Return to Transcripts main page

Amanpour

Interview with Hoover Institution Visiting Fellow and Former Reagan White House Aide Frank Lavin; Interview with Former U.S. Acting Solicitor General Neal Katyal; Interview with Polarization and Extremism Research and Innovation Lab Director Cynthia Miller-Idriss; Interview with President- elect of Iceland Halla Tomasdottir. Aired 1-1:53p ET

Aired July 15, 2024 - 13:00:00   ET

THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.

[13:00:00]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

CHRISTIANE AMANPOUR, CNN CHIEF INTERNATIONAL ANCHOR: Hello, everyone, and welcome to "Amanpour." Here's what's coming up.

A call to lower the temperature after an assassination attempt against Former President Donald Trump. Tonight, we focus on all angles. First the

Republican reaction just as they opened their national convention. And later, an expert on political violence. Is there really no room for this in

America?

Plus, today's other bombshell, a judge dismisses the classified documents case against Trump. I'm joined by former acting solicitor general, Neal

Katyal. And, the international perspective with Iceland's president-elect.

Welcome to the program, everyone. I'm Christiane Amanpour in London. It is time to lower the temperature in our politics, that is what President Joe

Biden told the nation in a primetime address last night, following the attempted assassination of the Former President Donald Trump at an election

rally on Saturday.

The FBI is still trying to determine the motivation of the shooter, a 20- year-old white man armed with an AR-15 automatic rifle, who was also a registered Republican. Regardless, the attack is a testament to the

increasingly fractious, furious, and now fatal state of this race.

Trump says that he has completely rewritten his acceptance speech to reflect that at the Republican National Convention in Wisconsin. But he's

since told "The New York Post," I want to try to unite our country, but I don't know if that's possible. People are very divided.

So, joining me now from Milwaukee is Correspondent Jeff Zeleny. Jeff, welcome to the program. Let me first ask you the traditional question,

which is super relevant today, what actually is the mood amongst Republicans after this violence on Saturday?

JEFF ZELENY, CNN CHIEF U.S. NATIONAL AFFAIRS CORRESPONDENT: Well, Christiane, the mood is one of relief. It's also one of excitement. Donald

Trump would have been welcomed here to Milwaukee as a hero, but it is something far more than that, given the events of Saturday. Talking to

Republican delegates, they, you know, first and foremost, are grateful that he is OK, and they are more committed than ever to his campaign.

Of course, here in Wisconsin, the convention was chosen here. Donald Trump chose this for a reason because Wisconsin is a key battleground. This is

one of the pieces of the blue wall, if you will, that he won in 2016, he lost to Joe Biden in 2020. So, that is really at the heart of the matter

here.

So, as the former president makes his way to the convention floor, we're expected to see a bit of him throughout this week, of course, culminating

in his marquee speech on Thursday. He's talking of unity. There is no doubt about that. A couple questions. Will that pledge for unity remain after

this convention? And will other Republicans also uphold that pledge? And is it what the base wants to hear?

This is a time when you sort of throw red meat out to your supporters. So, it's a tricky balance. But, of course, he controls the message, and he is

saying that he wants to talk about unity, of course, there's a lot to unpack in all of that.

AMANPOUR: Well, yes, and as I said, you know, he said that but then he said, well, I don't know if I can, because the country is very divided. I

don't know, I mean, clearly, world leaders, elected leaders have a responsibility for that division. So, it will be interesting to see if he

actually throws himself into trying to do what he says he wants to do.

But in the meantime, I want to ask you, Jeff, because obviously in many of these conventions they have a platform, it's their manifesto. And we hear

that this one is going to be, you know, very, very much trimmed down. And according to reports, that it will really reflect a sort of allegiance to

Trump rather than usual policy statements and goals. Is that what you're hearing?

ZELENY: It absolutely is correct. I mean, I've covered several of these Republican conventions and not one like this. The party platform, which is

really the principles of the party have been thrown out, from the abortion issue, to spending, to other matters, to allegiance to Donald Trump,

they've scaled it way back for electoral reasons.

[13:05:00]

Donald Trump just, on abortion, for example, has walked a very careful line here. And frankly, it's angered some social conservatives in the party.

They would like a national abortion ban. But Trump, of course, knows that Democrats will seize upon that in the general election campaign. So, this

is very much the Trump platform, which can be boiled down to make America great again. Of course, what does that mean? But not a lot of specifics.

But, Christiane, what really strikes me here, this is the third consecutive Republican nomination that Donald Trump has accepted. This is an entirely

different moment. When he arrived on stage in Cleveland eight years ago, in 2016, it was a fractured party. There were attempts from Ted Cruz

supporters and Marco Rubio supporters, even a few Jeb Bush supporters, to try and stop him from getting the nomination. All that is out the window.

This is 100 percent his party.

When you walk through the hall right behind me here, there are pictures of Donald Trump absolutely everywhere, merchandise everywhere, but talking to

people, these are his people. The -- a few sort of remaining never Trumpers are nowhere near the party, and certainly nowhere near here. So, it's much,

much different than his moments here before the convention.

AMANPOUR: And what is your -- put on your political analyst hat. What is your feeling about what happened on Saturday and how it will play out, you

know, two days, two weeks from now?

