOUR: And so, everybody also wants to know, not just about this age issue, but also about your time in the spotlight during COVID. I mean, you
dealt with President Trump. And he really has said some pretty extraordinary things throughout his presidency and he continues to say
really extraordinary things that some people can't even decipher. And of course, everybody remembers the bleach situation. So, I'm just going to
play this and I want to talk to you about it.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
DONALD TRUMP, THEN-U.S. PRESIDENT: I see the disinfectant where it knocks it out in a minute, one minute, and is there a way we can do something like
that by injection inside or almost a cleaning? Because you see it gets on the lungs and it does a tremendous number of the lungs. So, it'd be
interesting to check that. So, that you're going to have to use medical doctors with. But it sounds interesting to me.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
AMANPOUR: So, he wasn't addressing you, but you were on stage at the time. And you write about it in your book. What do you think was going through
his mind and what did you talk to him about afterwards regarding that comment?
DR. FAUCI: You know, Christiane, first of all, I wasn't on stage for that one. Deb Birx was, but that's irrelevant to your question. So, I write
about this in the memoir, President Trump so much wanted the COVID outbreak, the pandemic to disappear in March and April because he wanted it
to act like flu.
[13:25:00]
It was very, very disturbing to him because, A, the economy was being impacted and he was focusing on the election cycle. So, what he did is that
he would hope that it would go away in March, the beginning of April. When it didn't, he said things that were not true. He said it would go away like
magic. And that's when I had to be in the painful position to publicly contradict him and say, no, it's not going to go away.
When it became clear to him that it wasn't going to go away, he started grabbing for magic elixirs to essentially cure it. Hence, we had
hydroxychloroquine, even though there was no evidence hydroxychloroquine worked, and in fact, it might hurt people. And then, when he heard from the
purpose from Homeland Security that this bleach issue could get rid of the virus from other surfaces, he went way out of his line and said, well,
maybe we could use it in people.
He was desperately looking for a solution to get rid of COVID, but the solution wasn't there. And that's when I had to come in conflict with him
because I had to tell the public that those things were just not true. So, it was just a question of his feeling he needed to get away from the
pandemic. And he said things that were completely not true in order to get the public to start thinking that maybe things are not that bad.
AMANPOUR: Well, that's in itself kind of a really strange thing for a leader of a nation of several hundred people to say, did you ever have any
concerns about his cognitive abilities? And particularly now, honestly, he is saying things in public that you can barely decipher.
DR. FAUCI: Yes. Again, Christiane, I had my last interaction with him in the last month -- last couple of months of his presidency, I didn't detect
any cognitive issues. I just was very perplexed by the lack of facts and honesty in things that he said. So, it was less cognitive ability than it
was honesty ability.
AMANPOUR: So, I want to ask you, because you write about this in your book, sort of a sub clause to -- you said he made things up because he
wished something would be true, et cetera. But he used to -- you write, used to yell at you about how you're also costing him or the country
trillions of dollars. But then, you write that he would always -- you know, afterwards say, but you and I, we're good, right? What was that dynamic?
What was that relationship?
DR. FAUCI: You know, what I -- again, I can't psychoanalyze him from a distance, Christiane, but as I mentioned in the book, right from the
beginning, we had somewhat of a pretty good rapport and I believe it was, you know, like two people from New York City, you know, he was from Queens,
I'm from Brooklyn. We had that kind of New York City rapport with each other and we got along very well.
So, as the months went by, early on, there was no problem between us, but as the months went by and I had to contradict things he was saying, then he
would call me up and yell at me and say, what are you doing? You got to be more positive. But I think deep down, he really didn't want to conflict
with me. And that's the reason why he would always say, even when he would be yelling at me on the phone at night, he would end it up by saying, we're
still OK, Tony, right? We're good. That was OK. But his staff didn't feel that way.
So, even though he said, we're good, things are OK, his staff started to undermine me and try to reduce and actually diminish my credibility in the
White House. So, even though he was saying things were OK, they were not OK in the White House staff.
AMANPOUR: Wow. That's an amazing description, because it -- already you were having to gird yourself, kind of doing public battle with the most
powerful individual in the world when so many lives were at stake, and you were trying to, you know, navigate that. And then, of course, his staff
were too scared of him to understand, I guess, his relationship with you.
