Return to Transcripts main page
Amanpour
Interview with American Enterprise Institute Senior Fellow Emeritus Norm Ornstein; Interview with Syrian Emergency Task Force Executive Director Mouaz Moustafa; Interview with The Atlantic Staff Writer Charlie Warzel; Interview with "Conclave" Director Edward Berger. Aired 1-2p ET
Aired December 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)
REP. MIKE JOHNSON (R-LA), U.S. SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: We will regroup and we will come up with another solution.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
GOLODRYGA: Chaos in Washington, as Congress fails to pass a funding bill. Is this what government will look like in Trump 2.0?
Then, evidence of Assad brutality unearthed. We hear from human rights activist Mouaz Moustafa, who's just returned from Syria.
And --
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
CHARLIE WARZEL, STAFF WRITER, THE ATLANTIC: It is a technology that says we are going to create a new version of a financial system.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
GOLODRYGA: -- Trump and the Bitcoin boom. Hari Sreenivasan talks crypto culture with The Atlantic's Charlie Warzel.
Also --
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: No sane man would want the papacy. The men were dangerous. Other ones who do want it.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
GOLODRYGA: -- a thriller takes us deep inside the Vatican. Christiane sits down with "Conclave" director Edward Berger.
Welcome to the program, everyone. I'm Bianna Golodryga in New York, sitting in for Christiane Amanpour.
America faces chaos in Washington yet again, with the U.S. government just hours away from shutting down as we speak. Two spending plans have now
failed to pass the House. The latest one had Donald Trump's support, but dozens of Republicans joined Democrats to kill the bill. Congress seemed
ready to move ahead with government funding earlier this week, until Elon Musk jumped onto X to tank that bipartisan deal, and then Trump followed
suit.
Now, Speaker Mike Johnson's speakership could be on the line, as Democrats claim real power in Washington is shifting towards the man they're calling
derisively, Mr. -- or President Musk.
Republicans have been meeting today to try and break the stalemate, but barring an early Christmas miracle, the proverbial lights in D.C. go off at
midnight tonight. Norm Ornstein is a veteran political observer and dean of Washington's Congressional Experts, and he joins us now. Norm, welcome to
the program.
So, it seemed that as of Wednesday, we had a bipartisan deal that the president would have signed today. And then, as I noted there in the
introduction, things blew up when Elon Musk started getting involved and posting over 70 times on X, Donald Trump following suit, demanding that
raising the debt ceiling also be included in the C.R. or doing away with it all together. What do you make of the current dynamic in Washington, and
does it surprise you at all?
NORM ORNSTEIN, SENIOR FELLOW EMERITUS, AMERICAN ENTERPRISE INSTITUTE: So, Bianna, as you know, I've been immersed in this process for a lot of years,
a lot of decades, and we've seen farces before, but this takes the proverbial cake. And it's obviously a combination, a toxic mix of forces
here.
[13:05:00]
One part of it is that while Mike Johnson is the speaker of the house. And remember, he became speaker when Kevin McCarthy, the previous Republican
speaker was ousted and it took 15 votes and many, many days before they could settle on the lowest common denominator, Mike Johnson. But Johnson,
just like Kevin McCarthy, can't keep his own Republican majority in line.
Now, Mike Johnson is no moderate. In fact, he is pretty close to a Christian nationalist extremist. But he has a whole lot of his own members
who are to his right and don't trust him because he's trying to actually find some way to govern.
Now, they're down to a slender majority that's going to be down even more in January. There are a lot of Republicans already who've called for his
ouster, although, they don't have another alternative. And he is caught between Donald Trump, Elon Musk, Vivek Ramaswamy, the latter two being
billionaires who Trump tabbed to lead a non-governmental project, the Department on Government Efficiency, who are intervening without any
knowledge whatsoever of what government does or how it does it. And we're left with this ridiculous farce, which by midnight tonight could lead to a
government shutdown that would be very, very disruptive over this holiday period.
GOLODRYGA: And now, you're having both Mike Johnson and vice president -- or vice President-Elect J. D. Vance putting the blame squarely on Democrats
for the current situation and the fact that we may be facing a government shutdown within just a few hours. Democrats have responded by saying they
agree to that initial bipartisan deal and it is Republicans who blew it up.
And notable that in that bipartisan -- that second piece of legislation that failed yesterday, which was endorsed by Donald Trump, 38 Republicans
also voted no, one of them being Chip Roy. I'd like to play sound from him after that.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
REP. CHIP ROY (R-TX): To take this bill yesterday and congratulate yourself because it's shorter in pages, but increases the debt by $5 trillion is
asinine. And that's precisely what Republicans are doing. I am absolutely sickened by a party that campaigns on fiscal responsibility and has the
temerity to go forward to the American people and say, you think this fiscally responsible. It is absolutely ridiculous.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
GOLODRYGA: And in response to that, Donald Trump then threatened Chip Roy with being primaried in two years. And this seems to be the modus operandi
for anybody that stands in the way of Donald Trump's policies and what he supports. And that is threatening fellow Republicans publicly with
primaries in the future. Do you think this something that we can now expect to see going forward in Trump 2.0 and how do you see that playing out
within the party dynamic as a whole?
ORNSTEIN: You know, Bianna, I think this was a really big fault or problem for Donald Trump. He is not yet president, sworn in for his second term. He
threatened a lot of these members, starting with Chip Roy, with a primary. Elon Musk said that he would put huge sums of money in, and 38 Republicans,
as you said, basically spurned him. That is not a sign of strength. It's not a sign of what we've seen before, where when Donald Trump would say
jump, every one of the Republicans in office basically said how high?