ZELENY: Look, it's always difficult in the moment to get a sense of what this will mean in the longer term, but I think we have at least a bit of a

sense. President Biden has snapped into duty as the, you know, commander- in-chief. He's addressed the nation three times, talking about a need to cool violence. Donald Trump also following suit. We're learning more about

that phone call that they had just one on one on Sunday morning, that both sides expressed as a good and respectful call.

So, I think without question, it provides a moment for the Trump campaign and for Donald Trump. And they're signaling, at least, that he is eager to

seize upon this political moment. And does it create an opening for him to do something he's never really done, and that's expanding his base. There's

a lot of, you know, anger and dissatisfaction with Joe Biden. So, can Donald Trump, sort of, you know, win people over?

One thing I'm Looking at, this is very interesting. The schedule really doesn't usually matter that much, but this case it does. Nikki Haley, she

received an invitation just on Sunday. Of course, the former South Carolina governor, the last standing rival to Donald Trump. She was not invited last

week, now she is. She'll be talking on the stage on Tuesday night talking about unity.

AMANPOUR: Interesting.

ZELENY: That is as big of a sign as we have seen yet that the Trump campaign is trying to perhaps win over some of those Haley voters, which of

course the Biden campaign had been trying to. Now, that's very much an open question. So, let's not overstate the pledges for unity. Let's watch and

see if it happens, but that is certainly one indication that they're trying optically at least for something different.

AMANPOUR: Jeff, that is really great and we're going to dig deeper into this now because, of course, the real and most important question is how

long this unity moment will last. Even now, we've heard voices on both sides blaming each other for overheated rhetoric including Trump's own.

Now, Frank Lavin is a long time Republican who served in both parties. Bush administrations with stints in the Departments of Commerce, state and in

the National Security Council. And he was also working in the White House when President Reagan was shot.

So, welcome, Frank Lavin from San Francisco. Thanks for being with us. You just heard Jeff Zeleny, and I guess the big question is -- well, what do

you think about the depth of the commitment to this unity and can Trump actually pull that off and expand his base?

FRANK LAVIN, VISITING FELLOW, HOOVER INSTITUTION AND FORMER REAGAN WHITE HOUSE AIDE: Well, thanks for having me on, Christiane. And I think the

question you posed is exactly the key question of this coming week. Trump will accept the nomination on Thursday. He will command maybe the largest

audience of his political life. And will he rise to the moment or in what way will he rise to the moment is the right kind of question.

I think as Jeff said in his segment a minute ago, just by inviting Nikki Haley there is a good leading indicator that he has a broad tent view and

has an inclusive view of his political role. The other important point to keep in mind is he has been pretty consistently in the lead for several

months now. He's been ahead of Joe Biden, not necessarily by a huge amount, but I think that gives him maybe a little bit of security or a little bit

of flexibility in how he positions himself to say he can act more presidential, act more high-minded because of where he is.

[13:10:00]

So, I think he will make an honest effort to be broad gauge in his approach, but how long that will last and how sincerely it's perceived by

the American public, I think, are open questions.

AMANPOUR: So, let's just roll back the tape to the last -- I mean, it was decades ago, and you were in the White House working for President Reagan's

administration when he was shot. And that was really dramatic. I mean, everybody remembers it. And what was your reaction then? And what was your

reaction this Saturday?

LAVIN: Well, it was horrific in 1981. And remember, the president was taken to the emergency room, George Washington Hospital. He had a bullet in

his chest. They had to extract it. So, it wasn't known until after surgery was over how serious it was. And it was quite serious. The blood was

pooling inside his body. And so, it was, you know, a life-threatening attack. But fortunately, he survived.

With Trump, I think we had the same bewilderment or same lack of information, but that only lasted 10 or 20 minutes. So, we said, actually,

President Trump, thankfully, is in good shape. He was nicked. It was a serious assassination attempt, but his health was really not impaired, and

he gave that really impressive fist pump at the end of that before he was escorted off the stage, which sort of did reassure the public that he

seemed to be OK. But it had the same trauma, I think, the same kind of electric effect on the national audience.

AMANPOUR: And what impact did it have on President Reagan? I mean, did it -- what did it do for his presidency, if anything?

LAVIN: I think it definitely gave him -- definitely. And I think it lasted a few months. That it reminded -- it humanized him. It reminded -- and it

gave him an opportunity to act presidential and to act gracious. And he typically took sort of a high-minded or inclusive approach to the office.

Trump, as we know, is a more pugnacious, he's a more combative public figure and he enjoys sort of throwing punches. So, this will be a bit of a

shift for Trump if he becomes high-minded or presidential, but there's an opportunity for him to act in a healing kind of fashion or an inclusive

fashion. And we hope that he rises to it.

AMANPOUR: OK. So, let's just play what President Biden said because he too, obviously, has been in a real dramatic political crisis and he too has

been able to act presidential again, you know, re-engage the role that he does so well rise above it, be the, you know, unifier, et cetera, said all

the right things in the immediate aftermath. And this is some of what he said in his address last night.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

JOE BIDEN, U.S. PRESIDENT: There is no place in America for this kind of violence or any violence for that matter. An assassination attempt is

contrary to everything we stand for as a nation. Everything. It's not who we are as a nation. It's not America. And we cannot allow this to happen.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

AMANPOUR: So, Frank Lavin, I mean, Look, that's great, but I don't think anybody truly believes that that's not what America is. We watch and we

report day after day, week after week, not just, you know, dramatic political assassinations over the decades, but everyday mass murders in

classrooms, in shopping malls, in entertainment spaces. This is America.

