Return to Transcripts main page
Amanpour
Interview with Los Angeles Times Middle East Bureau Chief Nabih Bulos; Interview with Former U.S. Ambassador to Israel and Egypt Daniel Kurtzer; Interview with Former U.S. Independent Senate Candidate Working Class Heroes Fund Founder and Steamfitter and Union Leader Dan Osborn; Interview with Homeland Security Department Former Deputy Assistant Secretary Paul Rosenzweig. Aired 1-2p ET
Aired November 20, 2024 - 13:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
[13:00:00]
BIANNA GOLODRYGA, CNN ANCHOR: Hello, everyone, and welcome to "Amanpour." Here's what's coming up.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
AMOS HOCHSTEIN, U.S. SPECIAL ENVOY: I will travel from here in a couple hours to Israel to try to bring this to a close, if we can.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
GOLODRYGA: Hope in Lebanon. As the U.S. brings its ceasefire proposal to Beirut and Jerusalem, could a deal be imminent? And as Israel intensifies
its air attacks, what about the human toll of this war? I'll speak to the L.A. Times Middle East Bureau Chief, Nabih Bulos, live from Beirut. And
former U.S. Ambassador to Israel, Daniel Kurtzer.
Then --
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
DAN OSBORN, LIFELONG INDEPENDENT: I've never been a political guy. I've worked over 3,000 hours a year my whole life.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: This shouldn't be this hard.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
GOLODRYGA: The independent who took Nebraska by storm. Former Senate Candidate Dan Osborn on why despite losing his campaign has sparked
something big among blue-collar voters. He tells me why he plans to get more of the working class into politics.
And --
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
PAUL ROSENZWEIG, FORMER DEPUTY ASSISTANT SECRETARY, HOMELAND SECURITY DEPARTMENT: There are a large number of people who oppose President
Trump's re-election, against whom the president-elect has threatened legal vengeance.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
GOLODRYGA: -- Paul Rosenzweig, a former senior official at the Department of Homeland Security, gives us his message to President Biden, pardon
Trump's critics now.
Welcome to the program, everyone. I'm Bianna Golodryga in New York, sitting in for Christiane Amanpour. We have a real opportunity to bring this
conflict to an end. That is the assessment of U.S. Envoy Amos Hochstein, who is bringing a ceasefire proposal to Hezbollah and Israel. Both the
Lebanese government and Hezbollah are said to have responded positively. And so, we await word from Jerusalem.
Meanwhile, Israel has been intensifying its airstrikes, even in Beirut. And the impact on children has been particularly dire. With news now from
UNICEF that more than 200 children have been killed in Lebanon in the past two months. Among them, two four-year-old twin girls on Sunday. Just a
snapshot of the devastating reality on the ground.
So, let's go straight to Beirut. Nabih Bulos is the L.A. Times Middle East bureau chief based in Lebanon's capital, and he joins us from there. Nabih,
always great to have you on the program, especially given where you are in Lebanon. We've had you on the past few months since this official war began
here and you've given us some real insight into what things look like on the ground, the impact that this has had on civilians. Walk us through what
you've seen as of late.
NABIH BULOS, MIDDLE EAST BUREAU CHIEF, LOS ANGELES TIMES: Well, in fact, just today, actually, I went through a bit of a drive through the Dahieh,
which is the constellation of suburbs that are sort of under Hezbollah's sway. And I mean, the fact of the matter is, as you go through it, you can
see that the daily pummeling -- well, near daily pummeling, I should say, by the Israeli military is really starting to show in the sense that -- I
mean, there's so many buildings that are destroyed. There are boulevards that are just really, I mean, damaged at this point where it's just not
possible to pass through them.
And, of course, it should be said that the whole area is virtually devoid of residents at this point. So, you're talking about really hundreds of
thousands of people that have been displaced, and that's just near Beirut. Of course, if you go further on, if you go to the south, if you go to
eastern -- you know, eastern parts of the country, like the Beqaa Valley, et cetera, you will also see similar devastation in towns and villages and
also some of the major cities of the south.
It really is -- I mean, this has been about now -- I'm here for about two months now, and I must say that the level of damage really far, far exceeds
what we've seen in the past in 2006 and elsewhere in Lebanon.
GOLODRYGA: Yes, according to CNN over 2,800 have been killed since September 16th. Of course, Israel has been saying all along that they are
targeting Hezbollah officials, Hezbollah fighters, and that they do issue evacuation warnings, but you still see the impact that it has on civilians
who are then forced to have to flee if they can get out of harm's way.
Which leads us to, it appears, both sides seemingly closer to a deal, to bring this fighting to an end. Amos Hochstein spending two days, I'm sort
of just even reading tea leaves, the fact that he stayed in Lebanon overnight seems to sign some optimism about where things stand now. Walk us
through the parameters of this potential deal as Amos Hochstein makes his way, to Israel.
[13:05:00]
BULOS: Well, I also do also just want to add one thing, that those evacuation orders usually come about an hour before the strike happens. So,
that's barely enough time. And oftentimes, that the -- if the attacks happen at nights, I mean, as you can imagine, you know, if a warning comes
up 1:00 a.m., it's not necessarily very effective in terms of the --
GOLODRYGA: Yes, logistically, of course.
BULOS: Yes. But anyway, but in terms of Mr. Hochstein's, I guess, progress, I mean, the fact of the matter is that, yes, we have been hearing
about progress. And as you said, he did stay overnight. And so, that was considered to be an encouraging sign. He also said in his press conference
that the reason why he was going to Israel is because there is progress or which is -- what's more accurately is that he conditioned his going to
Israel on the basis of there being progress in Lebanon. And I mean, apparently, there has been.