So, this a big problem for him. I have to believe he's not going to be happy with Elon Musk because the fact is that it took painstaking
negotiations over a few months to come up with that original deal, which have some priorities for Democrats, but a whole lot of what Republicans
wanted to take the government into March when Donald Trump, with a full set of power structures in place, from the House and the Senate, could craft
his own priorities, and of course, that includes giant tax cuts. This a bad sign.
And let me note one other thing here that's pretty important. On January 3rd, the new Congress convenes. The Republican majority in the House is
going to be more slender. They will be missing very soon three of their own members, two who Trump has picked for his administration. One, Matt Gaetz,
who is resigning. They'll be down to a two-vote margin. And we already have far more Republicans in the House saying they will not support Mike
Johnson.
[13:10:00]
The House on January 3rd cannot begin to do anything, and that includes, three days later, on January 6th, when they're supposed to certify the
electoral votes without a speaker in place who can swear in the new members and convene these sessions.
So, we're headed for on one train wreck after another, and very possibly a shutdown that could last well into January or further beyond that. This
really is a gang that can't shoot straight, and that doesn't seem to have any interest in governing. Their interest is in blowing things up, and
they're doing a pretty good job of that.
GOLODRYGA: But listen, this the first time we're now getting indication that Joe Biden spoke with Democratic leaders on Capitol Hill about the
situation. He has been virtually silent the last 48 hours in this. Donald Trump publicly saying that if there's going to be a shutdown, let it be
Biden's shutdown. And as I noted, many Republicans placing the blame on Democrats and there is a question of whether or not given the silence we've
seen from the White House and given the continued blame from Republicans on Democrats, whether Americans will indeed say that this the fault of
Democrats, that's to be determined though.
I do have a question to ask you about the Elon Musk factor, because he's not only involving himself in domestic politics, as we know, being the
right hand of Donald Trump, but also in foreign politics as well, meeting with Nigel Farage, some really extreme members of governments around the
world. The most recent to raise eyebrows is his endorsement overnight on Twitter of AfD. The right -- the extreme right party in Germany saying that
only AfD can save Germany. That was responded very quickly from the co- chairman of the party, Alice Weidel, who said, you are absolutely right.
How far does his influence actually extend and how concerning is this that he's wading into not only U.S. politics, but global politics?
ORNSTEIN: It's very concerning, frankly, on a whole set of levels. Elon Musk is by far the richest person in the world. And he made this deal with
Donald Trump in part, as many other billionaires did, because they knew that they could get even richer. He has completely taken over that
platform, Twitter, which he renamed as X. He has manipulated it so that his tweets go out to virtually everybody on the platform, which is a couple of
hundred million people.
And what's happened to Elon Musk is he's been completely captured by far- right extremists and conspiracy theorists. He regularly retweets some of the craziest things and lies that have been said, and now, he's in bed with
the most extreme parties in western democracies and probably around the world. He is pro-Putin and anti-Zelenskyy.
And the problem is, even though he is a buffoon in many ways when it comes to understanding what government does, having a disregard for the truth, he
has a platform that is almost unmatched. We often talk about the presidential bully pulpit but, you know, the bully pulpit that Elon Musk
has with all of those resources is even greater.
And one final thing we need to keep in mind is Donald Trump is the alpha male.
GOLODRYGA: Yes. Norn, well, I'm sorry. We're just -- we're tied on time. We should just note he hasn't come out publicly saying I'm pro-Putin, anti-
Zelenskyy, but of course one can come to those conclusions just given some of his past actions and questionable statements. He has provided aid for
Ukraine and then obviously, there's reporting on his relationship with Russia as well. Norm, we'll have to leave it there. Thank you so much for
the time. We appreciate it.
ORNSTEIN: Yes. Thank you, Bianna.
GOLODRYGA: Well, we turn to Syria now where mass graves are being uncovered, revealing untold horrors of half a century of Assad family rule.
In a time of liberation for so many Syrians, questions now linger with more than 150,000 people still missing, 150,000. At the heart of the search is
the Syria Emergency Task Force, which for years has been remotely tracking atrocities and gathering witness testimony. The group worked closely with
the anonymous military photographer codenamed Caesar, whose photographs of tortured bodies provided a key insight into the brutality of the regime.
Mouaz Moustafa is the group's executive director. He's just returned from a fact-finding mission in Syria, and he joins us now live from Washington.
Mouaz, thank you so much for taking the time today. And you have really some upsetting news and damning evidence to talk to us about what you found
on this fact-finding mission. You claim you found a mass grave just outside of Damascus, and you said gravediggers who worked at the site told you
that, quote, "four tractor trailer trucks, each carrying over 150 bodies in each, came twice a week from 2012 until 2018."
[13:15:00]
That would amount to hundreds of thousands of bodies. Just walk us through what you heard, what you saw, who you spoke to.
MOUAZ MOUSTAFA, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, SYRIAN EMERGENCY TASK FORCE: Yes, absolutely. And you know, we had identified some of these locations back in
2021 as we had interviewed the different people that worked on the mass graves. People have to remember there are the heavy machinery workers, the
bulldozer driver, the excavator driver. These are the people that dug the trenches in the mass graves and covered them up after civilians were poured
inside. And then you have the funeral office workers that drove there and were the ones that pulled these bodies in. We've dubbed them, and as they
testified before Congress and the British Parliament and other places, as the grave digger, the bulldozer driver, et cetera.
