Return to Transcripts main page
Amanpour
Interview With CNN Political Commentator And 2016 Hillary Clinton Presidential Campaign Senior Adviser And Senior Spokesperson Karen Finney; Interview With Trump 2020 Director Of Strategic Communications Marc Lotter; Interview With Musician Cyndi Lauper; Interview With University Of Michigan Law School Professor And "Strict Scrutiny" Host Leah Litman. Aired 1-2p ET
Aired July 18, 2024 - 13:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
[13:00:30]
CHRISTIANE AMANPOUR, CNN INTERNATIONAL HOST: Hello, everyone, and welcome to "Amanpour." Here's what's coming up.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SEN. JD VANCE (R-OH), U.S. REPUBLICAN VICE PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: President Trump represents America's last best hope to restore what if lost
may never be found again.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
AMANPOUR: The Republican National Convention cements the GOP in Trump's image, while the walls close in for President Biden to quit the race. From
Milwaukee, I'm joined by Karen Finney, former senior adviser to Hillary Clinton, and former Trump campaign staffer, Marc Lotter.
Then --
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
(MUSIC PLAYING)
(END VIDEO CLIP)
AMANPOUR: Superstar Cyndi Lauper joins the program with her new film, her farewell tour, and how she keeps amazing us all time after time.
And --
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
LEAH LITMAN, PROFESSOR, UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN LAW SCHOOL: Maybe the most important criterion is whether you are willing to sacrifice your morals,
ethics, the rule of law in order to benefit Donald Trump and the Republican Party.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
AMANPOUR: -- after a spate of convictions and reprieves for Trump, Michigan Law School Professor Leah Litman tells Hari Sreenivasan how MAGA is
transforming the nation's judiciary.
Welcome to the program, everyone. I'm Christiane Amanpour in London. As the Republican National Convention wraps up its final day, it's feeling like a
grand old party in more ways than one, a jubilant mood spreading throughout the RNC as a newly unified GOP rallies behind Candidate Trump just after he
survived an assassination attempt.
It's very different within the Democratic Party where president Biden is facing growing pressure to drop out of the race as concerns around his
health and age persist. Party grandees like Nancy Pelosi, Chuck Schumer, Hakeem Jeffries, all warning Biden the polls do not look good.
We're now all too aware that a lot can happen in a week. So, what could happen between now and November? I spoke to former Communications Director
for Trump's 2020 campaign, Marc Lotter, and Karen Finney, who is a senior adviser for Hillary Clinton's 2016 presidential bid. They joined me from
the Milwaukee Convention Center.
AMANPOUR: Marc Lotter and Karen Phinney, welcome to the program from Milwaukee.
MARC LOTTER, DIRECTOR OF STRATEGIC COMMUNICATIONS, TRUMP 2020: Thanks for having us.
KAREN FINNEY, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: Great to be here.
AMANPOUR: OK. So, I am going to ask you how it looks to you. There you are, Democrat and Republican standing next to each other. How is that unity
thing working out for all of you?
FINNEY: I think it's -- well, to me, I think it remains to be seen. I think we've seen effort, certainly, this week. I'll say it, the Republicans have
had a good convention. You know, we've heard some jabs and some harsher language here and there. But I think it's not just about what we hear this
week in Milwaukee, it is in the days and weeks forward. Look, it's July. We've got quite a while between now and the election. Let's see if this
holds.
LOTTER: I mean, I think obviously, you know, hopefully, we're -- the theme continues. We're talking -- we want to talk about the policy, the economy,
immigration, the foreign policy, the wars that are going on in the Middle East and Europe. And if we can keep it focused on the policy and disagree
where we disagree, I think then we'll -- everyone will be better for it.
AMANPOUR: Well, I'm most definitely getting to the policy because that's what we do on this show. But first, I want to ask you, definitely, Karen.
Look, this week ends with the walls really closing in on President Biden. Not only does he have COVID on top of everything else, but it's becoming
more and more public, more and more senior, the internal Democratic officials, coupled with, you know, polls from grassroots Democrats, that
Biden won't make it in terms of winning in November. What do you think, Karen, about the level of discussion now around this?
FINNEY: Look, Christiane, there's a couple of things that I think we have to keep in mind, and I think this is factoring into the Biden team's as
they're thinking about this. Number one, 14 million people turned out in our primaries, and Joe Biden earned 3,900 delegates. They are pledged
delegates. So, as long as those delegates are holding firm, the president has the nomination. So, I think the question is, are those delegates going
to hold firm?
[13:05:00]
And I would also just add, we've heard a lot from some publicly, some kind of privately, but leaking out conversations that have been had with the
president and people voicing their concerns, ut we've also seen groups really rally around the president.
Just this week, he visited the Unidos Conference in Las Vegas, as well as the NAACP. So, there are some large groups that -- and individuals who are
still standing with him. So, I would imagine that the -- you know, the team is going to have to continue to kind of look at the data. I hope they're
looking at all of the data and they're able to make a decision about where he goes next.
