Return to Transcripts main page
Amanpour
Interview with The Atlantic Staff Writer Elaina Plott Calabro; Interview with "Germany's Enemy Within" Director Evan Williams; Interview with Center for Policing Equity Co-Founder and President Dr. Tracie L. Keesee. Aired 1-2p ET
Aired August 02, 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]
BIANNA GOLODRYGA, CNN HOST: Hello, everyone, and welcome to "Amanpour." Here's what's coming up. With three months to go, are Americans leaning
towards Donald Trump or Kamala Harris? We take a temperature check on the crucial U.S. presidential election.
Then --
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: We consider right-wing extremism the severest and most threatening danger that we have right now.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
GOLODRYGA: -- "Germany's Enemy Within." Director Evan Williams joins us around his new documentary on the rise of the far-right in Germany.
Also, ahead, after the shooting of an unarmed black woman by U.S. law enforcement, Hari Sreenivasan asks Dr. Tracie L. Keesee, president of the
Center for Policing Equity, what needs to change and how?
Welcome to the program, everyone. I'm Bianna Golodryga in New York, sitting in for Christiane Amanpour.
On today's show, the state of the race, the U.S. presidential election, and indeed the entire political landscape looks completely different today than
it did two weeks ago. The surge in enthusiasm for Kamala Harris has injected a newfound energy into the Democratic Party. The vice president's
campaign has broken fundraising records and seen an influx of volunteers.
Meanwhile, in the Trump camp, after the unity on display at the RNC, it wasn't a great week. His vice-presidential pick, J. D. Vance, continues to
face criticism for many, many controversial comments with reports that a number of leading Republicans urged Trump not to pick him. And the former
president is himself under pressure after he attacked Kamala Harris' racial identity in a disastrous appearance at the National Association of Black
Journalists on Wednesday.
So, let's take stock now of the week that was in this race. Joining me, Bakari Sellers, political commentator and former state representative in
South Carolina, and Elaina Plott Calabro, staff writer at The Atlantic. She knows Kamala Harris well, having spent time following Harris and her team
for a profile of her vice presidency.
What an incredible two weeks it has been in terms of momentum and a total shift given where things stood following the Republican National
Convention, where it seemed that Donald Trump was riding high, and this was his election to lose, all of a sudden, here you have Kamala Harris stepping
up as a presumptive candidate and nominee. And, Elaina, she really has reinvigorated the party. Are you surprised given the trajectory she's been
on the last few weeks?
ELAINA PLOTT CALABRO, STAFF WRITER, THE ATLANTIC: I'm surprised in some way by the degree to which, frankly, a lot in the press have seemed
surprised, if that makes sense. Having covered Harris for, you know, a couple of years now. The person that I saw announced her candidacy in
Wilmington the other day or the other week was really kind of the culmination of a trajectory that she's been on for, I would say, the past
two and a half years, really, since the Dobbs decision leaked.
And so, I would say that a lot of the inconsistent media attention, I think, has contributed to this notion that she has suddenly reinvented
herself, in some sense. The Harris, again, that I saw in Wilmington and that we've continued to see on the campaign trail since then is really just
a reflection of kind of the confidence and ease that she's developed over time in her vice presidency and is not sort of, you know, a new vision of
her or what she's capable of.
GOLODRYGA: Bakari, would you agree with that assessment? Because there had been reporting, there had been even leaks out of the Biden administration
prior -- or previous to his deciding to finally step down that there were concerns about how strong of a candidate she could actually be. Now, we've
seen ever since she stepped up, following that debacle of a debate for President Biden, she's really seemed to hit her stride. Is this something
that you've always seen all along and perhaps finally the nation's getting a chance to see in a different light as well?
BAKARI SELLERS, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR, FORMER DEMOCRATIC SOUTH CAROLINA STATE REPRESENTATIVE: What you're seeing right now is a much more
confident Kamala Harris. Each time you hear her speak from Atlanta to last night in Houston, you just hear the cadence. You hear the strength, you
hear the power, you hear the comfortability that she has in her position.
[13:05:00]
And a lot of that comes with the confidence of just doing the role of vice president of the United States. It took a little while for her to figure
out what she was supposed to do and get her footing. It also took a while for the media to learn how to cover her.
And so, when you look at a combination of those things, the Kamala Harris you're seeing right now is extremely strong, extremely confident. And at
the end of the day, is leaning into a message about a future that is resonating with voters because I think -- to steal a quote from Fannie Lou
Hamer, a lot of voters are just sick and tired -- of being sick and tired in the same old schtick from 2016 with Trump and his elk is just not really
winning the day.
GOLODRYGA: And, Elaina, I know -- and I'm not sitting here in defense of the press, but in some of your reporting too, you've suggested that perhaps
this was also the White House itself that hadn't been playing up to Kamala Harris' strengths over the past few years as vice president. And you look
at the shift in the direction the country has gone in from 2020 to 2024. You say that really focusing on her background, her history as a
prosecutor, perhaps even some of her politics being more moderate than those that they had sort of envisioned she would fill in 2020, that that's
really viewed as a strength at this point. And perhaps that will be more of a comfortable position for her to showcase.
CALABRO: Absolutely. And I think when I talk about inconsistent press attention, what I'm really talking about is sort of after the first year
and a half of her vice presidency. I think there were very legitimate concerns about her readiness to hold a role such as the vice president or
even the presidency in that first year and a half.
And I think what happened is sort of this narrative crystallized about really her -- this idea of her incompetence. And the White House itself,
which I -- as you mentioned, written quite a lot about, did not do much to step in and try to correct that, to try to tailor her portfolio to
establish more of a measure of stability and success for her.