But I must say there are some major sticking points that are, I mean, I think at this point, very unclear. Now, of course, Mr. Hochstein has not
said anything in terms of details about the situation. I mean, the negotiations, I guess, and the various conditions. But the fact of the
matter is, if you consider what is being said or what has actually been said in the media because of leaked documents, I mean, there is a major
sticking point, which is that Israel would want to be able to retain the ability to strike at Hezbollah throughout the country at any time.
Now, as you can imagine, this is not going to fly with Lebanese leaders because it would mean essentially ceding the country's sovereignty. At the
same time, Israel will tell you that it wants to have drones and overflight ability to go through across Lebanon at this point, and indeed -- I mean,
close to the Syrian border.
So, I mean, these are major sticking points, and I simply cannot imagine the Lebanese government being able to actually cede that level of
sovereignty without getting into a major, major uproar from people.
GOLODRYGA: How would the roles of UNIFIL and so is the U.N. peacekeepers there in Southern Lebanon, as well as the Lebanese army itself, what role
would they play as it relates to what appears to be the framework of the deal now mirroring Resolution 1701, which saw the end of the war back in
2006?
BULOS: Well, so again, there are various, I suppose, ideas or proposals here. I mean, one idea would tell you that the UNIFIL force would have to
be greatly expanded or it would have to actually involve more troops and would have the ability to actually enter into private property and inspect
and I guess, I suppose have more teeth when it comes to the inspection mechanism.
At the same time, you're also talking about using the Lebanese armed forces to basically, I guess, increase their number and increase their influence
and their presence in Southern Lebanon, right, and throughout the territory as well.
Now, it should be said, over the last, I suppose, 18 years before this war started, yes, UNIFIL was there. Yes, the Lebanese army was there, but at
the same time, they did manage to keep a somewhat wide berth from Hezbollah. I mean, I suppose there was a bit of a gentleman's agreement,
and it should be said that that agreement did hold for about 18 years. So, it is worth noting that it did succeed for a bit.
Now, at the same time, it's clear that the status quo ante will not be returned to, or at least that's at least what's being said by Israel, and
that would involve a more, I think, elaborate UNIFIL, but also at the same time, there's talk of this enforcement mechanism, this international
monitoring mechanism of some sort. And that one would have to also be -- I think, it would have to involve a few nations and would have to have teeth
as well. I mean, all these are actually, I think, quite large logistical hurdles that will not be solved in a few days.
GOLODRYGA: Yes, of course, this is something that the Biden administration is aiming to at least produce a resolution out of the two conflicts there
in the Middle East, the ongoing war in Gaza and Lebanon. There appears to be more optimism that there could be some sort of resolution before Biden
leaves office two months from today. But as you said, there are so many sticking points still at hand.
Specifically, as it relates to the government, the functioning of a government in Lebanon, what does that look like with, A, perhaps an
opportunity with a much-weakened Hezbollah, but, B, also a lot of concern about sectarian tensions that have been ongoing in the country for decades?
BULOS: Well, so in terms of the sectarian tensions, it should be noted that people so far have been able to tamp down on much of that. I mean, I'm
just remembering that you have 1.2 million people now that have been displaced from their homes, and the grand majority of them are Shia. And I
suppose a significant portion of them are supporters of Hezbollah. And yet, at the same time, we have seen overall that Lebanese in other parts of the
country have been able to host them and welcome them as, I suppose, as fellow countrymen.
Now, at the same time, I mean, what would happen if we are talking about a disarming of Hezbollah? Now, it should be said that so far, the mechanism
has not talked about a wholesale disarmament of Hezbollah, but merely in the south of Lebanon.
Now, if we are talking about something wider, right, a more far-reaching disarmament of Hezbollah, then that could indeed spur the sort of sectarian
tensions we've seen in the past, because it would be hard to imagine Hezbollah easily ceding its arms for one.
[13:10:00]
But also, it should be said that Hezbollah -- I suppose Hezbollah and the other Shiite parties arose because the Lebanese Shiites, I mean, in the
past were considered to be quite downtrodden in Lebanese society and did not have their rights compared to other sects. And so, I mean, those
parties did not arise out of a vacuum, they came out of a real need to have Shia protection in the country.
And so, I mean, I think it would be hard pressed to have people actually just have them give up their arms wholesale. This is going to be a very
delicate situation, I believe. And I think being able to navigate it -- I mean, I'd be surprised if they can navigate it in a smooth fashion now,
especially because it should also be said, you have no real government in Lebanon at the moment. If there is no president and there's a caretaker
prime minister, and in fact, at this point, the negotiations are being led by the speaker of the house, which I mean, constitutionally is actually a
questionable situation in Lebanon. And yet, here we are. So, it is complicated.
GOLODRYGA: Yes. And that's who Amos Hochstein was meeting with, we should note. So, a fragile government remains in place, but the situation
continues to grow more and more dire by the day. We'll continue to follow the developments there. Always great to have your perspective, your
reporting on the ground, Nabih Bulos. Thank you. Appreciate it.
BULOS: Thanks for having me.
GOLODRYGA: Well, the push for peace in Lebanon will likely be the last major diplomatic initiative of the Biden administration. But with a new
administration imminent, does the White House lack leverage to restrain the Netanyahu government and drive through a meaningful agreement?
