Return to Transcripts main page
Amanpour
Interview with U.N. Emergency Relief Coordinator and U.N. Under- Secretary-General for Humanitarian Affairs Tom Fletcher; Interview with The Washington Post Former Executive Director Martin Baron; Interview with Brady United Against Gun Violence President Kris Brown. Aired 1-2p ET
Aired December 17, 2024 - 13:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
[13:00:00]
CHRISTIANE AMANPOUR, CNN CHIEF INTERNATIONAL ANCHOR: Hello, everyone, and welcome to "Amanpour." Here's what's coming up.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TOM FLETCHER, U.N. EMERGENCY RELIEF COORDINATOR AND U.N. UNDER-SECRETARY- GENERAL FOR HUMANITARIAN AFFAIRS: Food, medicine, shelter, but also the funds to redevelop the Syria that people can believe in again.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
AMANPOUR: Engaging with Syria's new leaders and helping the country move on from Assad. Big questions for the International Community. The U.N. Relief
Chief Tom Fletcher joins me from Damascus.
Then --
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
DONALD TRUMP, U.S. PRESIDENT-ELECT: We have to straighten out the press. Our press is very corrupt.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
AMANPOUR: -- press freedom under Trump 2.0. I asked Marty Baron, former executive editor of The Washington Post, why he's convinced the incoming
administration will, quote, "go after the press in every conceivable way."
Plus --
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
NEDELJKA MACAN, MAZAN RESIDENT: This area was so quiet and nice area. And now, we don't know if somebody who in the next shop is one of these men. It
changed everything.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
AMANPOUR: -- new evidence about that horrifying mass rape trial in France. And the ringleader, the husband at the heart of it. Saskya Vandoorne brings
us exclusive access to police reports.
Also, ahead --
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
KRIS BROWN, PRESIDENT, BRADY UNITED AGAINST GUN VIOLENCE: I believe that we as Americans are entitled to be able to walk down the street, to drop our
kids at school and not be afraid that they'll be shot.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
AMANPOUR: -- ghost guns. Activist Kris Brown tells Hari Sreenivasan about the risks of these untraceable firearms.
Welcome to the program, everyone. I'm Christiane Amanpour in London. Israel's Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has stepped into Southern Syria,
occupying even more Syrian land and saying they'll stay there until they can ensure Israel's security. While in Gaza, Hamas says a ceasefire-hostage
deal is possible. And that comes amid catastrophic death and destruction that's still raining down on the enclave.
Syria's new leaders are pushing for legitimacy on the world stage. Ahmed al-Sharaa, who's head of HTS, a designated terrorist group by the U.S., has
been meeting with United Nations and European officials this week. As an advocacy group warns that hundreds of thousands of Syrians could be buried
in mass graves across the country.
The U.N.'s humanitarian relief chief Tom Fletcher is in Damascus, where he's been meeting with Syria's new authorities, and he's joining us from
there. Welcome to the program, Undersecretary-General.
TOM FLETCHER, U.N. EMERGENCY RELIEF COORDINATOR AND U.N. UNDER-SECRETARY- GENERAL FOR HUMANITARIAN AFFAIRS: Thank you, Christiane, and best wishes from Damascus.
AMANPOUR: Thank you. Free Damascus, as you might say, but what of the leaders who are, you know, saying that that is what's going to be their
commitment? What are you hearing? There's a picture of you sitting in that official residence with al-Sharaa. What has he said to you, and is it
comforting?
FLETCHER: Well, I've spent a lot of time in the last two days with the leadership of that transitional authority, including, as you say, Ahmed al-
Sharaa. And I'm asking them for very specific things on humanitarian access. We want to keep the borders open. We want to get those trucks of
aid moving. We want to get support to all those who need it. And we want reassurances on international law and protection of humanitarian workers.
And on all of those, he was reassuring. He listened very carefully, and he made very clear that the new authorities were committed to supporting our
work. Now, that's a commitment that we didn't have two weeks ago from the outgoing administration, and it's one that we want to work with.
AMANPOUR: Can I ask you, because you've written a letter in your capacity as U.N. relief chief, and in it you detail how ruined basic services were
all across, including in Idlib and other places. Now, of course, al-Sharaa was in charge of Idlib. But talk to me about schools, about water, about
food, about medical supplies. How much of it needs to be built back, and do you have the wherewithal to do it?
FLETCHER: Those services are massively degraded. So, the initial priority is to get humanitarian support in. I was just in a health center just now,
they need medicine, they need food, they need shelter urgently. And then, the priority has to be then rebuilding the country. And those essential
services have been completely degraded from decades of Assad rule. And from the conflict itself. So, there is enormous work to be done there.
[13:05:00]
What we're asking the International Community to do is to scale up. We've agreed at the U.N. that we're ready now with our humanitarian partners in
the humanitarian movement to massively scale up what we do. But to do that, we'll need the International Community to do much, much more. And donors to
step forward now and deliver.
AMANPOUR: And do you think they will? You know, there's such a sense of donor fatigue, and, you know, everybody's retreating, and whether it's
America first or this and that first, do you think that goodwill is actually there right now?
FLETCHER: Well, as you say, people are exhausted and we're in an era really of introspection of people turning inwards and away from the problems of
the world. But as you and I know, these problems will follow you into your countries if you don't deal with them. And you know, we need a reset of
global compassion. We need to find a way to support those in direst need across the planet.