So, as I've written ad nauseam, I think President Biden himself deserves, you know, a lot of attention when we're talking about why does it feel like
this is not the Kamala Harris that we've seen before?
But you're right, I think that when she ran for president, when she launched her own primary bid in 2020, it was a moment when her biography,
her career as a prosecutor did not seem to be something that was going to play well with the Democratic base at the time, just a very particular
political moment. But political cycles change. And then, four years later, she is in a moment where not only is she more confident just in her own
capabilities, as Bakari said, having served in this vice-presidential role and gotten more comfortable with her own instincts. She's also in a moment
where her career is something that actually entices a lot of Americans to her, and she's no longer trying to thread a needle with just a Democratic
base, but actually appeal to the broader American electorate.
GOLODRYGA: And that's not to say that there weren't some missteps along the way, given the portfolio she was handed, specifically that of the
border crisis. And I'm wondering, Bakari, it seems that, yes, that many in the Republican Party, including perhaps the Trump campaign, were caught off
guard by the fact that Biden is no longer the nominee. But there are real policy issues that they could go after her on, first and foremost, her
stumble there early on regarding the border and that devastating interview with Lester Holt. And yet, they seem to be going towards personal attacks.
Why do you think that is?
SELLERS: Well, first, let me just correct the record, if you give me a little moment of privilege here. We have seen as of today, we've had five
months where we've seen a decrease in border crossings. Actually, today, the report came out and said that crossings were at the lowest that they've
been since July of 2020. That's actually because of the work of the vice president of the United States. She actually went to Central and South
America and talked about the root causes of people fleeing their country to come to the United States of America. And so, I think those successes have
to be identified.
Also, the fact that the -- we were on the verge of passing the most strict immigration bill in the country's recent history and the person who killed
that bill was Donald Trump. And so, for whatever stumble she may have had at the outset, if we're going to tell the complete story about her
immigration record, we also have to tell the successes that we see evident today.
[13:10:00]
To your second question, it's a very important question, because for the discipline that Susie Wiles and Chris LaCivita and Jason Miller have
displayed up until the past 10, 14 days in controlling the messaging and controlling their client, it's all gone, you know, up in smoke. Because
they are now playing the race card. They're now delving into the ignorance and the divisiveness that we thought would come, but we didn't know it
would be this unvarnished, this nasty.
Just recently, the 45th president of the United States said, thank you to Kamala Harris and tweeted out a picture of her with her family and her
Indian family and heritage. And, you know, just attempting to otherize her is this is birtherism 2.0. It didn't work with Barack Obama. It's not going
to work with Kamala Harris.
And this election, I mean, I think sometimes we make this sometimes too complicated, because there are a lot of people who just simply vote on
vibes and there are a lot of people who don't want to go back to that place where Donald Trump's ignorance was on display daily.
GOLODRYGA: Yes. And, Elaina, to that point, we know that this is a different campaign from the previous -- the first Trump campaign that we
saw. It's been described as much more disciplined and focused, and yet, no one can control the words or the messaging that comes out of the
candidate's mouth himself, and that is Donald Trump. And we saw that on full display this week as he appeared at a convention of the National
Association of Black Journalists. There was a lot of controversy in him even being invited.
And out of the gate it was an aggressive Donald Trump, a very defensive Donald Trump. And espousing a lot of the rhetoric that many on the right
had been hoping would change.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
RACHEL SCOTT, ABC NEWS CORRESPONDENT: Some of your own supporters, including Republicans on Capitol Hill, have labeled Vice President Kamala
Harris, who is the first black and Asian American woman to serve as vice president and be on a major party ticket, as a DEI hire. Is that acceptable
language to you? And will you tell those Republicans and those supporters to stop it?
DONALD TRUMP, FORMER U.S. PRESIDENT AND REPUBLICAN PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: How do you define DEI? Go ahead. How do you define it?
SCOTT: Diversity, equity, inclusion.
TRUMP: OK. Yes. Go ahead. Is that what your definition?
SCOTT: That is literally the words.
TRUMP: Give me a definition then. Would you give me a definition of that? Give me a definition of that.
SCOTT: Sir, I'm asking you a question, a very direct question.
TRUMP: No, no. You have to define it. Define the -- define it for me, if you would.
SCOTT: I just defined it, sir. Do you believe that Vice President Kamala Harris is only on the ticket because she is a black woman?
TRUMP: Well, I can say no. I think it's maybe a little bit different. So, I've known her a long time indirectly, not directly, very much. And she was
always of Indian heritage, and she was only promoting Indian heritage. I didn't know she was black until a number of years ago when she happened to
turn black. And now, she wants to be known as black. So, I don't know, is she Indian or is she black?
(END VIDEO CLIP)
GOLODRYGA: I mean, we don't have enough time to really parse through every single thing that he just said that. But on the bigger issue at hand, the
substance out of his response there, Elaina, I'm curious. If there is an effort to go after independent voters, more moderate voters, black voters,
how does that type of language help?
CALABRO: Well, frankly, what I've heard from many Republicans is a great deal of confidence that it doesn't help at all. I spoke to one Republican
lawmaker after Trump's appearance yesterday, and they said, you know, we're the party that's constantly saying, why do we keep talking about identity
politics and race and yet, this is now suddenly the cornerstone of the Trump message against Kamala Harris?