AMANPOUR: And for you, Marc Lotter, and for Team GOP, this must be music to all of your ears. On the one hand, you've got this implosion at the top of
the Democratic ticket. You've got a sense of chaos and drift. And on the other hand, well, you describe it, you've got a sense of cementing the GOP
as Trump's party, the deliverance of Trump from the assassin's bullet, et cetera. Give me the mood amongst your party at the end of this week.
LOTTER: Well, obviously there's a lot of momentum, but I think there -- there's a lot of recognition that we still have four months to go until
election day. A lot of things can and will change. The map, the polls all look very good right now for Donald Trump and Senator J. D. Vance, but
we've got to, you know, run through the tape as they like to say.
And when it comes to -- you know, obviously, whether it's Joe Biden or someone else on the top of the ticket, you know, I think one of the things
that we're keeping a very close eye on is that the Democrats, you know, like to say that they are the defenders of democracy. And yet, there really
would not be anything more undemocratic than saying, we're going to ditch the will of our voters because it's politically inconvenient right now.
And so, whether it's Joe Biden, Kamala Harris, Gretchen Whitmer, Gavin Newsom, we're also focused on the policy side of it. None of those
candidates are going to change the direction of our country. They're going to stick with the same policies, whether it's on immigration, whether it's
on taxation, energy prices. So, really, the campaign is the same from our standpoint, we just have to change the name of the person, or may be
changing the name of the person who we're running against.
AMANPOUR: So, Karen --
FINNEY: If I may, Christiane.
AMANPOUR: Yes, please tell me about the policy as well, because, obviously, Marc talks a good game, but we hear from the Republicans that they really
want it to be against Biden. And on the policy issues on immigration, on the economy, et cetera, what would your pitch be at this point?
FINNEY: Well, I think it's important to remember that regardless of what's been happening in this conversation about Joe Biden, the grassroots work
has continued. So, in terms of the issue landscape, things have really not changed as much in terms of the policies that we're talking about.
So, for example, if you live in a state where you're afraid of losing your right to access IVF or contraception or abortion, that has not changed. And
that is a fundamental difference between what Democrats are fighting for and what Republicans are fighting for.
So, I think the issue is here, whether it's climate change, whether it is, you know, we don't believe in trickledown economics, whether it is, you
know, helping college kids pay for their student loans, there's a whole range of issues where we have just very different ideas. And I always like
to remind people, you know, those folks who are knocking on doors and having conversations with voters, those have not stopped.
And so, the issue conversation continues and will continue. And as we sort out sort of the top of -- what's happening at the top of the ticket, you
know, we're also really talking about very fundamental differences for the direction of our democracy.
AMANPOUR: So, Marc, let me ask you, because one of the main issues for many in America, women, and the rollback of Roe vs. Wade, and it hasn't been a
winning issue for Republicans in previous midterm and other elections. And Senator Vance is absolutely against abortion, he calls it murder, argued
against the need for rape and incest exceptions, promoted the ban at 15 weeks, and questioned the prevalence of divorce. Suggested women should
stay in violent marriages even. I'm going to play this and talk to you about the issue of winning women.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SEN. JD VANCE (R-OH), U.S. REPUBLICAN VICE PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: This is one of the great tricks that I think the sexual revolution pulled on the
American populace, which is this idea that like, well, OK, these marriages were fundamentally -- you know, they were maybe even violent, but certainly
they were unhappy. And so, getting rid of them and making it easier for people to shift spouses, like they changed their underwear, that's going to
make people happier in the long-term.
And maybe it worked out for the moms and dads, though I'm skeptical, but it really didn't work out for the kids of those marriages.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
AMANPOUR: So, Marc, talk to us about that. That was obviously before he was picked as vice presidential candidate. But Trump also realizes now that the
abortion ban and the Roe v. Wade reversal that he campaigned for and nominated judges to reverse is coming back to haunt him politically. What
do you think this ticket is going to do to attract women?
[13:10:00]
LOTTER: Well, the president has been very clear he would not sign a national abortion ban. In fact, there's also no way that a national
abortion ban is ever going to get passed by Congress. There just aren't the votes on either side to get their abortion wishes passed into law. And so,
that's why it's going to the people's elected representatives and the states. And the states, through their representatives, can make the
decisions in terms of what they think.
President has also been very clear he supports IVF and the exceptions for rape, incest, and the life of the mother. But I think, you know, while the
Democrats all want to focus only on just this one issue, I think what you're going to see the president, Senator Vance, and Republicans also talk
about is a lot of mothers, a lot of families out there struggling to pay for groceries, struggling to pay for gas. They're worried that their young
daughters or themselves might be the victims of crime based on all of the 12 million illegal immigrants that have been let into this country under
Joe Biden.
So, there are a lot of issues that I think that are at play. Yes, there are single issue voters on the issue of abortion, both on the right and the
left. But I think most people or probably it's one of their issues, may not be their only issue. And right now, they're worried about putting food on
the table.
AMANPOUR: Karen, what do you think? Because Kamala Harris, vice president, has been the administration's -- crusader is the wrong word, but you know
what I mean. She's gone out and fought the good fight for women.
FINNEY: Yes, yes.