I just launched an appeal to support 190 million people worldwide who are in dire, dire need. Now, maybe we have to make the case in a different way.
Maybe we have to renew the argument for why we need that solidarity and compassion for the world's most vulnerable people. But I believe it's
necessary. And I believe that if we don't do it, it will come back to bite us.
AMANPOUR: And on Syria, a report just went out that I think they expect at least a million of those who fled the Assad regime and this civil war are
going to come back in the not-too-distant future.
FLETCHER: So, I passed many thousands on the road up from Beirut to Damascus who are returning home. And it's clear from those I spoke to, and
those I've met in Damascus over the last two days, that many do want to come home and rebuild their lives, but their towns and cities have been
shattered. Their communities have been utterly broken. They've lost loved ones. It will be very, very hard to rebuild that social fabric, let alone
the physical infrastructure that you need to build security, justice opportunity here.
Now, I believe that hundreds of thousands more will want to come back, but it's vital that they're able to do so when it's safe, when they feel able
to do so. What we mustn't do now is change the environment so that people in Europe and across this region feel forced to return before they feel
they're able to do so.
AMANPOUR: You heard me probably read that -- one of the activists or one of the NGOs regarding disappeared and the prisoners and their families
suggests that hundreds of thousands of Syrians could be buried in unmarked graves and mass graves around the country. Is that something you have to
think about?
I know you're the humanitarian chief and there's a human rights side to the U.N., but as you try to basically bring relief, do you also have to be
concerned about, you know, meeting people's concerns? legitimate desire for accountability or at least maybe even help in digging?
FLETCHER: We do. I mean, people feel angry. They feel scared. I mean, there is great frustration and despair, really, at what has happened to this
country for decades now. You've been reporting on it. I've been working on it now for so long, and it's probably even worse than we dared to imagine.
So, there has to be support for those communities as they seek their loved ones. There has to also be accountability for the crimes that have been
committed. And as you say, different bits of the U.N. will look at those issues, but I'm sure they'll do so with real energy and engagement because
the Syrian people deserve to move on from this chapter, but they can't just forgive and forget. They have to have a process of reconciliation, of
understanding, and of really finding out what has happened to their loved ones over such a long period of time.
AMANPOUR: And you probably have seen it, I mean, it was broadcast, these pictures of the special Syria envoy for the U.N., Geir Pedersen, who we had
on the program last week. He was going to the Sednaya Prison, and, you know, there was a woman who did the -- you know, the sort of, wave the shoe
at him. In other words, you know, expressing frustration and anger. What do you have to do as the U.N., as the International Community, which -- to
regain trust?
FLETCHER: Well, no one has worked harder than Geir Pedersen, the special envoy for the SecGen. to try to restore a political process and hope to
Syria. And that's what I've seen him doing over these two days in Damascus as well. And he's currently -- he and I just briefed the security council
from Damascus about those efforts.
But I think he would say, and I'd agree, that that incident was a measure of how frustrated people are. You know, the anger is boiling over and
people do want someone to blame. And look, the International Community has let Syria down. It's taken us far too long to end this conflict. We've not
delivered the aid we should have done.
[13:10:00]
We have tolerated the intolerable for far too long. And it's understandable that the Syrian people feel angry and that they're looking for people to
blame for the pain that they've gone through for so long.
Now, if we want to rebuild that trust, we'd have to deliver. That means we deliver on the political process, and that's what Geir is working so hard
to do. It means delivering on accountability for human rights abuses, which my colleagues are working on as we speak. And on my side, it means
delivering massive scaled up humanitarian support so that Syrians can Rebuild their lives and that we can deliver those essential services that
they need and that they deserve.
AMANPOUR: And I started by, you know, saying that Benjamin Netanyahu, his foreign minister, and others, clearly, the military, have stepped into
Southern Syria and have essentially laid claim for as long as it takes. They portray it in terms of Israeli security. But we know that they're also
bombing. I mean, there are hundreds and hundreds of bombing raids by Israel on military targets. The United States is bombing ISIS targets.
How is that being actually taken? I'm sure al-Sharaa must have talked about it to you. But also, how do you provide aid when so much of the country is
being still bombed from the air?
FLETCHER: Well, it makes our job much, much harder. We need, you know, unimpeded humanitarian assistance, which means, actually, we need the
conflict to stop. But also, we need any measures that impede, including sanctions that impede the delivery of essential humanitarian supplies, be
removed. And so, it doesn't help when you've got regional countries seeing Syria as the next playground for a regional conflict.
We need everyone to respect sovereignty and let the Syrian people chart their own course and rebuild their own country. It won't be easy. It'll be
very hard. It'll be perilous. Many things will go wrong. There'll be many challenges. But there is this brief moment here of genuine hope, I felt it
last night as I walked through the streets of old -- of all the old town -- of the old City of Damascus.
People are scared. They're fearful. They're anxious. But there's also an air of optimism, a hope in the air. And that feeling that if we get behind
them and if they're able to work together, if they're able to find the courage to coexist, then they can build the future that they really deserve
and that they've waited for for so many decades.
AMANPOUR: So, you know, Syria is not a fundamentalist state, it's pretty much a secular state, but the new leadership have had their roots in
fundamentalist, as I said, Al Qaeda, ISIS. Of course, they -- you know, they've disassociated it from that -- from there now, but running Idlib, it
was quite a hard-line operation that al-Sharaa was in, in charge of when he was al-Jolani.