But while I was in Damascus over the last week, they introduced me to yet another one of their colleagues who then took us in person to these mass
grave sites that we had identified, Qutayfah, which your viewers can see on the screen right now, that wall around it was only built after we had
announced that we knew its location, but we could only see it from satellite imagery. Today, we were able to go there in coordination with the
new Damascus government.
And what we're trying to do is ensuring that these places remain safe, remain untouched until the right experts that have the expertise in
excavating and exhuming bodies from mass graves with the right DNA testing to help both bring closure to the families, including mine that we know 99
percent chance our loved ones were right beneath our feet when we were standing there, and to also start building the cases for accountability
against all these war criminals, starting with Bashar al-Assad.
GOLODRYGA: Mouaz, how many gravesites like this would you estimate there are in Syria right now?
MOUSTAFA: I can tell you the ones that we know for a fact exist, they're at different scales. There's Najha, just south of Damascus. The bulldozer
driver that worked there every day for a year from 2011 to 2012, and the funeral worker, another individual we interviewed aside, both came to the
conclusion that based on what they were seeing every day, that they in person buried about 75,000 bodies. These are mostly conservative estimates.
When that location was filled, they then had moved on to Qutayfah, which went on from 2012 to 2018 at the frequency of those tractor trailer trucks
that were arriving. And then, there is another one on the road to the airport. Another mass grave. I cannot give you, you know, an estimate of
how many, but in the thousands, not in the hundreds.
There is another location that it's smaller that a lot people know about that is definitely, we would say, in the tens or hundreds. That's in the
Tadamon area where the Tadamon massacre and that leaked tape was shown to everyone. There is another location at Baghdad Bridge. And the fact is, if
you count even the smaller ones, not just the ones with tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands of bodies, we're looking at dozens of mass grave
locations. And so, far, we're just looking at Damascus. We just got a report of a mass grave at Palmyra, near the prison over there.
This regime was more -- way more sadistic than even we knew what I saw and what our team is seeing in person, what Syrians even on the ground that
have lived there the whole time are seeing in person, is by far, these are the worst crimes of the 21st century.
And so, far, the International Community has not sent in its experts. We deserve the same amount of help that the Ukrainians rightfully so got, and
that other countries like Bosnia and Srebrenica and others had. We need help to make sure we provide closure for families and we preserve the chain
of evidence as we build justice and accountability for the millions of Syrians.
GOLODRYGA: It is just hard to wrap your head around the figures, the statistics, the numbers that you were laying out. And I would imagine they
are probably more on the conservative side at this point since we don't have all of the exact information just yet, which is why it's so important
to get people on the ground there.
And on the issue of accountability, I mean, you have Bashar al-Assad, his family has fled the country. So, many generals have also fled in the last
few weeks, those that you want to hold to account are not in the country right now. So, what's the best way to go about seeking justice? And we've
heard all the right words and language from the leader of HTS right now, but words are one thing, actions are different. How do you go about doing
that?
MOUSTAFA: Well, I think first of all, we should judge the new Damascus government by its actions just like you said, not by its words. Whether
that is the fact that I was around these cities where Christians are decorating for Christmas, where women -- Muslim are not being told to put
anything on their head, a scarf or anything, or told what to wear or what to do. Those things are great.
[13:20:00]
Knowing that in Idlib -- excuse me, knowing that in Idlib 60 percent of college students were female, more female in graduate and undergraduate
universities than males. These are also things that we can see by actions.
Now, in terms of accountability, the Syrians for 14 years have had the door to the International Criminal Court closed. Syria is not signatory to their
own statute, and every time we tried to get a referral from the United Nations Security Council, the Russians and the Chinese vetoed it. It was
unbelievable that this horrible criminal we couldn't get an arrest warrant out of the ICC for him.
But we learned about dual nationality. We learned about universal jurisdiction. We were able to capture someone coordinating with the FBI and
DOJ, a brigadier general from the Assad regime in Los Angeles, and his trial shall start in January.
So, look, wherever they are, we will get to them and they need to face a court in Damascus or a court -- in any court in the International Community
based on the crimes they've committed against these civilians, including non-Syrians, including Americans and Europeans, et cetera.
GOLODRYGA: Yes.
MOUSTAFA: There's a new indictment against two, Jamil al-Hassan, head of Air Force Intelligence Branch, and Abdul Salam Mahmoud who's also a senior
intelligence officer out of Chicago. So, we're working on capturing them as well.
And Russia should be pressured to give up Bashar al-Assad. They can now -- if they couldn't see it before, they can now clearly see that this a
genocidal maniac and they should let -- give him back to Damascus, give him back to international justice so he could face justice for the crimes that
he committed.
GOLODRYGA: Yes. And we should note that U.S. officials as we speak, Barbara Leaf, the assistant secretary of state for Near Eastern Affairs, Roger
Carstens, the special presidential envoy for Hostage Affairs, and Daniel Rubenstein, the new special adviser in Syria are in Damascus right now.
We're getting word that they just met with al-Sharaaa, the leader of HTS, formerly known as Jolani. And we are seeing reports that they are telling
him that he won't be pursued or the reward for his bounty, the bounty against him, won't be pursued. Perhaps this the first indication that they
will be eliminating the designation of terrorist organization against the group.
And I know that an issue important to you, important to Americans, important to this group of envoys as well is Austin Tice and the search for
that American journalist who's been missing now for a number of years. What, if anything, can you tell us about those developments?
MOUSTAFA: Absolutely. So, first of all, in terms of that meeting with the American delegation, that went great. There was supposed to be a presser
afterwards. The reason it was cancelled is purely logistical. I know people start speculating, but that went well.