AMANPOUR: And remembering that Trump himself was found guilty in a civil case for sexual abuse and the rest of it. Do you think the Republicans can
get over that as well as Roe versus Wade? Do you think it's still an issue?
FINNEY: It absolutely is still an issue. And I'll tell you why, because for women in this country and for particularly young voters, we see this. It's
not just about access to a procedure, it is fundamentally about bodily autonomy. You know, I like to say, Christiane, we are fundamentally not a
democracy if women don't have the same rights as men. And if we don't have the right to make those critical decisions about our bodies and our health
care, then we're not equal.
And unfortunately, what we've seen -- you know, I'm a little -- I cringe a little bit at the state's rights sort of argument because it has such an
ugly history in our country, but think about what's been happening in the states for women. We're seeing women and doctors criminalized. We're seeing
women lose their lives because of cruel and extreme practices.
And one of the things about Project 2025 that I think people are so anxious about is that so many of the things that are in that policy handbook, if
you will, are already being attempted to be implemented in the states, like cutting off access to various forms of contraception.
So, again, there's a real concern that some of these policies, again, it's not just about the procedure itself, it's about what it says about value to
women. I'll give you another example, equal pay for women. You know, the criticism that we're hearing from some conservative circles about the women
Secret Service members who were part of the president -- former president's detail, some are saying, well, you know, that's DEI and they shouldn't have
women, they're not strong enough, you know? So, again, it's also how you talk about women, how you respect women.
And I just want to point out something on immigration. We've had 12 million people here illegally for decades, and what we're talking about is, again,
two very different approaches to securing the border, which President Biden has, and those crossings have gone way down. But also, how do we have a
humane policy in terms of how do we have people return to their countries where that's appropriate? Not as we saw during the Republican Convention
this week with signs to just throw people out.
You know, this rounding people up and mass deportations. I don't think people really think about what that would really look like in terms of
having deportation centers, separating children and families, not to mention the economic impact that that would have on the American economy if
all those workers who are working for substandard wages, by the way, would be all of a sudden gone.
AMANPOUR: So, I want to also talk a little bit about foreign policy and democracy at home. Do you think -- I mean, you know, Chris Sununu, the
governor of New Hampshire, who didn't want Trump to be the candidate, worked very hard for Nikki Haley, now is backing Trump, basically told us
in an interview that January 6th should not be a disqualifier for this kind of a high office. Marc and Karen, can you comment on that because -- I
mean, seriously.
[13:15:00]
FINNEY: Well, I think what we saw on January 6th was terrifying and it's still -- those images are seared into the minds of Americans and a majority
of Americans do not find those people who attacked our Capitol, we don't call them heroes. We do think they should be held accountable for their
actions, just as everyone should.
That being said, you know, I've traveled around the country -- around the world, actually, in the last several months. I was just in Israel about
three weeks ago, and there is a lot of fear. We heard some of this coming out of the NATO conference. World leaders are very anxious about the idea
of Donald Trump returning to the presidency. They're anxious about what it means in terms of America's role in the world, the nature of the
relationships, the fact that he has praised dictators like Putin and what that means in terms of a realignment of forces.
And so, I think they're very real questions about what a Trump presidency would mean for American foreign policy based on Joe Biden's. And the other
thing, Christiane, I just want to mention. You know, we talk about Project 2025, but we don't just have that blueprint to look at. We have the record
of Donald Trump from his four years in office, and we know how he treated NATO, and we know how he treated our allies, and we know why they have real
concerns.
AMANPOUR: Marc, let me put that to you guys because --
LOTTER: Well, I think what comes --
AMANPOUR: Sorry. I just -- I've got one more question I can ask and it's a follow up on this. J. D. Vance, who is the most anti-Ukraine and the most
isolationist senator in Congress specifically stayed away from that stuff, I believe, in his speech.
However, today, the Russian foreign minister, Sergey Lavrov, has decided to praise the choice of J. D. Vance. And here's what he said.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SERGEY LAVROV, RUSSIAN FOREIGN MINISTER (through translator): He's in favor of peace, in favor of ending the assistance that's been provided. And we
can only welcome that, because that's what we need, to stop pumping Ukraine full of weapons and then the war will end.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
AMANPOUR: Well, the weapons that have been pumped into and against Ukraine are Russian weapons. But be that as it may, what do you think a Trump
administration, if it gets in, will do for the defense of Ukraine and the defense of democracy, knowing that the majority of Congress believes in
defending and supplying Ukraine, as do a working majority of the American people still?
LOTTER: Well, and -- I obviously I don't speak for the former president, nor do I speak for his campaign, but he's been very clear that he thinks
that both sides need to come together and start talking. Every war in history has ended at a negotiation table, even those that ended with
unconditional surrender. So, you've got to get the two sides talking. We've got to figure out a way to get the killing to stop, which is what the
president has been very clear about.
And the fact that he -- you know, he holds so much leverage, the president of the United States holds so much leverage in terms of forcing, whether
it's Ukraine and/or Russia to come to the table and let's figure out a way to stop the violence, stop the death on this issue is something that I
think the world should be cheering. We should be cheering for peace.
And I think that's what you would see from Donald Trump. And I'll leave the details of how he would do that, obviously, up to the former president.