And I think to a point you made earlier, Bianna, there's a lot that you can criticize Kamala Harris on. There's a -- there are many ways that you can
make an effective case against her when you think about positions she took in her 2020 campaign. And so, trying to, you know, point out the fact that
when she was on the trail, then she called to eliminate private health insurance and things of that nature. And yet, this is the tack that Donald
Trump has taken.
So, I think a lot of Republicans who, especially after his assassination attempt, thought, oh, this is a new Trump. But of course, we've heard that
how many times over the past eight years. He's changed. This is a new and disciplined version of this president. And again and again he shows why
that is never something to rely on.
And to the extent that this continues, I don't know if you will see any independence flock to him on a message like that.
GOLODRYGA: Bakari, how can Democrats and Kamala Harris in particular use that type of language? And one would describe weakness on Donald Trump's
part, that though, I think he went out quickly and said that he was very happy with his performance. How can they use that type of split screen to
their advantage?
[13:15:00]
SELLERS: Ignore it. And I think she did a good job of that last night when you heard her speak in Houston, Texas. Look, I said this early and I'll say
it again, like, you don't roll around with pigs, right? Because you both get muddy and the pig likes it. And so, there is a great deal of value in
her continuing to prosecute the case about her vision for the future.
And, you know, there's a lot of history in the Harris presidency or campaign, a lot like there was in the Obama campaign, but you can see it.
And you -- she -- you don't have to lean into that identity as much as one may believe. And so, as Trump continues to go there, she continues to have
to go to these places in which this election is going to be won, which is the suburbs and exurbs, and tell voters what she's going to do to make
their lives better. Things like cost, inflation, et cetera.
And as long as she stays on that message, like she's doing, what she's done around prescription drugs and insulin, et cetera, if she stays on that
message, allow Trump to do whatever he wants to do. The split screen is divisiveness and hate versus a better tomorrow. And that's the split screen
you want to have and be talking about.
GOLODRYGA: And, Elaina, as we still have these final few months before the election, it's been a great few weeks for Harris and for the Democrats, but
obviously, she's got a long road ahead of her in proving that she is capable of being not a vice president but president of the United States
and setting out her own agenda, her own policy, her own group of advisers and support team while also not deviating too far from the Biden
administration itself, which she continues to be a part of. How challenging will that be for Kamala Harris?
CALABRO: I think it's such a delicate balance to strike. I mean, this is obviously a rather unique situation for her. What she will have to do in
the next few months is establish an identity that's her own when it comes to her vision for the country that doesn't deviate necessarily from what
she is going to tout as the accomplishments of the Biden administration, but still convinces Americans that she can build upon it in a way that
feels more of her own signature and not just the same thing that we've seen for the past four years. I mean, look, you can't -- I don't think you can
overstate the challenge of that.
What I will say is that I'm not convinced that what we're seeing right now is just a sugar high. And the reason that I say that is, I think that a lot
of this energy has to do with the fact that a lot of Americans are looking at a Democratic nominee as suddenly who is actually on the campaign trail,
who is traveling every day, who is going on air, who is, you know, doing several, several events. And it's quite a contrast from a nominee like Joe
Biden who, I think, a lot of Americans feel that they rarely saw.
So, I think to the extent that she can continue this cadence of just constant movement and that sheer portrait of energy, I think, is what will
go a long way to sustaining her appeal to Americans in this moment.
GOLODRYGA: Yes, and that's completely shifted the narrative because prior to her being the nominee, when the focus was on Joe Biden and whether he
had enough energy to sustain another four years in office, that is where the Republicans seem to have their strength. And Donald Trump, despite the
fact that the three were -- the two were only three years apart, obviously a lot has changed now with Kamala Harris and the age factor is not an
issue.
Bakari, Elaina, thank you so much for joining us in what has been a very busy week.
CALABRO: Thank you so much for having me.
SELLERS: Thank you for having me
GOLODRYGA: Now, from the U.S. elections to the growing power of the far- right in Germany. Since the Holocaust, Germany has worked arduously to face and overcome its Nazi past, trying to ensure that the forces which brought
on that disaster will never take power again.
But over the past decade, far-right elements have resurfaced within the country, violently targeting Jews, Muslims, immigrants, and politicians.
It's all the focus of a new documentary by PBS Frontline called "Germany's Enemy Within."
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: There is concern about the size and scope of extremism.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Correspondent Evan Williams investigates the rise of Germany's far-right.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE (through translator): There are no neo-Nazis working for the AfD.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: And the fight against it.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: We consider right-wing extremism the severest and most threatening danger that we have right now.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: If we want to live in democracy in 10, 15 years, we have to act now. There's no time to wait.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
GOLODRYGA: I spoke to the program's director Evan Williams about all of this earlier.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
GOLODRYGA: Evan Williams, thank you so much. A really important documentary that you've put together. Over the past decade you've been
following how Germany has faced a rise in right-wing violence, plots against Jews, Muslims, immigrants, politicians, and all of this amid
accusations that the far-right, Alternative for Deutschland, the AfD party, has provoked violence, which it says it denies.
[13:20:00]
All of this made even more significant given how they've done recently in parliamentary elections, even beating Olaf Scholz's party. Winning the
first mayoral election back in December. And we've got really crucial elections coming up in September. Walk us through what you found in your
investigative work, connecting the dots between the rise in violence on the far-right with the rise of this party.
EVAN WILLIAMS, DIRECTOR, "GERMANY'S ENEMY WITHIN": We started the first film in 2021 to chronicle really, to investigate the rise in far-right
political violence, as you correctly said there, against Muslims, Jews, politicians, politicians who've been assassinated. And we spoke to many
others, local politicians who were being threatened by the far-right at that time as well.