Veteran U.S. diplomat Daniel Kurtzer knows the issues at stake well. He was U.S. ambassador to Egypt and to Israel, and he joins us now from
Washington. Ambassador Kurtzer, thank you for the time. So, there -- you heard my conversation with Nabih about potential prospects for a ceasefire
deal in Lebanon.
Let me turn to Gaza, because as it relates to this transition period, last week when we saw President-Elect Biden meeting -- President-Elect Trump
meeting with President Biden in the Oval Office, it was reported that one of the issues they seem to both agree on is the need for a resolution and a
ceasefire and hostage deal in Gaza that both agreed to work together on. What are your views on the possibility of that happening, especially now,
while we're in this lame duck period?
DANIEL KURTZER, FORMER U.S. AMBASSADOR TO ISRAEL AND EGYPT: Well, I think the Biden administration will work until the last hour to try to bring
about a ceasefire agreement that allows for the foreign and Israeli hostages to return. But as we've seen over the past months, the leadership
among Hamas and the leadership in Israel have set conditions that have basically derailed the effort to bring about that agreement. And therefore,
it's hard to see whether or not in this period of a lame duck president and in anticipation of a new administration, there would be any major change in
the position of the two parties.
Clearly, Prime Minister Netanyahu wants to be on the good side of the incoming administration and therefore, he has to assess whether or not he
needs to modify his position in order to bring about an end to the hostilities. But no one really has control over Hamas' decision making and
they are in a bit of a straits now because their leadership in Doha has been moving around, maybe relocating to Turkey. It's always been hard for
them to make decisions and there's not been an indication until now that they want anything less than the full withdrawal of Israel from Gaza and an
indeterminate end of the hostilities.
GOLODRYGA: Yes, and we are just reiterating that point, Hamas' acting Gaza chief in an interview with Al-Aqsa TV just moments ago said that there
would be no hostages for prisoner swap deal with Israel unless the war there ended.
I'd like to play sound from Prime Minister Netanyahu as he was making a visit in Gaza yesterday, as it relates to the hostages themselves and a
proposal, a financial reward for those who would release the hostages unharmed. Let's play that for you and talk about it after.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
BENJAMIN NETANYAHU, ISRAELI PRIME MINISTER (through translator): I want to say to those who are holding our hostages, whoever dares to harm our
hostages, his blood is on his head. We will pursue you and we will get you.
I also say to those who want to get out of this maze, whoever brings us a hostage, we will find a safe way for them and their family to get out. We
will also give a reward of $5 million for each hostage returned. You choose. The choice is yours, but the result will be the same, we will bring
them all back.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
GOLODRYGA: There you see the prime minister standing with his new defense minister, Israel Katz. I'm just curious, those words really echo a lot of
the same that we heard from Prime Minister Netanyahu, effectively giving amnesty to those who are holding terrorists in the immediate aftermath of
the killing of Yahya Sinwar.
[13:15:00]
There had been some optimism then, a few weeks ago, that perhaps that would bring an end or the opening to more talks that would see a ceasefire
hostage deal, that didn't result in one then. What do you think about the odds of one happening now?
KURTZER: Look, it's possible that an individual here or there in Gaza will find a way to bring a hostage to Israeli forces and find his own way out of
Gaza, plus getting the reward. You remember back in Iraq, it was Saddam Hussein's bodyguards who turned him in at the end. So, it's not impossible
that individuals here or there may step forward.
But Hamas has been very tough on the Palestinian people themselves and has taken action to prevent that kind of response to Israeli entreaties. So, I
wouldn't be optimistic that we're going to see an end of the hostage situation, even though, hopefully, one or two or perhaps more hostages
individually will be released.
GOLODRYGA: In terms of the Biden administration, perhaps in this lame duck period, putting more pressure on Netanyahu to bring forward a ceasefire
hostage deal, or at least agree to one wholeheartedly. Now, there had been some speculation perhaps that the U.S. would not veto resolutions at the
United Nations, but that is not what happened today. The U.S. in fact vetoed a U.N. Security Council Gaza ceasefire resolution for not being
linked to a hostage deal.
As it relates to the issue at hand now to an incoming President Trump, this is clearly not something that he wants to inherit. He ran on ending wars
not starting them. What leverage do you think he could have on Prime Minister Netanyahu alone, obviously knowing that there's Hamas as a player
here too, to prioritize a ceasefire hostage deal as opposed to remaining in Gaza longer?
KURTZER: Look, there's no question he'll have substantial leverage given not only what we have provided to Israel since last October, but the
ongoing wars in Gaza, Lebanon, and the possibility of escalation with Iran suggest that Israel will require additional American assistance.
His spokespeople, however, have not been sending that signal. They've been talking about having Israel score a decisive victory, letting Israel decide
for itself what constitutes victory. So, unless the president-elect decides to get a hold of what his spokespeople are saying and to send a message to
the prime minister that it's got to come to an end, it doesn't look as though there's going to be pressure to bear.
And if there's not that kind of pressure to bear after January 20th, well, we're certainly not going to see it before January 20th. You mentioned the
veto, the administration is also putting pressure on Democrats in Congress not to oppose additional military assistance to Israel. So, it's -- it
doesn't look very positive that the United States will exert any kind of influence on Israel until there's a -- until we and they are persuaded that
the mission has been accomplished.
And that's the problem. We don't really know what the mission is. It's in Netanyahu's head. But we don't know at what point he will declare,
quote/unquote, "victory."