But I want to go back to the beginning. Because you've really been in a battle trying to solve these massive health issues and people may now know
you most from COVID, but really, it goes back at least to the AIDS crisis in the '80s. And you say the moment you read that 26, otherwise healthy gay
men were infected with a disease about to die, you get -- you got goosebumps and that you may still have some PTSD from that time. Talk to me
about that.
[13:30:00]
DR. FAUCI: Yes. Well, HIV/AIDS, Christiane, was transformative in my professional career and in my entire life. I mean, as you -- one would see,
if you read the book that, you know, I spent 40 plus years dealing with HIV/AIDS in -- as opposed to, you know, three or four years dealing with
COVID.
And in the early years of HIV, not very many people remember that, but it was absolutely devastating. I was so enthralled by how terrible this
disease would turn out to be when most people didn't think it was going to ultimately be that bad, that I changed the direction of my career and
stopped the successful things I was doing and devoted my entire professional activities to taking care of desperately ill, mostly young,
previously otherwise healthy gay men.
And those early years were devastating. And when I describe in the book that I believe, like many of my colleagues who were doing it back in the
early '80s and mid-80s, we did develop some form of post-traumatic stress because we were physicians and we were trained to heal people. And no
matter what we did, almost every one of our patients would die a very difficult death. And to do that day after day after day was a very
traumatic experience. Certainly, personally for me it was and for all of my colleagues that I describe in the book. But the good news is that what
science gave us was the solution.
And as we got into the late '80s and into the '90s in the mid-90s, then we developed drugs that were absolutely spectacular in suppressing the virus
and allowing people to live normal lives, essentially with a normal lifespan. So, although AIDS is one of the most devastating public health
stories, it is also one of the most important success stories of biomedical research.
AMANPOUR: Amazing. And then, of course we had the COVID vaccine, which is an unbelievable success. But I want to take you back to those days, because
our wonderful producer found this segment -- found this CNN report from 1991, which basically is a reflection of what was going on in your life and
the life of these patients back then. It's about a minute long, we're going to play it.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Many people who fight AIDS feel they must also fight the system. Joel Ganek complains they're both killing him.
JOEL GANEK: You know, to study people, he said, oh, you know, well, this will be available in a year. I said, I'll be dead in a year. Thanks. You
know, what good's that going to do me?
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: A year ago, the San Francisco architect hoped an experimental drug called Compound Q would be the answer. That it turned out
not to be as a familiar refrain in an epidemic that some feel has been driven less by science and more by false promises and politics.
GANEK: Our power is in medical science's ability to find the answer, and it will be found. Whether it's found in time for me, I don't know. I hope
so. Probably not.
DR. FAUCI: It's very important to re-look at what we've been doing and try and fine tune it, turn the knobs, tighten up the system.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: The Director of AIDS Treatment Research for the Federal Government envisions a strike force for clinical trials that can speed the
pace of promising research.
DR. FAUCI: Focus a little bit more on the important problems, eliminate the poor performers, fund more of the good performers, and implement other
systems that can get things done in a very rapid way.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
AMANPOUR: It's really remarkable. You end that segment being very methodical, very logical, and research driven. The man in the -- the
victim, the patient, was named Joel Ganek, and he actually did die a year later.
I mean, you went through really, you know, a bit of -- it was quite hard what you went through with the AIDS activists basically calling you out, as
you remember, of course, Larry Kramer called you a murderer, ended up being, you know, very closely collaborating with you. But they wanted you
to give them the experimentals now, because they couldn't wait.
DR. FAUCI: Well, that was true. I mean, and that, Christiane, is entirely understandable. They were desperate for solutions. Our activities and our
interactions with the activist group who are mostly, not entirely, but very, very most heavily weighted towards young gay men, some injection drug
users and commercial sex workers, but they wanted a seat at the table. They wanted to be able to discuss in an open, transparent way what the research
agenda was, what the clinical trial plan and strategy was. It was all good things.
[13:35:00]
So, in order to gain our attention, they became disruptive, theatrical, iconoclastic, and sometimes attacking public officials like me. One of the
best things I've ever done in my career was to put aside their theatrics and listen to what they were saying.