Did you get a sense for him -- from him that women's rights would be respected, minority rights, not just religious, but whether it's gender or
sexuality or whatever, the vulnerable, would they be respected? Will there be free elections in the not-too-distant future?
FLETCHER: We had a lot of discussion of the challenges of government. And you know, I was blessed to have four or five years working in Downing
Street at the center of the U.K. government. And I know how tough it is, even in normal times, for people to govern. And so, we talked a lot about
how to do that and how to communicate as a leader.
But also, and this is a key message from the U.N. and all of our meetings with the transitional administration, it's vital we get an inclusive
government that represents all Syrians that has the legitimacy of the whole country, and is able to move as quickly as possible to a proper democratic
election that can really renew confidence. And I was reassured by that conversation with Ahmed al-Sharaa and with the prime minister, that they
see that as the right direction of travel too, even with all of these challenges that they face.
And of course, at the center of my discussion, it is essential that women and girls who are so key to the humanitarian operation are protected and
that that space for them to lead is protected, but also that they are given a stake in the future of Syria. Their role in the future of Syria is
absolutely crucial. And I've made clear in my conversations that when the International Community is making its judgments on the quality of
governance and on the potential of this partnership with the authorities that right at the core of that will be the way in which women and girls are
treated.
AMANPOUR: And last but most definitely not least, an even worse humanitarian situation is unfolding in Gaza and has been ever since the
attack of October 7th inside Israel. You're going to have to deal with that as well, and it's really urgent. What are your thoughts on how to bring
relief there, where the actual government or the military of the state is hampering the delivery of aid as well as, you know, the constant assaults
from the air?
[13:15:00]
FLETCHER: I mean, Gaza is apocalyptic right now. It is an absolutely terrible place to be a civilian, and it's an almost impossible place to
deliver humanitarian aid.
We are getting only a tiny fraction through of what is needed. We're facing the specter of starvation again, disease is rampant, our trucks are getting
looted, barely as they've crossed over into Gaza. It's an intolerable environment. And yet, our job as humanitarians, despite those challenges is
to stand deliver. I have to say we're barely standing and we're barely delivering, but we will keep trying against the odds because that's what
we're here for. But I cannot pretend this is easy.
And you know, I pay tribute to my colleagues and the humanitarian workers who are going out there day in and day out in a sector that is
overstretched, underfunded, and literally under attack.
AMANPOUR: Tom Fletcher, U.N. humanitarian relief chief, thank you very much indeed for joining us. Your first interview from Damascus. Thank you so
much.
Next to France and the lengthy mass rape trial that has shocked the country and much of the world. Dominique Pelicot is accused of organizing the abuse
of his own wife Gisele. She decided to waive her right to anonymity and she's been speaking openly in court, saying that it's time to, quote, "look
at this macho patriarchal society and change the way it looks at rape."
Now, exclusive access to French police reports revealed exactly how her husband rang this gang of rapists, many of whom deny the charges as Saskia
Van Dorn now reports.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
SASKYA VANDOORNE, CNN SENIOR PRODUCER: I've come here to retrace the steps of all those men who visited Dominique Pelicot's house in the middle of the
night.
This case really has captured the world's attention with so many people asking why. We're going to focus instead on how Pelicot led the men right
here.
VANDOORNE (voice-over): The way he communicated, the tactics he used, how he came to be on trial for mass rape and drugging his wife. What was his
playbook?
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: 50 men accused in the mass rape of Gisele Pelico. She was drugged.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Drugged unconscious by her husband, Dominique Pelico.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Dominique Pelico admitted to recruiting --
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Enlisting other men to join --
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: -- rape his wife.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: It sparked outrage across France.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Going global concern about violence against women.
VANDOORNE (voice-over): CNN has gained exclusive access to police reports with thousands of messages that Dominique exchanged with the 50 men on
trial alongside him. He didn't have to search far for his alleged accomplices. They all live within a 30-mile radius of his house in Mazan.
The horror is still felt here by local women.
NEDELJKA MACAN, MAZAN RESIDENT: This area was so quiet, a nice area. And now, we don't know if somebody who is the next shop is one of these men. It
changed everything.
VANDOORNE (voice-over): From a firefighter to a journalist to a nurse, from 27 years old to 74 years old, all the men were connected by one website,
Coco. Shut down this summer, Coco's chat rooms were easy to access.
VANDOORNE (voice-over): It was not buried in the dark web, as one man accused of raping Gisele Pelico said.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE (through translator): I got in touch through Coco in the evening when I was by myself. My wife had gone to bed and I was a little
bored.
VANDOORNE (voice-over): But because the so-called dating site was entirely unmoderated and anonymous, it boasted chatrooms selling date rape drugs and
spaces to glorify sexual violence.
Under the pseudonym available all night, Pelicot posted in a chatroom called Without Her Knowledge. It was there that misogyny and sexual abuse
were completely normalized.
VANDOORNE: While Pelicot has pleaded guilty to rape, most of his codefendants say that they believe Dominique Pelicot's consent was enough.
VANDOORNE (voice-over): Coco was the door. Pelicot would then move the discussion to Skype.
VANDOORNE: He traded videos of his wife being raped for intimate images of the men's own partners, according to the police report.
MATHIAS DARMON, LAWYER, INNOCENCE EN DANGER: We saw Coco was a very dangerous website.