LAVIN: First of all, let me say that I think President Biden did exactly the right thing in his remarks, which is to act presidential and to -- I

think you're also right that he's speaking more in an aspirational sense about you shouldn't use violence in a democracy to try to change outcomes

and it is not American to do that. So, I think his core message was absolutely the right one, and it does help him politically to act

presidential.

I think your broader comment is also correct, Christiane, which I say is very unfortunate, but it is a sad fact that the United States does have an

element of violence to it that we see, and whether it's mental problems or access to firearms or other kind of phenomenon, but, boy, it's an ugly side

of America.

AMANPOUR: Can I just ask you, because this is genuinely, massively important, the tone of the political rhetoric has been just so heated, and

frankly, under the, you know, years of Donald, he introduced it, he -- well, he's one of the modern, you know, users of fairly heated political

rhetoric and made it from the fringe to the mainstream so that his followers and all the rest of it do the same.

Do you think there is any walking that back? You know that he's mocked his opponents, whether they, for whatever reason, he's used all sorts of, you

know, borderline violent rhetoric. And so, have his -- you know, even -- we even heard from colleagues that even people at the rally were blaming the

press and in terrible ways, you know, directing violent language towards the press. So, is there a way, in your long experience, to actually put a

lid on that kind of violent rhetoric?

[13:15:00]

LAVIN: Well, I think the tone comes from the top. So, I think President Biden set exactly the right tone in his remarks last night, and we can hope

that President Trump will set the right tone as well. But I think presidents ought to be inclusive and high-minded and speak against violence

and for civil discourse.

And I think you're also right that that's not part of Trump's DNA. He has combative personality. He's a theatrical personality and he frequently

doesn't rise to the moment. So, this is an opportunity for him to show his best side, if you will. The fact that he took the phone call from President

Biden, I think was a welcome development that the two of them had were told a civil discourse, the fact that he invited his previous opponents, Nikki

Haley and Ron DeSantis, to speak is also assigned to say he respects honest disagreements. So, those are both nice indicators, but the real test will

come Thursday to see if he rises to the moment.

AMANPOUR: Can I ask you a question about substance? Look, these AR-15s are the subject of a huge amount of controversy. If I'm not mistaken, the Trump

administration opposed a ban on assault rifles like this. Do you think that that should be part of political conversation going forward? What do we

also do about guns?

LAVIN: Well, absolutely. I think there are people who have raised questions about the weapons, as you just pointed out, who should have

access to assault weapons? I think other people have raised questions about age limits. If you have to be 21 years old to have a drink in the United

States, should you not be 21 years old to purchase a firearm? Is this his gun? Did he get it from a family member? Can he just go into a store as a

20-year-old and buy this kind of a weapon and should that be legal? So, I think those are very fair questions to ask.

AMANPOUR: And of course, the FBI is still trying to figure out the motive. They know who this person is. They're trying to figure out the motive. But

there's this other question, of course, about the Secret Service and the people who are at the actual rally.

Now, videos have come out showing them pointing out this figure who was, you know, on a roof not too far away. I mean, from all your experience and

knowing what happened to Reagan, I guess in his case, the shooter got really close. Is that just inevitable, or apparently, there wasn't a Secret

Service sweep of that particular building, they say?

LAVIN: To me, that's inexplicable. What we see on television, we might not know the whole story, but these reports we've seen over the last few days,

it's just inexplicable. That appears to be the only building in the immediate vicinity, and to have a sheriff's deputy or patrolman on that

building just to shoo off onlookers would be a rather rudimentary precaution.

So, I cannot, for the life of me, understand how someone would get access to that building and not have it come to the attention of the police or the

Secret Service.

AMANPOUR: And finally, so we've talked about how this is an extraordinary year for all reasons, most particularly what's happened in the last few

weeks, the Biden implosion since the debate. Now, he seems to be having a bit of a second wind with the ability to act presidential, talk to the

people, what's happening, you know, where Trump might be able to, as Jeff Zeleny and you've said, expand his base if he does go the unifying route.

What do you think, with all your long experience, the rest of this presidential campaign is going to look like?

LAVIN: I think there's still at least one more twist in the plot, if I may use that expression, Christiane, meaning something else might well happen.

There's still -- even after the Republican Convention and the Democratic Convention, there's still one more presidential debate scheduled and

there's still four months to go. So, to say someone else could have an indiscreet moment or say something or do something that changes the

numbers. There could be an international incident that changes the numbers.

So, there's still -- it's not going to be a straight-line narrative, if I may use sort of a Hollywood phraseology, something else is going to happen

in these final few months. But, boy, Biden -- you're right, Biden kind of perversely got a bit of a break because of this, because it changes the

subject. The debate a week ago is Biden too old for the job, is he up to the job, this just changes the subject completely to Trump's health and

Trump's ability to perform at the Republican Convention. So, that's a bit of an indirect break for Joe Biden.