GOLODRYGA: Yes, I've been told by Israeli officials that if there's one person who can persuade, who can actually pressure him to make moves, even
those that he opposes or is reluctant to make is Donald Trump. But how does that balance with his own political challenges at home? There are continued
new legal investigations surrounding aides around him. He's got his criminal cases that he's going to be testifying before -- in just weeks
from now, keeping his coalition together seems to be his top priority. Does that change in a Trump administration?
KURTZER: You know, we're in an extraordinary moment with a president-elect who has probably the most significant mandate of almost any president in
history. The popular vote, the electoral vote, the Senate, the House, and a pretty concrete majority in the Supreme Court.
And so, an astute politician could lead in many directions, both domestically and in foreign policy, especially in the Middle East. But the
president-elect seems to be assembling a cabinet that is only going to create additional problems for him. They seem bent on destruction and
undermining the way government functions. Sure, government needs reform, but if you look at the various candidates, the nominees, they're in the
category of those who want to tear down rather than build up.
[13:20:00]
So, the first item of business for the president-elect today, let alone January 20th, is to figure out what he wants to accomplish. And when it
comes to the Middle East, if he really wants to accomplish a ceasefire and some degree of return to normalcy he's going to have to pay some attention
to what his advisers are saying, what his spokespeople are saying, and he'll have to put some leverage behind American policy vis-a-vis Israel and
vis-a-vis the Arabs who have influence on Hamas.
GOLODRYGA: Yes. Well, his signature accomplishment in his first term in the Middle East were the Abraham Accords that President Biden had hoped to
continue to pursue and expand with the normalization between Saudis and Israel. But of course, that was upended by the October 7th attack and the
subsequent war. And now, President Trump is going to be inheriting a very different Middle East if this is indeed a continued priority for the Trump
administration.
You heard MBS just last week describe the war in Gaza as a genocide. You have spokespeople and those who are going to be appointed to top
intelligence and military spots as continuing or wanting to continue to pursue a maximum pressure policy as it relates to Iran, where do you see
this attempt and approach to an Abraham 2.0?
KURTZER: Look, the Saudis remain intensely interested in a relationship that's improved with the United States and a relationship with Israel,
which has had a bilateral relationship for a long time, but in the closet. But the Saudis now are constrained by the fact that they would be subject
to tremendous pressure within both the Arab world generally and among their own people if they normalized relations with Israel without having
something accomplished for Palestinians.
They've defined that as a serious and irrevocable pathway to a Palestinian State. President, as we know -- president-elect, as we know, has a plan on
the table from 2020 which was not acceptable to anybody, but perhaps he can build on it and make it minimally acceptable to Palestinians.
So, if you start out with the idea that the Saudis want to do this and you know what the cost is, or the price is, the question is, is the president-
elect ready to pay that price?
GOLODRYGA: Yes, and we know it's something that Prime Minister Netanyahu had wanted to accomplish as well. But we also know that his coalition, even
the idea of proposing a day after plan, or a two-state solution is something that could threaten to break up this coalition. So, a lot of
challenges lie ahead, both from the U.S. perspective and obviously in the Middle East and governments there. Daniel Kurtzer, always good to see you.
Thank you so much for joining the program.
KURTZER: My pleasure. Thank you.
GOLODRYGA: Well, as America prepares for Donald Trump's second term, many are still analyzing his election victory and what it says about the country
and how it's feeling. All over the world, regardless of political ideology, we've seen voters reject incumbents in an attempt to bring change. Anger
over inflation and rising costs has left many disillusioned with the status quo.
Well, my next guest made that the focal point of his campaign to represent Nebraska in the U.S. Senate. Running as an independent, Dan Osborn lost,
but only by about 60,000 votes. And now, he's looking to the future after his campaign struck a chord with many blue-collar voters. His campaign is
all about elevating the working class, and he plans to take it nationally. He joins me now from Omaha, Nebraska.
Dan Osborn, welcome to the program. So, as we noted, you lost your Senate bid but by a very close margin. Instead of burying your head and just going
back to work, which, by the way, we should note you are going back to work because, as you said, you have to pay the bills. You're also starting a
PAC, a political PAC, the Working Class Heroes Fund. Tell us about this and its larger aims.
DAN OSBORN, FORMER U.S. INDEPENDENT SENATE CANDIDATE, FOUNDER, WORKING CLASS HEROES FUND AND STEAMFITTER AND UNION LEADER: Yes, you know, we did
something pretty historic here in Nebraska. I was able to bring Republicans, Democrats, and independents together in the same room without
any fighting or screaming or yelling. You know, it kind of reminds me an event recently I had in Columbus, Nebraska. It was at the oldest bar west
of the Mississippi -- west of the Mississippi, excuse me. Say that 10 times really fast.
But there was about 80 people at the, you know, publicly advertised event. And the room started to divide itself between, you know, the Trump t-shirts
and MAGA hats and then camouflage Harris and Walz' hats on the other side. And, you know, I gave my speech and I always talk how I always talk, you
know, Republicans here aren't the devil, the Democrats certainly aren't, you know, because we're one nation, and you know, just this division, you
have to ask who's dividing us, that kind of thing.
[13:25:00]
And right now, the focus has to be on campaign finance reform, getting the money out of politics, Citizens United, things like that. I saw it
firsthand $10 million came in the last two weeks of my -- you know, spread lies about me. And unfortunately, lies won the day.