This film was meant to update that. And what we found is that the emerging new right in Germany, a movement, if you like, of far-right politicians and
thought is now getting into politics and getting into political power, particularly in East Germany. And they're doing this in a way -- or they're
doing it by basically broadening their support base among a large number of people who don't see themselves as far-right, but still are listening to
the thought and the rhetoric and the thinking of the far-right as espoused by the AfD.
And let's remember, their main tropes, their main positions are very anti- immigrant, anti-Muslim, anti-minority. They are always talking about migrants causing crime and Germany being overrun and this sort of thing.
And they get tied up with this sort of rhetoric, which then many of the police and investigative authorities believe encourages the sort of
political violence that we investigated over the years. And this is basically picked up by people who are often deranged themselves, but
somehow feel that it's OK to do something because they're hearing it in the milieu. They're hearing this sort of rhetoric.
GOLODRYGA: And in the background, you also cover what we've seen an attempted massacre of worshippers at a temple, at a synagogue on Yom
Kippur, a mass shooting targeting Muslims to an assassination of a pro refugee politician, and a plot, I remember covering this vividly, to
overthrow the government itself.
WILLIAMS: Well, the plot is an extraordinary episode. So, you're quite right. Back in December 2022, a plot called the Reichsburger Plot was
revealed or uncovered by the Domestic Intelligence officials, two of whom we speak to in the film. One national and one in the State of Thuringia.
And this was an extraordinary plot where this group believed -- or were planning, according to authorities, and the trials are ongoing, that they
could overthrow parliament by storming it violently. The head of Domestic Intelligence says that there were plans -- they had plans allegedly to even
liquidate, to assassinate some of these politicians.
And the big thinking behind it seemed to be that elements of the army and the police force in Germany would somehow get behind them. And they would
then establish a new Germany under a man called Prinz Reuss, who is a German aristocrat. And they would then form a new sovereign Germany that
was under its own laws and that they would start doing things like setting up a peace agreement with Russia.
And it sounds farfetched, and it sounds weird, and it sounds, you know, unlikely, but Domestic Intelligence chiefs tell us that they were prepared,
they had weapons, they had people in their group that knew what they were doing, former soldiers, some former police officers, and they saw this as a
very serious threat that there would have been at least, potentially, a bloody attack on the government institutions of Germany.
And right in the middle of that plot is an AfD politician, allegedly, who was going to be the justice minister of this new government. And of course,
all the people charged deny the charges, they're on charges of terrorism and treason, among many other things. They say they talked about things,
there was never a plot, they were never really going to do it, but they're on trial. And this goes to the heart of a network and a series of these
sort of far-right plots in Germany. It's not the only one.
GOLODRYGA: And what was the AfD leadership's response in terms of finding out that one of its own members was part of this plot, this coup?
WILLIAMS: Yes, great question. Because the co-leaders, Alice Weidel and Mr. Chrupalla, went on television, on news items, and these co-leaders
basically said, if the AfD politician was found guilty after the due process of courts, then of course she would be expelled from the party. But
then they -- in the same breath they then also attacked the police forces and the intelligence services for going after people that they tried to
characterize as basically pensioners, and they said this was really overdone.
[13:25:00]
I mean, there were 3,000 police officers, over 11 states were involved in rolling up this plot. So, it was a very significant, one of the biggest
anti-terrorist operations in German history. And yet, the AfD leaders say, well, it wasn't really -- it shouldn't have been taken so seriously.
GOLODRYGA: Yes, they condemned it, but seemed to, as you note, not take it so seriously, make this sort of an isolated case. And at the same time, it
seemed they took a lot more issue with what happened in 2023, and that's when journalists revealed through recordings, secret recordings, meetings
that they found of AfD members. Talk about that.
WILLIAMS: Yes, absolutely correct. There were four AfD members. One of them was an adviser to the co-leader, Alice Weidel. They went to a hotel in
Potsdam just outside Berlin and it was a meeting where a far-right -- an extremist named Martin Sellner from Austria outlined this idea of what he
called remigration.
And the idea is that there are migrants that are in Germany and in Europe, from his point of view, who aren't really assimilated properly. They're a
burden on the welfare state. They're culturally setting up parallel societies. They're not integrating and they're mainly targeting here
Muslims. And that these people should be sent back. And he's sent back somewhere or possibly, in his words, to the meeting, sent to a model city
in North Africa somewhere.
Now, this theory has been around for a while, it's not surprising, but what really caught German -- the attention of German citizens was the fact that
there were four AfD members, some other politicians there as well, from the center, but four AfD politicians discussing seriously this scheme. And the
investigative journalists who we interviewed for the film, I asked, you know, what was their response, how were they responding to these theories?
Because it's OK for somebody to say something, you may then disagree, but they weren't. They were then talking in detail about how they might push
forward this sort of plans.
And one of the most controversial aspects of this meeting was the idea that they might send back these German -- or Germans -- even German citizens
with an immigrant background who they determine at some point in the future have not integrated enough. Now, the AfD deny, they say that's not part of
their party policy, that would misrepresent their position, but it was discussed in those terms. And that's what sent many Germans, thousands,
tens of thousands of Germans, onto the streets in protest against the AfD.
GOLODRYGA: You mentioned the German State of Thuringia and you spent quite a bit of time there interviewing two very different officials. One is a
politician in the AfD by the name of Bjorn Hocke. And he is apparently growing quite popular in that state and quite controversial as well given
some of his policies, his views, and his commentary. Tell us a little bit more about him.