VANDOORNE: Innocence En Danger has been campaigning against the site for years.
DARMON: They went to this website to realize their worst fantasies, so it became a reality thanks to Dominique Pelicot.
[13:20:00]
VANDOORNE: He told police that over time he built a network of men.
DARMON: The place where they could meet, what time, what they could wear, they couldn't wear.
VANDOORNE: He allegedly told the men what drugs to buy and how to use them. This all went undetected for 10 years.
Dominique Pelicot never thought his text messages or his alleged crimes would see the light of day. And they probably wouldn't have if it weren't
for the events that took place right here on September 12th, when a security guard caught him red handed filming up the skirts of several
women.
DARMON: This is kind of websites. As long as there is demand, then there will be supply.
VANDOORNE: In the wake of Coco's shutdown, more websites have gained in popularity in France. CNN extracted data from just one of those websites.
After going through almost 6,000 messages from a 24-hour period, we found a strikingly similar pattern of men sharing explicit photos of their wives
and girlfriends. And asking to move the discussions to private messaging platforms.
Some men went as far as offering up their wives to other users in a manner like Pelico, but it's unclear if any of them set up real-life encounters.
There are some websites that could be the new Coco. How does that make you feel?
MACAN: For these websites, it's a Kind of marvelous thing what happened with Gisele Pelicot. It brings them advertising.
ANNETTE DUMONT, MAZAN RESIDENT (through translator): It could very well happen again tomorrow in another place.
MACAN: We expect that some laws will change, but of course, I'm not sure that it will be enough. So, I don't feel at ease here in the streets.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
AMANPOUR: For speaking out, Gisele Pelicot is an extraordinarily brave woman, and the latest in this harrowing story, her husband, Dominique
Pelicot, former husband, faces his verdict on Thursday.
Now, in the United States, the press is facing legal assault from the incoming president, Donald Trump. He's suing the Des Moines Register
newspaper over its covering polling which showed Kamala Harris ahead in Iowa days before the election. And ABC News has agreed to a $15 million
settlement to Trump over a defamation case he brought against him.
This is happening in America, which has constitutional protections for press freedom. Other democracies that are around the world do not and some
of them press too. It's a trend that deeply concerns my next guest, the former executive editor of The Washington Post, Marty Baron, and he's
joining me now from Massachusetts. Welcome to the program, Marty.
MARTIN BARON, FORMER EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, THE WASHINGTON POST: Thank you for having me.
AMANPOUR: So, lay out how you think the next administration can come after us. I mean, it is us in the big sense. What tools can they use?
BARON: Yes. Well, I think -- sure. They have a lot of tools in their toolbox, and I think they will use every single one of them. That's already
evident from the measures that they are promising to take. I think they are salivating for the opportunity to prosecute journalists for leaks of
supposed national security information. I think that they've already threatened to revoke the licenses for stations affiliated with the -- with
some of the major networks.
They are already, as you mentioned, likely to sue a lot of media outlets for supposed defamation and other supposed offenses. I suspect a lot of the
wealthy allies of Donald Trump will underwrite those lawsuits. I suspect that they will deny information to major media outlets routinely. I suspect
that that they will threaten advertisers for major media outlets as well. So, they will do everything to undermine public confidence in the press to
further undermine public confidence in the press and undermine its economic sustainability.
AMANPOUR: And probably to intimidate the press by this relentless pursuit. Look, Kash Patel, who is the nominee of Trump for the FBI, said famously,
we're going to come after you about the press. And just recently, Donald Trump himself about suing these organizations that we've just mentioned,
said the following. And I'm going to play what he just said from Mar-a-Lago yesterday.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
DONALD TRUMP, U.S. PRESIDENT-ELECT: And I feel I have to do this. I shouldn't really be the one to do it. It should have been the Justice
Department or somebody else, but I have to do it. It costs a lot of money to do it, but we have to straighten out the press. Our press is very
corrupt.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
[13:25:00]
AMANPOUR: You know, that's a horrible thing to hear, frankly, that our press is very corrupt. Do you think that lands with people? And despite all
the tools and mechanisms you've just enumerated, do you think it will be successful?
BARON: Well, certainly there's a large segment of the American public who do not have a confidence in the mainstream press, and I understand that.
There's been a decline in confidence in all institutions in our country, from the presidency to the Congress to banks to major businesses, the
medical community, religious institutions, pretty much everybody, and the press is certainly in there and has suffered a lot.
I think the intent here is, as you say, to intimidate the press. I think that -- but more than that, I think he is suggested by his comments just
yesterday that he would like to use the power of government against the press and to judge by the nominations that he has said he will make he will
use the power of government against the press.
I suspect he will embark on -- the Justice Department will embark on investigations. He will seek to revoke -- potentially revoke the licenses
of stations affiliated with the major networks. I think he will engage in a lot of measures that will burden the press. And the intention is not
necessarily to win these cases, it's to inflict -- to impose these heavy burdens, the cost of defending yourself against lawsuits, against
investigations, all of that, those costs are enormous.
He talks about the cost of bringing a lawsuit. The cost for defending that lawsuit is enormous as well, and a lot of media institutions simply can't
afford that.
AMANPOUR: That's absolutely true, and I wonder whether you think that it's also going to lead to a sort of a mass self-censorship, because presumably,
it's going to have a massively chilling effect.