But, you know, if nothing else, at the end of the day, what we able to accomplish is we had -- you would see a Trump and an Osborn sign in one
yard and you would see a Trump and a Harris sign in another yard all across Nebraska. So, that gives me hope that we're not as divided as people think
that we are. And once we start focusing on the actual issues and talk about resolving the issues too, not just arguing about what the issues are, a lot
of heads start nodding in those rooms and then, you know, we can all just start being friends and neighbors again. And you know, that was part of why
I was successful.
GOLODRYGA: You clearly struck a chord, not only with those in your home state, but outside of the state as well, $35 million in out of state
donations and funding came your way. What is it that you think you struck in terms of raising attention, not only for yourself, but the policies that
you were championing?
OSBORN: Yes, you know, I did speak a lot about the economy because that's first on everybody's mind. You know, you work hard in this country like,
like me, I work with my hands. You should know that your paycheck matters, right? The federal government was set up to take care of the big stuff. You
know, the foreign affairs, like you were just talking about earlier and you know, the border, things like that, but also, you know, the economy.
And the economy has to stay strong. And we have to know our paycheck matters at the end of the day, because we all want to know that we just
want to live in some semblance of peace, be able to afford a home, which is dwindling away quickly, being able to afford your cars and saving up money
for college, hopefully, some money for a good Christmas. So, we can all just basically live the American dream. And you know, that's what I was
mainly talking about and that's what we need to focus on. Those are working people's focuses.
And that's why I started the Working Class Heroes Fund to help people. If you're a bus driver or a nurse or a teacher or a plumber carpenter, you can
now know you don't have to be a self-funding crypto billionaire to run for office. And this is going to be set up to help those people get started,
whether that's for local dog catcher or, you know, if you need to get on the Transportation Committee, whatever it is you're interested and you can
go to that, a workingclassheroes.fund also, and you can nominate somebody who you think might be good to get into politics, whether that's a union
member or a veteran or somebody else that -- you know, because we need more workers at the -- to have a seat at the table.
GOLODRYGA: Yes, and you don't fit into one box, that is for sure. Your message is one that is pro-gun, tough on the border, you've aligned
yourself with some of Trump's messaging on building the wall between the United States and Mexico and yet, you lost the Senate race in a deep red
state of Nebraska running as an independent by just seven percentage points.
I want to give our viewers a sense of what your campaign looked like through one of your political ads, let's play it.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
OSBORN: I'm a true independent, and I approve this message. Across Nebraska, people are tired of a corrupt Washington controlled by
corporations and billionaires. Deb Fischer? They love her. Heck, they own her. And that's exactly why they're spending millions lying about me.
Social Security to illegals? Who would be for that? I'm where President Trump is on corruption. China, the border. If Trump needs help building the
wall, well, I'm pretty handy.
Devin (ph), the queer politicians, they've tried to stop Trump, just like they're trying to stop me.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
GOLODRYGA: What was the response you got from voters to that ad?
OSBORN: It was very mixed. But you know, what I needed -- I think the essence of the ad is what I needed people to know throughout Nebraska that
it's OK to vote for an independent because, you know, I've never really been able to have an ideology where I'm supposed to believe one side and
reject all the other sides, right. And -- or vice versa for that matter.
So, it was just basically letting people know, because I was running against the Republican. So, it's stand a reason. She tried to paint me out
to be a Democrat. You know, in sheep's clothing the whole entire time. So, that was a move just to let people know if they were voting for Trump, that
it was OK to vote for Osborn too.
[13:30:00]
And, you know, that's the way I saw it in all my events, and I feel like if I was able to get out in front of every single Nebraskan and talk to them,
you know, in the groups that I talk to, and you know, talking about that corporate money, we never took a dime of corporate money, my average
donation was still $40. And so, you know, I do believe this campaign was powered by the people the way the framers of the constitution intended it
to be, a government by and for the people.
Like I said, we're not going to agree on every single issue, but at least what you're going to get from somebody who's not taking corporate money is
you're going to get somebody who can approach issues and policies objectively, not based off of who's giving them handouts.
GOLODRYGA: How much time did you spend on the road going from county to county across the state talking to voters?
OSBORN: Well, you know, I never kept track. We just would go. And, you know, before we get to the town, we'd always call up the local newspaper or
the press. And, you know, there was some days I did six or seven events in a day, starting at a coffee shop in the morning and then just every time we
passed the town, we would stop there, do local business walks, just try to talk to as many people as possible.
And I did what's -- I call it a What Ails You Tour, kind of old school campaigning where I'd go into the bar in the evening and have a beer with
the locals and talk politics.
GOLODRYGA: What Ails You Tour. And so, the consensus as to the top ailments was, what, in the state, the economy?
OSBORN: Yes, it was the economy number one/inflation. The second would have to be people were concerned about the border, you know, we --
Nebraska's a huge meatpacking state. So, you know, there's a lot of concern there. And the number three would be individual liberties, whether that
would be a women's ability to choose your own health care or the Second Amendment.
GOLODRYGA: It's interesting in terms of just the economy, statistics wise, the U.S. is much healthier than every western country. The unemployment
rate nationwide is low. The unemployment rate in Nebraska is even lower than it is nationally at 2.7 percent. And I think that's something perhaps
that the Democrats, that Kamala Harris and Joe Biden, were really puzzled about not resonating more with Americans. Yes, inflation really was a game
changer, but you started to see even inflation cooling.
Why was there such a disconnect between the messaging that you heard from the Republicans, Donald Trump, this is the worst economy ever, given the
just the data points didn't suggest that at all, compared to how people were really feeling, which clearly was not well?