And what they were saying was making perfect sense. And that's the reason why listening to them, I became an AIDS activist and I invited them into
the dialogue about what the direction should be. And that was, you know, almost 40 years ago. Right now, many of those people who are still alive
are my closest friends and they've made major contributions to our efforts.
AMANPOUR: It's really a remarkable story. I just want to end by asking you, what do you fear in terms of the future of pandemic? We know the CDC
is warning about a global surge of dengue fever. Bird flu is currently spreading through dairy cows in the U.S. And apparently, four dairy workers
have tested positive. What is your -- you know, what's setting out the red lights for you?
DR. FAUCI: You know, Christiane, you may have asked me, you know, many years ago what my worst nightmare was, and I remember telling you and other
journalists that it was a respiratory disease that was brand-new, likely jumped up from an animal reservoir that spread very efficiently and had a
degree of morbidity and mortality. That was my worst nightmare. And unfortunately, my worst nightmare came true with COVID.
What I think about my next worst nightmare is a repeat of what we've just seen, whether that's a pandemic influenza or another coronavirus that's
respiratory born, that efficiently spreads from person to person, and that could make you very sick and kill you. That's the thing that could be a
devastating pandemic. There are very few other infections that don't have those characteristics of easy transmissibility and a degree of morbidity
and mortality.
AMANPOUR: It's always great to talk to you, Dr. Fauci. Thank you so much indeed. "On Call" is your new book. Thank you so much.
Now, President Joe Biden remains under intense scrutiny, as we've been saying, as the summit draws to a close, the NATO Summit. Amid all the
uncertainty and calls for him to drop out, Republican pollster Kristen Soltis Anderson joins Walter Isaacson to discuss her latest essay, "No Poll
Can Tell Biden What He Needs to Hear." She argues the president's issue is not a sudden loss of support, but a gradual erosion of confidence.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
WALTER ISAACSON, CO-HOST, AMANPOUR AND CO.: Thank you, Christiane. And Kristen Solis Anderson, welcome to the show.
KRISTEN SOLIS ANDERSON, REPUBLICAN POLLSTER AND FOUNDER PARTY, ECHELON INSIGHTS: Thank you for having me.
ISAACSON: So, President Biden, resisting calls for him to step down from the race, is deploying all sorts of populist rhetoric, attacking the
elites, the establishment. It's almost like out of a Donald Trump playbook. Will that work in the Democratic Party?
ANDERSON: It looks like it's been working for now. The ability to say, look, I'm listening to the voters, not the elites. I'm not going to
apologize for who I am. These are all things that have been successful when deployed by Donald Trump over the last eight or nine years. So, you can
understand why Joe Biden would take this defiant posture and say, I think I can just sort of put my head down and power my way through this.
The problem he may face is, one, the Democratic Party and the Republican Party are not the same. While they both have politicians who are eager to
please their voters and stay elected, the forces within the Democratic Party are slightly different than those on the GOP side and may mean that
the party is less susceptible to the I'm going to put my head down, not apologize, power through kind of approach.
You also have a problem with the fact that, for Biden, the electability concern is very real. And while for Donald Trump, he's been able to say,
well, stick with me and I can get elected. And his voters have believed it all along. For Biden, that is increasingly not the case.
ISAACSON: You say defiance, a head down, sort of sticking it to people. Does that appeal to voters? It seems sometimes it does.
ANDERSON: So, I think in this case, not so much. I think this is, in some ways, a misread on the part of the Biden team, because the concerns that
voters have about the president are not going to go away. They are very much related to his age, which is not going to go in reverse as we approach
November. And frankly, the elites, in some ways, are late to the game on this.
Rather than there being a disconnect between elites and the voters where it was elites trying to nudge the voters in a certain way, this way, voters
have been saying for months, you know, three quarters of them telling pollsters that they think that Biden is frankly too old.
[13:40:00]
And so, as a result of that, this is one where I think just saying, no, we're going to take this bunker mentality and we're going to hope this goes
away, I don't think long-term that's likely to be a very effective strategy.
ISAACSON: Is Biden the strongest candidate to defeat Donald Trump?