AMANPOUR: I can't leave you without questioning unconditional surrender. Do you think that's appropriate as a choice for Ukraine, both of you?
LOTTER: I'm not suggesting that as an option in the future. I'm saying that even past wars that were decided under unconditional surrender, there was
also negotiation in history at that time.
FINNEY: And I would just offer that what we hear from Russia in terms of negotiation is really code for having Ukraine give up land and give up, you
know, part of its sovereignty. And we absolutely can't let that happen because there is no way that Putin will stop at Ukraine. He will continue
his march through to Europe.
AMANPOUR: Marc Lotter, Karen Finney, thank you both so much for joining us from Milwaukee.
LOTTER: Thank you.
FINNEY: Thank you.
AMANPOUR: And now, from the Republicans and Democrats to a very different kind of party, the one-woman charisma bomb that is Cyndi Lauper. Launching
into musical history with her debut album, "She's So Unusual," back in 1983, Lauper quickly became a star and just as quickly used her voice for
activism, speaking openly about sexism and the AIDS crisis at a time when neither issue was popular.
Now, preparing for retirement with a farewell tour and with a new documentary streaming on Paramount Plus called "Let the Canaries Sing," it
is clear her voice is just as loud as ever.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
CYNDI LAUPER, MUSICIAN: Everyone always said, what will you do if you fail? And all of a sudden, we all heard it.
(MUSIC PLAYING)
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: We went to Catholic school. She would mouth off and she just wasn't going to take -- from people, period.
[13:20:00]
LAUPER: It really built up how stubborn I could be.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
AMANPOUR: And she joined me from New York with more about what makes her tick. Cyndi Lauper, welcome to the program.
LAUPER: Hi, I'm a big fan. I watch you on PBS.
AMANPOUR: Oh, that's great, great. Well, I'm a big fan too. And I know that you had a fabulous concert here in London. And you're getting ready for a
farewell tour and you have this new documentary, "Let the Canaries Sing."
You have -- some have called you an overnight sensation. I know though from the film that it took you 15 years to become an overnight sensation.
LAUPER: No.
AMANPOUR: More, more than that?
LAUPER: That's not true. Not true. That's my vocal teacher. She says that. But the truth is it took 10 years.
AMANPOUR: Ten. OK. Ten.
LAUPER: Because I started -- or nine. But, you know, Billie Holiday always said, never let a good story get -- never let the truth get in the way of a
good story. That's --
AMANPOUR: Well, Cyndi Lauper, the editors left it in. So, I am -- I'm going to go for that. But 10 years is good as well. But Patti LaBelle, you know,
who, you know, you sang with basically says, Cyndi does what she wants to do. And, you know, it's not always easy for a woman in any business, much
less in the music business.
How did you get to be that person? Were you always the person who got to do what she wanted to do or was that a struggle?
LAUPER: Well, you know, what some like -- it was like, hi, what's your name? Sure. You can do what you want to do. But no, I had to -- you know, I
didn't take every opportunity that came my way, because it wasn't an opportunity to me. I sing because it makes me feel free. And I didn't feel
free if I had to stand and sing to someone else's beat, someone else's rhythm, someone else's speech, someone else, someone else, someone else,
all the time. That's not who I am.
And that's not why I sing, or even would work so hard to be able to sing, because my whole career, including the beginning, I had doctors and people
tell me, well, you'll probably never sing again. And maybe you should go to the softer music because you're too small, you're a woman, you're white.
These things not going to work for you.
And so, I just had to learn as much as I could. And I wanted to make music that was inclusive. I wanted to make collaborations with the people that I
loved. And when I was in situations where it was a compromise, it also gave me an opportunity to learn about how I could make that my own too.
AMANPOUR: Famously, you made "Girls Just Wanna Have Fun" yours, out of somebody else's. Because it was written by a guy called Robert Hazard. He
wrote the original. And I want you, once we play the clip, to explain what the original meant and how you changed it.
(MUSIC PLAYING)
LAUPER: First of all, it was -- Robert Hazard was having success in Philly. He had this really cool song, "Escalator of Life," and it was kind of
Bowie-esque. And I know, look, everybody I know is a huge fan of Bowie. I grew up listening to him. I always loved him. So, I thought, wow, that's so
cool. And the "Girls Just Wanna Have" fun thing, it was written by a guy. So, of course it's a guy's approach.
[13:25:00]
And, you know, and I didn't understand exactly what the heck I was supposed to do at first, you know. I was singing that and I said, well, listen, this
part won't work because that -- how's that going to work with me, and this part, no, you know. And so, they said, well, you could make it, change it,
and make it your own, which is what we wound up doing to a lot of the songs on that album to create a sound, a sound that was uniquely our own.
You know, everything you wind up doing, or me, it becomes a collaborative. It's an artist collaborative. Because you're working with people, and the
biggest thing I had to learn is how to talk to people. How to say things. So, that you don't freak them out, you get them inspired.
And so, I figured out a way by listening to what they -- Rob and Eric, did, and what Rick did, and what Rick had, all these songs. And as they came
together, there were great things happening on the street, the sound of the drum, the sound of the gated snare that was so big in the '80s. And in the
beginning, when it first came over and started from the street. And I wanted to have that part of the sound.