And look, I say the United States government shouldn't just not pursue, they should lift sanctions and lift any political, you know, designations
that they had in the past, because it's obviously not al Qaeda, it's obviously not ISIS, it's not a transnational terrorist or anything. It's
not the Taliban. None of that.
Number two, in terms of Austin Tice, I've been on the ground a long time -- alongside a team from SETF, a team that remains on the ground, going to
every geocoordinate provided both by the U.S. government and by our networks on the ground to see if we can find anything about Austin Tice,
(INAUDIBLE) and the other Americans that we know were detained by the Assad regime.
We were able to find another American that we didn't even know was in Syria, even U.S. authorities didn't know. It was you know, Pete --
GOLODRYGA: Travis.
MOUSTAFA: Travis but his real name is Pete Timmerman.
GOLODRYGA: Timmerman, yes.
MOUSTAFA: That's right. And we were able to return him in coordination with the new Damascus government. What I can tell you is the Damascus government
right now is cooperating with us fully, giving us access to everywhere, to follow every single lead we can on Austin Tice.
GOLODRYGA: Yes.
MOUSTAFA: Some leads are fake, some leads, you know, get us somewhere closer. I can't go into more details, but he continues to be a priority to
find for SETF.
GOLODRYGA: Yes.
MOUSTAFA: God willing alive, and God forbid if he's not, he still needs to return home.
GOLODRYGA: And a bit of encouraging news for you as we wrap up here. Barbara Leaf is saying that the U.S. is offering technical expertise and
other support to Syria to deal with the documentation of crimes committed by the Assad regime. Mouaz Moustafa, great to have you on. Thank you so
much for joining us. Appreciate it.
MOUSTAFA: Thanks for having me. Thank you.
GOLODRYGA: Well, as we discussed earlier, the influence of President-Elect Donald Trump is already being felt in Washington, D.C. And my next guest is
sure it's shaping another arena too, this time cryptocurrency. Charlie Warzel is a staff writer at The Atlantic who's covered the blockchain
industry for years. He tells Hari Sreenivasan how he sees the digital currency as intertwined with an antiestablishment culture.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
HARI SREENIVASAN, CNN INTERNATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Bianna, thanks. Charlie Warzel, thanks so much for joining us. So, this month, the price of Bitcoin
cracked $100,000. And by the time we finish recording this conversation, actually, I have no idea where it will be. And by the time this
conversation airs, I don't know again. But put these numbers in context for us. I mean, this a technology, really, more than it is a currency that you
and I can use.
[13:25:00]
CHARLIE WARZEL, STAFF WRITER, THE ATLANTIC: Yes. So, yes, most people have been exposed to either cryptocurrencies in general or Bitcoin through this
rise that it has had since it really came into the world. It is a wild technological success story, right? Whether you are a proponent of Bitcoin
or not, it has, I think, surpassed anyone's expectations of what it could do. You know, its first real sustained boom was I think around 2017 when it
really -- you know, it jumped up, I think it broke -- you know, I remember breaking like the $20,000 per coin, you know, mark. And a lot of people
said, you know, oh, Bitcoin is going to $100,000. It's going to a million. And those people were sort of roundly mocked for that. And it has had
massive fluctuations since.
You know, basically every boom has a corresponding bust in which so many people are wiped out, so much -- so many like retail investors, you know,
average people tend to, you know, lose their hat on that. But it has continued through all of the memes, through all of the even derision, it
has continued to rise. And I think, you know, this latest boom corresponds directly to Donald Trump winning the election in November and promising
sort of a prosperous future for Bitcoin in America.
SREENIVASAN: You know, one of the lines that struck me in your recent piece in The Atlantic was that fundamentally that this crypto is a technology
whose transformative product is not a particular service, but a culture. Expand on that.
WARZEL: Yes. So, the knock has always been that crypto isn't -- doesn't really have the killer use case, right? That the line that I really like
about it is that it is a solution in search of a problem, right? Money already does all the things that Bitcoin wants to do. Bitcoin just purports
to do it a little bit better.
But it hasn't really taken off, right? Bitcoin has not really taken off as an actual currency. You know, the countries that have tried to use it have
struggled to some degree with that. So, that's not quite the killer app. And so, I was trying to think to myself, you know, this thing has become
durable. It is worth a lot of money. It has made a lot of people rich and I couldn't really come to any other conclusion than what it has done is it
has created a culture that is very kind of obsessed with speculation, right? That's obsessed with getting rich. That really cares about the sort
of gambling aspect of this the -- you know, the stock marketing aspect of day trading and the numbers going up.
And a real culture has come around -- has been built around that. And I think that the culture starts with this idea that Bitcoin is -- in some
sense, is a political project, right? It is a technology that says, we are going to create a new version of a financial system that doesn't need the
banks, that doesn't need the governments, that doesn't need anyone else. And that culture, you can see the through lines now when you go online and
you see the people who are, you know, Bitcoin maximalists, who are the true believers, the true enthusiasts, and even the day traders and the guys
posting memes and things like that.
There is this notion that Bitcoin can free you and the cryptocurrencies in general can free you from the man, can free you from authority, that you
can make all your money this way without having, you know, other people taxing it and watching it and transferring it back and forth. And I think
that that's really important to understanding the appeal, but also what Bitcoin has produced. Bitcoin has, in a big way, produced this culture and
enriched those people who are very anti-institutionalist and anti- authority.
SREENIVASAN: So, why do you think President Trump changed his mind about it? You know, he had in years prior called it a scam. And then, he really,
by the summer of this year, even last year, he really embraced it. He rolled out his own essentially cryptocurrency. That, you know, again,
there's very little details about exactly what that would do.