AMANPOUR: So, I said that was the final question, but actually, I want to ask you, again, about this unity question, because as you know, a lot of

the Republicans have been accusing the Biden administration of actually them, you know, creating this "political violence" with the prosecutions

and all the other things.

[13:20:00]

So, today, he reacted to the dismissal of the classified documents case. So, he says, as we move forward in uniting our nation after the horrific

events on Saturday, this dismissal of the lawless indictment in Florida should be just the first step. The Democrat Justice Department coordinated

all of these political attacks, which are an election interference conspiracy against Joe Biden's political opponent, me. Let us come together

to end all weaponization of our justice system and make America great again.

Does that sound like a call for unity and lowering the rhetoric?

LAVIN: No, but if I'm -- it certainly does not, Christiane, but I might say if I were under indictment, I would maybe choose to impugn the Justice

Department as well. So, I'm not sure that's a fair test of Trump's high- mindedness. I think we really have to wait until Thursday to see what's he going to say, what kind of tone is he going to pitch on that.

AMANPOUR: And honestly, we do all eagerly await. Frank Lavin, thank you so much. And I'm going to continue the legal side of this --

LAVIN: Thank you.

AMANPOUR: -- with our next guest. Because despite 34 felony convictions in New York, Donald Trump has since been racking up legal victories. First,

the Supreme Court agrees that his presidential acts makes him mostly immune from prosecution. And now, the judge he appointed, Aileen Cannon, has

dismissed the classified documents case against him.

Joining me now is Neal Katyal, a law professor at Georgetown University and the former acting U.S. solicitor general to President Barack Obama. Neal

Katyal, just give me your first reaction to the judge's dismissal, were you surprised?

NEIL KATYAL, FORMER U.S. ACTING SOLICITOR GENERAL: Yes, I was surprised. I think, Christiane, this decision is cuckoo for Cocopuffs, and it's not

going to stand be upheld by the Court of Appeals in the United States Supreme Court. It's certainly going to delay things in this case and

certainly pass the election because appeals take time.

But basically, just to recap our viewers, Donald Trump was accused of taking highly classified and sensitive information without permission,

keeping it at his golf club, Mar-a-Lago. And then most importantly, lying about it to federal investigators after he was asked about these documents.

And that's what he's indicted for.

And one of my jobs at the Justice Department was to serve as national security adviser, where we, of course, indicted cases like this every day

of the week, every time they happened. They didn't happen that much, fortunately, because people know who handle classified information just how

serious that material is and how it getting out can endanger sources and methods and the like. But that's what he's accused of. And now, the judge

comes along and tries to invalidate the prosecutor on a cuckoo theory.

AMANPOUR: Oh, well, I'm going to get to the prosecutor in a moment. So, what is -- I want you to lay out what her, you know, legal argument was for

throwing it out.

KATYAL: Yes. So, her legal argument is that the special prosecutor, Jack Smith, is not authorized by Congress, that Congress has to pass a specific

law naming Jack Smith as part of the -- as an investigatory official and then a funding mechanism that isn't indefinite so that -- to pay for him.

And I think the most important point about this, Christiane, is eight different judges, over the last many years, have rejected this exact

argument. And the special counsel regulations that Jack Smith is appointed under, I should say, by way of disclosure to all of our viewers, I drafted

those back in 1999 when I was a young Justice Department staffer in connection with the entire Justice Department.

And what we did after we drafted them, I went with Ms. Reno, the attorney general, to the Hill. We briefed the House Senate leadership, both the

Republicans and Democrats on a bipartisan basis, we briefed all of their counsel, we briefed the heads of the Senate and House Judiciary Committee,

not a single person from either political party said a word about this kind of idea that the special counsel wasn't authorized. And that's so because

we've had special counsels for over a century, since the time of President Ulysses Grant. And now, this judge comes along and with a stroke of her pen

tries to undo these very serious accusations against Donald Trump.

AMANPOUR: You know, you say you drafted them in 1999. Everybody remembers that the late '90s were when there was a special prosecutor, I think you

call him that, investigating President Clinton at the time. And at that time, the Clinton administration and all of his people talked about

overreach and all the rest of it. So, it's something that happens on all sides, right? I mean, nobody likes a special prosecutor. And -- but it

seems to me that many administrations use them. Didn't the Trump administration use special prosecutors?

[13:25:00]

KATYAL: I love your question. And sure, the Trump administration did as well and others did, but I think the most important point about the 1990s

is, absolutely, there was something called the Independent Counsel Act, which is a kind of supercharged special prosecutor created in 1978 after

Watergate and what the experience with Clinton showed to both political parties was that that was too aggressive, and it didn't strike the right

balance.

And so, Republicans and Democrats together came and said, let's throw out this Independent Counsel Act, even though it was upheld by the Supreme

Court in a seven to one decision. But it's not good policy. And indeed, the independent prosecutor, Ken Starr, who was investigating Bill Clinton at

the very time, Christiane, he testified in the Hill on these hearings about the special counsel regulations and said that was the way to do it, the

special counsel regulations, which were just invalidated today by Judge Cannon, not the Independent Counsel Act.