Because, I guess, in the end, I figured, music is a lot like cooking, right? There's a lot of ingredients that you got to put in. And I just
wanted it to sound like New York, like who I was. And they kept saying, you got to make a girl's anthem. But they didn't realize who they were talking
to. Because, I put my training bra at the first demonstration by the Alice in Wonderland statue for women's rights. You know, remember that?
AMANPOUR: I do, I do.
LAUPER: 1960s.
AMANPOUR: And interestingly, after you -- you know, after this song came out, you became, you know, one of a few people on sort of women of the year
on one of the magazines. Gloria Steinem called you a feminist icon. But, you know, all of this, before -- or came after your life was definitely not
fun, from what I gather from your documentary.
You talk about a very difficult childhood. You loved your mother, your mother was fantastic, you loved your sister, she was fantastic, but you had
real problems with the men in the household. And you had to leave home.
LAUPER: Well, I loved my baby brother.
AMANPOUR: And your brother.
LAUPER: I loved my baby brother.
AMANPOUR: And your brother. And your baby brother, who's in the doc, exactly.
LAUPER: When he came in, the poor thing, he still talks to me too. But when I saw him and I was five and he was an infant, I just saw a big baby dog
coming in, you know, I must've dropped him a few times because they tried to carry him and change his diapers and almost killed him a few times, but
he still talks to me. So, that's good.
But yes, it was -- look, it's -- I can't -- I came from an immigrant family. I am the second generation. My mother was the first American
generation. And it was very important for them to assimilate. And, you know, not to -- I never learned Italian. And then when I got older, they
said, why didn't you learn Italian? I was like, well, you know.
But it was it a Sicilian household. And you know, as you learn history you understand cultures. And the culture was not exactly promoting women. And
then, of course, they put you in a Catholic school. Again, not exactly promoting women. And then, they -- you learn about laws, not exactly
promoting women.
So, I watched my mom and the women, because I was a female child, of course, you're going to notice, the civil rights thing, that they didn't
really have a lot of rights. In fact, it's only 50 years now that we were allowed to have our own credit card and bank account without your father or
your husband. Think about that. I mean, I know that you remember, and of course you know your history.
I wanted to be an artist. I didn't want to cook and clean, and that's what they told me I had to do all my life. I mean, you do do that, but goodness
sakes.
[13:30:00]
AMANPOUR: And boy, did you become an artist, and you defied all those expectations. And sometime after, you know, your first album, you came up
with "True Colors." And I want to play a little bit of the song, and then talk a little bit about it.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
(MUSIC PLAYING)
(END VIDEO CLIP)
AMANPOUR: You know, color was very much associated with the LGBTQ, with the queer community, and that you were incredibly supportive. Tell me about
"True Colors," because it was released at the height of the AIDS crisis, and one of your close, close friends sadly died of it.
LAUPER: Yes, and we weren't -- you know, it was a really odd time then. The president at the time did not acknowledge this pandemic epidemic, and they
just called it the gay disease, which it -- clearly, it affected the gay community, but anybody can get AIDS.
And I just -- you know, I had a close, close friend, and he was sick. And I -- it's funny, he asked me to write a song for him. You know, because
Dionne Warwick did "That's What Friends Are For." Dionne Warwick, John -- Elton John. You know, I just remember those two so vividly. There's two
other great artists in there, too.
And he said, write a song, you know? So, I wrote "Boy Blue," which, you know, I discovered later on that you can't pour your heart out and your
liver and expect repetitive play. So, I also did "True Colors" for the people that survived him. You know, me, my friend, Carl, who -- Carl and
Gregory lived downstairs from me.
And when all of that happened, I had moved downtown. I had not seen them all the time, all the time, but when I did see them and they did the "She
Bop" video with me, and Ms. Diana, first transgender in a video like that, you know, of course, it was it was an interesting time. And I wanted the
song, I knew it was a healing song.
And it was a hard thing for me to learn. You had to learn the power of a whisper. And that was a big learning curve for me, but I did it anyway. And
I kept going inside and inside and trying to find the place for it. And it did affect a lot of people.
AMANPOUR: It's been an incredible career. So, many anthems that appeal to so many people in so many genders (ph). And your message of inclusivity all
the time. I just wonder, very shortly for our last answer, how will the farewell tour be done? What is it you want to accomplish with that, if I
might put it that way?
LAUPER: I want to bring people together instead of having us all separate. I want us to come together. We're human beings. And I'm in the business of
the humanities. So, I want to bring people together. And, you know, I've been able over the years to do different things like the True Colors
Foundation, which is True Colors United now, which the need became so great it was -- it became international and they work with the U.N. and the Girls
Just Want Fundamental Rights.
We made $155,000, which we donated to different organizations that give women access to safe and legal abortions, and prenatal care, and postnatal
care, and cancer screening. I don't know how we occupy half of the globe have become second class citizens and don't have the health care that we
need or the autonomy over our own bodies.