But he has projected out to these supporters who believe in cryptocurrencies that he will make the United States the Bitcoin capital
and crypto capital of the world. So, when you describe a culture of people who at its core, technologically or antiestablishment, what happens when
that kind of gets rolled into the fold of the establishment?
[13:30:00]
WARZEL: So, I think Donald Trump's embrace of cryptocurrencies and Bitcoin especially is incredibly cynical. I think it is a politically calculated
move. I don't think. judging from what I have heard in my own reporting, but also what I can kind of glean in general, I don't think that Donald
Trump has a great understanding of the internal mechanics of Bitcoin. The idea that it is a sophisticated database technology that is distributed --
all that stuff, right? I don't think he's paying strict attention to that or that he really cares that much about it.
And I think the real reason is that cryptocurrencies and the people who like them are people who really do resist these institutional ideas. People
who really feel that they're the same type of people who would want to drain the swamp, right? They're the same type of people who would cheer on
Elon Musk and that idea of the Department of Government Efficiency. There is an ideological overlap to some degree, not fully, but to some degree
with the MAGA platform, with this idea that banks are screwing you over or Wall Street is screwing you over, and to sort of take control in this own
way and work in a financial system that doesn't include those people.
I think he saw a huge constituency overlap there with crypto and decided, you know, there are some people, especially people who've made their
fortunes in this, who are single issue crypto voters. And in an election that is very close, you know, in an election where, you know, we're trying
to win disaffected men, especially, I think he saw an opportunity there to speak to those people, to become the candidate for those people. And by
virtue of that, I think he saw it as just a really good political play.
SREENIVASAN: The industry as a whole became an incredibly powerful force when it came to campaign contributions somewhere around, I want to say
like, $200 million went to support pro-crypto candidates. So, how does that influence play out in the -- this coming administration?
WARZEL: It was really staggering to me as somebody who covers the technology industry pretty closely to take a bird's eye view and survey the
political donation landscape and see crypto's impact in it. They -- as a lobbying constituency, they put the most money in of any, you know,
advocacy group in the 2024 election. They backed a number of races and we're incredibly successful.
So, we're talking, you know, raising hundreds of millions of dollars, throwing that into the financial system in a really targeted way, right?
They say that this was not partisan. They backed Democratic candidates. They backed Republican candidates. The only issue was you had to be pro-
crypto. And I think in certain races too, especially some smaller races, people were not prepared for the influx of money that their opponents were
getting.
And so, the crypto constituency was really powerful. It was a concerted effort by the industry in 2024, especially to show their force, even more
than getting the candidates, you know, elected to office, that was a goal for sure. But another was just a show of force, to say, we are a
constituency that matters. Yes, you might not think walking around through the world that people who love cryptocurrencies and who, you know, want to
see cryptocurrencies thrive that they're a meaningful political constituency, but they put the money behind it to show that they are.
You have a bunch of people who have made a lot of money over the past decade, you know, in some cases, billions of dollars off of Bitcoin and off
of their cryptocurrency holdings. Again, they're not a meaningful constituency without that money, right? They're just people who believe in
this -- you know, this type of financial system.
But because they have some of this money, they threw it into the financial system. They got the guy elected who promised to do something -- you know,
promised to make a prosperous future for Bitcoin. As a result, the price goes way up. I mean, I believe a year ago at this time, Bitcoin was
hovering around $45,000, $46,000 per coin. It's now well over $100,000 per coin. So, the investment for those people has doubled since they put this
political donation strategy into play.
[13:35:00]
So, those people now have even more money and even more influence and even more people trying to court them. I think what we're seeing here is this
money influence flywheel that normally is actually really hard to see. So, I think we're seeing influence that's really naked and we're seeing the
ways in which these people spun money out of nothing, use it to create power, and the power is now making them more money. And it's a really
interesting process to watch play out.
SREENIVASAN: The president-elect has said that he wants to have a national bitcoin reserve. And what are the consequences? Well, first of all, how
would that even work? But second, if you do understand that, but doesn't that kind of integrate bitcoins volatility into the larger economy, right?
I mean, last time there was a Bitcoin bust, we saw a couple of banks, well, Silicon Valley Bank comes to mind right now, are ones that had significant
exposure to this that ended up collapsing. So, what happens when Bitcoin becomes something that the government actually holds?
WARZEL: So, this to me, in my reporting, was the most eye opening and alarming thing piece of the crypto integration. This Bitcoin strategic
reserve, essentially, as I seem to understand some of the possible plans is that the United States will purchase Bitcoin from large holders, right, or
everyday Americans, but the people who stand to benefit from that are people who own a lot of Bitcoin, right?
So, it's purchasing 200,000 Bitcoins a year for five years is what I believe it is. But regardless, the purchase of this Bitcoin from large
Bitcoin holders will drive the price of Bitcoin up. So, every subsequent year that the government is purchasing this bitcoin, it's going to do so at
a higher rate. It's going to have to spend more and more money to create the strategic reserve. To do so, it's going to have to sell off some of its
gold reserves.
And a way to think about this essentially as a cash transfer from the United States government to the people who already hold the most amount of
bitcoin that will also inflate the price of Bitcoin because it has this massive sort of, you know, unquenchable buyer in the United States
Treasury. It's a terrible deal for the United States government because it's getting a worse price every year.
It speaks to me as a great example of the way that these people who have invested early in this technology are going to try to bully institutions
and the global financial system. And that's saying nothing of the fact that bitcoin is an extremely volatile currency, right? You don't want this
speculative asset that can lose half its value in six months or a year as, you know, backing your monetary system. It's dangerous.