WILLIAMS: So, he's described by a political scientist who we interview in the piece as an old-school far-right extremist. He's very, very influential
within the AfD itself. The AfD started as basically an anti-EU party back in 2014 and '13. He has basically managed to bring it very far to the right
with this anti-immigrant anti-refugee anti-Muslim rhetoric that he's been using for many, many years. He's been found guilty of using a Nazi saying,
which is everything for Germany.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
BJORN HOCKE, ALTERNATIVE FOR GERMANY (through translator): Everything for our homeland. Everything for Saxony-Anhalt. Everything for Germany.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
WILLIAMS: Now, it doesn't sound like that's very problematic, but in Germany, that is a banned Nazi slogan. And so, it is a criminal offense to
use some of this speech from the Nazi era. He did this twice and was then found guilty and fined close to $30,000 for the offense.
But he is messaging, and the political scientists we interview in the piece says that he is doing this deliberately as a way of messaging to the far-
right, that there is a pure ethnocentric, sort of ethnonationalist Germany, which includes Germans, but not everybody else. So, he's a very
controversial figure.
GOLODRYGA: Almost using it as a dog whistle, specifically targeting his core constituency. There's a clip I want to play from the film where he
speaks of -- you actually approach him about the use of this phrase, everything for Germany.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
WILLIAMS: You've been charged with a criminal offense because that's a crime. It's a Nazi saying.
HOCKE (through translator): You are completely right. Freedom of expression in Germany is very severely restricted. In a campaign speech
expressing love for my country and urging compatriots to give everything for Germany in its current volatile position is not a Nazi slogan.
Trump once said America first. And I think it's perfectly legal and perfectly legitimate to demand the same for Germany, and that's akin to
what I did. That's in no way a crime or a criminal offense.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
[13:30:00]
GOLODRYGA: And yet, he tells you there are no neo-Nazis working for the AfD. It is a very small problem. What he says is the big problem is
government extremism.
WILLIAMS: Yes, and this gets to a really interesting place in Germany because there are reports that a number of known far-right extremists are
working for the AfD. There are repeated stories in the German media about this. The AfD deny that, of course. They say, well, define far-right to us.
It's all about languaging and perception, but they are basically coalescing behind them the far-right. So, which is what's called by Domestic
Intelligence, the new right.
And so, all these grassroots organizations are getting behind the AfD, at the same time the AfD is broadening its appeal because people are worried
about the economy or the war in Ukraine and they're starting to get behind them, which is why their polling numbers are growing so strongly.
I mean, the crux of the matter at the moment now is that he says that comment about that the government is -- it's the government extremism we've
got to worry about, because his party and him personally -- he personally are under surveillance by German Domestic Intelligence because they are
declared and deemed an extremist threat to democracy and the constitution. And that pretty much says it all.
They say, well, we're -- that's political, you know, maneuvering by the government to try and curb out our true and honest democratic ways. The
Domestic Intelligence Service say, you're breaking the red lines and breaking the law by going too far down this extremism path.
GOLODRYGA: Yes, and that leads me to my final question, because we should note you do interview the Domestic Intelligence chief, who is really
sounding the alarm aggressively about the rise of the far-right, and specifically the AfD party there in that state.
Germany, unlike most other countries following World War II and the Holocaust, has really codified some of the toughest laws in terms of
protection of hate spree -- condemning hate speech. Specifically, parliament just pledged to protect Germany's constitutional court as well.
In terms of checks and balances and guardrails in place, did you get a sense that there is security along that front, that whatever happens they
can withstand some of the biggest concerns?
WILLIAMS: Well, it's a -- that is a really important question going into these state elections in September, because if the AfD wins in that state,
Stephan Kramer, the head of Domestic Intelligence, interring here said to me, well, what would happen is he would get fired and they would try and
reform the ability of that body to maintain surveillance of extremist threats to democracy.
But also, what could happen is that the government might put in their own person into that body who would then be technically have access to the
entire nation's surveillance and intelligence on far-right extremism in Germany as a whole. I mean, that's going to create a constitutional crisis
because that's never happened before.
And so, there are very serious checks and balances in Germany because of what they went through in World War II. It's unique in the western world,
Bjorn Hocke is correct in saying that. But at the same time, if they get a little bit of power, it's going to be one of the first things they try and
erode.
So, it's a challenge, and I don't think -- and Stephan Kramer, for example, says to me in the piece, that if the far-right, if the AfD does win, if
they basically get into a position of governmental power in that state, he will leave Germany. That's how serious the threat is to him anyway.
GOLODRYGA: Yes. That line really stood out to me as well from Stephan Kramer who said, we consider right-wing extremism the severest and most
threatening danger that we have right now in the country. Evan, thank you so much for coming to us with your really important must watch documentary.
Really appreciate the time.
WILLIAMS: Thanks so much for having me and the interest, Bianna. Bye-bye.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
GOLODRYGA: And PBS Frontline's "Germany's Enemy Within" is now available to stream on Frontline's website, YouTube, and in the PBS app.
Now, across the world, we are seeing and feeling the impact of ever rising temperatures. Heat waves blanketing the world from the Paris Olympics all
the way to East Antarctica, where ground temperatures have soared by more than 50 degrees Fahrenheit, something many scientists believe would be
impossible without climate change.
But as we see the spiking heat change our world, it's important to also ask how it will impact our bodies. Climate writer Laura Paddison put her body
to the test under extreme heat and humidity to highlight the dangers of a warming world.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Great job.
LAURA PADDISON, CNN SENIOR CLIMATE WRITER: Everything that's going on with my body made that hard.
We're here at the University of South Wales in the U.K., and behind me here is an environmental chamber where scientists can control the temperature.