OSBORN: I think you hit the nail on the head. It's about the feeling, right? I think maybe it's inflation starting to lower, but it's a day late
and a dollar short, right? Taxes have gone up. You know, I just tried to change my auto insurance because it's getting unaffordable and nobody will
-- you know, nobody will take me because one of my daughter's cars is a Hyundai. And so, apparently, those get stolen a lot. Nobody will ensure my
home because the roof is older than 10 years old. Like these are the struggles that we're all dealing with while we're trying to put food on the
table.
And there's another example, you know, 250 bucks used to fill my cart up at the grocery store. Now, it's barely skimming the bottom. People are
hurting. And insurance costs, healthcare costs is extremely expensive in this country. And I think that's the change people are looking for, is we
just got to do better to live.
Look, I don't think most people are looking for handouts. I'm certainly not. But I'm just looking for even playing fields when it comes to, you
know, monopolies to -- you know, without -- there's nothing to drive down costs, if you don't have competition. You know, we see that playing out
over and over and over again.
And, you know, we got to talk about price gouging when we talk about inflation. Kroger admitted to inflating their prices. I saw Kellogg's did
it when I worked there. And, you know, now we got to --
GOLODRYGA: You led a strike.
OSBORN: You know, people --
GOLODRYGA: You led a strike at Kellogg's at the plant when you were there in 2021.
OSBORN: Yes, I led the strike at Kellogg's.
GOLODRYGA: Which leads me, I guess, to some of the lessons learned, the postmortem, because Donald Trump and the Republicans walk in with a
mandate. But given what we're hearing from them and some of the appointments being made now, it's not yet clear that they have heard what
the voters seem to have been wanting to appeal to and for in the future. And we definitely didn't hear that, it turns out, from the Kamala Harris
and the Democrat side. And that is not the gender divide that many thought we'd see in this election cycle, but really the class divide.
[13:35:00]
That seems to have really surprised people. You honed in on that. Talk about some of the lessons learned for both parties going forward.
OSBORN: Yes, that's absolutely right, right? I mean, the middle class makes up the bulk of the population, the bulk of the voters. So, when
you're talking about middle -- you know, workers' issues, you have to talk about Social Security, that goes in there. But, you know, workers, if you
abandon them, we see what happens.
And now -- but workers are never going to stop, trying to get a fair shake and trying to get a seat at the table. Look, we see -- was it Milk-Bone
just went on strike in Buffalo? They're owned by Smucker's. And Smucker's, you know, has, what, $8 billion in sales last year, and all those folks
wanted some health coverage, because life is expensive. So, the worker is always going to stand up for themselves and always try to pick the right
people they think is going to help them out.
GOLODRYGA: Yes. Well, listen, you have a fascinating personal story too. A veteran of the Navy and Army National Guard. You went back to work as a
steamfitter, because as you said, you have to pay your bills. You're an industrial mechanic who works on cars in his free time. And now, has put
together and starting a political action committee. Dan Osborn, I would imagine there's still politics in your future. Perhaps we will see you on
the campaign road again. But thank you so much for your time. And for speaking to us. Appreciate it. Best of luck.
OSBORN: Yes. Thanks, Bianna. I appreciate it. Thank you.
GOLODRYGA: Well, when January 6th shook America, former Homeland Security official Paul Rosenzweig spoke to Christiane about the, quote,
"authoritarian impulse" that Donald Trump unleashed and its consequences. Well, now, nearly four years on, Trump is returning to the White House as
the next president and has vowed to go after political rivals. This could include those who have spoken out against him.
And a piece for The Atlantic, Rosenzweig argues that President Biden has an obligation to protect them from Trump's revenge. And he joins Michel Martin
to discuss his concerns.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
MICHEL MARTIN, CONTRIBUTOR: Thanks, Bianna. Paul Rosenzweig, thank you so much for joining us.
PAUL ROSENZWEIG, FORMER DEPUTY ASSISTANT SECRETARY, HOMELAND SECURITY DEPARTMENT: Thanks for having me.
MARTIN: So, let's cut to the chase. In your Atlantic piece, you say that Biden -- President Biden has unfettered power to issue pardons and he
should use it liberally, no pun intended. Why do you say that?
ROSENZWEIG: Well, at a narrow tactical level, the reason is simple. There are a large number of people who opposed President Trump's re-election
against whom the president-elect has threatened legal vengeance. He has threatened to unleash the Department of Justice to investigate and
prosecute his enemies. He's accused some of them of treason. He's accused many others of them of breaking the law, and even though those sorts of
prosecutions are unlikely, in the long run, to be successful in the courts, the expense and pressure of being under investigation is itself a
significant cost.
And so, President Biden ought to consider granting pardons liberally to those of his supporters who are in the crosshairs of Donald Trump's
vengeance campaign.
MARTIN: You said he should pardon all of Trump's most prominent critics. You're talking about people like Liz Cheney, the former GOP congresswoman,
military critics like the former chairman of the Joint Chiefs, General Milley, his former chief of staff, John Kelly, writers like Bill Kristol.
Do you have a number in mind of how many people you think that he should consider?
ROSENZWEIG: I don't think it's a huge number. You've named some of the most prominent Trump critics who he has explicitly threatened. I would
probably limit it to that. I mean, he's never threatened me. So, I don't think I need a pardon, for example. But I do think that he has expressed a
willingness to use the legal system against not just Republicans, but even some of his Democratic opponents, like Nancy Pelosi and Adam Schiff, whom
he has called criminals and has threatened to bring to justice. And his -- obviously, his nomination of Matt Gaetz as the enforcer in chief attorney
general kind of gives one a sense that he means it most seriously.