ANDERSON: Right now, the poll is -- the polls are somewhat inconclusive because some of the other contenders are less well known. So, while we
pretty much know that a race between, say, Joe Biden and Donald Trump right now favors Trump by five points or so against, say, Kamala Harris, the
polls give a much wider range of possible outcomes. There are more people who are turned off by her, but also more people who think, gosh, at least I
wouldn't have to worry about the age question.
And to say nothing of folks like, say, Gretchen Whitmer, Gavin Newsom, who are well known to folks that pay a close attention to political news, but
your kind of median swing state voter probably doesn't know that much about them and would be more likely to tell a pollster like me, I don't know what
I would do in that case.
So, in some ways, the risk of nominating someone different is greater, but the potential reward is greater as well for changing course to a new
candidate.
ISAACSON: Who do you think might be the strongest candidates for the Democratic Party?
ANDERSON: I think at this point you would have to say Kamala Harris. And it's not because she's a wonderful politician or because this White House
has used her very effectively, but because, in some ways, that would be the least disruptive path forward rather than a very contentious primary where
you hear this sort of fantasy land arguments, oh, we could have a very nice, friendly, everybody sit around and tell why they have a positive
message.
But I think inevitably, there would be some negativity and some infighting that would not be helpful to the Democrats. If it was instead a handing of
the reins over to Kamala Harris, a more seamless transition, that would be something that would avoid that partisan infighting.
And frankly, it's not as though she pulls significantly worse than Joe Biden does. She has some political gifts and some political downsides when
it comes relative to the incumbent president. But I think she would probably be the best bet for conveying that sense of stability. That is
what Democrats are really leaning on to make the case that they should be chosen over Donald Trump, who they say is an agent of exactly the sort of
chaos that voters do not want.
ISAACSON: You say that Kamala Harris would be a strong candidate, agent of stability, but to some extent, politics, especially populist politics these
days, tends to be affected by media attacks, social media attacks, especially from the conservatives on social media, in which she's a real
target, but of course, all sides on social media and the media. Don't you think that she presents a target more than other Democratic candidates?
ANDERSON: Well, she certainly represents, you know, having a target on her back because she has already been a target, at least, of conservative media
for quite some time. So, that would not be anything new. And I guess what that raises for me is the question of how much of that is already kind of
priced in, where for somebody like a Gretchen Whitmer, you know, to what extent are there things in her record in Michigan that would be
unflattering, perhaps the handling of something like COVID-19. We know that's been a really sore spot for Democrats within their own coalition. Is
that something that makes her potentially a risk?
Or to say nothing of Gavin Newsom, who, you know, you can guarantee if he was chosen by the Democrats, Republicans are going to be all too happy to
talk about him going to dinner at the French Laundry while everything else was closed in California. There's plenty in Gavin Newsom's record that
Republicans would also consider a pretty target rich environment.
So, yes, Kamala Harris is not necessarily the most beloved, popular, or perfect vice president there is, but she would be somebody who you could
hand the reins to very effectively. And frankly, I'd have to imagine if you're somebody like a Gretchen Whitmer or a Gavin Newsom, you think your
political life cycle might be a little bit longer.
You may recognize that stepping in right now is very risky and could really do some damage to you long-term. You may not want any part of this, even if
Harris is not essentially anointed, you know, the person that Biden hands things over to.
ISAACSON: You have written a piece that says "No Poll Can Tell Biden What He Needs to Hear." Two questions. Why not? Why can't a poll help tell him
that? And secondly, what does he need to hear?
ANDERSON: Well, I think what President Biden needs to hear is that he has served his country for the last three and a half years. He has served a
long time in public service, as you noted, my entire lifetime for sure, and that he ought to walk away, take his achievements, hope that history looks
fondly on him and know when to step away.
And I don't think a poll is going to give him the nudge that he needs to make that happen. I mean, you have seen in the last couple of days race
ratings change where you now have a lot of the swing states have been moved even further into Donald Trump's camp, or they've been moved away from
being toss ups. It seems very likely at this point that Joe Biden will not be re-elected for a second term.
[13:45:00]
But the polls, at this point, have also not cratered for him dramatically. He's not losing to Trump by 10, 15 points. The sort of thing you might see
in an alternate normal reality, where you have a president that Americans think simply cannot serve. You have an awful lot of voters who say, I don't
think Joe Biden can make it another four years, but I'm voting for him anyways, because he's not Donald Trump.