And this speaks to the most important point I heard when I talked to a bunch of crypto skeptics and people inside the financial industry, which is
that their biggest fear isn't that a lot of people will adopt Bitcoin or, you know, choose a technologically based financial system. The biggest fear
is that crypto will intertwine and mesh with the global financial system in a way without adopting any of the guardrails that it will need to do. And
then, there will be this contagion between the crypto ecosystem and the traditional financial system.
When FTX collapsed, a lot of people lost, you know, their life savings. It was a huge, you know, financial catastrophe. It was very well covered. A
lot of people saw it, but the global financial system was not affected by this. If we plug crypto into that, these people have told me what they're
most worried about is that, you know, malfeasance or fraud or whatever that's happening in this much less regulated sector could come in and hurt
people who are not doing that kind of speculating, who are trying to invest in sound assets and stable assets.
SREENIVASAN: And I wonder with the intentional choices that the president- elect has made so far, he said he wants Paul Atkins to run the SEC and he has pointed or is interested in appointing David Sachs, a Silicon Valley
venture capitalist, to be sort of the crypto and A.I. czar. What does that signal and does that give the kind of financial industry some greater
concern?
[13:40:00]
WARZEL: I think what we're seeing from Donald Trump's, you know, early appointments and from, you know, his posturing on this is that he's going
to continue to pander to this constituency. So, I can only imagine that unless the industry does something to, you know, turn him off or, you know,
attract his ire, I think he's only going to try to, you know, enmesh crypto with the global financial system.
There is a fear inside of a lot of banks that I've heard from numerous sources that they don't want to be left behind, right? They don't want this
one asset class to be, you know, the historic 21st century growth asset that they do not get behind. They also do not want to be seen as dinosaurs,
you know, in terms of their institution.
You have a lot of younger people who see crypto as new, exciting part of the future. Those people are only going to, you know, make more money,
invest more heavily in banks and things like that, and want to see an asset class that they believe is important. And so, there's this idea of like
fear of missing out, right, that these banks might want to do this.
And if the Trump administration comes in and, you know, props up crypto and, you know, offers no real important regulations and allows people to
trade it as a security, I think what we're going to see is that co- mingling, because I think banks don't want to be left out of, you know, the money.
SREENIVASAN: Charlie Warzel of The Atlantic, thanks so much for joining us.
WARZEL: Thanks for having me.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
GOLODRYGA: Well, now this week, Pope Francis celebrates his 88th birthday. He's one of the oldest pontiffs in the church's history. And as Christmas
approaches, a new film is taking us deep inside the Vatican's marbled quarters of power.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: The pope is dead. The throne is vacant.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
GOLODRYGA: "Conclave" is a thriller by the award-winning director Edward Berger, who is perhaps best known for his stunning World War I epic, "All
Quiet on the Western Front." His latest film, with its star-studded cast, Ralph Fiennes, John Lithgow, Stanley Tucci, is based on Robert Harris' 2016
novel, which purports to lift the lid on the highly secretive, polarized process of choosing a new pope.
Berger has been talking to Christiane in London to discuss the film and what drew him to this project.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
CHRISTIANE AMANPOUR, CNN CHIEF INTERNATIONAL ANCHOR: Edward Berger, welcome to the program.
EDWARD BERGER, DIRECTOR, "CONCLAVE": Thank you for having me.
AMANPOUR: What was it, when you read the book or the script, that made you want to do it? The intrigue, the sort of richness of this, and the
corruption involved?
BERGER: Well, to me, it played in a very similar field to what you're doing every day, reporting on politics. It was -- it's a political film for me.
It had all the political intrigue of it. So, I found that very interesting. But, obviously, in a setting that we can sort of transpose, so we don't
have to see another political film when we see the news every day, so we can transpose.
But there was one line in the script that I really loved and it said -- in the stage direction, not even a dialogue, it said, out of the crooked
timber of humanity, no string -- straight thing was ever made. And that was sort of really what we wanted to say with the film that everyone has this -
- something crooked, you know.
AMANPOUR: And boy do we see it, because this, of course, is the conclave that leads to the election of another pope after the other one is dead.
It's an endless and historical event, and yet, we very rarely see it portrayed. You certainly don't see it in reality.
Where did you get your evidence or your stories about how to film it? Is it -- is the actual conclave true to life?
BERGER: I think we have to ask a cardinal, because those are the only ones that will be really able to tell us, but they won't because it's obviously
secret. They're probably just watching and go like, oh, this is right. And so, I think Robert Harris is obviously a very wonderful novelist and a
great researcher. And we had access to all his research. We talked to a whole array of cardinals who gave us signs (ph).
And then, I had a really great religion teacher next to me from Rome, Francesco Bonomio (ph), every single day, and he was my adviser, and he
told me this is what they would do. This is -- now, this is the prayer, this is the oath, this is the way they vote. But at some point, he also
said, you know what? No one knows. So --
AMANPOUR: What we know, because I've reported on at least one election of a pope, is it's the black smoke and the white smoke. The white smoke --
[13:45:00]
BRUNHUBER: That smoke, everyone.
AMANPOUR: Everybody knows it, right? So, we wait and wait. And there's several rounds in this film until you get -- or until they get, the
cardinals get to a super majority to elect the next pope. What I found really interesting is the power struggle between reformist cardinals and
the very traditionalist cardinals. And that is portrayed, I think, pretty well in this clip which is Cardinal Lawrence. He is played by Ralph Fiennes
talking to Cardinal Bellini, who is played by Stanley Tucci. Let's listen.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
RALPH FIENNES, ACTOR, "CONCLAVE": Father Bellini.