And so, they're going to predict the temperature up to about 40 degrees Celsius 104 degrees Fahrenheit. And the whole point of this exercise is to
see what impact extreme heat has on my body.
[13:35:00]
This on my head is measuring brain blood flow, here is measuring skin temperature on my leg. They're going to be looking at cognitive functions
like how is my decision making affected by the heat.
We need to understand what it's going to be like living in a much hotter world.
DAMIAN BAILEY, PROFESSOR OF PHYSIOLOGY AND BIOCHEMISTRY AT UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH WALES: OK. Laura, so you're fully instrumented, you're ready for
action, ready for lift-off.
PADDISON: It's 40 degrees now, 20 percent humidity, and I can really feel it. Starting to sweats on faces, getting very hot, my skin temperature has
gone up by a couple of degrees.
BAILEY: It's a really, really good job here.
PADDISON: It's 40 degrees Celsius, close 85 percent humidity and the differences are 10. So, it's like a sauna in here. This is really, really
tough, my hands feel a bit shaky. Everything feels tiring. Even breathing feels weird.
BAILEY: Stop. Great job.
PADDISON: Thank you.
BAILEY: Mission accomplished. So, it's not easy. Now, you've got a markedly depressed increase in exercise induced blood flow to the brain.
It's gone from 600 milliliters per minute to 400.
PADDISON: That's really significant.
BAILEY: Which is huge. You're not getting enough fuel into the brain, you're not burning enough fuel, to be able to make the right decisions. You
would make potentially wrong decisions, rash decisions. And a much larger increase in pressure during exercise. So, your heart is working a lot, lot
harder, probably about 30 percent harder, just because of that increase in temperature and humidity.
All the patients, you know, this is a big deal for them. And they wouldn't be able to do the simplest tasks, even stand up to get out of a chair, from
a cardiovascular perspective that would just be too demanding.
PADDISON: We're seeing now around the world is this really humid heat that is pushing places to the limits of survivability. We're seeing stronger
heat waves, more humid weather, and the impacts on the body are pretty overwhelming.
GOLODRYGA: Laura Paddison reporting there. Now, we return to the U.S., which once again has been shaken by the shooting of an unarmed black woman
by police. Last month, Sonya Massey called 911 for help with a suspected prowler only to be shot and killed by a sheriff's deputy inside her own
home.
In conversation with Hari Sreenivasan, co-founder and president of the Center for Policing Equity, Dr. Tracie Keesee discusses what went wrong and
what local law enforcement can do to better protect the communities they serve.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
HARI SREENIVASAN, CNN INTERNATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Bianna, thanks. Dr. Tracie Keesee, thanks so much for joining us. A few days ago, the nation, I
think, was rightfully shocked in the body camera footage that showed the last moments of Sonya Massey's life.
She was a woman who had called the police for help and she ended up getting shot by one of the very officers who was there to help her. The officer has
since pleaded not guilty because he's been fired and he's been charged with one count of aggravated battery with a firearm, official misconduct, and
three counts of first-degree murder.
A grand jury felt there was enough evidence to bring these charges. Now, his side has not said anything about this. You have seen that footage. What
did you think when you saw it and what went wrong?
DR. TRACIE L. KEESEE, CO-FOUNDER AND PRESIDENT, CENTER FOR POLICING EQUITY: First of all, thank you for having me, Hari. And I would tell you, you
know, just in our little bit of conversation before getting started, the trauma of having to watch these videos, as you mentioned, never goes away.
But I think what was very striking about it is that here you have a woman, and let's be clear, a black woman that has called 911 asking for help,
hearing things outside of the home, where you have deputies actually who are on scene and have searched around the home and are literally talking to
her about that they didn't find anything and asking if she was OK, does she need anything else, and she says no.
And then, of course, you have the deputy in question, a Deputy Grayson, I believe it is, that comes in. And you know, ask again, you know, what else
is happening? Asks for her I.D. Her I.D. is inside the house inside her purse.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: What is your last name? Should not think much last name. You're not in trouble. I see --
SONYA MASSEY: Massey. Massey.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Do you have an I.D.? That make things so much easier.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
DR. KEESEE: And in doing so, everyone else is pretty much, you know, looking around and you can tell that, you know, there are questions
happening, but for most of all, that interaction is going well. And those deputies are about to wrap it up because they're saying there's nothing
else that we can do. We haven't found anyone.
And so, the asking for the I.D. -- again, there's nothing wrong with making sure that this is the person who called it, that this is the person you're
talking to. But what goes really horribly wrong is, of course, we have a pot of boiling water on the stove. No one else seems to be concerned about
it as she's turning it off. And then, she begins to utter statements. And statements, of course, that aren't congruent with someone who may be
tracking (ph).
[13:40:00]
We know that she has mental health issues because she's asked early on had she been taking her medications and she acknowledges that she took
everything. And then it begins not to track. And then, what you see happen very quickly is an escalation.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
MASSEY: What are you (INAUDIBLE)?
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Huh?
MASSEY: What are you going?
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: With hot steaming water --
MASSEY: Run away from my hot steaming water?
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Yes.
MASSEY: Oh, I would refuse to (INAUDIBLE).
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Huh?
MASSEY: I would refuse (INAUDIBLE).
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: You better (INAUDIBLE) not -- face.