So, even he thought that what he was doing didn't strike the right balance, but that the special counsel regulations did, because -- and this is what

we tried to do, we tried to balance all the competing considerations, political and accountable and the need for independence. But most

importantly, the need to give the American people a guarantee that there wasn't going to be some sort of cover up or nefarious system of justice.

You need to have some sort of independence, and that's what the special counsel did.

I mean, a different way of putting this is to just think about the real- world implication of what Judge Cannon did today. What she's saying is that Attorney General Merrick Garland was the one who had to prosecute Donald

Trump and investigate Donald Trump. But of course, Garland was appointed by President Biden, who is Trump's political rival.

So, if Garland did that, he would open himself up to all sorts of accusations. That's why he gave it to an independent, nonpolitical

prosecutor. And the flip side is even scarier, because if you imagine some future president that's accused of serious wrongdoing, could he put his own

attorney general in to investigate and potentially cover up potential crimes? That's what Judge Cannon is saying. That can't possibly be the law

of the United States.

AMANPOUR: Except, right, the Supreme Court basically said that in relation to Donald Trump's January 6th charges and all the rest of it, that he --

the Supreme Court granted broad immunity saying that presidential acts for the most part are covered under immunity.

Do you think Judge Cannon -- I know she targeted the special prosecutor, but do you think she's also saying, hey, the Supreme Court's giving me

cover? There's not going to be any grounds for appeal?

KATYAL: Yes. No, there's massive grounds to appeal. It's an easy appeal. So, there's a difference between presidential immunity, which is what the

Supreme Court said. And can't have special counsels at all against anyone, including a lower level executive branch official or say the president's

son, Hunter Biden, because what she did today would invalidate the special counsel investigating Hunter Biden as well.

I mean, both are wrong, but this is wrong on a different kind of scale and degree. And I think the way we know that is that there was only one

justice, Christiane, who adopted anything like the special counsel is illegal view, and that was Justice Thomas in the Trump immunity case. No

one else went anywhere near this, and this is not a decision that I suspect will stand the test of time.

AMANPOUR: Do you think it was a political decision?

KATYAL: Oh, I don't go into judges' motivations. I -- you know, so --

AMANPOUR: I tried. I tried, Neal. I know. I tried. Because everybody's trying to figure out why this happened, given everything that you've laid

out and the fact that we've special counsels for decades on both sides of the political aisle.

So, just, again, finally, you know, there are several cases against Donald Trump, several indictments, and this one was considered one of the most

serious, is that correct?

KATYAL: That's correct. It's really an open and shut criminal case. It should have already gone to trial. It's really easy. And unfortunately,

this judge has slow walked the case and now has done this. And so, I think really, this is going to go to a very fast appeal in the Court of Appeals.

And really, the only question for the special prosecutor, Jack Smith, is whether he's going to not just appeal, but seek the removal of Judge

Cannon. That's something extraordinary for the Justice Department to seek.

I suspect it's going to happen here. This judge has already been rebuked twice by the Court of Appeals in very serious language in this very case.

And it may be that three strikes you're out is going to happen here.

AMANPOUR: It's incredible that it happens on this day as well. Very, very interesting. Thank you for your legal analysis. Appreciate it.

[13:30:00]

So, as America reels from this moment of violence, many are reflecting and condemning the rise in political violence across the country. Here's

President Biden again speaking during his Sunday address.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

BIDEN: A former president was shot, an American citizen killed. I'll simply exercise his freedom to support the candidate of his choosing. We

cannot, we must not go down this road in America. We've traveled before throughout our history. Violence has never been the answer, whether it's

with members of Congress in both parties being targeted and shot, or a violent mob attacking the Capitol on January 6th, or a brutal attack on the

spouse of former Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, or information and intimidation on election officials, or the kidnapping plot against the

sitting governor or an attempted assassination on Donald Trump.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

AMANPOUR: Our next guest is an expert on this political violence. Cynthia Miller-Idriss is the director of the Polarization and Extremism Research

and Innovation Lab at the American University. And she's joining me now from Washington, D.C. Welcome to the program.

CYNTHIA MILLER-IDRISS, DIRECTOR, POLARIZATION AND EXTREMISM RESEARCH AND INNOVATION LAB: Thank you for having me.

AMANPOUR: So, you just basically heard -- well, we saw what happened over the weekend, and you heard President Biden basically list a series of

recent acts of political violence. This all happened pretty much in the last year or so. From everything you study, do you think it was a matter of

time before it reached this terrible level?

MILLER-IDRISS: I absolutely think it was a matter of time before we got to political assassinations. I mean, that has been sort of written on the wall

for the last couple of years. We've been in a situation like this before, in the 1960s. This is the kind of violence we were seeing. And not only the

escalations that preceded this in terms of the threats that Biden just laid out, but also the fact that we've had political assassinations in Germany

and the U.K. in recent years. You know, there's a global kind of uptick in this with the rising temperature and likelihood to use and willingness to

use political violence.

AMANPOUR: Can you walk us through, from all your research and studies, what is the path towards this violence? Why is there this massive uptick

now?

MILLER-IDRISS: Well, there's sort of -- there's several different root causes that lead to increasing willingness to support and engage in

political violence. One of those is an environment or a climate where there's a lot of us versus them rhetoric happening.