Look, an elections lawyer, Marc Elias, posted after the ABC settlement for $15 million and an apology by ABC and George Stephanopoulos said, knee
bent, ring kissed, another legacy news outlet chooses obedience. And just to be clear, Stephanopoulos had said in an interview that Trump was found,
quote, "liable for rape in the E. Jean Carroll case." In fact, he was found liable for sexual abuse. Do you think Marc Elias, the election lawyer's
characterization is accurate?
BARON: Well, I think it trends in the right direction. I don't know that I would use language quite that strong. But I think it's clear that -- I
mean, in the case of ABC News, you know, the judge said in that case that it's true that under New York law, that was not considered to be rape and
they -- ABC News did make a mistake in the way that they characterized it. But he said that in common parlance, it would be considered rape.
So, that -- there was a strong defense that ABC News had and it caved. And it probably caved for a variety of reasons. I would have to speculate here,
of course. But probably because Disney, its parent company, has other commercial interests that it has in mind. And also, because it doesn't want
its network to be in a position of conflict with the president of the United States, just as he takes office. But we've seen those kinds of --
that other news organizations as well.
AMANPOUR: Yes. And we're seeing quite a lot of media and like the tech streaming titans and all the rest of it making, you know, sort of a kiss
the ring progress progression to Mar-a-Lago. But I want to ask you this. On the one hand, there's a threat of coming after the press for national
security and all those other things that, let's face it, even Obama did, right?
On the other hand, there's this, which is what David Axelrod, former Obama -- you know, major ally and adviser put on X. He said, now, Trump says he's
suing the Des Moines Register because their poll understated his support, 60 Minutes because of their editing of Kamala Harris interview, the
Pulitzer Committee for honoring The New York Times coverage of Russian election interference. Then he said, Welcome to Hungary, folks.
I mean, there are two issues there. One is, this is, you know, what they do in illiberal democracies here in Europe. But two, these are not cases about
national security. They are vanity cases that the Trumpies and Trump himself just don't like and want to push back against. How will the courts
take that seriously?
BARON: Well, I hope they don't take it very seriously. I mean, frankly, even in the case of national security under the Obama administration, they
did not prosecute journalists themselves. They prosecuted leakers and investigated leakers. But now, the Trump administration is promising to
prosecute journalists themselves.
But these other cases are merely efforts to inflict enormous costs on media organizations to defend themselves. And you know, that it's just an effort
of intimidation, one measure after the next at intimidation, at imposing costs on news organizations.
[13:30:00]
I don't think the courts will -- I hope the courts don't take these things seriously, but you never know with the court system these days.
AMANPOUR: You never know exactly. I just want to play what Steve Bannon has said, again, using the sort of Hungary analogy. This is what he said, you
know, back to his old sparring with the mainstream media.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
STEVE BANNON, HOST, "WAR ROOM": They never in a million years thought we'd be back in power. And they need to learn what populist nationalist power is
on the receiving end. I mean, investigations, trials, and then incarceration. And I'm just talking about the media.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
AMANPOUR: I mean, that really does extend it very, very dramatically. Investigations, you know, convictions, incarceration for the media. Look,
we've discussed what their aim is, but this stuff has happened in other European countries, and right now, I don't know whether you probably read
it, but at the Columbia Journalism Review there is the veteran journalist, Lucia Annunziata, who, you know, resigned from RAI, but she's talking about
how Italy's right-wing Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni is transforming public media there as she says, and I'm going to quote, "In Europe, one of the key
priorities of neo-authoritarian governments is to restrict press freedom, particularly targeting public and alternative media.
This trend began in Eastern European countries and has gradually spread westward. On the international stage, Trump is a central figure in this
movement, serving as both a model and an inspiration." So, that's a fact. We see it. We're seeing it. What can we do? What can the public media and
mainstream media do about this?
BARON: Well, your previous guest talked about standing and delivering. I think we need to do our jobs. I think we need to deliver for the public. We
need to give the public the information it needs and deserves to know. We need to do that unflinchingly. We need to do it every single day. We need
to do it without fear and certainly, without favor. So, that's what we can do.
We need to show our value. I mean, look, the founders of this country, James Madison, who was the author -- the principal author of the First
Amendment, talked about the need for freely examining public characters and measures. So, examining means looking behind the curtain and beneath the
surface, and that's what we're supposed to do.
We're not stenographers. We're not supposed to be stenographers. The founders of this country wanted us to be a check on power, particularly
political power, and there's no one more powerful than the president of the United States. He's the most powerful person in the world, and we have to
fulfill our mission and report on him without fear, certainly honorably, honestly, accurately, and all of that. But certainly, without fear as well.
AMANPOUR: And again, as you said, it often does boil down to a money issue and the owners don't want to get on the wrong side of that. I mean, just
look at the Pete Hegseth drama over the nomination. There were MAGA -- sorry, there were Republican senators who questioned whether they could
support that appointment, and then the MAGA swarm came at them, and all of that has shifted in terms of emphasis. They may bend because of that. And I
think maybe journalist owners may be worried about the MAGA swarm, too.
So, what do you make of the fact that the right-wing media sphere, as it's described, had disproportionate success during the election campaign,
whether it's Fox News, whether it's radio stations, whether it's the right- wing trending podcasters, they had a huge influence and more mainstream or even liberal leaning ones were left thinking, oh, my gosh, how do we
compete with this alternative media sphere?