[13:35:00]
Kind of creepy to me, but I'm hoping with this tour, I can bring people together. I can contribute and help and make things a little better instead
of the separation and the big divide.
AMANPOUR: Cyndi Lauper, thank you so much for being with us. And the "Let the Canary Sing Companion" album is available now from Legacy Recordings.
Now, earlier this week, after the assassination attempt and as the Republican Convention got underway, the Trump appointed federal judge
Aileen Cannon dismissed the classified documents case against him. Over 93 pages, she cited her doubts about the appointment of Special Counsel Jack
Smith. The backlash was fast and furious, with many criticizing what they called her delay strategy.
To piece together how this could impact Trump's presidential hopes and the integrity of America's legal system, Hari Sreenivasan spoke with Leah
Litman, law school professor of the University of Michigan.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
HARI SREENIVASAN, CNN INTERNATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Christiane, thanks. Leah Litman, thanks so much for joining us.
Just recently, there was a very consequential case where a Trump appointed judge, Aileen Cannon, dismissed the charges against him in the documents
case. Tell us why this case was so important. Why the judge's ruling was as significant as it is?
LITMAN: It's definitely novel in that there have been special counsels appointed like Jack Smith for over a century in the United States that
includes many of the special counsels that were appointed by Watergate. And so, her ruling unsettles that practice. And I think is strikingly novel in
that respect, basically concluding that what we have been doing for over a century is apparently no longer good enough in her eyes.
And it unsettles precedent in the process, of course, because, thus far, all of the courts who have considered the issue have concluded that special
counsels are lawful, and that includes the United States Supreme Court because in United States v. Nixon, the court heard a case that involved a
Watergate special counsel and the court described how that special counsel had been appointed pursuant to various federal laws that Judge Cannon all
of a sudden declared don't actually allow for special counsels at all.
SREENIVASAN: One of the interesting connections that people are making with her decision is just a few weeks ago at the Supreme Court, Clarence Thomas
wrote a concurring opinion where he referenced this very idea. And here we are, just a couple of weeks later, on the day that the RNC was starting
where Judge Cannon cites his very statement. Why is that more than coincidence?
LITMAN: I think Justice Thomas's separate writing in the immunity case really was a way of encouraging Judge Cannon to pull this trigger and
conclude that special counsels were not lawfully appointed. And I think he gave that position, a patina of legitimacy that it doesn't deserve and
didn't have because, again, up until that point, no court that has considered the issue remotely thought it plausible that Congress had never,
by law, authorized the appointment of special counsels.
And so, he basically said, you know, come on, Aileen, and, you know, winked and nodded in that direction. And she picked up the hint.
SREENIVASAN: In this specific case, Jack Smith is going to appeal, correct?
LITMAN: Absolutely. He has already noticed an appeal and the solicitor general of the United States, the top lawyer for the United States,
approved his appeal. And so, that's going to happen.
SREENIVASAN: OK. When Jack Smith appeals, what is he likely to point out? Is he looking at a pattern of her actions? Is he looking specifically at
just the clause about the constitutionality here when he essentially takes it to her bosses, so to speak?
LITMAN: So, there's definitely a pattern here of Judge Cannon bending over backwards in order to benefit Donald Trump, occasionally in quite lawless
ways that the very conservative U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit has reversed before. But my guess is that Jack Smith will focus this
particular appeal on the very narrow question, although it's not really that narrow at all, about whether special counsels are legal. I think he
has a very strong case.
Again, every court, every judge that has considered the issue up until now has sided with the lawfulness of special counsels. And so, I think he is
more likely to focus on the particular issue in this appeal rather than to point out Judge Cannon's long history in this case of trying to give a leg
up to Donald Trump.
SREENIVASAN: What is the threshold that must be crossed for an appellate court to say, we don't like your behavior in this, we either -- here are
the steps that we can take to remedy that?
[13:40:00]
LITMAN: Yes. So, I would say there are really a few things that are on the table. One is that an appellate court might choose to what's called
reassign a case to another judge. That is, if they conclude that a judge has a pattern of showing bias or can't be trusted in a case, then they
might redirect the case to another judge. That's very rare and an extraordinarily high bar.
Is it possible in this case? Do I think it would be warranted? Yes. Am I expecting the conservative 11th Circuit to actually do that? Not really.
But I also think that Judge Cannon's behavior in this case should matter to two other audiences as well.
You know, you mentioned, of course, that federal judges have life tenure. But they can also be impeached and investigated. You know, Congress can
hold hearings. And there is a world in which, you know, a Democratic Senate or Democratic House actually looked into this matter and concluded that
Judge Cannon has showed such this and bias and disregard for the law, that impeachment or something else might be worth considering.
And the third audience, I would say, is the public at large. You know, we are at an incredibly important moment for the future of our institutions
and American democracy. And I think it's very important for people to understand the stakes of the upcoming presidential election, as far as who
will be sitting on the federal courts, you know, one of the three major institutions within the federal government.
SREENIVASAN: Let's talk about a couple of the other cases that the president has faced recently. I mean, the Supreme Court weighed in on
essentially the amount of immunity that should be granted and the amount of leeway that should be granted in the acts, the official acts carried out by
the president. What's that do to the other cases that he's facing? Let's tackle first the election interference case in Georgia.