So, a kind of sense that there's an existential threat coming from the other side that has to be met with violence. And sometimes people even

think that's heroic violence. So, we have seen that a lot of times around conspiracy theories related to the Great Replacement, but also in terms of

political violence and people thinking that this is what you have to do to save democracy. We saw that on January 6th, for example.

But I will also say that in national survey after national survey, over the last couple of years, the single biggest predictor or among the top three

predictors of support for political violence and willingness to engage in it is hostile sexism or misogyny. And that's something we really don't talk

about very often in these conversations, is what does it mean to have rising online misogyny and hostile sexism, the kind of dehumanization that

goes with that, and then willingness to engage in political violence.

AMANPOUR: OK. So, obviously, for me that's very interesting and for everybody it should be very interesting. But in this case, it's appears to

be man on man.

MILLER-IDRISS: Yes. I mean, not talking about individual motivations of a single actor in that case, but talking about the population level

willingness to support political violence, which hovers now between 10 and 20 percent in the U.S., that's what I'm talking about when I'm saying that

tied to other types of misogyny and hostile sexism.

In this case, we still don't know the shooter's individual motivations. And I would just say, remember that in the Ronald Reagan case, you know, we saw

someone who thought he was impressing a movie star, right? So, I think we have to be careful about attributing motivations yet.

AMANPOUR: You're absolutely right, of course. Now, building on what you just said, I just want to quote some stats because PBS News Hour from April

showed that one in five, as you say, 20 percent that's one in five U.S. adults agree that "Americans may have to resort to violence to get their

country back on track." Amongst Republicans, the number was higher, 28 percent, 12 percent amongst Democrats.

That's pretty dire. So, explain to us this business. Because, you know, Trump's supporters believe that he is the defender of the country and of

American values. Biden's supporters believe that he is defending America from authoritarian tendencies that would crash America's democracy. This

stuff is playing into what's going on in the uptick in political violence, right?

[13:35:00]

MILLER-IDRISS: Absolutely. You know, and I would add to that, I mean, those statistics are dire enough already, but we also have seen data that

shows those numbers get even worse. If people are asked, what happens if the other side is violent first? Then it goes up to as high as 40 percent

that people say they'd be willing to use political violence.

So, you know, in these moments where there's a lot of conspiracy theories and false flag kind of ideas and false misinformation, disinformation

circulating, we're at high risk, you know, of additional violence because people think the other side has already done it.

You know, but in terms of your question about what's -- you know, what's underpinning this, I think on the one hand, yes, you have both sides

presenting an existential threat. The idea that democracy is in dire straits, and it is. We're on a list of backsliding democracies globally.

Things are not going so well for the U.S. on the democratic side. So, you have that kind of sense.

And then you have, you know, this bubbling up among ordinary citizens of supporting violence. So, it's not just among elites, it's among ordinary

citizens. Even in my own social media feed over the last day or two among people saying things like you reap what you sow. I think that's really

dangerous to actually justify a political assassination attempt.

AMANPOUR: And then, you have what they -- everybody calls a moment. We're right on the eve or we're right at the start of the Republican National

Convention. President Biden has said lower the temperature. Former President Trump has said that he's changing his speech to reflect a new

call for unity. In your research, how much does the intervention of leaders, one way or another, affect the grassroots, one in five, 20

percent, 40 percent, as you just said, those who might have tendencies towards violence?

MILLER-IDRISS: Well, it does help. It helps a lot to see the temperature get lowered from political elites, from elected officials. We definitely

want to see that, the language of unity and the rejection of violence. The question is, what you're asking is like, can you put the genie back in the

bottle and how quickly can you do that?

And there, I'm a little more skeptical. I think we do see that among ordinary citizens who are, you know, either justifying this violence or

calling for similar reprisal attacks that, you know, they're not necessarily listening right now to what two candidates are saying, they

have already made up their mind. And that's where, I think, we have to see some vigilance and some real de-escalation happening within communities,

not just among political elites and elected officials.

AMANPOUR: And when you think about this, where do you think that this -- I mean, the genie back in the bottle is one way of saying it and of course,

one can't in general. But there are methods of bridging, of making connections as opposed to just constantly pulling back into silos and

tribes and convinced partisan, political and social, religious, I mean, all those positions that people now hold and treat the opposition as enemy

rather than just a political opponent.

MILLER-IDRISS: Yes, absolutely. I mean, the first thing to say about that is that there's really good evidence that you can prevent people from

believing harmful information that persuades them to take violence as the solution, or to see violence as the solution to their political problems or

to the problems that they see in the world. It just has to be done before they believe it, right?

There's a kind of preventative work very upstream that is extremely effective evidence-based that people reject propaganda, harmful online

content, conspiracy theories, if they're warned about them before they encounter them. Once they already believe them, once they already believe

that an election is invalid, once they believe that there's an orchestrated attempt to disrupt an election or something, that's much harder to come

back from. It's not to say that it can't be done, but it's much more like a therapeutic intervention and not a large-scale kind of media literacy

intervention.

So, we do need those types of things to happen, and it happens across the dinner table as much as it happens on the campaign trail. And that's what I

would sort of urge people to think about is what are they saying in their own home environments, in their communities in terms of supporting violence

and what are they saying to de-escalate or build bridges across those divides in their own neighborhoods?