STANLEY TUCCI, ACTOR, "CONCLAVE": Aldo.
FIENNES: Am I the last one?
TUCCI: Not quite.
FIENNES: How are you?
TUCCI: Oh, well, you know, fairly dreadful. Have you seen the papers? Apparently, it's already decided, it's going to be me.
FIENNES: And I happen to agree with them.
TUCCI: What if I don't want it? No sane man would want the papacy.
FIENNES: Some of our colleagues seem to want it.
TUCCI: What if I know in my heart that I'm not worthy?
FIENNES: You are more worthy than any of us.
TUCCI: I'm not.
FIENNES: Well, then until your support is not a vote for you, pass the chalice.
TUCCI: And let it go to him? Then I could never live with myself.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
AMANPOUR: OK. So, that's interesting and it's also varied today. I mean, Pope Francis has been the reformer or at least tried to be, and he's had so
much pushback from cardinals who are much, much more traditional. Was that something you wanted to focus on?
BERGER: Definitely. I mean, we wanted to represent the current politics of the Vatican, but also current world politics, and they're almost the same,
you know, they're, I mean --
AMANPOUR: Explain that.
BERGER: Well, you know, there's traditionalist, what, populist movements, and there's sort of liberals all over the world, you know, and that -- and
these parties, they've sort of lost the ability to listen to each other, you know, and basically, everyone's a fundamentalist in their opinion and
they're not really communicating anymore. Everyone's, this has to be this way and the other party says it has to be this way, and they're clashing
constantly.
AMANPOUR: There's something I think you said about -- well, the Ralph Fiennes' character, Cardinal Lawrence, and the sort of, not demons, but the
conflicts he has within him about his beliefs, about prayer, about all sorts of things. That's also quite interesting to portray, because you
always think of these people as being absolutely clear in their faith and in their main storyline.
BERGER: Yes. And that's what really drew me to the film. Ralph has one wonderful speech about doubt versus certainty, and that's also liberalism
versus, you know, all opinions, you know, doubt versus certainty and about being very certain about what you believe in. And he's not right now. And
he wants to have a discussion and he wants to find it. And that's something I've really identified with and why I wanted to make the film, because I
think a lot of people feel that at some point in their lives, it's like, am I doing the right thing? Am I in the right job? Am I in the right life? And
trying to find your direction in life as does Ralph in the film. So, that's something for all us in a way.
AMANPOUR: It's obvious that all the Christian churches and many other religions, they face very deep internal problems, certainly in the Catholic
Church and recently, as you've seen here in the Church of England, very deep issues about sexual abuse, about the unaccountability of unelected
power, the resignations, the expulsions. How did you deal with that in this movie, if at all?
BERGER: Yes, it's not a movie about that.
AMANPOUR: No, I know.
BERGER: We didn't want to do a let's say an investigation of the -- it's really a different subject matter. So, we spoke about it and we hinted at
it because we obviously said, we can't do a movie without ever mentioning it. That would be sort of putting the blinders on. So, we mentioned it two
or three times throughout the movie. But there's other movies like "Spotlight" who really investigate that.
I think it's a subject matter where you need a whole movie to dedicate yourself and not just sort of a little topic on the side.
AMANPOUR: No, no, I understand. But for instance, you have one cardinal who is derailed because of a, quote/unquote, "MeToo incident." I mean, there's
-- and that's in itself a sort of conspiracy where another cardinal brings this young woman over, essentially to derail this black African cardinal's
chances. I thought that was very powerful because it talked about that issue, but it also, I think, subliminally there was, if I'm not mistaken,
commentary about, can we really have a first black -- a pope? So, that's an issue.
BERGER: Oh, definitely. I'm, you know, it's an issue in the church. You know, I think there's a lot of -- I mean, the church has a problem in the
way -- or the Catholicism has a problem that used to be all Italian until 50 years ago, there were like for 500 years, Italian popes. And there are a
lot of Italians and they're in the -- you know, there's maybe 50, 60 cardinals now, Italian cardinals. And obviously, they want their Italian
again. They hate anyone from any other country, you know, most of them at least.
[13:50:00]
And so, but their fraction is not big enough, you know to really vote Italian. So, that is always an issue, you know that -- you know, foreigners
in general in Italy is a difficult thing for the church to accept and then and having an African cardinal is probably, you know, the worst for some of
them, unfortunately.
AMANPOUR: So, I want to ask you, because, you know, we talked about reaction and stuff. I don't know whether you've heard or what you've seen
on audience reaction. What has been -- what have you noticed from audiences? Online or wherever?
BERGER: Well, I don't look.
AMANPOUR: No, OK.
BERGER: Because it's just -- so I'm glad that you can read it to me now.
AMANPOUR: Well, I'm actually going to read you a reaction from the church. It was released last month, as we know, in the United States. And as you
can imagine, in the United States, which has a significant faction of very traditionalist cardinals.
This bishop, Robert Barron, who's a Minnesota cardinal, tweeted this, and this is just bits of it. If you're interested in a film about the Catholic
Church that could have been written by the editorial board of The New York Times, this is your movie. Since it checks practically every woke box, I'm
sure it'll win a boatload of awards. But my advice is to run away from it as fast as you can. So, that's one.
And then there's Thomas Reese, who's a Jesuit, more liberal leaning. He told -- and he was a persistent critic of Pope Benedict, he told CNN, if
I'm not mistaken, the acting and production values were great, but the plot twists were bizarre and unbelievable. Answer those reactions.