BARON: Yes, well, certainly we have much more fragmented media environment today that has positive -- that has advantages and disadvantages. And
certainly, right-wing media has been ascendant. I don't think the election was a referendum on the media. I don't think it was a result of the power
of different media elements.
I think it was the result primarily of people's concerns about real issues, issues like inflation, which they saw as being out of control, the cost of
groceries, the cost of gas, the cost of buying a home, the cost of acquiring a mortgage. Real concerns about the level of immigration,
undocumented immigration across the southern border in the United States. And the concern about U.S. involvement in Ukraine and the cost that it was
that the United States was having to bear.
[13:35:00]
So, I think there were real issues at play in this election, and that it wasn't just a matter of right-wing media power or the power of influencers
or diminished power of traditional media, I think there was a lot more at play here. And I wouldn't view this as a referendum on the media.
AMANPOUR: I'm just going to point out that the American Enterprise Institute, and I talked to General Petraeus about this, has said that it's
a lot of falsehoods being spread around by, you know, some Republicans about the cost. The cost of supporting Ukraine's defense is much less than
the cost of having to fight a war against Russia if it comes to that. But I'm just putting that out there because it's been distorted. And that's how
people get their information, and it's wrong to get your information from those distorted facts. That's all I'm going to say about that.
Now, Jeff Bezos, who owns The Washington Post famously declined to endorse any candidate, breaking with decades of tradition. In the fullness of time,
and I know you criticized it, and maybe you still do, do you think that that's the way to go? Did you have a timing issue with it, or do you think
it's just, you know, again, bending the knee in this case?
BARON: Yes, if he had done this, if he had made this decision a year ago, two years ago, three years ago, I would have thought -- I would have said,
that's fine, that's a perfectly reasonable decision to make. But he made it 11 days before the election with the prospect that Donald Trump would be
re-elected Donald Trump.
Donald Trump who said throughout the campaign that he was going to seek vengeance on his political enemies, and Jeff Bezos has always been seen --
as has been perceived as a political enemy by Donald Trump for one reason and one reason only, and that is the coverage of The Washington Post.
And so, I think this was not a reason. He talked about this being to establish not running an endorsement as being a way to establish trust with
readers and assert their independence. They've been doing political presidential endorsements for almost 50 years. They continue to do other
political endorsements.
And I -- so, I don't think this was a reason for the decision. I think it was a rationalization of a decision that had already been made. And that
had been made because of Bezos' is other commercial interests, particularly cloud computing business of Amazon and the commercial space enterprise of
called Blue Origin. Bezos owns 100 percent.
AMANPOUR: It's really fascinating. Marty Baron, thank you so much for your really valuable perspective. Thank you.
Now, in Madison, Wisconsin, families are reeling from that deadly school shooting which killed three people after a 15-year-old female student
opened fire there on Monday. It's the latest tragic example of gun violence in America and it comes as another worrying issue is on the rise, the use
of so-called ghost guns, homemade firearms without serial numbers that can't be traced.
The New York Police Department is investigating the possibility of one of those being used in the recent murder of the UnitedHealthcare CEO. Our next
guest is an expert on this topic. Kris Brown is president of the nonprofit organization Brady United Against Gun Violence. And she's joining Hari
Sreenivasan to lay out her argument for balancing Second Amendment rights with gun reform.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
HARI SREENIVASAN, CNN INTERNATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Christiane, thanks. Kris Brown, thanks so much for joining us. Earlier this month, we had a fatal
shooting in New York City that caught national attention because the UnitedHealthcare CEO was gunned down with a ghost gun. And just to kind of
set the table, for people who might not know what these are, what's so different about them?
KRIS BROWN, PRESIDENT, BRADY UNITED AGAINST GUN VIOLENCE: Ghost guns are parts of guns that are on serialized and untraceable. Before the Biden
administration acted most recently, they had been sold in kits with no background check at all.
And just to give you a sense of what that means. It's like buying something from Ikea, except easier. So, there were folks who are buying these kits,
no background check, and putting together a fully finished firearm in less than one minute. These kits have proliferated across the country until
President Biden just recently required background checks for these kinds of ghost guns.
SREENIVASAN: So, most guns that you go to a store, a department store, a gun store and buy, they all come with a serial number that's engraved.
That's something that all gun manufacturers have agreed on if they want to sell weapons in the United States, right?
BROWN: That's exactly correct. It's part of the 1968 Gun Control Act, the federal law that established the serialization of firearms across the
country and established that a license is required from a licensed dealer in order to sell a firearm.
[13:40:00]
SREENIVASAN: So, if these guns, the ghost guns, do not require a serial number, then there is essentially no way to trace where the provenance of
how that gun got into the hands of perhaps the criminal. Now, is there, you know, some legal notion that, look, we had guns in this country before
1968, before serial numbers were acquired, and that is part of our Second Amendment right?
BROWN: 100 percent. Yes, you're hitting on exactly really the issue. Look, the way we think about a ghost gun as a ghost gun is a future crime gun
because that's what's happening with these guns. These unserialized guns. In Baltimore, for example, six years ago, there were eight ghost guns
recovered. Two years ago, there were 538.
So, we've seen a proliferation of these guns used in crime. And absolutely what the Biden administration said to ATF three years ago is, look at the
definition of firearm from 1934 through 1968. Yes, it says a finished firearm. But if someone can buy a ghost gun in a kit and put together a
fully finished firearm in less than a minute, then that kit needs to be regulated just like a regular firearm and it needs to be serialized. And
that's what the Biden administration rule said that's being litigated and it's before the Supreme Court right now.