AMANPOUR: And then, what are they thinking and seeing when they watch four days or however long it is of this Republican Convention that will have all

and any number of people, including the so-called flamethrowers on the MAGA side of the Republican Party?

I mean, there's a huge responsibility now that the spotlight will absolutely be on all of them for the next several days. What do you think

that they need to do?

[13:40:00]

MILLER-IDRISS: I mean, there's a very clear need to de-escalate Any calls for violence, violent rhetoric, to call for unity and to really call on

citizens to remember our own humanity. No one deserves to be shot. I would never want to hear that kind of rhetoric, no matter how much you disagree

with someone's political ideas.

And, you know, I'm hearing that type of justification from across the political spectrum. We hear college students on our own campuses regularly

now saying things like there's no political solution, whether that's to climate change or to immigration reform across the spectrum. That's a call

to violence, right? If you hear a young person saying, there is no more political solution, that's a moment to have a conversation with them.

So, yes, I think we have to see that de-escalation happening across the board. The flamethrowers, as you say, are problematic. But, you know, I'm

seeing it in much more ordinary and everyday ways that worry me just as much.

AMANPOUR: And it's going to be really interesting to see what Nikki Haley says and how she uses it because she's -- on her platform, because she's

been invited, I guess, in order to show some unity and she -- we'll see. We'll see what happens. We'll all be on, on stage.

MILLER-IDRISS: Yes, this is a good moment.

AMANPOUR: Cynthia Miller-Idriss, thank you so much indeed for being with us tonight. Now, across the world, leaders are also sending messages of

support to candidate, Former President Trump. The French president, Emmanuel Macron, wishing him a speedy recovery and decrying the attack on

Saturday as "a tragedy for our democracies." Ukraine's president, Volodymyr Zelenskyy sent similar well wishes and said "such violence has no

justification and no place anywhere in the world."

And then, there are these responses. The Argentinian president, the libertarian, Javier Milei, blames the "international left," while the

Slovenian prime minister, Robert Fico, who survived his own assassination attempt in May, pointed the finger at Trump's political opponents, also, at

his press corps.

My next guest has been working to combat toxicity in politics in her own country, that is Iceland's president-elect, Halla Tomasdottir, emphasize --

she emphasized the importance building bridges and creating a new paradigm for politics in her campaign. She joins me now from New York.

And I know I mangled your name, Tomasdottir. That's it, right?

HALLA TOMASDOTTIR, PRESIDENT-ELECT OF ICELAND: It means the daughter of Thomas.

AMANPOUR: Exactly.

TOMASDOTTIR: It's nice to be here with you, Christiane.

AMANPOUR: Nice to be with you. So, obviously, I want to know, as a politician now, as a president-elect, what went through your mind? You are

in New York at this moment when you heard what happened on Saturday.

TOMASDOTTIR: Well, I'm just deeply saddened, honestly, Christiane. There is no place for violence in politics or anywhere, and it won't solve our

deep disagreements and divisions that we're seeing, not just in the U.S. but increasingly around the world, although it seems more severe here.

I do want to extend my condolences to Corey and his family and those injured in this tragic incident. But I think Ian Bremmer was probably right

when I heard him say earlier this year in the Global Risk Report that the greatest risk in the world right now is that America is at war with itself.

AMANPOUR: It's really quite sobering to hear you say that. And of course, you mentioned the gentleman who was killed as he was trying to protect his

own family from the gunfire. So, you know, you said there's no place for this in politics. Obviously, in America there is. It's happened repeatedly.

And so, you also may be heard our last guest who said that when she hears young people say, this can't be resolved by politics or, you know, they

give up on politics, it's a -- it's sort of code for, well, you know, there are other extreme resorts.

How do you deal with this issue in Iceland? Has there ever been, you know, even a hint of political violence? And if not, how do you deal with getting

people to remain politically engaged to figure out solutions and how to have civil political debates?

TOMASDOTTIR: Well, I've long been convinced, Christiane, that we need a different approach in politics and in leadership alike because there are

deep divisions and even in rather safe Iceland where gun ownership and use is much less of a risk, just to give you one statistic for comparison that

over the last quarter century we've had a total of five deaths because of gun violence. So, it's a very different reality. And our police as a normal

day -- on a normal day wouldn't even carry around guns. So, it's a very different reality.

[13:45:00]

But we are seeing divisions and disagreements increasingly in Iceland as elsewhere. And I firmly believe that we need to start closing both the

gender and generational gaps in leadership in order to move forward with a new leadership playbook. I just don't think that competition at the expense

of everything that we care about, big egos and this focus of -- this focus on individual leaders is going to get us through this crisis of trust that

we are experiencing everywhere in the world.

And so, for decades, I've been a proponent of women and leadership. And for my campaign, I really focused on mobilizing young people. They were at the

core of our campaign. We even had young people running their own office and campaign team. They even ran my TikTok account. And more importantly, we

focused on a very positive campaign. And I made it very clear to my team and my supporters that if anybody didn't uphold to that promise of a

positive campaign where we never went low, violent, hateful or anything like that, they heard from me immediately, if anybody took a step away from

that. And they just didn't because I think leaders, at a time like this, they need to set the right tone.