BERGER: Well, you know, it's -- I mean, there's going to be a million opinions and the Catholic Church doesn't speak with one voice. As you can
see, everyone's going to have an opinion. And I would say, you know from -- I heard from a lot of cardinals before there's, oh, we're going to watch
the movie. And I believe that they're just going to enjoy it and going to say, it's just a movie, you know, as in terms of the plot twist.
And that, you know, I was speaking about fundamentalism earlier, especially in the U.S., I think the U.S. Catholics, U.S. in general, very often is
more fundamentalist than the European side, and I find it very hard to refute or discuss with fundamentals because they don't really actually want
to listen.
AMANPOUR: But they also have very vested interests. I mean, they really believe that the Catholic Church has to still be, I mean, probably speaking
Latin, and all of the congregants have to be speaking Latin. It is a power struggle. And then, there's the final twist. Are we going to talk about it
here?
BERGER: It's going to be difficult.
AMANPOUR: It is, isn't it?
BERGER: Well, I think what we can talk about is -- I mean, that there's, you know, obviously women don't have much of a voice in the church.
AMANPOUR: Actually, let's talk about that, because you're right. Isabella Rossellini, the wonderful actress, daughter of Ingrid Bergman, and I -- you
know, Ingrid Bergman did a famous film where she portrayed a nun, if I'm not mistaken.
BERGER: Yes. "The Bells of St. Mary's."
AMANPOUR: Oh, there you go. And suddenly, to see her daughter look so like her was really quite amazing. But she also stood up for women. She said,
you know, we may not have a voice, but we have ears. And she was very clear on trying to root out some of the Machiavellian power intrigues. But again,
for Catholics, it's like, when are we going to have women elected to some position at least of power in the church? That was something you thought
about.
BERGER: Absolutely. I mean, femininity is a really important part of this movie, even though -- even a person like Isabella, a person with the
biggest aura and charisma in the world is relegated to the 30th line, row in the back of the Catholic Church, having to be silent. And she finally
opens her voice and everyone kind of applauds her, at least in the audience, you know. But she's not the only thing of feminine -- not the
only element of femininity in the film.
AMANPOUR: When you say femininity, do you mean feminism or actual femininity?
BERGER: Femininity and feminism, you know.
AMANPOUR: OK.
BERGER: I mean, both, I would say.
AMANPOUR: I don't want to put words in your mouth.
BERGER: No, I would say femininity.
AMANPOUR: OK.
BERGER: The femininity element. But as there is no femininity in the Catholic Church, I would say that's a feminist voice, you know. And there's
something in the end and -- that we can't really talk about, but at least Ralph has seen a crack in the foundation of this old patriarchy. And
there's a light that shines through that crack. And that's that light is the change for hope -- the hope for change, you know, that the future is
possibly also feminine.
AMANPOUR: My goodness, this is really interesting and we're not going to say it, but I have to say, as a viewer, I mean, you ended it right there. I
mean, on a cliff, right? You have this big reveal and the film ends. And I'm like, oh, can we just have some more? What does this mean?
BERGER: Oh, the film could have been longer, OK.
AMANPOUR: Not about longer, maybe.
BERGER: Yes. Well, it means exactly that, you know, it's the oldest patriarchy in the world and possibly it's time for a change. You know, that
is not -- I mean, which structure has -- what has that? And I think to be open for that change and to open your doors towards, you know, the feminine
voice and voices from anywhere, I mean, would be quite interesting, you know, and, actually, you know, advantageous for the organization, I
believe.
[13:55:00]
AMANPOUR: Well, you can imagine that many Catholic women believe that as well. And finally, just the filming, obviously, "All Quiet on the Western
Front" was completely different look. This, you -- was a lot inside structures clearly, a lot of walking and whispering in corridors, but it
was a lot of light and shade that you used. Tell me about that. What was that to do?
BERGER: Well, there's a director called Alan Pakula who did a lot of political thrillers in the '70s. "All the President's Men" for example.
AMANPOUR: Yes, yes, yes.
BERGER: Great Washington Watergate scandal movie. And he works really well with precision and architecture and light and shade, and he was sort of the
inspiration for this movie. And I wanted to exact -- you know, do exactly the opposite than in "All Quiet," make it very sort of closed quarter. I
mean, feel the oppression, feel the claustrophobia of a conclave. They're locked away for a few weeks. The shutters go down, the sound is off. You
don't hear anything. You don't see anything from outside. So, that by the end, when Ralph does see this hope for change, it's almost a relief when
the shutters open and the air comes back in and the light comes back in and you hear feminine laughter outside. Three nuns laughing.
AMANPOUR: That's how you end.
BERGER: And so, that's the end of the movie. Yes. And that's sort of maybe a little bit of a relief that we found progress.
AMANPOUR: Great. Well done.
BERGER: Thank you so much.
AMANPOUR: Thank you.
BERGER: Thank you for watching it.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
GOLODRYGA: And the film "Conclave," which is out in cinemas now, is sweeping up awards so far, with six Golden Globe nominations.
Finally, for us, this not your average nativity scene. Deep in a cave in western Slovenia, Mary and Joseph, angels and wise men, are putting on a
live performance of their Christmas story. Look at this. Patterns and lights illuminate the cave ceilings and walls, adding to the natural drama
of this limestone backdrop, which has formed over millions of years. The event is expected to attract thousands of visitors. So, beautiful.
Well, that is it for now. Thank you so much for watching, and goodbye from New York.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[14:00:00]
END