SREENIVASAN: And what were those arguments in front of the Supreme Court like? I mean, where -- you know, I know the sort of tea leaf for you but --
BROWN: Yes.
SREENIVASAN: -- what is the court likely to do about this?
BROWN: Well, it was interesting, right? The Supreme Court has decided a lot of gun cases recently, and not all of them to our liking in terms of
putting safety first and endorsing what we view as appropriate regulation consistent with the Second Amendment. But if you're reading tea leaves and
you look at some of the questions that were asked, even by the more conservative judges, what you see is a real skepticism of the arguments
from those who are pushing, overturning the rule.
Their strongest argument seems to be that hobbyists buy these kits and they like assembling firearms and that there's always been a right to assemble
your own firearm. Blacksmiths did it in colonial America and individuals have a Second Amendment right to pursue these kinds of hobbies. It didn't
seem that any of the justices really felt strongly about that argument when you weigh it against the number of people being killed with these ghost
guns across the country.
SREENIVASAN: So, is there kind of any kind of a place now where there is a restriction on your ability to print these things in the first place?
Because the parts for these guns can come from 3D printers that are -- you know, they're -- those are not illegal.
BROWN: No, it's a really good point, right? Because some of the reporting about this particular shooter in New York indicates that he printed at
least parts of this firearm from 3D print blueprints that were available online.
Now, technically, those blueprints are only supposed to be accessed if you have a special license through the Department of Commerce. However, during
the first Trump administration, an individual made these blueprints available online. We, Brady, sought to enjoin those blueprints from
spreading all across the United States easily, that was litigated, and the Trump administration abandoned, allowing these blueprints to proliferate.
But it's very easy for that to happen as we see.
And so, these blueprints obviously are available to certain people who are industrious and try to circumvent the law. And that's why Brady strongly
supports legislation pending in Congress. It has been pending for several years to ensure that these blue -- these 3D blueprints are not publicly
available. It's very dangerous to the extent that they are.
SREENIVASAN: That seems like the most Sisyphean task you're describing so far. I mean, you're literally trying to say how to keep blueprints out of -
- off the internet. I mean, how do you do that? I mean, because then you kind of bump into the kind of First Amendment as well. And say, well, look,
this is information. I mean, we have horrible manuals. We have horrible kinds of pieces of information that exist online. I should be able to find
that, or I should be able to publish that if that's the case.
What's -- you know, how do you try to thread the needle on this where you don't want to file of both the First and the Second Amendments?
BROWN: Well, look, there are basic philosophies about the system of government that we want in the United States. And certainly, the Second
Amendment is part of the Bill of Rights, as you're noting, so is the First, right? And there's something about life, liberty, and the pursuit of
happiness that are overarching rights that give life to all of these other rights.
[13:45:00]
We don't want a Second Amendment that swallows every other right we Americans hold dear. And part of this is understood through every weighing
of rights in the Bill of Rights, including the First Amendment itself. I can't go to the theater and yell, fire, right? That's long been understood.
So, we have to balance rights and ease of technology and ease of use, all of these benefits with the real social harms that can come with certain
aspects of this technology. And certainly, this is not a unique issue where we would say that balance in the public interest should be not
proliferating 3D printing of firearm parts.
SREENIVASAN: The rule from the Biden administration, of the ATF is, you know, currently enforcing in front of the Supreme Court. Does that go far
enough?
BROWN: No, it went as far --
SREENIVASAN: What is that?
BROWN: So, let me explain what the rule did. The rule said that ghost gun kits have to be subject to a background check because obviously what we
were seeing is huge numbers of these unserialized kits, guns showing up on crime scenes. Why is that? Because if you can't pass a background check,
what are you going to do? You're going to buy a kit and assemble a gun in a few minutes, and even make money off of doing that.
So, they said it has to be subject to a background check, and the kits have to be serialized. So, if they show up in a crime, the law enforcement can
do its job. What it didn't do is require a license in order to purchase one of these kits and ensure that there's no secondary market for these ghost
gun kits in that process, right?
So, basically make it so that they are fully regulated. That didn't happen because Joe Biden was pulling a thread through a very small needle. His
authority in order to do this was found not in new law, but in the 1968 Gun Control Act. Congress needs to get with the program and realize 50 years
have passed, right, and pass legislation to ensure ATF has full authority to regulate this market. Only then can we be sure that we have a fully
functioning system.
Which, by the way, we just finished a poll. 80 percent of all Americans. believe we need a stronger background check system and these ghost guns are
a part of that.
SREENIVASAN: Do we have any idea how many of these types of weapons exist today? Because if it's not serialized, if it doesn't go through kind of our
proper sales channels, so to speak, and if they can be printed in parts around the country or the world, how do we get a handle on how many there
are?
BROWN: It's very, very hard. It's not easy to answer that question. What we do know is we've seen a huge spike, not just in the Baltimore example, in
every city across this country. We've seen huge spikes up until this year when the ghost gun rule went into effect, where we saw some of these
numbers of ghost gun recoveries be cut in half. So, the rule is working.