LITMAN: So, the Supreme Court's immunity ruling will have, I think, the greatest effects on both the election interference case in Georgia, as well
as the election interference case in D.C., in federal court. And that's because the U.S. Supreme Court has already said that some of the bases for
those prosecutions cannot actually be used to prosecute the former president.
They also added that some of the other allegations in the various indictments, such as the president's attempts to pressure the vice
president to throw out lawfully cast votes, that those acts are entitled to a presumption of immunity and that the government would bear a difficult
burden in order to justify being able to prosecute the former president on those grounds as well.
And so, the expansive immunity that the court announced, as well as its application of that immunity to the particular election interference cases
I think suggest that that ruling will have the most effect on the election interference cases, which, in many respects, are the most serious.
In addition to the immunity ruling, five of the justices who were in the majority adopted an evidentiary privilege, basically saying prosecutors
cannot introduce any evidence of any official acts that are themselves entitled to immunity. They cannot probe those official acts with other
evidence. They cannot inquire into the motives the president had in performing those official acts, and that will eliminate some possible
evidence that prosecutors in all of these cases might have used against the former president.
SREENIVASAN: Look, Donald Trump has been found guilty in a criminal procedure in New York, in the hush money trial. And Judge Juan Merchan has
put the sentencing for that trial on hold. Why did he do that?
LITMAN: In part so that the prosecution and defense can engage with arguments about the extent to which the Supreme Court's immunity ruling
potentially affects that conviction as well. Donald Trump's lawyers are arguing that some of the evidence that was introduced in that prosecution
pertained to official acts and therefore rendered the entire conviction potentially invalid.
SREENIVASAN: What happens here if these cases are not ended by the election and Donald Trump wins?
LITMAN: I think there is no doubt that Donald Trump will end the federal prosecutions. He would order those charges to be dropped in the federal
election interference case and the federal obstruction and wrongful retention of classified documents cases in Florida.
As to the state cases, you know, I think there would then be a kind of additional constitutional question presented, which is whether you can
proceed with a trial against a sitting president rather than a former president. And so, it's possible that that issue would result in an
indefinite suspension of the Georgia election interference case.
It is also possible that the New York courts would conclude they can't actually impose a sentence on someone who is the incoming or sitting
president of the United States. And so, it's very possible that the state cases are suspended. And I think it's a certainty that Donald Trump would
eliminate the federal prosecutions against him.
[13:45:00]
SREENIVASAN: Regardless of whether President Trump comes back into office, he is going to go down in history as one of the most consequential
presidents, primarily because of the three Supreme Court justices that he was able to appoint. But as you point out in your articles and writing and
your study of this, we forget all of the other judgeships that make up the national justice system, right? And why have those appointments been so
significant and why should we be thinking about that as one of the consequences of who we elect?
LITMAN: I mean, Judge Cannon is a perfect case. You know, you previously noted how none of the cases against Donald Trump had actually proceeded to
imposition of sentence. But that's in part because of who Donald Trump appointed to both the U.S. Supreme Court and the lower federal courts.
Judge Cannon and her conduct of this trial has done everything to delay the proceeding, from outright dismissing the case, which just happened, to
effectively dragging it out over time.
You know, remember, she tried to interfere in the special counsel's investigation by suggesting that Donald Trump had some interest in limiting
the special counsel's ability to go through the evidence seized from Mar-a- Lago, and all of that delayed the prosecution and proceedings in what -- in many respects is the most straightforward open and shut case, obstruction
of justice and wrongful retention of documents.
I mean, there's literally video and audio evidence of them moving around the documents at Mar-a-Lago and the president on audio tape saying he
didn't just declassify the documents when he was president. And so, all of that came to a halt because Judge Cannon, Donald Trump's appointee, decided
she was going to drag her heels and drag this case out until after the election.
And there are judges like that who are lying in wait in both the federal trial courts, like Judge Cannon, as well as on the Courts of Appeals around
the country because Republicans prioritized the appointment of judges who were young, who were ideological, and who would advance the interests of
the Republican Party.
SREENIVASAN: Now, Congressman Matt Gaetz is a -- was a huge supporter of the president. Right after Aileen Cannon's decision, he tweeted a photo,
future Supreme Court Justice Cannon. That was the caption that he had with a photo of her. What does that say to you?
LITMAN: It is the perfect encapsulation of how the Republican Party is signaling to aspiring officials, whether in the courts or otherwise, that
maybe the most important criterion is whether you are willing to sacrifice your morals, ethics, the rule of law, in order to benefit Donald Trump and
the Republican Party. They are holding that out as the criteria for professional advancement, including in the federal courts, and I think
that's very scary.
SREENIVASAN: The ideology of the court or the grip that ideology has on the court has already been revealed in the last couple of years. Obviously, the
overturning of Roe versus Wade was an enormous case, but there have been several other cases in both the previous sitting of the court and this
session, which ones strike you as having kind of these longer-term effects that we're not really thinking about today because it might not have as
visceral a reaction as the Dobbs case and Roe v. Wade overturning was, but are still really important in how the country is run?