MASSEY: OK. I'm sorry.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Drop the -- drop the -- drop the pot.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
DR. KEESEE: And then immediately you hear gunfire. And of course, you see -- if you've watched the video, you see Ms. Massey fall to the ground who's
already on her way down. You also watch one deputy begin to render aid immediately. And the sheriff that actually shot her does nothing. In fact,
you hear the comments on the video. That he basically states that she's not worth saving or that she can't be saved.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I'm going to go get my kit.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: She's done. You can go get it, but that's a headshot.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
DR. KEESEE: And so, you watch this interaction and you watch as an officer, and you think about what are the things that you really should be
doing there. One, you don't escalate a situation, and we all know that. And this is 2024, and very rarely will you find law enforcement agencies and
sheriff's departments who have not gone through some level of de-escalation training.
In addition, you will very rarely -- and I'm not going to say that every agency has done this, but you will find that mental health training has
also happened. I meant that you recognize when things are happening where you are going to need to do something a little different in your approach
when you are with someone who may be in crisis or who may not be tracking. You didn't see any of that. You didn't see anyone -- you know, this
particular person backing up to get distance between them.
And so, this is what is so shocking and heartbreaking, but I will tell you, this is not new. This is what the black community has consistently, since
George Floyd and before that, have been talking about. And the dangers of calling 911. And when we talk about what does it mean to be safe in your
home, or how do you get safety? These are the questions and the concerns that are continually at the top of the conversations and top of the policy
discussions that continue to happen.
SREENIVASAN: You know, when you discuss the distrust that exists within members of the black community in reaching out to the police for help, I
mean, look, Sonya Massey's father told CBS News after that they felt misled by the police department before the body camera footage was released,
because there was a narrative that she either died by an intruder or a self-inflicted wound. I mean, what do you think about that family statement
there?
DR. KEESEE: I mean, it's a powerful statement, right? So, it not only undergirds the longstanding issues about trusting law enforcement, but it's
also about this technology. We talk about body worn cameras, right? So, we have to talk about the introduction of body worn cameras. Because
historically now -- you know, when I came in 1989, there was nothing about a body worn camera.
And so, you know, I mentioned to you, the first sort of iteration of that for me would have been Rodney King, and that was caught on, you know, a
video camera, very -- now, which should be called a very outdated video camera, but it was very grainy, but you could still see, right? So, you
would have the word of the officers and then nothing else, right? So, if the person died or was not able to speak for themselves, that's what you
would have.
But what her father is talking about is the inability to come forth in a very honest way about what really happened. And without the camera, without
the body worn camera footage, we may have never known. And now, that we have seen what happens, we know the narrative doesn't hold up. And with
that, we then now need to have and understand why things unfold as the way that they did. And this is also what we call a portion of this is
accountability, right? Without that, you don't get to -- you don't begin to have it, or in some cases, you don't begin to have what people would say
justice, depending on how you define that.
But what's also interesting is if you think about this, and we talk about when do we really get into reform conversations, and in my career, it's
been going on for decades, but when we talk about reforms, one of the things that have been coming up or had come up was body worn cameras. And
the conversation around body worn cameras is really about, well, this is the thing that's going to make it right.
So, this particular piece of technology is going to be able to build trust within the community. And we know that there are a lot of things that
happen when we talk about the ability to release the footage, the policies around it. If I remember correctly, I don't believe Sheriff Grayson turned
his camera on. So, if it wasn't for another sheriff who was on scene, we would not have gotten that footage.
[13:45:00]
SREENIVASAN: There was a mental health component to this specific case with Ms. Massey. But I also wonder, given your expertise, what kinds of
training are officers now getting in departments that choose to invest the time in this?
DR. KEESEE: Well, it varies. Of course, it's going to depend on where you are or how large the agency is, whether or not you're a sheriff's agency,
and whether or not you have a budget. I think communities would be very surprised about the lack of the training budget that most law enforcement
have. In some cases, it's not even a line item.
And so, a lot of what you will see is there will be critical incident training. You will hear it named CIT. You'll hear mental aid -- mental
health first aid. That is really basic understanding of how people who are in crisis show up. What types of mental health, what does it look like. And
often times, you can look at your own family members and friends and see some of those same things that are happening with them.
And some of it is very basic level, and that's a lot of times what you need. A lot of academy curriculums have already been changed to incorporate
those types of things, including the scenario training that you have. So, it would not have been uncommon to have a scenario-based training with an
event sort of like Ms. Massey's, where you did have a conversation with her. And you have -- if you do have the resources, the ability to call
someone else in to help with her, to see if there's anything else you could do. And at that time, law enforcement would back out.
But there are plenty of trainings now, and it's really interesting that in this day and age, and it would be very uncommon to not have some basic
level of mental health training. I would be surprised if a lot of agencies did not have.
And then, I would add to that is before we even get to calling 911, does the person have or had everything that they needed before you begin to call
law enforcement? And this is the thing that community and even law enforcement is talking about. Oftentimes those calls will come in, and we
know 4 percent of 911 calls are what we call true crime calls. The rest of those are social needs.
And the question is, why would you have law enforcement showing up for someone who has social needs? And that has been an ongoing conversation. I
know, even when I was in law enforcement, that do you have the right people showing up for the right thing?
SREENIVASAN: Is there a difference in either the training or well, the outcomes of how police approach women?
DR. KEESEE: You know, there is. And what's interesting is one of the things that we have to understand is we still have a lot of gender dynamics
when it comes to how men believe women will respond or show up. A lot of those things have changed in the training.
And when we talk about the dangerousness and who is a danger, what is interesting when you are talking about -- and we have these conversations
around what the science says, especially when we're talking about black women and black men who are in danger. And we talk about how quickly folks
respond, because when you associate blackness with criminality, it changes the way that you respond.