MARTIN: Some people who've analyzed him say that people in the legacy media and people who are kind of outside of his realm say they take him
literally but not seriously. But your argument is that this should be taken both seriously and literally.
[13:40:00]
ROSENZWEIG: Well, I think that Donald Trump's history over the last eight years gives us evidence of that. I mean, the same people who said, don't
take him seriously, said that about his calls on January 6th for wild behavior. And yet, it became both literal and serious and an assault on the
Capitol.
He said -- yes, when he said, I'm going to give RFK Jr. carte blanche over the healthcare of the United States, people said, oh, that's not serious.
It's not literal. And yet, he's announced his intention to nominate RFK Jr. to be head of HHS. He's announced his intention to nominate a number of
cabinet members, none of whom should be taken seriously, except that they will seriously have these responsibilities. Matt Gaetz has said that he
intends to figuratively break heads, I think was the quote, at the Department of Justice.
That's -- you know, at some point, you have to accept that what Trump says he means is what he actually intends to do.
MARTIN: You say the Democrats, in particular, have treated Trump as, quote, "an aberration and not a phenomenon." Can you explain what you mean
by this and why you think the shift in thinking needs to take place?
ROSENZWEIG: Well, I am of the view that Trump's critics, and I include myself amongst them, have made a strategic error. When he first came on the
scene, we thought he was just an aberration. That is a Black Swan phenomenon that would come and then pass away. And if you think that's what
somebody is or some phenomena is, then you don't change your behavior. You think this too shall pass and we should maintain standards, maintain our
fidelity to norms of behavior. This is what Michelle Obama meant when she said, when they go low, we go high. You know, they're going down in the
mud, we're going to stay up here and treat America like America.
But what has become clear over the last eight years, to me at least, and most saliently, of course, with Trump's re-election earlier this month, is
that he is not an aberration. He's a phenomenon. He's a movement. And his movement engages in norm breaking behavior. You know, nominating people
manifestly unqualified to lead the government, not because he really wants them to lead the government, but because he wants them to break the
government.
And if you think that's who he is, if you think that's what Trump is about, then you have to change how you respond in kind. You have to start using
all of your counter levers of power as aggressively as you reasonably can within the bounds of law, even if it is not normal behavior as we would
have thought of it 10 years ago.
MARTIN: Is there a moment that made you think that way, that you felt that bolder measures are needed to counteract this phenomenon, that made you
think, OK, this is it?
ROSENZWEIG: Well, for me it was January 6th, right? Before that, I was of the view, for example, that it was really a bad idea prudentially to
prosecute a former president. That even though you could do so, we shouldn't because we didn't want to become like other countries where every
turn of the political wheel resulted in the prosecution of the former office holder.
January 6th made it clear to me, or -- and I think to much of the country, though apparently not a majority, that Donald Trump was intent upon
breaking the system, as much as he was intent upon about upholding it. And that if the system was going to sustain itself, it had to respond in kind.
And so, for me, that moment made me change that particular aspect of my belief and support the subsequent prosecutions of Trump, particularly the
ones for violating -- for the actions on January 6th.
And, you know, for other people, it might be different times, but I think, for example, a number of my friends see his nomination of Tulsi Gabbard, a
Russian apologist, if you will, to the Intelligence Community as one of those breaking the paradigm moments that calls for breaking your own
response paradigm.
MARTIN: You've also written that it has become painfully self-evident that Democratic self-restraint is a form of unilateral disarmament. Can you say
more about why you think this self-restraint has hindered Democrats and others who find Trump's behavior objectionable, not just objectionable, but
dangerous?
[13:45:00]
ROSENZWEIG: Well, I mean, consider the arc of the Biden presidency. When President Biden took office, he had two paths he could take. One was the
normal path of legislating around traditional democratic priorities, expanding health care, inflation reduction acts, you know, the bipartisan
infrastructure act, or he could have treated this as a critical moment in which the legislative priorities should have been -- could have been
strengthening the electoral guardrails against Trump, limiting the possibilities for an executive to exercise unilateral power.
He chose the former of those paths, as did the Democratic majority for the first two years of his presidency. And that was, I think, in large part
because they couldn't bring themselves to believe, and again, to be fair, nor could I, they couldn't bring themselves to believe that the American
people would return to the aberration of Donald Trump and make him a phenomenon.
So, they self-edited. They didn't do things that would have strengthened their ability to resist Trumpian excess, things like limiting executive
powers, things like insulating the military against what Trump has now proposed, which is a wholesale firing of disloyal generals. Again, you
know, adopting law proposals to bring in two more states that would have given them four more Democratic senators. All those would have been extreme
things that we would have thought unnecessary up until a few years ago. But now, in the face of Donald Trump's promises, seem palpably essential.
MARTIN: You said the Democrats need to consider unprecedented legal tactics at this point. So, the train -- you know, so, the train has left
the station when it comes to some of the things that they could have done when the Democrats had not only the White House, but they also, you know,
had the Senate. They don't have any of those things now.
So, now what should they do? And when you say responding in kind, you know, what does that mean?
ROSENZWEIG: Well, there's a host of things ranging from large to small. A small example. I think that President Biden should consider not attending
Donald Trump's inauguration. Because doing so sends a symbolic message of normalizing Trump, and he shouldn't be normalized. That's a small thing.
It's a norm breaker. It's not a huge lift.