AMANPOUR: Which is amazing to hear, but of course the other side will say, or another side will say, well, it's really nice that Iceland can do that,

but after all it's a little country and the most violence you have there are volcanoes. Can you really do that in a country as big and diverse as

the United States? Do you think your political, you know, philosophy can actually work in bigger, more diverse countries?

TOMASDOTTIR: Yes, maybe important to say here, Christiane, that our volcanoes are not dangerous and Iceland is safe to visit.

MARTIN: Oh, my God, I'm sorry. I didn't mean that.

TOMASDOTTIR: No, that's OK. That's OK. It's important for me to know that people are welcome to Iceland they might find some inspiration in Mother

Nature creating new land gender equality and sustainable energy and all the things that this incredible country is an example for.

I'm not going to tell you that I think it's as easy in the United States as it is in Iceland, nor am I going to tell you that I think it's easy in

Iceland. But we need bridging leadership. We need more humanity and more humility, and we need to think about leadership, not necessarily as coming

from any single leader or any one political party or any one sector of society, we need -- and this is very much something I emphasized in my

campaign, we need to start bringing people together across the different groups and opinions, different genders and generations, because in a low

trust environment, we cannot go forward in a better way without learning to breathe again, to listen to each other, to be willing to learn and even

change our opinions.

And I think this is going to require, I guess, a very different leadership model. And I hope that this tragedy is a warning and a wakeup call where

Americans, every American thinks hard about how will I choose to react to this? How will I choose my -- can I lay down the weapons, whether I use

them through my words or actual physical weapons? And can I start to choose my words and my actions more carefully?

Because I really believe that a collective shift in behavior is possible at this moment. And I hope the United States will choose a different path

forward. It starts with leaders, but I think every single person has a role to play now. And I hope not just for America's sake, but for the world's

sake that this is a moment we will emerge from with a different mindset about what matters and life matters.

AMANPOUR: You know, my previous guest was basically saying that all their data showed that extremism and alienation and this kind of violent

rhetoric, et cetera, is also, you know, really sort of rocket fueled by sexism and misogyny. And your country, Iceland, is the most gender equal

country in the world. You had the first to democratically elect a female president back in 1980. How does that affect the society at large in your

country?

TOMASDOTTIR: Yes. I'm so glad to ask about this, Christiane, because I couldn't be prouder to be Icelandic. Historically, women changed my outlook

on life when I was only seven years old, because they went on a strike, and nothing worked in Iceland on that day. And so, that's the best example of

collective courageous leadership I've seen. And I guess I personally learned that day that when we stand in solidarity, peacefully, and in joy

and sisterhood, we can actually shift and change the world. And five years later, we were the first to democratically elect a woman as president.

And President Vigdis was a huge role model for me, elected in 1980. I was 11 years old. She often said during her presidency that if the world can be

saved, it will be done by women and men who have the courage to support them and support their leadership.

[13:50:00]

And I have to say that I have, for decades, been an outspoken advocate for more women in leadership, but increasingly in my campaign now, I want us to

close not just the gender gaps, but also the generational gaps in leadership, because I believe they hold the key to a livable world, and I

think whether it's women or young people and many men who support this new leadership approach to life, they're looking for some inspiration on how we

can do things differently.

And this can be a moment where America chooses to show that there is another and better way forward. And I hope, sincerely, that we will choose

to do that now because it matters not to all of us.

AMANPOUR: And I know that you've lived and worked for a long time in the United States as well. But I want to ask you about -- you said TikTok

earlier You had young people on your TikTok for the campaign, but there was also the issue of the silk scarf. You're wearing a silk scarf right now.

So, I'm going to bring it up.

You had that in the first debate, and then, of course, everybody had opinions, even in Iceland about it. The scarf went viral. Even dogs started

wearing them. Men started wearing them. We're just going to see this TikTok video as we talk. But the text says, use your right to vote. So, what was

this moment all about?

TOMASDOTTIR: Well, first, I really did speak a lot to young people that it was important not just to use their right, but also their responsibility to

vote. And I am proud of the fact that we had over 80 percent of voter turnout in Iceland, which is the best in three decades. So, quite

remarkable. And 75 percent of the vote went to women candidates. So, Iceland really does pounce above its weight and -- when it comes to gender

equality.

But I believe -- I think people are actually suffering right now, Christiane, and I think they're looking for a more positive approach to the

future, and they are looking for a sense of belonging. And I'm afraid that politicians and maybe even business leaders alike are not necessarily

always offering people that. And to me, the silk scarf became a community- based campaign. It wasn't just about me, but it was about a vision of bringing all of us together to craft a better way forward for Iceland. It's

a way forward that doesn't use violence as a way to settle disagreements, but by a log and design.

Because we're at transformational times, Christiane. We cannot deliver a better future for the next generation that increasingly has lost hope

without inviting them to be active participants in shaping that future.

AMANPOUR: Connections is the word. Halla Tomasdottir, thank you so much. What a great way to end this program. Thank you.

And now, I hand you over to my colleagues in the United States for special coverage of the Republican Convention in Milwaukee, which is about to get

underway.

[13:53:00]

END