LITMAN: It's really hard just to list a few. I just have to say one additional sentence about Dobbs, which of course is Dobbs unleashed the
current landscape where we are now, two years after the decision, debating whether states can prohibit hospitals from offering emergency care to
pregnant patients whose life and health depends on it. It is hard to get more consequential than that.
SREENIVASAN: Yes, yes.
LITMAN: I would also add a kind of trio or grouping of administrative law cases where the court has limited the authority of expert federal agencies
like the Environmental Protection Agency or the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau or the Securities and Exchange Commission in order to
make a variety of rules that affect our health, safety, welfare environment.
And in all of those cases, the court has basically given the federal courts more power to second guess everything that agencies do. And in a world in
which the courts are controlled by Republican appointed justices who are hostile to the project of regulation and who are sympathetic to corporate
interests, that is going to affect people's lives over the next decades.
[13:50:00]
And probably the third one I would list is the court's 2022 decision in Bruen, the Second Amendment case, in which the court adopted a new legal
test that would determine whether firearm restrictions are constitutional. And I think that that is a significant decision that is playing out in the
federal courts that we are likely to see fall out from for however many years as it remains good law.
SREENIVASAN: "The Washington Post" reported earlier this week that President Biden is considering perhaps ways to rein some of the powers of
the Supreme Court, including maybe term limits or an enforceable ethics code. Are these things even constitutionally possible?
LITMAN: I think many of them are. We don't yet have the proposal. And so, it's a little bit difficult to analyze, you know, the precise
constitutionality of different ways that the president might be thinking about the Supreme Court.
You know, I do have to say term limits are probably the option that has the most constitutional questions about them, just because of what the
constitution says about federal judges holding their office for good behavior.
Now, I do think there is a pretty good case that Congress could alter the terms of the office of federal judges or Supreme Court justices going
forward. But I very much doubt that Congress could impose term limits retroactively on justices who have already been confirmed. And so,
prospective term limits are not really going to change the court we have for a pretty long while. And relative to some other options I think have
more serious constitutional questions.
SREENIVASAN: What are your kind of top three suggestions if you were able to whisper into the ears of anybody that's looking to reform the court
system that might be more fair, regardless of who's in power?
LITMAN: So, I do think term limits would be good prospectively, but I think by themselves are absolutely insufficient. And I think term limits are good
because they put the public on notice that when they go to the polls next, they are picking the person who will pick a Supreme Court justice. And I
think democratizing the selection process is a good thing.
Another reform that I think has to be on the table is limiting the power of the federal courts in various ways. I think there are pretty targeted
proposals that could limit, for example, the Supreme Court's ability to strike down the Voting Rights Act or to strike down federal laws that
authorize the appointment of special counsels to investigate wrongdoing in the executive branch.
There are already a bunch of federal laws that restrict court's power to kind of interpret and implement them. So, I think Congress would be well
within its power to enact various statutes that limit court's authority to eliminate those laws.
And then, I would add to that, court expansion on all levels. I think this Supreme Court, as it exists is, a threat to American democracy and I think
is likely to invalidate any kind of proposed reforms to the Supreme Court. And I think in order to democratize the court and limit its power, you have
to add some number of additional justices who would allow Congress to enact those reforms.
SREENIVASAN: Professor Leah Litman of Michigan Law School and the host of the podcast "Strict Scrutiny," thanks so much for joining us.
LITMAN: Thanks for having me.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
AMANPOUR: And finally, tonight, women supporting women. This year's Emmy nominations are out, and one of the shows topping the bill is "True
Detective: Night Country," with nods to Hollywood legend Jodie Foster and boxing champ turned TV actor Kali Reis.
Earlier this year, the pair joined me to discuss working together on the hit show. It is only the third acting role for Reis, and I asked about what
it was like to star alongside one of her idols, the importance of indigenous representation, and if Foster feels ready to pass the baton.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
AMANPOUR: This is one of the world's great, great actors, since the age of six years old. Multi-Oscar winning, multi-award-winning director, all of
that. In our consciousness for all sorts of reasons, for so many years. Was it intimidating?
KALI REIS, ACTRESS, "TRUE DETECTIVE: NIGHT COUNTRY": Absolutely. I was terrified. I was so terrified. But I was excited because I knew something
terrified me like this. That means it was going to be -- I was going to learn so much and what better hands to be in to learn from than somebody
like this. So, I was like, yes.
JODIE FOSTER, ACTRESS, "TRUE DETECTIVE: NIGHT COUNTRY": Well, you know, there's a funny thing that happens when you turn 60, I think is -- at least
for me, I feel like there's like some weird chemical that starts going off in your body and you just don't care.
And part of that not caring is that you suddenly realize that it's so much more fun and more satisfying to recognize that it's not your time. It's
someone else's time. And it's up to you to help support them and bring whatever experience and wisdom you have to that process.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
[13:55:00]
AMANPOUR: A poignant meditation on success, age, and making room at the top. 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.
Thank you for watching. And now, we'll leave you with a little more of Cyndi Lauper.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
(MUSIC PLAYING)
(END VIDEO CLIP)
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
END