The Biden administration, in the time that is left to, it should consider every -- doing everything it possibly can to strengthen the Ukrainian hand,
because we know that the first thing that Trump will do when he takes office is sell that poor country out to Vladimir Putin.
Going forward, you know, I think that some of the things that we are already starting to see, like with Governor Newsom and Governor Pritzker in
California and Illinois of strengthening state laws as resistors to federal activity, that's not something that we would've ever thought should be
done, that a state should pass laws resisting the federal government and trying to undermine federal authority.
But now it seems a reasonable step to take in order to erect as many barriers as possible to, for example Trump's threat to use the National
Guard to deport illegal immigrants. State law, for example, prohibiting any state's National Guard from being federalized for that purpose would be an
extreme step, but one that may -- there will be considered necessary.
MARTIN: What do you say to people who say that, look, if the Democrats and other people who criticize Donald Trump engage in that conduct, then our
civic space is further corrupted? What do you say to that?
ROSENZWEIG: I say they're right. And I was with them, you know, at the start. The very first article I ever wrote about Donald Trump was entitled,
"Defending Norms by Defending Norms." And it was arguing for the style of thinking that I characterized as the original strategic error. And I say
that they're right, that if we transgress norms on our side -- on my side of the argument, the world is -- we're going to coarsen the debate.
But it strikes me as highly likely that Donald Trump's project is to literally break America's governance. He wants to break the Senate's advice
and consent. But if the Senate doesn't fight back, as much and as strongly as it can, it will lose its power, and we'll be in a place in two years
where it's just a rubber stamp.
[13:50:00]
It seems to me that it's a risky move. I admit that completely. But it seems almost essential at this point, because if we don't do it, you know,
the House will burn down.
MARTIN: You've pointed to -- going back to the issue of pardons, historical precedents, like Ford's pardon of Nixon. We talked about that.
And Carter's pardon of people who avoided the draft. There are those who see it as kind of a gesture toward national reconciliation. I just wonder
if you see by -- your argument to the Biden administration that they should embrace this, do you see it in that realm or do you see it as something
else?
ROSENZWEIG: Well, I see it partially in that realm. I mean, the idea of pardons to bring national peace has a long history. Washington -- George
Washington pardoned the Whiskey rebels in the Whiskey Rebellion. In the aftermath of the Civil War, Andrew Johnson pardoned the Confederate
soldiers, not the leadership, but the soldiers. He even pardoned Samuel Mudd, who had given -- who had treated John Wilkes Booth after Booth
assassinated Lincoln. And then, of course, you mentioned the Carter pardons after the Vietnam War and Ford's pardon.
So, to some degree, I think it -- this is an effort to make peace. But to another degree, I think it's slightly different. It's the pardon to do
justice in response to unjust actions by the government, by the prosecuting authorities, right? We have a history of that as well. For example, Jack
Johnson, the African American boxer was prosecuted under the Mann Act for crossing state lines with his wife, who happened to be white. We pardoned
him, to do justice to him individually. This will also partake, I think, if Biden does what I recommend, which I'm guessing he won't do, but we'll see.
But if he does what I do, it will have that aspect of doing justice by preventing Liz Cheney, Mark Miley from William Kristol, George Conway, the
whole -- Adam Schiff, Nancy Pelosi from being improperly and unjustly targeted with the full might of the federal government.
MARTIN: You don't really think he's going to do it, but you have said, look, this is the time -- this is not the time to hold back. This is the
time to take bold action. I'm just wondering if you feel at all surprised by your own point of view on this. I mean, you were speaking with me and
all, you're sort of appropriately lawyerly restraint, but what you are suggesting is, in fact, a very radical thing for at least establishment
Washington to consider. And I just wonder if there's any part of you that's surprised that you think that.
ROSENZWEIG: Oh, all of it. All of it. You know, I am not only a Washington lawyer and a traditional lawyer, I am a traditional conservative Washington
lawyer. I worked for President George W. Bush. as a political appointee in the Department of Homeland Security.
In 1983, I joined the Federalist Society, the -- you know, Society of Conservative Lawyers. This is not who I ever thought I would be. It is not
who I have considered myself to be still. But at the same time, it seems to me impossible not to recognize that the facts on the ground has changed.
We're not arguing about, you know, what the right tax policy is, or whether or not the EPA over regulates benzene emissions, or, you know, anything
like that anymore. What is clear to me is -- well, you know, frankly, the same thing that became clear to people like me like Liz Cheney, that Donald
Trump is transgressive in his nature. He is a mold breaker. And it's irresponsible not to see him as what he truly is, an existential threat to
the very foundations of democracy.
Now, people will say that's extreme, and I hope, like heck, that I am overstating it, overstating the threat. But I think that the course of the
last eight years says not. And the course of the last two weeks, super says not, you know, as Trump begins to roll out his initiatives for the next
administration. And with that in mind, if you think that democracy is important, you have to stand up and defend it. You can't obey in advance.
You have to stand up and stand out.
MARTIN: Paul Rosenzweig, thank you so much for speaking with us.
ROSENZWEIG: Thank you very much for having me on.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
[13:55:00]
GOLODRYGA: And finally, it's a journey that began decades ago on tennis courts in a small Spanish village in Mallorca. Now, 22 Grand Slam titles
later, Rafael Nadal is hanging up his racket, playing his final match in the Davis Cup in Malaga, Spain, and bidding an emotional farewell to the
end of a glittering career. He'll go down in tennis history as the King of Clay for his incredible record on that surface, losing only three matches
at the French Open in his entire career. What a star, both on and off the court. So, much fun to watch.
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