So, my column essentially said that there are a lot of voters out already expecting that Joe Biden is having mental acuity issues, that his age is
already a problem, and they nevertheless have calculated he is still better than Donald Trump. And so, that's why after the debates, you didn't see
Biden's polling go down a little bit, but not that much. I don't think it's going to be the kind of earthquake that we may have expected that would
force Biden to really have to step out of the race.
ISAACSON: So, what you're saying is that even though the polls show that 70 to 80 percent of people -- of all parties feel Joe Biden's too old to be
president, he might not be able to serve out a term, that that's now been priced in, so to speak, and you don't think it'll further affect this race?
ANDERSON: It's possible that he continues to give interviews or unscripted appearances that further underscore a state of decline and that make people
go, I thought it was bad, but I didn't think it was this bad. So, I don't rule out the possibility that things could get worse, but I also think that
something that, in a weird way, benefits Joe Biden is the fact that his coalition is not about him.
Donald Trump's coalition is about Donald Trump. It's people affirmatively saying, I like Donald Trump. But for Joe Biden, in the 2020 election, when
we looked at the exit polls, most of the people who voted for Joe Biden said their vote was mostly about opposing Donald Trump.
So, in some ways, Joe Biden being very imperfect or potentially not being up to the job of being president is less important because his voters are
with him because he's not Donald Trump. It also may make it easier for Democrats to make a switch to put someone else in that position because
their coalition, again, is not about the name that's on the ballot, it's about not being Donald Trump.
ISAACSON: Donald Trump is only a couple of years younger than Joe Biden. He's also been convicted of felonies, all sorts of legal problems. Does
that come up in your discussion with voters and particularly with Republican voters?
ANDERSON: So, Donald Trump's many flaws, his convictions, his -- the accusations, all of it, is, in another way, kind of priced in to what
people think about Donald Trump. And in a weird way, Donald Trump having been absent from the public mind and out of the White House, in my view,
has made a lot of voters revert back to thinking of him as kind of outlaw business man. They think of him more in terms of his kind of apprentice era
persona than the way they thought of him as president.
When Donald Trump was president, his approval ratings were not great, especially toward the end, there were lots of Americans that said, I don't
think this is working out and I want to change. But as he has been further and further removed from the White House, there's almost been a nostalgia
that has set in where voters are looking past things like the felony convictions and saying, yes, yes, I know he's not a great guy, but I think
the economy was better when he was president. I think his policies made me better off.
And so, Donald Trump has really benefited from -- even though he's had all of this stuff happen that we would think in normal times would be
unfathomable in a presidential election, he's able to kind of ride it out because voters still think his policies would make them better off. That's
a very powerful belief working in his favor.
ISAACSON: One of the key elements of Donald Trump's campaign, reinforced in the platforms they've been discussing this week, is to seal the border
and to have a massive deportation of people in this country illegally. How well does that resonate with Republican voters and for that matter with
Democrats and Independents? Is that a key issue for America?
ANDERSON: It is a very key issue with Republicans, and it was Donald Trump's early adoption of the immigration issue as sort of his signature
platform piece, the build the wall policy of 2016. That is what endeared him to the Republican base in the first place. It made him different from
the more kind of pro-business moderate on immigration stance that most of the rest of the party leaders back then had adopted.
[13:50:00]
And since then, America has really moved to the right on the immigration issue. It's no longer just something that Republicans believe strongly in,
it's an issue where even independent voters give the GOP a wide margin in saying, I trust this party more to handle the issue.
Now, there are ways that Republicans can overplay this, and we certainly saw, for instance, during Trump's presidency, the family separation issue,
the stories of parents being separated from their children at the border that, you know, at least for the moment, really swung public opinion
against Trump. People said that's too far.
So, if he were to be elected, and if you were to see things like that happening again, there's always a chance that public opinion could go,
whoa, whoa, whoa. We wanted a secure border. We wanted the law enforced. But this feels like too much. But at the moment, at least in the abstract,
what people are seeing are images of, you know, border crossings that it just feels like there's lawlessness afoot. Donald Trump claims to be this
strong man who wants to put in place law and order. And it's not just Republicans who find that appealing now, it's one of his key points of
appeal to some of these swing voters that have now gone into his camp.