And so, the types of training that we're talking about in the academy, it's just that, and you'll hear conversations around not just implicit bias
training, but understanding culturally how policing has been introduced into different neighborhoods, and for you to have a self-awareness around
how you may show up, how you may perceive things, and in order to do that, you have to slow yourself down, and you have to make sure you have all the
information that you need in order to go into that space, and you also need to make sure you have all the resources that you need.
But I think also more importantly, you also want to make sure that you have and you're recruiting the right people to be in the profession. And one of
the things that we always talk about is who is attracted to the job and who should be in the job.
SREENIVASAN: You know, in the case of Sean Grayson, the officer, according to CNN, he had two previous DUIs. He worked at six agencies in four years.
You know, he was told that he needed a high stress decision class, was discharged from the army for a serious offense. The county sheriff's office
said that they did not -- they did know about his two DUI arrests, but he was still certified for hire by the Illinois Law Enforcement Training and
Standards Board.
I mean, how is it possible that we have so many kind of cracks in the system that were designed to catch people who shouldn't be given this power
to wield a weapon and ultimately, be able to take a life?
DR. KEESEE: It's a great question, right? How many more flags did you need on him? So, you mentioned, right, so there's Police Officer Standard
Training. A lot of states have them and some don't, and that's typically the certifying arm of a state, a locality that gives you your certification
as a police officer. And one of the things that has not really been done is a real good examination of those post boards, is what we call them.
Often the police officers and standard training boards are comprised of solely law enforcement officers or retired officers. Very rarely are they
comprised of community members. And looking at those policies that trigger when officers cannot be hired or transferred, as we talked about the George
Floyd Act, right, having a database that flags for you officers who may maybe been hired multiple times to have these flags, would the sheriff have
been caught in that particular database? We don't know, but that is exactly what we're talking about.
[13:50:00]
But to your point, the question then now goes, we need to go back and look at what happened. Why was this person eligible to be hired, right?
SREENIVASAN: Yes.
DR. KEESEE: So, you cannot now go back and say, we should have known, but some of this also should have been in a background investigation. You also
have a responsibility to make sure that someone like this is not in a profession that it is a high risk and, in a position, where you may should
not be.
SREENIVASAN: The police union just released a statement saying that they are not going to fight the firing of the sheriff's deputy who fatally shot
Sonya Massey. How important is that?
DR. KEESEE: Well, it's important because a few days ago, they were demanding that person be reinstated, if I remember correctly. They were
saying that his due process rights were not followed and they were demanding his full reinstatement with back pay.
But it's important for unions to do exactly what they've done. I don't know what has created the turn of that. But when you look at the body worn
camera and you see what has happened, you understand why this person should no longer be in law enforcement. And it's important to understand that the
black community sees this. I mean, you see unions -- and believe me, a lot of folks belong to unions. But when you see a union trying to protect
something like this, you then -- if you don't understand why the black community has a lack of trust, then I have to say that there's a real
disconnect between unions and what they are supposed to be doing on behalf of officers.
We understand -- I belonged to unions for my entire career. And the one thing that I would always want is to have my rights protected. But I also
know that when I violated someone's rights, or when I was wrong, that there was going to be a level of accountability there. And this was before body
worn cameras. And now, when you have body worn cameras, and if I'm an at- will employee, I understand as an at-will employee, that I may be terminated.
And I think that whatever about face they've taken, it is glad to see that. But again, it's those types of the original statement that they had is the
reason why the ongoing issues in the community continue, and it gets exacerbated.
SREENIVASAN: How do you make sure that the police force reflects the community that they serve? I mean, I'm not just saying by race, I'm talking
also by gender, by class, by a connection so that they're able to have a life experience when they walk into unknown situations that the whole
situation might benefit from.
DR. KEESEE: If you want the organization to reflect the community it serves, first, the organization itself needs to be healthy. And that means
that when you are trying to recruit diverse organization to your point versus not just about race, and it's about thought and it's about
experience. The other part of this, too, is understanding broader society has had a different lived experience when it comes to its interaction with
policing.
That requires law enforcement to decenter itself from what is happening out in the larger community. And in order to do that, that means that you have
to step outside of yourself to understand that although you may be trying to do a good service, and though you may be trying not to do harm, harm has
been done, although it may not have been done by you.
And you'll hear law enforcement now saying it's very difficult for them to recruit because of what is being said. And what is being said about law
enforcement is not new, what is new is that you've got social media and you've got it happening faster and quicker. And so, the ability to recruit
has been happening for decades. It's just been exacerbated.
But until those things are truly addressed, including the attitudes of folks inside organizations and in the community. So, I don't want you to
think this is just about law enforcement. When I made the decision to go into law enforcement, I struggled in my own community about that choice
itself. And so, when those things begin to align and we begin to address the conversation we've had here, the long-standing issues of how safety is
delivered, then you will not see a lot of those hurdles.
SREENIVASAN: Dr. Tracie Keesee, the co-founder, president and CEO of the Center of Policing Equity, thanks so much for joining us.
DR. KEESEE: Thank you so much. I appreciate that.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
[13:55:00]
GOLODRYGA: And finally, a champagne shipwreck. The 19th century underwater trove has been found off the coast of Sweden, filled with more than 100
bottles of bubbles. A group of Polish divers found the rare treasure and say it might have been destined for the tsar of Russia. The wreck also
contained porcelain and bottles of mineral water. The divers say the discovery is a coincidence and they will need permission from Swedish
authorities to bring it to shore. Wow, quite the discovery.
Well, that is 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 so much for watching, and goodbye from New York.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[14:00:00]
END