But just to give you a sense of scope and scale, four years ago in California, I think it was four or five years ago, 40 percent, 4-0, 40
percent of all guns recovered in crime in the State of California were ghost guns. Unfortunately, we don't have the information because this is
really a black market for firearms in this country about the scope, but that gives you some sense of proportionality and the explosion of these
firearms without appropriate regulation.
SREENIVASAN: I would suspect, and correct me if I'm wrong, that, you know, gun enthusiasts, law abiding gun owners would be against ghost guns as
well.
BROWN: Generally speaking, for those -- and I will tell you, especially those in law enforcement, they are absolutely opposed to ghost guns. We
have many cases, Brady litigates on behalf of victims of gun violence, we represent both civilians and law enforcement who have been gunned down with
these types of firearms.
So, yes, it's a very, very small percentage of the population that actually believes that there is a Second Amendment right to access ghost guns and
that there should be no regulation. Almost no one believes that. And that includes Trump voters by the way. Based on the polling that we have, over
70 percent of Trump voters want more regulations around firearms. He was not elected with a mandate to strip or reverse these kinds of public safety
laws.
SREENIVASAN: Earlier this year, President Trump vowed to undo any effort that President Biden made when it came to gun restrictions. How would you
advise the incoming president?
[13:50:00]
BROWN: Well, look, what I saw in -- on the campaign trail when I watched President Trump speak, and certainly, if I look back on some of the
statements he made in his first term as president, what he's really communicating is a desire to ensure that there is easy access to firearms,
appropriately regulated, though, and he's often talked about that, so that people can exercise their Second Amendment rights.
I never heard President Trump say that he should -- we should make it easier for criminals to access firearms or firearm parts. And that's what
he would be doing if he overturns these regulations that President Biden has put into effect that are actually denying criminals across this country
easy access to unregulated, unserialized firearms.
So, I think it's a pretty straightforward both policy proposition, political proposition and one that Americans across this country really
believe in. They want a system that works, that's effective, and we've gone a long way to helping make that happen.
SREENIVASAN: Oftentimes, when there are policies that roll out, there's a kind of legislative approach, there's the judicial approach, and then
there's the old-fashioned kind of lobbying that happens from groups. Where are gun manufacturers in this conversation about ghost guns?
BROWN: That's a really interesting question. So, legacy manufacturers behind the scenes at least indicate to us that they're not supportive of
ghost guns, because obviously, and you're hitting your finger on an issue, it impacts their market for firearms, right?
SREENIVASAN: Right.
BROWN: But some of the legacy manufacturers have also gotten into the ghost gun space, right, and are either helping to finance or helping proliferate
some of these kits that were made available. Now, a lot of them, frankly, have moved on to other things with the Biden rule because we have shut
down, Brady has litigated a case. I talked about Baltimore and the proliferation of firearms. We shut down one of the major ghost gun dealers,
Polymer80, that was supplying the vast majority of the guns recovered in Baltimore.
So, I think for the most part, they're not vocal on this, but they too, the legacy manufacturers, would support the legal market for firearms, not the
illegal market for firearms.
SREENIVASAN: Brady has been working for literally decades now on this topic and this issue, and, you know, I hosted a conversation after the Sandy Hook
massacre, including at the time, Vice President Biden. And we thought, I think collectively, the country thought, if there was going to be change,
the death of 20 children and six adults would do it, right? But I wonder, do you see any kind of hope of structural change happening either in the
halls of Congress or in any other way where we can get towards more sort of more sensible reforms that the majority of the country in polling seems to
indicate support for?
BROWN: Yes, I do see hope for it. I mean, I have an emotional response as a mom. That's why I'm in this fight because I believe that we as Americans
are entitled to be able to walk down the street, to drop our kids at school and not be afraid that they'll be shot. That seems like a pretty
fundamental thing to me.
But I do want to note after the agony of Sandy Hook, it took way longer than it should have, but President Biden did sign one of the most dramatic
federal laws to protect lives, the Bipartisan Safer Communities Act, that was just three years ago, right? And that was bipartisan. More than 15
Republicans in the United States Senate said yes to expanded background checks to ensure that there's federal funding for extreme risk protection
laws, to ensure that there's federal funding for community violence intervention, because black and brown communities across this country are
hugely, disparately impacted by gun violence.
So, we have made a lot of progress here, but there's much, much more to do because guns, sadly in America today, are the number one killer of our
kids. So, it's not just what's the one thing that needs to be done, there are many things that can be done. And we can get them done and should get
them done because Americans across this country believe in these kinds of very common-sense things, including a very basic expansion of the Brady
Law, right? That needs to happen.
SREENIVASAN: Kris Brown from the Brady United Against Gun Violence, thanks so much for joining us.
BROWN: Thank you for having me.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
AMANPOUR: And certainly, here overseas, the facts prove that mass shootings and the reform of gun laws in places like England, Australia, et cetera,
have had a dramatic positive effect.
[13:55:00]
And finally, scenes of jubilation in India as the world's youngest chess champion returns home to a hero's welcome. At just 18 years old, Gukesh
Dommaraju, brought his new trophy back to Chennai, where he lives after winning his competition in Singapore last week. As you can see here,
hundreds of adoring fans and the press mobbed him when he landed back home. Even performers on stilts turned out in a celebration fit for a rockstar.
That's it for now. If you ever miss our show, you can find the latest episode shortly after it airs on our podcast. And remember, you can always
catch us online, on our website, and all-over social media. Thanks for watching, and goodbye from London.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[14:00:00]
END