ISAACSON: President Biden and the Democrats want to make abortion and reproductive rights the main issue. Is that possible to make that the main
issue in voters' minds? And to what extent is it an effective issue with Republican voters as well as Democratic voters?
ANDERSON: So, the issue of abortion was one that used to animate both parties bases but was pretty out of the mix for your kind of swing voter,
that the consensus around Roe versus Wade had taken the issue off the table.
But what we saw in 2022 was with abortion as a live issue, one that suddenly was in flux. And now, one in 2024, we're able -- actually be on
the ballot in a number of key states in terms of constitutional ballot amendments and such. This is an issue that I think is going to play a big
role.
It will play a role in two ways. First, by being very motivational to Democrats, even if they find that Joe Biden is a lackluster candidate, or
even if there's a swap and you get someone like Kamala Harris, who is a very flawed candidate, you will still have a lot of Democratic voters
turning out because they don't want Donald Trump. And down ballot voting for Democratic candidates because they want to get Roe re-enshrined into
law in some way, either through the Senate, either through the appointment of judges in the future, those sorts of things. So, that's piece number
one.
But piece number two is also for those swing voters. I have heard from swing voters who will not say that abortion is their top issue at all. They
say cost of living is number one. But if they hear that a politician is prolife or wants to put into place any kind of policy that is considered
pretty extreme, something like a very early on abortion ban, it's the sort of thing that can be a deal breaker issue where they won't tell a pollster
like me abortion is number one, but it's very hard for them to imagine casting a ballot for someone with whom they strongly disagree on the issue.
So, that's why though it is unlikely to be a top issue and it's certainly not one that Republicans want to talk about a lot, you saw Republicans have
some language around abortion kind of softened in their platform as they head into the Republican convention. Republicans know this is a liability
and are trying to avoid it, while Democrats know it may be their best shot in a year where you have somebody like a President Biden on the ticket who
voters do not seem to be very favorable toward.
ISAACSON: Is there a significant chance that Donald Trump can take black and for that matter, Hispanic voters away from the Democratic Party?
ANDERSON: I think there is, and we've seen it in an awful lot of data that's come in over the last few months. It wasn't just one or two polls
here or there that showed Donald Trump doing well, it was a number of polls where if you look in the cross tabs, you see this pattern emerge.
Donald Trump is, in particular, doing well with Latino voters. We've seen Republicans really building a greater and greater share of their vote with
the Latino part of their coalition, especially in states like Florida and in Texas. Some of the parts in 2020 that actually swung toward Donald Trump
rather than away from him were the Rio Grande Valley, because the politics of an issue like crime or like immigration or like the economy have not
benefited Democrats.
Their message on those issues has not resonated with voters of color as much as Donald Trump's message of, I'm going to try to make sure that your
job pays a good wage, I'm going to try to keep your taxes low, I'm going to try to help entrepreneurs and I'm going to try to enforce the law. It's a
message that for voters across the spectrum. They have found to be a little bit more appealing than, I think, Democrats bargained for.
And so, there is a real chance that Donald Trump could do better among, say, black men than he did in previous elections. And that would be a very,
I think, shocking finding to many. But if Donald Trump wins, that will be a big piece of how he gets there.
ISAACSON: Kristen Soltis Anderson, thank you so much for joining us.
ANDERSON: Thank you for having me.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
[13:55:00]
AMANPOUR: And finally on politics tonight, a coming-of-age moment in British election. An influx of Gen Z lawmakers, averaging just 25 years
old, have been sworn into the U.K. Parliament. Marking the first time a politician born this century enters the halls of Westminster.
Nine of these 10 youthful MPs belong to the Labour Party, which secured an overwhelming victory in last week's general election. Their entry into
politics shows the need for younger voices that can connect with their generation of voters. And as we reported earlier, this election also saw a
record number of women winning seats.
That's it for now. If you ever miss our show, you can find the latest episode shortly after it airs on our podcast. And remember, you can always
catch us online, on our website, and all-over social media.
Thanks for watching, and goodbye from London.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[14:00:00]
END
